[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 2003)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1276-1339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-84]



[[Page 1275]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and 
Composite Wood Products; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 2003 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 1276]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-7419-3]
RIN 2060-AG52


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood 
and Composite Wood Products

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for the plywood and composite wood products 
(PCWP) source category. The EPA has determined that the PCWP source 
category contains major sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP), 
including acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and 
propionaldehyde. These HAP are associated with a variety of adverse 
health effects. These adverse health effects include chronic health 
disorders (e.g., damage to nasal membranes, reproductive disorders, and 
problems with pregnancies) and acute health disorders (e.g., irritation 
of eyes, throat, and mucous membranes, dizziness, headache, and 
nausea). Three of the HAP have been classified as probable or possible 
human carcinogens. These proposed standards would implement section 
112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources 
subject to the rule to meet HAP emission standards reflecting the 
application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). 
Implementation of the proposed standards would reduce HAP emissions 
from the PCWP source category by approximately 9,700 megagrams per year 
(Mg/yr) (11,000 tons per year (tons/yr)). In addition, the proposed 
standards would reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) by 
25,000 Mg/yr (27,000 tons/yr). This action also proposes to add a 
method to the relevant General Provisions to measure methanol, 
formaldehyde, and phenol and a method to measure total HAP at PCWP 
facilities.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before March 10, 2003.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by January 29, 2003, a public hearing will be held on 
February 10, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments sent by U.S. mail should be 
submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and 
Information Center (Mail Code 6102T), Attention Docket Number A-98-44, 
Room B108, U.S. EPA, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 
20460. Written comments delivered in person or by courier (e.g., FedEx, 
Airborne, and UPS) should be submitted (in duplicate if possible) to: 
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (Mail Code 6102T), 
Attention Docket Number A-98-44, Room B102, U.S. EPA, 1301 Consitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA requests a separate copy 
also be sent to the contact person listed below (see FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 
a.m. at the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle 
Park, North Carolina.
    Docket. Docket No. A-98-44 contains supporting information used in 
developing the standards. The docket is located at the U.S. EPA, 1301 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460 in room B108, and may be 
inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 
legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General and technical information. Mary Tom Kissell, Waste and 
Chemical Processes Group, Emissions Standards Division (C439-03), U.S. 
EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number 
(919) 541-4516, electronic mail (e-mail) address [email protected].
    Methods, sampling, and monitoring information. Gary McAlister, 
Source Measurement Analysis Group, Emission Monitoring and Analysis 
Division (D243-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-1062, e-mail address 
[email protected].
    Economic impacts and benefit analysis. Larry Sorrels, Innovative 
Strategies and Economics Group, Air Quality Strategies and Standards 
Division (C339-01), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5041, e-mail address 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments. Comments and data may be submitted 
by electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic 
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special 
characters and encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks 
in WordPerfect[reg] version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All 
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket 
number: A-98-44. No confidential business information (CBI) should be 
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many 
Federal Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Mary Tom Kissell, c/o 
OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404-02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle 
Park NC 27711. The EPA will disclose information identified as CBI only 
the extent allowed by the procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no 
claim of confidentiality accompanies a submission when it is received 
by the EPA, the information may be made available to the public without 
further notice to the commenter.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact JoLynn 
Collins, Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Emissions Standards 
Division (C439-03), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
telephone (919) 541-5671 at least 2 days in advance of the public 
hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing must also 
call JoLynn Collins to verify the time, date, and location of the 
hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the 
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these 
proposed emission standards.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the 
information considered by the EPA in the development of this 
rulemaking. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added 
throughout the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to 
allow members of the public and industries involved to readily identify 
and locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the 
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards 
and their preambles, the contents of the docket, with certain 
exceptions, will serve as the record in the case of judicial review. 
(See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA.) The regulatory text and other 
materials related to this rulemaking are available for review in the 
docket or copies may be mailed on request from the Air Docket by 
calling (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying 
docket materials.

[[Page 1277]]

    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposed rule is also available on the 
WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, 
a copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and guidance page 
for newly proposed or promulgated rules http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. 
The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas 
of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is 
needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                         SIC         NAICS         Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry......................................         2421       321999  Sawmills with lumber kilns.
                                                       2435       321211  Hardwood plywood and veneer plants.
                                                       2436       321212  Softwood plywood and veneer plants.
                                                       2493       321219  Reconstituted wood products
                                                                           (Particleboard, medium density
                                                                           fiberboard, hardboard, fiberboard,
                                                                           and oriented strandboard plants).
                                                       2439       321213  Structural Wood Members, Not Elsewhere
                                                                           Classified (Engineered wood products
                                                                           plants).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.2231 of the 
proposed rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of 
this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the 
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Introduction
    A. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed Rule?
    B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?
    C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?
    D. How Was This Proposed Rule Developed?
    E. What are the Health effects of the Pollutants Emitted From 
the PCWP Industry?
    F. Incorporation by Reference of NCASI Test Methods
    G. Alternative Procedure for Determining Press Enclosure Capture 
Efficiency
    H. Changes to the Scope of a Source Category
II. Summary of Proposed Rule
    A. What Process Units Are Subject to This Proposed Rule?
    B. What Pollutants Are Regulated by This Proposed Rule?
    C. What are the Compliance Options?
    D. What Operating Requirements Are in the Proposed Rule?
    E. What Are the Work Practice Requirements?
    F. When Must I Comply With This Proposed Rule?
    G. How Do I demonstrate Initial Compliance With This Proposed 
Rule?
    H. How Do I Demonstrate Continuous Compliance With This Proposed 
Rule?
III. Rationale for Proposed Rule
    A. How Did We Select the Source Category and Any Subcategories?
    B. How Did We Define the Affected Source?
    C. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor For Existing Sources?
    D. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor For New Sources?
    E. What Control Options Beyond the MACT Floor Did We Consider?
    F. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Rule?
    G. How Did We Select the Test Methods for Determining Compliance 
With This Proposed Rule?
    H. How Did We Select the Monitoring and Recordkeeping 
Requirements?
    I. How Did We Select the Notification and Reporting 
Requirements?
IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
    A. How Many Facilities Are Impacted by This Proposed Rule?
    B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?
    C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?
    D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts?
    E. What Are the Energy Impacts?
    F. What Are the Cost Impacts?
    G. Can We Achieve the Goals of the Proposed Rule in a Less 
Costly manner?
    H. What Are the Economic Impacts?
    I. What Are the Social Costs and Benefits?
V. Relationship to Other Standards and Programs Under the CAA and 
Other Statutes
    A. Wood Building Products Surface Coating NESHAP Proposal
    B. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR Part 
63, Subpart JJ)
    C. Combustion Related NESHAP
    D. New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Applicability
    E. Interrelationship between MACT Provisions and PSD
    F. Effluent Guidelines
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
    I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

I. Introduction

A. What Is the Purpose of This Proposed Rule?

    The purpose of the proposed rule is to protect the public health by 
reducing emissions of HAP from PCWP facilities.

B. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us to list categories and 
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish 
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. The PCWP 
source category was originally listed as the plywood and particleboard 
source category on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). The name of the source 
category was changed to plywood and composite wood products on November 
18, 1999 (64 FR 63025) to more accurately reflect the types of 
manufacturing facilities covered by the source category. Major sources 
of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than 10 tons/
yr of any one HAP or 25 tons per year of any combination of HAP.
    Section 112(d) of the CAA directs us to adopt emission standards 
for categories and subcategories of HAP sources. In cases where 
emission standards are not feasible, section 112(h) of the CAA allows 
us to develop design, equipment, work practice and/or operational 
standards. The collection of compliance options, operating 
requirements, and work practice requirements in today's proposed rule 
make up the emission standards and

[[Page 1278]]

work practice standards for the PCWP NESHAP.

C. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the 
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA 
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in 
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as the MACT.
    The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and 
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT 
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all 
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as 
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting 
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the 
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is 
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT 
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for 
new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average 
emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of 
existing sources in the category or subcategory (or the best-performing 
5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources).
    In developing MACT, we must also consider any control options that 
are more stringent than the floor. We may establish standards more 
stringent than the floor based on the consideration of cost of 
achieving the emissions reductions, any health and environmental 
impacts, and energy requirements.

D. How Was This Proposed Rule Developed?

    We used several resources to develop this proposed rule, including 
questionnaire responses from industry, emissions test data, site visits 
to PCWP facilities, telephone contacts, and operating permits. We 
consulted representatives of the PCWP industry, State and Federal 
representatives, and emission control device vendors in developing this 
proposed rule. Industry representatives provided emissions test data, 
arranged site visits, reviewed draft questionnaires, and identified 
issues and provided information to help resolve issues in the 
rulemaking process. State representatives provided emissions test data 
and copies of permits.
    We identified the MACT floor level of control with information 
obtained from the questionnaire responses, emission test reports, site 
visits, telephone contacts, and operating permits.

E. What Are the Health Effects of the Pollutants Emitted From the PCWP 
Industry?

    This proposed rule protects air quality and promotes the public 
health by reducing emissions of some of the HAP listed in section 
112(b)(1) of the CAA. The HAP emitted by PCWP facilities include, but 
are not limited to, acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, 
phenol, and propionaldehyde. Exposure to these compounds has been 
demonstrated to cause adverse health effects when present in 
concentrations higher than those typically found in ambient air.
    We do not have the necessary data on each PCWP facility and the 
people living around each facility to determine the actual population 
exposures to the HAP emitted from these facilities and the potential 
health effects. Therefore, we do not know the extent to which the 
adverse health effects described in the following subsections occur in 
the populations surrounding these facilities. However, to the extent 
the adverse effects do occur, today's proposed rule would reduce 
emissions and subsequent exposures.
1. Acetaldehyde
    Acetaldehyde is ubiquitous in the environment and may be formed in 
the body from the breakdown of ethanol (ethyl alcohol). Acute (short-
term) exposure to acetaldehyde results in effects including irritation 
of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract. In humans, symptoms of 
chronic (long-term) exposure to acetaldehyde resemble those of 
alcoholism. Long-term inhalation exposure studies in animals reported 
damage to the nasal epithelium and mucous membranes, growth 
retardation, and increased kidney weight. We have classified 
acetaldehyde as a probable human carcinogen (Group B2) based on animal 
studies that have shown nasal tumors in rats and laryngeal tumors in 
hamsters.
2. Acrolein
    Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure to acrolein may result in 
upper respiratory tract irritation and congestion. The major effects 
from chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure to acrolein in humans 
consist of general respiratory congestion and eye, nose, and throat 
irritation. Acrolein is a strong dermal irritant, causing skin burns in 
humans. We consider acrolein a possible human carcinogen (Group C) 
based on limited animal cancer data suggesting an increased incidence 
of tumors in rats exposed to acrolein in the drinking water.
3. Formaldehyde
    Both acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) exposure to 
formaldehyde irritates the eyes, nose, and throat, and may cause 
coughing, chest pains, and bronchitis. Reproductive effects, such as 
menstrual disorders and pregnancy problems, have been reported in 
female workers exposed to formaldehyde. Limited human studies have 
reported an association between formaldehyde exposure and lung and 
nasopharyngeal cancer. Animal inhalation studies have reported an 
increased incidence of nasal squamous cell cancer. We consider 
formaldehyde a probable human carcinogen (Group B2).
4. Methanol
    Acute (short-term) or chronic (long-term) exposure of humans to 
methanol by inhalation or ingestion may result in blurred vision, 
headache, dizziness, and nausea. No information is available on the 
reproductive, developmental, or carcinogenic effects of methanol in 
humans. Birth defects have been observed in the offspring of rats and 
mice exposed to methanol by inhalation. A methanol inhalation study 
using rhesus monkeys reported a decrease in the length of pregnancy and 
limited evidence of impaired learning ability in offspring. We have not 
classified methanol with respect to carcinogenicity.
5. Phenol
    Acute (short-term) inhalation and dermal exposure to phenol is 
highly irritating to the skin, eyes, and mucous membranes in humans. 
Oral exposure to small amounts of phenol may cause irregular breathing, 
muscular weakness and tremors, coma, and respiratory arrest at lethal 
concentrations. Anorexia, progressive weight loss, diarrhea, vertigo, 
salivation, and a dark coloration of the urine have been reported in 
chronically (long-term) exposed humans. Gastrointestinal irritation and 
blood and liver effects have also been reported. No studies of 
developmental or reproductive effects of phenol in humans are 
available, but animal studies have reported reduced fetal body weights, 
growth retardation, and abnormal development in the offspring of 
animals exposed to phenol by the oral route. We have classified phenol 
in Group D, not classifiable as to human carcinogenicity.

[[Page 1279]]

6. Propionaldehyde
    No information is available on the acute (short-term) effects of 
propionaldehyde in humans. Animal studies have reported that inhalation 
exposure to high levels of propionaldehyde results in anesthesia and 
liver damage. No information is available on the chronic (long-term), 
reproductive, developmental or carcinogenic effects of propionaldehyde 
in animals or humans. We have not classified propionaldehyde for 
carcinogenicity.

F. Incorporation by Reference of NCASI Test Methods

    With today's action, we are proposing to amend 40 CFR 63.14 by 
revising paragraph (f) to incorporate by reference two test methods 
developed by the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and 
Stream Improvement (NCASI): (1) Method CI/WP-98.01, Chilled Impinger 
Method for Use at Wood Products Mills to Measure Formaldehyde, 
Methanol, and Phenol; and (2) pending review by EPA, Method IM/CAN/WP-
99.01, Impinger/Canister Source Sampling Method for Selected HAPs at 
Wood Products Facilities. These methods are available from the NCASI, 
Methods Manual, P.O. Box 133318, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3318 
or at http://www.ncasi.org. They are also available from the docket for 
this proposed rule (Docket Number A-98-44).
    In today's proposed rule, NCASI Method CI/WP-98.01 would be allowed 
as an alternative to:
    [sbull] EPA Method 320, Measurement of Vapor Phase Organic and 
Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR, for measuring methanol or 
formaldehyde;
    [sbull] EPA Method 0011, Sampling for Selected Aldehyde and Ketone 
Emissions from Stationary Sources, for measuring formaldehyde;
    [sbull] EPA Method 316, Sampling and Analysis for Formaldehyde 
Emissions from Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool and Wool 
Fiberglass Industries, for measuring formaldehyde;
    [sbull] EPA Method 308, Procedure for Determination of Methanol 
Emission from Stationary Sources, for measuring methanol; and
    [sbull] NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.01 for measuring formaldehyde or 
methanol.
    The NCASI Method CI/WP-98.01 has been validated using EPA Method 
301, Field Validation of Pollutant Measurement Methods from Various 
Waste Media, for measuring methanol, formaldehyde, and phenol emissions 
from PCWP facilities. (EPA Method 0011 is available in ``Test Methods 
for Evaluating Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical Methods,'' EPA 
Publication No. SW-846. EPA Methods 301, 308, 316, and 320 are in 40 
CFR part 63, appendix A.)
    In today's proposed rule, NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.01, which is a 
self-validating method, would be allowed, pending our review, as an 
alternative to:
    [sbull] EPA Method 320, for measuring methanol, formaldehyde, or 
total HAP;
    [sbull] EPA Methods 0011 and 316, for measuring formaldehyde;
    [sbull] EPA Method 308, for measuring methanol; and
    [sbull] NCASI Method CI/WP-98.01, for measuring formaldehyde or 
methanol.

G. Alternative Procedure for Determining Press Enclosure Capture 
Efficiency

    We are working with industry representatives to develop a procedure 
that uses measurement of tracer gas to determine capture efficiency. We 
are proposing this ``tracer gas procedure'' today in appendix A to the 
proposed subpart DDDD.

H. Changes to the Scope of a Source Category

    Today's action serves to broaden the PCWP source category to 
include lumber kilns located at stand-alone kiln-dried lumber 
manufacturing facilities or at any other type of facility. Wood 
products industry representatives requested that all lumber kilns 
(regardless of location) be considered in today's proposed rule so 
there would be one MACT determination for all lumber kilns nationwide. 
If lumber kilns at stand-alone kiln-dried lumber manufacturing 
facilities and other types of facilities are not included in the PCWP 
NESHAP, kiln-dried lumber manufacturing could be listed as a major 
source category under section 112(c) of the CAA in the future, 
requiring a separate section 112(d) rulemaking, and may become 
separately subject to the provisions of section 112(g) of the CAA as 
well. Because the design and operation of lumber kilns are essentially 
the same regardless of whether the kilns are located at a sawmill or 
are co-located with PCWP or other types of manufacturing operations, we 
have included lumber kilns in the PCWP source category. Broadening the 
scope of the PCWP source category to include lumber kilns located at 
any type of facility is reasonable because based on our information, 
there are no currently applicable controls at any lumber kilns and it 
is both more efficient and expeditious to include them in the MACT 
process now than to separately address them in a rulemaking that would 
not likely result in meaningful emissions reductions from lumber kilns. 
Moreover, including all lumber kilns in the PCWP MACT results in 
placing them on a faster schedule for purposes of future residual risk 
analysis under CAA section 112(f).

II. Summary of Proposed Rule

A. What Process Units Are Subject to This Proposed Rule?

    The proposed rule would regulate HAP emissions from PCWP facilities 
that are major sources. Plywood and composite wood products are 
manufactured by bonding wood material (fibers, particles, strands, 
etc.) or agricultural fiber, generally with resin under heat and 
pressure, to form a structural panel or engineered wood product. 
Plywood and composite wood products manufacturing facilities also 
include facilities that manufacture dry veneer and lumber kilns located 
at any facility. Plywood and composite wood products include (but are 
not limited to) plywood, veneer, particleboard, oriented strandboard, 
hardboard, fiberboard, medium density fiberboard, laminated strand 
lumber, laminated veneer lumber, wood I-joists, kiln-dried lumber, and 
glue-laminated beams. Table 1 of this preamble lists the process units 
at PCWP facilities and indicates which process units are subject to the 
control requirements in today's proposed rule. ``Process unit'' means 
equipment classified according to its function such as a blender, 
dryer, press, former, or board cooler.

[[Page 1280]]



    Table 1.--Process Units That Are Subject to the Proposed Control
                              Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Does today's proposed rule include
                                     control requirements for . . .
   For the following process   -----------------------------------------
          units . . .            Existing  affected      New affected
                                      sources?             sources?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Softwood veneer dryers; tube    Yes................  Yes.
 dryers; strand dryers; green
 rotary dryers; hardboard
 ovens; reconstituted wood
 product presses; and
 pressurized refiners.
Press predryers; fiberboard     No.................  Yes.
 mat dryers; and board coolers.
Dry rotary dryers; veneer       No.................  No.
 redryers; plywood presses;
 engineered wood products
 presses; hardwood veneer
 dryers; humidifiers;
 atmospheric refiners;
 formers; blenders; rotary
 agricultural fiber dryers;
 agricultural fiber board
 presses; sanders; saws; fiber
 washers; chippers; log vats;
 lumber kilns; storage tanks;
 wastewater operations;
 miscellaneous coating
 operations; and stand-alone
 digesters.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The affected source for this proposed rule is the combination of 
all PCWP manufacturing operations, including PCWP process units, onsite 
storage of raw materials, onsite wastewater treatment operations 
associated with PCWP manufacturing, and miscellaneous coating 
operations located in a single facility covering a contiguous area 
under common control that is also a major source. One of the 
implications of the proposed definition of affected source is that the 
control requirements or ``floor,'' as defined in section 112(d)(3), are 
determined for the entire PCWP facility. Therefore, except for lumber 
kilns not otherwise located at PCWP facilities, this proposed rule 
contains the control requirements that represent the MACT level of 
control for the entire facility. For lumber kilns not otherwise located 
at PCWP facilities, this proposed rule contains the control 
requirements that represent the MACT level of control only for lumber 
kilns.

B. What Pollutants Are Regulated by This Proposed Rule?

    The proposed rule would regulate HAP emissions from PCWP 
facilities. For the purpose of compliance with 40 CFR part 63, subpart 
DDDD, we defined ``total HAP'' to be the sum of the emissions of six 
primary HAP emitted from PCWP manufacturing. For the purpose of 
determining whether your facility is a major source, you would have to 
include all HAP as prescribed by rules and guidance pertaining to 
determination of major source.
    The six HAP that define ``total HAP'' are: Acetaldehyde, acrolein, 
formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde. Other HAP are 
sometimes emitted and controlled along with these six HAP, but in low 
quantities that may be difficult to measure. Depending upon which of 
the compliance alternatives you choose, you could be required to 
measure emissions of total hydrocarbon (THC), methanol, or formaldehyde 
as surrogates for measuring total HAP.

C. What Are the Compliance Options?

    Today's proposed rule includes a range of compliance options which 
are summarized in the following subsections. You would have to use one 
of the compliance options to show compliance with the proposed rule. In 
most cases, the proposed compliance options would be the same for new 
and existing sources. Dilution to achieve compliance is prohibited as 
specified in 40 CFR 63.4.
1. Production-Based Compliance Options
    Today's proposed rule includes production-based compliance options 
which are based on total HAP and vary according to type of process 
unit. Total HAP emissions are defined in today's proposed rule as the 
total mass emissions of the following six HAP: Acetaldehyde, acrolein, 
formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde. The production-
based compliance options are in units of mass of pollutant per unit of 
production. Add-on control systems may not be used to meet the 
production-based compliance options. For pressurized refiners and most 
dryers, the production-based compliance options are expressed as pounds 
per oven-dried-ton of wood (lb/ODT). For presses, hardboard ovens, and 
some dryers, the production-based compliance options are expressed as 
pounds per thousand square feet of board (lb/MSF), with a reference 
board thickness.
2. Add-On Control System Compliance Options
    If you operate a process unit equipped with an add-on control 
system, you may use any one of the following six compliance options. 
``Add-on control system'' or ``control system'' means the combination 
of capture and control devices used to reduce HAP emissions to the 
atmosphere.
    a. Reduce THC emissions (as carbon, and minus methane if you wish 
to subtract methane) by 90 percent.
    b. Reduce methanol emissions by 90 percent.
    c. Reduce formaldehyde emissions by 90 percent.
    d. Limit the concentration of THC (as carbon, and minus methane if 
you wish to subtract methane) in the outlet of the add-on control 
system to 20 parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd).
    e. Limit the concentration of methanol in the exhaust from the add-
on control system to 1 ppmvd (can be used only if the concentration of 
methanol entering the control device is greater than or equal to 10 
ppmvd).
    f. Limit the concentration of formaldehyde in the exhaust from the 
add-on control system to 1 ppmvd (can be used only if the concentration 
of formaldehyde entering the control device is greater than or equal to 
10 ppmvd).
    In the first three options (a through c), the 90 percent control 
efficiency represents a total control efficiency. Total control 
efficiency is defined as the product of the capture efficiency and the 
control device efficiency. For process units such as rotary strand 
dryers, capture efficiency is not an issue because the rotary strand 
dryer has a single exhaust point which is easily captured by the 
control device. However, for presses and board coolers, the HAP 
emissions cannot be completely captured without installing an 
enclosure. If the enclosure meets the criteria for a permanent total 
enclosure (PTE) as described in EPA Test Method 204 (40 CFR part 51, 
appendix M), then you could assign the enclosure a capture efficiency 
of 100 percent. You would have to test other enclosures to determine 
capture efficiency using EPA Test Methods 204 and 204A through 204F (as 
appropriate) or the alternative

[[Page 1281]]

tracer gas procedure in today's proposed rule. For the three 
concentration options (d through f), you would need to have an 
enclosure that either meets the criteria for a PTE or achieves a 
capture efficiency greater than or equal to 95 percent.
    The six compliance options are equivalent ways to express the HAP 
control levels that represent the MACT floor. Because the compliance 
options are equivalent for controlling HAP emissions, you would be 
required to meet only one compliance option for add-on control systems. 
For example, if you elect to test your control system for THC and 
formaldehyde and the test results demonstrate compliance with only the 
THC or only the formaldehyde compliance option, you would still be in 
compliance with today's proposed rule.
3. Emissions Averaging Compliance Option
    The CAA does not limit how we set control requirements beyond 
requiring that they be applicable to all sources in a category and be 
at least as stringent as the MACT floor. Therefore, the relevant 
statutory language does not prohibit us from allowing a source to meet 
MACT through use of emissions averaging as long as averaging does not 
cross source category boundaries, and the standard is set at a level at 
least as stringent as the MACT floor. As explained in this preamble, we 
believe we have met these criteria. In addition, it should be noted 
that Congress explicitly provided that cost should be considered in 
setting the standards. Emissions averaging is a means of achieving the 
required emissions reductions in a cost effective way. Therefore, if 
you operate an existing affected source, you could choose to comply 
with the emissions averaging provisions instead of the production-based 
compliance options or add-on control system compliance options.
    Emissions averaging is a system of debits and credits in which the 
credits must equal or exceed the debits. ``Debit-generating process 
units'' are the PCWP process units required to meet the proposed 
control requirements that you choose to either not control or under-
control. ``Credit-generating process units'' are the PCWP process units 
that you choose to control. You may take credit for emissions from 
debit-generating process units that are under-controlled. Control 
devices used for credit-generating process units may not be assigned 
more than 90 percent control efficiency.
    Under the emissions averaging provisions, you would determine the 
required mass removal (RMR) of total HAP from debit-generating process 
units for a 6-month compliance period. Total HAP is defined in today's 
proposed rule to include acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, 
methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde. The RMR would be based on 
initial total HAP measurements for each debit-generating process unit, 
your process unit operating hours for a 6-month period, and the 
required 90 percent control system efficiency. One hundred percent of 
the RMR for debit-generating process units would have to be achieved or 
exceeded by the actual mass removal (AMR) of total HAP achieved by 
credit-generating process units. The AMR is determined based on initial 
performance tests, the total HAP removal efficiency of the control 
systems used to control the credit-generating process units, and your 
process unit operating hours over the 6-month period.
    There are some restrictions on use of the emissions averaging 
provisions in today's proposed rule. You would have to limit emissions 
averaging to the process units located within your affected source. 
Emissions averaging could not be used at new affected sources. You 
could not include in an emissions average those process units that are 
not operating or that are shut down. You could not include in your 
emissions average those process units controlled to comply with a State 
or Federal rule other than today's proposed rule (unless the process 
unit was included in an emissions average and the control system was 
installed before the process unit was subject to the other State or 
Federal rule). Only PCWP process units using add-on control systems may 
be used to generate credits.

D. What Operating Requirements Are in the Proposed Rule?

    The operating requirements in today's proposed rule would apply to 
add-on control systems used to comply with the proposed rule and to 
process units that can meet the proposed production-based compliance 
options. For incineration-based control devices and biofilters, the 
proposed rule specifies that you would either monitor operating 
parameters or use a THC continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) to 
demonstrate continuous compliance. The proposed operating requirements 
are summarized below:
    [sbull] If you operate a thermal oxidizer, such as a regenerative 
thermal oxidizer (RTO) or a combustion unit that accepts process 
exhaust into the flame zone, you would be required to maintain the 
firebox temperature at a level that is greater than or equal to the 
minimum temperature established during the performance test. You would 
also be required to maintain the average static pressure at the inlet 
of the thermal oxidizer within the operating range established during 
the performance test. You may choose to monitor gas flow rate at the 
thermal oxidizer stack as an alternative to monitoring static pressure. 
If you monitor gas flow, you must maintain the gas flow rate below the 
maximum flow rate established during the performance test. If you 
operate a combustion unit that accepts process exhaust into the flame 
zone and that combustion unit has a heat input capacity of greater than 
or equal to 44 megawatts (MW), you would be exempt from the testing and 
monitoring requirements described above for thermal oxidizers.
    [sbull] If you operate a catalytic oxidizer, such as a regenerative 
catalytic oxidizer (RCO) or thermal catalytic oxidizer (TCO), you would 
be required to maintain the temperature upstream of the catalyst bed at 
or above the minimum temperature established during the performance 
test. You would also be required to maintain the average static 
pressure at the inlet of the catalytic oxidizer within the operating 
range established during the performance test. You may choose to 
monitor gas flow rate at the catalytic oxidizer stack as an alternative 
to monitoring static pressure. If you monitor gas flow, you must 
maintain the gas flow rate below the maximum flow rate established 
during the performance test.
    [sbull] If you operate a biofilter, you would be required to 
maintain the temperature of the air stream entering the biofilter, pH 
of the biofilter effluent, and pressure drop across the biofilter bed 
within the ranges you specify during the initial performance test or 
during qualifying previous performance tests using the required test 
methods. If you use values from previous performance tests to establish 
the operating parameter ranges, you would have to certify that the 
biofilter and associated process unit(s) have not been modified 
subsequent to the date the previous data were collected.
    [sbull] If you operate an add-on control system not listed in 
today's proposed rule, you would establish operating parameters to be 
monitored and parameter values that represent your operating 
requirements during the performance test, subject to prior written 
approval by the Administrator.
    [sbull] If you operate a process unit that can meet the production-
based compliance options without an add-on

[[Page 1282]]

control device, you would be required to maintain the average process 
unit inlet or operating temperature (depending on the specific process 
unit) below the maximum temperature established during the performance 
test.
    [sbull] As an alternative to monitoring the operating parameters 
specified above for thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, biofilters, 
other control devices, and process units that meet the compliance 
options for process units without add-on control systems, you would be 
allowed to monitor THC concentration in the outlet stack with a THC 
CEMS. You would be required to maintain the outlet THC concentration 
below the maximum concentration established during the performance 
test. You may choose to subtract methane from the THC concentration 
measured by the CEMS if you wish to do so.

E. What Are the Work Practice Requirements?

    The work practice requirements in today's proposed rule apply to 
veneer dryers, dry rotary dryers, veneer redryers, and hardwood veneer 
dryers. For veneer dryers, the proposed work practice requirements 
require you to minimize fugitive emissions from the veneer dryer doors 
(by applying appropriate operation and maintenance procedures) and from 
the green end of the dryers (through proper balancing of hot zone 
exhausts). The proposed work practice requirements also specify 
parameters that you would monitor to demonstrate that each dry rotary 
dryer, redryer, and hardwood veneer dryer continuously operates in a 
manner consistent with the definitions of these process units provided 
in today's proposed rule, as follows:
    [sbull] If you operate a dry rotary dryer, you would be required to 
maintain the inlet dryer temperature at or below 600 [deg]F and 
maintain the moisture content of the wood particles entering the dryer 
at or below 30 weight percent, on a dry basis.
    [sbull] If you operate a veneer redryer, you would be required to 
maintain the moisture content of the wood veneer entering the dryer at 
or below 25 percent, by weight.
    [sbull] If you operate a hardwood veneer dryer, you would be 
required to process less than 30 percent, by volume, softwood species 
each year.

F. When Must I Comply With This Proposed Rule?

    Existing PCWP facilities must comply within 3 years of the date the 
promulgated rule is published in the Federal Register. New sources that 
commence construction after today's date must comply immediately upon 
initial startup or on the effective date of the rule, whichever is 
later.

G. How Do I Demonstrate Initial Compliance With This Proposed Rule?

    The initial compliance requirements in today's proposed rule vary 
with the different compliance options.
1. Production-Based Compliance Options
    If you are complying with the production-based compliance options 
in today's proposed rule, you would be required to conduct an initial 
performance test using specified test methods to demonstrate initial 
compliance. You would be required to test the efficiency of your 
emissions capture device during the initial compliance test if the 
process unit is a press or board cooler. The actual emission rate of 
the press or board cooler would be equivalent to the measured emissions 
divided by the capture efficiency. You would be required to install 
process (temperature) monitoring equipment to be used to demonstrate 
compliance with the operating requirements for process units without 
add-on control systems or install a THC CEMS and monitor the outlet THC 
concentration. During the initial compliance test, you would use the 
process monitoring equipment to establish the parameter value that 
represents your operating requirement for the process unit.

2. Add-On Control System Compliance Options

    If you use the compliance options for add-on control systems, you 
would be required to conduct an initial performance test using 
specified test methods to demonstrate initial compliance. With the 
exception of the 20 ppmvd THC concentration option, you would be 
required to test at both the inlet and the outlet of the control 
device. If you use any of the six compliance options for add-on control 
systems, and the process unit is a press or a board cooler without a 
PTE, you would also be required to test the capture efficiency of your 
partial enclosure. Prior to the initial performance test, you would be 
required to install control device parameter monitoring equipment or 
THC CEMS to be used to demonstrate compliance with the operating 
requirements for add-on control systems in today's proposed rule. 
During the initial compliance test, you would use the control device 
parameter monitoring equipment or THC CEMS to establish the parameter 
values that represent your operating requirements for the control 
systems. If your add-on control system is preceded by a particulate 
control device, you would only be required to establish operating 
parameter values for the HAP control system and not for the particulate 
control device. If your control device is a biofilter, then you may use 
historical operating records for the biofilter to establish your 
operating requirements as long as you were in compliance with the 
emission limits in today's proposed rule when the data were collected, 
the test data were obtained using the test methods in today's proposed 
rule, and no modifications were made to the process unit or biofilter 
subsequent to the date the historical data were collected.
3. Emissions Averaging Compliance Option
    If you elect to comply with the emissions averaging compliance 
option in today's proposed rule, you would be required to submit an 
Emissions Averaging Plan (EAP) to the Administrator for approval. The 
EAP would describe the process units you are including in the emissions 
average. The plan also would specify which process units will be 
credit-generating units and which process units will be debit-
generating units. The EAP would also have to include descriptions of 
the control systems used to generate emission credits, documentation of 
the total HAP measurements made to determine the RMR, calculations and 
supporting documentation to demonstrate that the AMR will be greater 
than or equal to the RMR, and a summary of the operating parameters 
that will be monitored for the credit-generating units.
    Following approval of your EAP, you would be required to conduct 
performance tests to determine the total HAP emissions from all process 
units included in the EAP. The credit-generating process units would be 
equipped with add-on control systems; therefore, for those process 
units, you would follow the procedures for demonstrating initial 
compliance as outlined above for add-on control systems. The emissions 
averaging provisions would require you to conduct all total HAP 
measurements and performance test(s) when the process units are 
operating under representative operating conditions. Today's proposed 
rule defines ``representative operating conditions'' as those 
conditions under which the process unit will be typically operating 
following the compliance date. Representative conditions would include 
such things as using a

[[Page 1283]]

representative range of materials (e.g., wood material of a typical 
species mix and moisture content, typical resin formulations) and 
operating the process unit at typical operating temperature ranges.
4. Work Practice Requirements
    The work practice requirements in today's proposed rule do not 
require you to conduct any initial performance tests. To demonstrate 
initial compliance with the work practice requirements for dry rotary 
dryers, you would have to install parameter monitoring devices to 
continuously monitor the dryer inlet operating temperature and the 
moisture content (dry basis) of the wood furnish (i.e., wood fibers, 
particles, or strands used for making board) entering the dryer. You 
would then use the parameter monitoring devices to continuously monitor 
and record the dryer temperature and wood furnish moisture content for 
a minimum of 30 days. If the monitoring data indicate that during the 
minimum 30-day demonstration period, your dry rotary dryer continuously 
processed wood furnish with an inlet moisture content less than or 
equal to 30 percent, and the dryer was continuously operated at an 
inlet dryer temperature less than or equal to 600 [deg]F, then your 
dryer would meet the definition of a dry rotary dryer in today's 
proposed rule. You would submit the monitoring data as part of your 
notification of compliance status report.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice 
requirements for hardwood veneer dryers, you would have to calculate 
the annualized percentage of softwood veneer processed in the dryer by 
volume, using veneer dryer production records for the 12-month period 
prior to the compliance date. If the total annual percentage by volume 
of softwood veneer is less than 30 percent, your veneer dryer would 
meet the definition of hardwood veneer dryer. You would then submit a 
summary of the production data for the 12-month period and a statement 
verifying that the veneer dryer will continue to process less than 30 
percent softwoods as part of your notification of compliance status 
report.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice 
requirements for softwood veneer dryers, you would have to develop a 
plan for minimizing fugitive emissions from the veneer dryer green end 
and heated zones. You would submit the plan with your notification of 
compliance status report.
    To demonstrate initial compliance with the work practice 
requirements for veneer redryers, you would have to install a device 
that can be used to continuously monitor the moisture content (dry 
basis) of veneer entering the dryer. You would then use the moisture 
monitoring device to continuously monitor and record the inlet moisture 
content of the veneer for a minimum of 30 days. If the monitoring data 
indicate that your veneer dryer continuously processed veneer with a 
moisture content less than or equal to 25 percent during the minimum 
30-day demonstration period, then your veneer dryer would meet the 
definition of a veneer redryer in today's proposed rule. You would 
submit the monitoring data as part of your notification of compliance 
status report.

H. How Do I Demonstrate Continuous Compliance With This Proposed Rule?

    The continuous compliance requirements in today's proposed rule 
vary with the different types of compliance options.
1. Production-Based Compliance Options
    If you comply with the production-based compliance options, then 
you would have to install a continuous parameter monitoring system 
(CPMS) to monitor the process operating parameter(s) used to 
demonstrate compliance with the operating requirements in today's 
proposed rule. Your CPMS would have to collect data at least every 15 
minutes, and you would need to have at least three data points per hour 
to have a valid hour of data. You would have to operate the CPMS at all 
times the process unit is operating. You also would have to conduct 
proper maintenance of the CPMS and maintain an inventory of necessary 
parts for routine repairs of the CPMS. Using the data collected with 
the CPMS, you would calculate and record the 3-hour block average 
values of each process operating parameter.
    The process operating parameter you would monitor for green rotary 
dryers, tube dryers, and strand dryers is dryer inlet temperature. The 
process operating parameter you would monitor for hardboard ovens, 
press predryers, reconstituted wood product presses, fiberboard mat 
dryer hot zones, and softwood veneer dryer hot zones is operating 
temperature. You would not be required to monitor process parameters 
for reconstituted wood product board coolers or pressurized refiners. 
For each temperature parameter, you would have to continuously maintain 
the 3-hour block average temperature below the maximum temperature 
established during the performance test.
    Instead of operating a CPMS, you could choose to operate a CEMS for 
monitoring THC concentration to demonstrate compliance with the 
operating requirements in today's proposed rule. If you choose to 
operate a THC CEMS in lieu of a CPMS, you would have to demonstrate 
continuous compliance as described in the following subsection.
2. Add-On Control System Compliance Options
    For add-on control systems, you would have to install a CPMS to 
monitor the specified control device operating parameter(s) or install 
a CEMS to monitor THC concentration to demonstrate compliance with the 
operating requirements in today's proposed rule. If you operate a CPMS, 
it would have to collect data at least every 15 minutes, and you would 
need to have at least three data points per hour to have a valid hour 
of data. You would have to operate the CPMS at all times the process 
unit is operating. You also would have to conduct proper maintenance of 
the CPMS and maintain an inventory of necessary parts for routine 
repairs of the CPMS. Using the data collected with the CPMS, you would 
calculate and record the average values of each operating parameter 
according to the specified averaging times.
    For thermal oxidizers, you would have to continuously maintain the 
3-hour block average firebox temperature at or above the minimum 
temperature established during the performance test. For catalytic 
oxidizers, you would have to continuously maintain the 3-hour block 
average temperature upstream of the catalyst bed at or above the 
minimum value established during the performance test. For both thermal 
and catalytic oxidizers, you would also have to continuously maintain 
the 3-hour block average static pressure at the inlet of the thermal 
oxidizer within the operating range established during the performance 
test. As an alternative to monitoring static pressure, you may monitor 
gas flow rate at the oxidizer stack. If you monitor gas flow, you must 
maintain the 3-hour block average gas flow rate below the maximum flow 
rate established during the performance test.
    For biofilters, you would have to maintain the gas temperature 
entering the biofilter, effluent pH, and pressure drop across the 
biofilter bed within the operating ranges you establish. You would 
establish your biofilter operating parameter limits, their monitoring 
frequencies, and their averaging times

[[Page 1284]]

based on data collected during the initial performance test or during 
qualifying previous performance tests using the required test methods. 
If you use values from previous performance tests to establish the 
operating parameter ranges, you would have to certify that the 
biofilter and associated process unit(s) have not been modified 
subsequent to the date the previous data were collected. If previous 
performance test data are not available (as would be the case for a new 
biofilter installation) you would be allowed up to 180 days after the 
compliance date to gather the necessary information and establish your 
biofilter operating parameter ranges.
    If you choose to operate a CEMS for monitoring THC concentration 
instead of operating a CPMS, you must install, operate, and maintain 
the CEMS according to Performance Specification 8 in 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix B. You would also be required to comply with the CEMS data 
quality assurance requirements in Procedure 1 of appendix F of 40 CFR 
part 60. You would be required to conduct a performance evaluation of 
the CEMS according to 40 CFR 63.8 and Performance Specification 8. The 
CEMS would have to complete a minimum of one cycle of operation 
(sampling, analyzing, and data recording) for each successive 15-minute 
period. Using the data collected with the CEMS, you would calculate and 
record the 3-hour block average THC concentration. You would have to 
continuously monitor and maintain the 3-hour block average THC 
concentration at or below the maximum established during the 
performance test. You may use a CEMS capable of subtracting methane 
from the measured THC concentration if you wish to do so.
    If you comply with today's proposed rule using an add-on control 
system, you could request a routine control device maintenance 
exemption from the Administrator. Your request for a routine control 
device maintenance exemption would have to document the need for 
routine maintenance on the control device and the time required to 
accomplish the maintenance, describe the maintenance activities and the 
frequency of these activities, explain why the maintenance could not be 
accomplished during process shutdowns, describe how you plan to 
minimize emissions to the greatest extent possible during these 
maintenance activities, and provide any other documentation required by 
the Administrator. If your request for the routine control device 
maintenance exemption is approved by the Administrator, it would have 
to be incorporated into your title V permit. The compliance options and 
operating requirements would not apply during times when control device 
maintenance covered under your approved routine control device 
maintenance exemption is performed. The routine control device 
maintenance exemption may not exceed 3 percent of annual operating 
uptime for each green rotary dryer, tube dryer, strand dryer, or 
pressurized refiner controlled. The routine control device maintenance 
exemption is limited to 0.5 percent of the annual operating uptime for 
each softwood veneer dryer, reconstituted wood product press, 
reconstituted wood product board cooler, hardboard oven, press 
predryer, or fiberboard mat dryer controlled. If your control device is 
used to control a combination of equipment with different downtime 
allowances (e.g., a tube dryer and a press), then the highest (i.e., 3 
percent) downtime allowance applies.
3. Emissions Averaging Compliance Option
    To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emissions averaging 
provisions, you would have to continuously comply with the applicable 
operating requirements for add-on control systems (described in the 
previous subsection). You also would have to maintain records of your 
operating hours for each process unit included in the EAP. For each 
semiannual compliance period, you would have to demonstrate that the 
AMR equals or exceeds the RMR using your initial (or most recent) total 
HAP measurements for debit-generating units, initial (or most recent) 
performance test results for credit-generating units, and the operating 
hours recorded for the semiannual compliance period.
4. Work Practice Requirements
    To demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice 
requirements for dry rotary dryers and veneer redryers, you would be 
required to operate all dry rotary dryers and veneer redryers so that 
they continuously meet the definitions of these process units in 
today's proposed rule. For dry rotary dryers, you would have to 
continuously monitor and maintain the inlet furnish moisture content at 
or below 30 percent and the inlet dryer operating temperature at or 
below 600 [deg]F. You would also have to manually measure the moisture 
content of a representative sample of the inlet wood furnish once per 
day to verify the readings from the moisture meter. For veneer 
redryers, you would have to continuously monitor and maintain the inlet 
veneer moisture content at or below 25 percent.
    To demonstrate continuous compliance with the work practice 
requirements for softwood veneer dryers, you would have to follow the 
procedures in your operating plan for minimizing fugitive emissions 
from the green end and heated zones of the veneer dryer and maintain 
records documenting that you have followed your plan. For hardwood 
veneer dryers, you would have to continue to process less than 30 
percent softwood veneer by volume and maintain records on veneer dryer 
production.

III. Rationale for Proposed Rule

A. How Did We Select the Source Category and Any Subcategories?

    The PCWP source category includes the manufacture of many types of 
wood products, including (but not limited to) plywood, veneer, 
particleboard, oriented strandboard, hardboard, fiberboard, medium 
density fiberboard, laminated strand lumber, laminated veneer lumber, 
wood I-joists, kiln-dried lumber, and glue-laminated beams. During our 
review of the available information on this source category, we found 
that the processes used to produce the different types of wood products 
were more similar than dissimilar with respect to the types of 
equipment used and the HAP emitted. Published definitions of the 
various wood products often group several types of products together or 
overlap with definitions developed for other similar wood products. As 
the wood products industry continues its relatively high rate of 
growth, new and different wood products are coming into the 
marketplace, some of which are hybrids of existing wood products or 
modified versions of existing wood products. Because the differences 
between many of the product lines are already somewhat blurred and the 
equipment that is used to manufacture wood products cuts across 
industry sectors, we determined that establishing subcategories based 
on product type was unwarranted and could seriously hamper 
applicability determinations. Therefore, today's proposed rule does not 
establish any subcategories under the PCWP source category.

B. How Did We Define the Affected Source?

    In today's proposed rule, the affected source is the collection of 
process units associated with the manufacturing of PCWP at a plant 
site. The affected

[[Page 1285]]

source includes, but is not limited to, those process units found in 
green end operations, drying operations, blending and forming 
operations, pressing and board cooling operations, and miscellaneous 
finishing operations (such as sanding, sawing, patching, edge sealing, 
and other finishing operations not subject to other NESHAP). The 
affected source also includes onsite storage of raw materials used in 
the manufacture of PCWP, such as resins, onsite wastewater treatment 
operations specifically associated with PCWP manufacturing, and 
miscellaneous coating operations. The affected source includes lumber 
kilns at PCWP manufacturing facilities and at any other facility.
    Miscellaneous coating operations are activities such as edge 
coating of PCWP, labeling and printing on PCWP, application of anti-
skid coatings, putty/patching operations at plywood facilities, etc. 
Only those onsite miscellaneous coating operations at PCWP 
manufacturing facilities that are listed in Sec.  63.2292 of today's 
proposed rule are covered by these proposed NESHAP. We specifically 
excluded these miscellaneous coatings operations from the proposed Wood 
Building Products Surface Coating NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
QQQQ). We included these sources in the definition of affected source 
for PCWP because these miscellaneous coating operations are part of the 
PCWP manufacturing process and are performed at the same location.
    To provide compliance flexibility, we defined the affected source 
as the combination of all of the process units at a PCWP manufacturing 
facility. Many of the PCWP facilities that already control HAP 
emissions to the levels that would be required in today's proposed rule 
do so by first combining emissions from different process units and 
then controlling the combined emissions in one or more emission control 
devices. Much of the control device efficiency data used to set the 
proposed compliance options for add-on control systems was based on 
control equipment that was used to control emissions from multiple 
types of process units. As a result, the required level of control 
would be the same for most types of process units. For example, the 
control level for new and existing reconstituted wood products presses 
would be the same as the control level for new and existing tube 
dryers. We believe that the proposed broad definition of affected 
source is consistent with the way the industry applies add-on control 
devices, and that it creates more meaningful opportunities for 
emissions averaging. The affected source definition we selected is the 
same for both new and existing sources.
    The affected source includes lumber kilns co-located at PCWP 
manufacturing facilities and lumber kilns at other facilities that do 
not manufacture PCWP (i.e., stand-alone kiln-dried lumber manufacturing 
facilities such as sawmills). Wood products industry representatives 
requested that all lumber kilns (regardless of location) be considered 
in today's proposed rule so there would be one MACT determination for 
all lumber kilns nationwide.
    If lumber kilns at stand-alone kiln-dried lumber manufacturing 
facilities are not included in the PCWP NESHAP, those stand-alone 
facilities could be listed as a major source category under section 
112(c) of the CAA in the future and may be subject to the provisions of 
section 112(g) of the CAA as well. We believe no additional emissions 
reductions would be accomplished by listing lumber kilns as a separate 
source category or by having them regulated by case-by-case MACT. We 
believe this because: (1) The design and operation of lumber kilns are 
essentially the same regardless of whether the kilns are located at a 
sawmill or co-located with PCWP manufacturing operations, (2) we know 
of no lumber kilns that are controlled for HAP, and (3) we know of no 
cost effective HAP controls for lumber kilns. In addition, we know of 
no additional recordkeeping or reporting that stand-alone facilities 
would incur by being part of the PCWP source category since the PCWP 
source category includes only major sources. Including stand-alone 
kilns in the PCWP source category will save resources for regulatory 
agencies and industry and does not forego HAP reductions; therefore, we 
are proposing stand-alone kilns as part of the PCWP source category.

C. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor for Existing Sources?

    Section 112(l)(3) of the CAA specifies that each MACT standard be 
at least as stringent as the floor for the sources in the relevant 
source category or subcategory. Today's proposed PCWP rule does not 
have subcategories; therefore, the average emission limitation achieved 
by the best-performing 12 percent of all major PCWP facilities 
represents the MACT floor for the source category. In order to rank the 
PCWP facilities based on performance, we would need facilitywide 
uncontrolled emissions data and facilitywide controlled emissions data 
for each facility to determine the percent reduction in HAP emissions 
achieved by each facility. We do not have actual facilitywide emissions 
data; however, we have accurate and complete information on the type 
and number of individual process units at PCWP facilities. In addition, 
emissions data are based on process unit data. Therefore, we decided to 
apply the MACT floor methodology at the process-unit level. Our 
information is especially accurate and complete for dryers and presses, 
which are generally the highest-emitting process units and the ones 
most likely to have add-on control systems that reduce HAP emissions 
from PCWP facilities. With this approach, the sourcewide MACT floor is 
represented by the MACT floor level of control established for each 
process unit group. We believe that applying the MACT floor methodology 
to process unit groups results in the closest possible approximation of 
the true sourcewide MACT floor, since it better enables us to take into 
account process unit-specific emissions data. We do not believe the 
results from this approach are significantly different from what they 
would be if facilitywide source-specific data had been available.
    We determined the MACT floor control level for existing sources 
using the following procedure:
    [sbull] We reviewed available data on pollution prevention 
techniques and the performance of add-on control devices and identified 
those add-on control systems that were best at reducing HAP emissions;
    [sbull] For each process unit group identified in Table 1 of this 
preamble, we ranked the process units in that group from the best 
performing to the worst performing based on the type of add-on control 
system applied to each process unit;
    [sbull] For each process unit group, we then identified the add-on 
control system that represented the MACT floor technology; and
    [sbull] Using available information on the performance of the add-
on control systems, we determined the performance level of the add-on 
control systems.
    This procedure is explained in more detail in the following 
paragraphs. Additional information on how we determined the proposed 
MACT floor for the PCWP industry is available in the docket for this 
rule (Docket Number A-98-44).
1. Identifying the Best-Performing Add-On Control Systems
    Although we believe that the potential for pollution prevention 
exists for some

[[Page 1286]]

facilities in the PCWP industry, we are not aware of any demonstrated 
pollution prevention techniques that can be universally applied across 
the industry. Furthermore, we have no information on the degree of 
emissions reduction that can be achieved through pollution prevention 
measures. The PCWP facilities use add-on control devices because there 
currently are no feasible pollution prevention measures. Therefore, we 
focused our analysis on the performance of add-on control devices. We 
reviewed the available data on control device performance to determine 
which add-on control systems are best at reducing HAP emissions. We 
focused our analysis on THC, formaldehyde, and methanol because these 
three pollutants are the most prevalent pollutants emitted from the 
PCWP industry and represent the majority of the available data on 
control device performance. The design and operating factors that 
affect a control system's ability to reduce emissions of formaldehyde, 
methanol, or THC are generally the same. For example, an RTO designed 
to reduce THC emissions will also reduce formaldehyde or methanol 
emissions.
    Based on a review of the available control device performance data 
for the PCWP industry, we concluded that only two types of add-on air 
pollution control devices (APCD) consistently and continuously reduced 
HAP emissions: incineration-based controls (including RTOs, RCOs, and 
incineration of pollutants in onsite process combustion equipment used 
to control emissions from various PCWP process units) and biofilters 
(used to control PCWP press emissions). The control device efficiency 
data showed that APCD installed for particulate matter (PM) abatement 
had no effect on gaseous HAP or THC emissions. These APCD include 
cyclones, multiclones (or multicyclones), baghouses (or fabric 
filters), and electrified filter beds (EFB). The performance data for 
wet electrostatic precipitators (WESP) and wet scrubbers installed for 
PM control also showed no effect on HAP and THC emissions. These wet 
systems may achieve short-term reductions in THC or gaseous HAP 
emissions, however, the HAP and THC control efficiency data, which 
range from slightly positive to negative values, indicate that the 
ability of these wet systems to absorb water-soluble compounds (such as 
formaldehyde) diminishes as the recirculating scrubbing liquid becomes 
saturated with these compounds.
    The performance data for the incineration-based controls and 
biofilters showed methanol and formaldehyde emissions reductions equal 
to or greater than 90 percent, except in those cases where the 
pollutant loadings of the emission stream entering the control systems 
were very low. The performance data for THC showed that incineration-
based control systems could achieve THC emissions reductions equal to 
or greater than 90 percent. The THC emissions reductions achieved with 
biofilters varied somewhat, with an average THC reduction of about 80 
percent. Although biofilters are less effective in reducing some of the 
less water-soluble VOC compounds, such as pinenes, that make up a 
portion of the THC measurements, they can achieve HAP emissions 
reductions equal to or greater than 90 percent. These emissions 
reductions are reported only for biofilters treating emissions from 
presses at PCWP facilities. No PCWP process units other than presses 
are currently using biofilters to reduce air pollution. Both 
incineration-based controls and biofilters can achieve identical 
formaldehyde and methanol emissions reductions.
2. Ranking of Process Units
    We ranked the process units within each process unit group 
according to the HAP control devices that were applied. Information on 
the number of process units nationwide and the types of add-on control 
devices applied to process units was based primarily on responses to a 
survey of the industry.
    When we ranked the process units, we treated process units equipped 
with any type of incineration-based control system or biofilters as 
being equivalent with respect to their potential to reduce HAP 
emissions. We ranked the process units by control device rather than 
actual unit-specific emissions reductions because we have limited 
inlet/outlet data on which to calculate control efficiency. Based on 
available information (e.g., RTO operating temperatures), we are not 
aware of any significant design or operational differences among each 
type of control system evaluated that would affect the ranking of 
process units. Furthermore, we are not aware of factors other than the 
type of control system used that would significantly affect the ranking 
of process units.
3. Identifying Control Technologies To Establish the MACT Floor
    We established MACT floor control levels by applying the floor 
procedures to similar process units. We believe that this approach 
results in the closest approximation of the true sourcewide MACT floor.
    With a few exceptions, there were at least 30 process units in each 
process unit group. As discussed in section I.C, when there are at 
least 30 sources in the source category, the MACT floor for existing 
sources is equivalent to the average emission limitation achieved by 
the best-performing 12 percent of existing sources in that group. Our 
interpretation of the ``average emission limitation'' is that it is a 
measure of central tendency, such as the median. If the median is used 
when there are at least 30 process units in a process unit group, then 
the emission level achievable by the process unit and its control 
system that is at the bottom of the top 6 percent of the best-
performing process units (i.e., the 94th percentile) represents the 
MACT floor control level for that component of the sourcewide floor. 
For example, there are approximately 303 softwood veneer dryers 
nationwide, and HAP emissions from approximately 64 of these dryers (21 
percent nationwide) are controlled using incineration-based control 
systems. The HAP emissions from the remainder of the softwood veneer 
dryers are uncontrolled. In this example, the 94th percentile is 
represented by the control system applied to the softwood plywood dryer 
ranked at number 18 (18/303 = 6 percent). However, incineration-based 
controls are also used by softwood veneer dryers ranked below the 94th 
percentile. Assuming that there are no significant design or 
operational differences between the different types of incineration-
based control systems that would affect their performance, we would 
consider the incineration-based control technologies as being 
equivalent for control of HAP emissions. Thus, all of the softwood 
veneer dryers equipped with incineration-based control systems would be 
representative of the MACT floor level of control for softwood veneer 
dryers.
    For those process unit groups where there were fewer than 30 but at 
least five process units, such as hardboard ovens, the emission level 
achievable by the process unit and its control system that is the 
median of the best-performing five sources represents the MACT floor 
level of control. For example, the MACT floor level of control for 
fiberboard mat dryers is no emissions reductions because there are ten 
fiberboard mat dryers nationwide, and emissions from only two of the 
ten fiberboard mat dryers are controlled (both via incineration). 
Therefore, the top five fiberboard mat dryers include the two that are 
controlled, plus three that are uncontrolled. In this example, the

[[Page 1287]]

median source (the fiberboard mat dryer ranked ``number 3'') is 
uncontrolled.
    When a process unit group had fewer than five process units, we 
determined the appropriate control technology based on the control 
technology used by the majority of the process units in the process 
unit group.
    For those process units not required to meet the control 
requirements in today's proposed rule, we determined that: (1) The MACT 
floor level of control is no emissions reductions, and beyond the floor 
control options are too costly to be feasible; or (2) insufficient 
information is available to conclude that the MACT floor level of 
control is represented by any emissions reductions (miscellaneous 
coating operations and wastewater operations). We are requesting 
comment on whether no emissions reductions for miscellaneous coating 
operations and for wastewater operations is appropriate. Commenters 
should submit any information they have on HAP or VOC emissions from 
miscellaneous coatings and wastewater operations.
4. Determining the Performance Level of MACT Floor Technologies
    Using the procedures described above, we determined that the 
proposed MACT floor level of control for process units was either no 
emissions reductions or equivalent to the emissions reductions achieved 
by incineration-based control systems or biofilters. Although some 
process units are equipped with add-on controls that perform at a level 
somewhere between zero emissions reductions and the performance level 
achievable with incineration-based controls and biofilters, none of 
these control systems were identified as MACT floor control 
technologies because they either do not reduce organic HAP emissions 
(bag houses) or do so on an inconsistent and unreliable basis (wet 
electrostatic precipitators). Therefore, we focused our analysis on 
incineration-based controls and biofilters.
    For the purpose of establishing the performance level of the MACT 
floor control systems, we decided to group all of the available data on 
incineration-based controls and biofilters together. We grouped all the 
data together because the available data for incineration-based 
controls is incomplete. Without complete data, we could not identify 
which were the best performing incinerators; therefore, we could not 
identify the top performing 12 percent. By considering all of the 
performance data together, we maximized the amount of available data on 
which we could base the MACT floor level of performance.
    The reasons the available data are incomplete are: Multiple 
emission points are treated, inlet/outlet data are limited, data among 
pollutants vary, and pollutant loadings are variable. These are 
discussed below.
    Multiple emission points treated. Some of the control systems treat 
HAP emissions from multiple types of process units, such as tube 
dryers, reconstituted panel presses, and board coolers. In those cases, 
separate determinations of the performance of the control system on 
emissions from each type of process unit were not possible.
    Limited inlet/outlet data. Limited or no inlet/outlet data were 
available for the control systems applied to the process units in each 
group.
    Variability in data among pollutants. In some cases, it was not 
possible to directly compare the performance of different control 
systems because data were not available for the same pollutant. For 
example, for one RTO, we might only have THC emissions data, and for 
another RTO, we might only have formaldehyde data.
    Variability in pollutant loadings. Our ability to compare the 
performance of the different types of incineration-based control 
systems with each other and with biofilters was also hampered by the 
fact that the uncontrolled emissions being treated by the different 
control systems varied with respect to pollutant loading (inlet 
concentration) and pollutant type. For example, the available THC 
concentration data for the inlet of the control systems ranged from as 
low as 45 ppmvd to as high as 5,100 ppmvd. With the exception of some 
control systems with lower pollutant inlet concentrations, the 
available data for incineration-based controls and biofilters show that 
these control systems can achieve THC, methanol or formaldehyde 
emissions reductions greater than or equal to 90 percent.
    We considered basing the control system performance level on just 
one pollutant, such as THC as a surrogate for HAP. Many of the existing 
PCWP facilities with MACT control systems are already required to meet 
a specified VOC control efficiency, and these facilities generally 
measure THC emissions as a surrogate for VOC emissions. Source VOC mass 
emissions (as required in new source review or prevention of 
significant deterioration reviews and emission limits for VOC by 
definition) must be expressed on a mass basis. This requires an 
adjustment for other compounds, such as formaldehyde, to the measured 
THC emissions. However, THC emissions data sometimes include methane 
which is neither a HAP nor a VOC. The THC emissions data also 
frequently include other non-HAP compounds, such as terpenes, which are 
associated with processing of softwoods. We also considered basing the 
control system performance level on HAP, measured as total HAP, or 
methanol as a surrogate for HAP, or formaldehyde as a surrogate for 
HAP. Methanol and formaldehyde are the predominant HAP emitted from 
PCWP process units, and they can be measured directly. However, not all 
process units emit formaldehyde at detectable levels, and not all 
process units emit methanol at detectable levels, so basing the 
performance level only on methanol or only on formaldehyde was not 
possible. For process units where both the methanol and formaldehyde 
emissions are low, THC emissions may be the only viable option for 
defining the control system performance. We rejected basing the control 
system performance level on total HAP emissions because it seemed 
overly burdensome to require testing of multiple pollutants at the 
outlet of a control device when testing of one dominant pollutant would 
be sufficient for determining control device performance. Furthermore, 
the total HAP control efficiency could be negatively affected by those 
measurements for HAP not detected at either the inlet or outlet of the 
control device (e.g., the method detection limit used in the 
calculation of total HAP control efficiency may be slightly higher at 
the inlet than the outlet resulting in decreased total HAP control 
efficiency).
    Another consideration in determining the performance level that 
represents the MACT floor level of control is the format of this 
performance level (e.g., percent reduction, outlet concentration 
level). In general, applying an incineration-based MACT control system 
to a process unit that emits high concentrations of HAP and THC will 
result in a greater percentage of emissions reductions than if that 
same incineration-based MACT control system was applied to a process 
unit that emits lower concentrations of HAP and THC. Therefore, a 
performance level solely in the form of a percent reduction in 
emissions could not adequately characterize the performance level of 
the MACT floor control technology. In similar MACT rulemakings where 
incineration-based control technologies represent the MACT floor, we 
have defined the performance level of the incineration-based control 
technologies as either a

[[Page 1288]]

percent reduction or an outlet concentration, whichever is less 
stringent, with both forms being considered equivalent to the other. We 
have recognized in these previous MACT rulemakings that there are 
practical limits to the ability of incineration-based control systems 
to treat more dilute emission streams. We consider the practical limit 
of control of THC via incineration to be approximately 20 ppmvd in the 
outlet of the control device.
    To account for the variability in the type and amount of HAP in the 
uncontrolled emissions from the various process units and the effect of 
this variability on control system performance, we decided to base the 
MACT floor performance level on all three of the pollutants we analyzed 
and include maximum concentration levels in the outlet of the control 
systems as an alternative to emissions reductions. The MACT floor 
performance level is a 90 percent reduction in THC or methanol or 
formaldehyde emissions. The maximum concentration level in the outlet 
of the MACT floor control system is 20 ppmvd for THC, or 1 ppmvd for 
methanol, or 1 ppmvd for formaldehyde. We chose 20 ppmvd as the 
alternative maximum concentration for THC because 20 ppmvd represents 
the practical limit of control for THC. We chose 1 ppmvd as the maximum 
outlet concentration for both methanol and formaldehyde because this 
concentration is achievable by MACT control systems and the method 
detection limits for these compounds using the NCASI impinger/canister 
method (NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.01, proposed to be incorporated by 
reference in today's proposed rule) are less than 1 ppmvd. Based on the 
available data for MACT control systems, these six emission levels for 
add-on control systems are considered equivalent options for defining 
the performance level of a MACT control system.

D. How Did We Determine the MACT Floor for New Sources?

    For new sources, the CAA requires the MACT floor to be based on the 
degree of emissions reductions achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. We believe for most process unit groups that 
the existing source MACT floor control level also represents the level 
of control appropriate for new sources because the same types of 
emission control systems, such as thermal oxidizers and biofilters, are 
used. In these cases, the existing source MACT floor technology 
represents the greatest degree of emissions reductions that is 
achievable under all circumstances within each particular operation 
regulated by the proposed rule. For a few process units, the MACT floor 
level of control for new units is more stringent than for existing 
units. In those cases, we determined the MACT floor control level for 
existing process units was no emissions reductions, and that the MACT 
control level for new sources was represented by incineration-based 
controls or biofilters.

E. What Control Options Beyond the MACT Floor Did We Consider?

    The control devices that represent the MACT floor control level 
achieve the greatest HAP emissions reductions of any available control 
technologies. There are no controls that achieve greater emissions 
reductions than the MACT floor control level for process unit groups 
with MACT floor control levels represented by incineration-based 
controls or biofilters; therefore, we only looked at beyond the floor 
options for process unit groups at existing sources where the MACT 
floor level of control was no emissions reductions. Process units that 
were inherently lower-emitting, such as sanding and sawing operations, 
were excluded from the beyond-the-floor analyses because emissions from 
these process units would not be cost effective to control. Based on a 
review of the HAP emissions data for process units where the MACT floor 
level of control was determined to be no emissions reductions, we 
selected blenders and stand-alone digesters for a beyond-the-floor 
analysis because these process units emit higher levels of HAP 
emissions relative to other process units. We also conducted beyond-
the-floor analyses for three process unit groups with no emissions 
reductions at the MACT floor control level for existing sources but 
requiring control for new sources. These process units included 
fiberboard mat dryers, press predryers, and board coolers. We 
determined that the environmental benefits of requiring controls for 
these process units did not justify the cost. Moreover, many of the 
existing control devices at well-controlled facilities would not have 
the additional capacity to treat the emissions from these process 
units, and thus, these facilities would have to install new controls. 
Therefore, we decided that the control level for blenders, stand-alone 
digesters, fiberboard mat dryers, press predryers, and board coolers 
should be no emissions reductions at existing sources.

F. How Did We Select the Format of the Proposed Rule?

    We decided to offer several formats for complying with today's 
proposed rule. The purpose of multiple formats is to provide you the 
flexibility to comply in the most cost-effective and efficient manner. 
We considered the following factors in selecting the format of the 
proposed rule:
    [sbull] The format should allow for multiple compliance techniques 
for the various types of facilities in the industry.
    [sbull] The format should simplify compliance and ensure that the 
cost of compliance is not excessive.
    [sbull] The format must be enforceable.
    The format of this proposed rule is based on a combination of 
production-based compliance options, percent emissions reduction 
compliance options, pollutant concentration compliance options, and 
work practice requirements. We are also including emissions averaging 
as an option for complying with the proposed rule. The following 
subsections describe the selection of the formats for each compliance 
option and work practice requirement included in the proposed rule.
1. Production-Based Compliance Options
    The production-based total HAP compliance options apply to process 
unit emissions prior to entering an add-on control system. This option 
allows for future pollution prevention techniques and cost-effective 
control of inherently lower-emitting process units. The production-
based compliance options were determined by applying a 90 percent 
reduction to the highest total HAP test for each type of process unit 
with a controlled MACT floor. A 90 percent reduction was selected 
because it is equivalent to the emissions reductions achievable through 
the use of MACT. The 90 percent reduction was applied to the highest 
tests rather than the average emission factors because the production-
based options calculated using the highest tests more closely correlate 
with actual emissions from process units with MACT control systems. If 
the average emission factors were used in the calculation of the 
production-based compliance options, some of the process units with 
MACT control systems would not be capable of meeting those options. Use 
of statistical methods for predicting the highest test value likely to 
be observed for each process unit was also considered. However, the 
available total HAP test data sets are too small to justify use of

[[Page 1289]]

such statistical methods, and the resulting compliance options, in many 
cases, seemed unreasonably high compared to the actual emissions from 
process units with MACT control systems. Therefore, statistical methods 
were not used. We based the production-based compliance options on 
total HAP emissions, as defined in today's proposed rule, because of 
the variability in uncontrolled HAP emissions within and among the 
different types of process units. Total HAP emissions varied less than 
the emissions of individual HAP and the emissions of THC.
2. Add-On Control System Compliance Options
    The six compliance options for add-on control systems in today's 
proposed rule are based on the performance of incineration-based 
control systems and biofilters. We included two formats in these 
compliance options: Emissions reductions (percent) and maximum outlet 
pollutant concentrations. Many of the well-controlled facilities are 
already subject to permit limits that are in the form of a percent 
reduction in emissions. Therefore, we expect that some of those 
facilities may choose to comply with an emissions reduction option. We 
are also including outlet concentration options so that sources that 
have lower inlet pollutant concentrations (and thus, have lesser 
ability to achieve higher emissions reductions) can demonstrate 
compliance. We consider the emissions reduction options and the outlet 
concentration options to be equivalent limits. We are not requiring an 
oxygen correction to the outlet concentration options because most of 
our outlet concentration data were measured at ambient oxygen levels 
due to the relatively dilute emission streams being treated. Dilution 
to achieve compliance with the proposed PCWP rule is prohibited by 40 
CFR 63.4.
    We are restricting the use of the formaldehyde and methanol 
concentration-based options to only those sources with formaldehyde or 
methanol emissions entering the control device that are greater than 10 
ppmvd. We have included this restriction to prevent circumvention of 
the proposed standards. For example, if a process unit emits primarily 
formaldehyde and only a very small amount of methanol (slightly less 
than 1 ppmvd), without the 10 ppmvd restriction, you could demonstrate 
compliance with the 1 ppmvd methanol concentration option without using 
a control system or using a control system that does not reduce HAP, 
such as a baghouse. The 10 ppmvd restriction does not apply to the 
percent reduction compliance options.
3. Emissions Averaging Compliance Option
    Today's proposed rule includes an emissions averaging compliance 
option because we believe that emissions averaging represents an 
equivalent, more flexible, and less costly alternative to controlling 
certain emission points to MACT floor levels. Prior to an industry-
sponsored emissions test program carried out by NCASI, the majority of 
the available emissions test data for the PCWP industry was limited to 
THC and formaldehyde emissions data for dryers and presses. The 
industry-sponsored test program provided speciated HAP emissions data 
for a variety of process units at 29 different PCWP plants. For some of 
these previously untested process units, the NCASI data represent the 
only available HAP emissions data for those sources. A few of these 
process units, such as blenders, may emit quantities of HAP equal to or 
greater than the quantities emitted from some types of dryers and 
presses. In addition to emitting more HAP, these other types of process 
units often have a lower volume of exhaust gas to be treated compared 
to dryers and presses. The combination of higher pollutant 
concentrations and lower exhaust gas flow rates may make these other 
process units more cost effective to control. However, very few PCWP 
facilities have installed emission control devices on process units 
other than dryers and presses. Therefore, when determining the MACT 
floors for existing process units, the process units most likely to 
have controlled MACT floors have been dryers and presses, with some 
exceptions. Most other types of process units are largely uncontrolled 
throughout the industry and based on our MACT analysis, we did not 
include existing source control requirements for these process units in 
today's proposed rule. Therefore, emissions from these other types of 
process units at existing sources would not be controlled under the 
point-by-point compliance options in today's proposed rule. By allowing 
emissions averaging across the affected source, which is broadly 
defined in today's proposed rule, sources can achieve the same 
environmental gains as point-by-point compliance, but at reduced cost.
    The emissions averaging provisions in today's proposed rule are 
based in part on the emissions averaging provisions in the Hazardous 
Organic NESHAP (HON). The legal basis and rationale for the HON 
emissions averaging provisions were provided in the preamble to the 
final HON (59 FR 19425, April 22, 1994). The rationale for including 
certain limitations and requirements as part of today's emissions 
averaging provisions follows the HON and is summarized below.
    Emission points allowed in emissions averaging. Only those emission 
points (process units) that are part of the affected source (PCWP 
manufacturing facility), as defined in today's proposed rule, can be 
included in an emissions average. Therefore, a PCWP facility collocated 
with a pulp and paper mill, for example, cannot include emission points 
in the pulp and paper mill as part of the emissions average.
    Today's proposed rule also excludes new affected sources from the 
proposed emissions averaging provisions. Today's proposed rule defines 
affected sources broadly, such that a new source is essentially a whole 
new ``green field'' mill. Therefore, not allowing emissions averaging 
at new sources does not affect existing sources' ability to use 
emissions averaging. New sources have historically been held to a 
stricter standard than existing sources because it is most cost 
effective to integrate state-of-the-art controls into equipment design 
and to install the technology during construction of new sources. One 
reason we allow emissions averaging is to give existing sources 
flexibility to achieve compliance at diverse points with varying 
degrees of control already in place in the most cost-effective and 
technically reasonable fashion. This concern does not apply to new 
sources which can be designed and constructed with compliance in mind.
    Today's proposed rule also excludes from emissions averaging any 
process units equipped with emission control systems that were 
installed to comply with a State or Federal rule or statute (other than 
today's proposed rule). We are including this restriction because 
credits for controls applied to comply with another rule increase your 
ability to generate credits, but do not generate any new emissions 
reductions, thus creating more emissions. However, if a process unit in 
your approved EAP used to generate emission credits later becomes 
subject to a State or Federal rule other than the proposed PCWP rule, 
the process unit can continue to generate credits in the approved plan. 
Work practice requirements are excluded from emissions averaging 
because, by definition, the level of emissions reduction achieved by 
compliance with those requirements is not sufficiently quantifiable.
    Limits on credit for control efficiencies. The proposed emissions 
averaging provisions limit the value of

[[Page 1290]]

the control system efficiency (CDi) to 90 percent in the 
equation for calculating the AMR of total HAP from all process units 
generating credits. No credit above 90 percent is allowed.
    Differences from the HON emissions averaging approach. Some aspects 
of the HON emissions averaging approach have not been included in the 
proposed PCWP rule. Specifically, today's proposed rule does not limit 
the number of emission points allowed in an emissions average, does not 
require a hazard or risk analysis, and does not include a discount 
factor. The HON limited the number of emission points that could be 
used in an emissions average because of significant enforcement 
concerns. The HON sources have many emission points, are complex and 
diverse, and as a result are subject to a more complex set of emissions 
averaging provisions. The PCWP facilities have fewer emission points 
within each facility. Therefore, the enforcement concerns arising due 
to the large number of emission points in each HON facility are 
minimized for PCWP facilities. As a result, we believe a simpler set of 
emissions averaging provisions is appropriate for PCWP facilities, and 
the limitation on the number of points available for averaging was not 
included in the proposed rule.
    The HON requires a hazard and risk study for emission points 
included in an emissions average largely because of the many pollutants 
and many emission points at the source. The PCWP facilities have fewer 
pollutants of concern and are likely to have similar HAP emissions from 
the emission points that would be used to generate debits and credits. 
Thus, we believe that averages will achieve a comparable hazard/risk 
benefit as point-by-point compliance. Although States would still have 
the discretion to require a PCWP facility that requested approval of an 
emissions average to conduct a hazard and risk study (or preclude the 
facility from using emissions averaging altogether), the proposed rule 
does not require a hazard or risk study.
    The HON requires a discount factor of 10 percent in credit 
calculations to share with the environment some portion of the cost 
savings due to emissions averaging and to account for uncertainty in 
emissions estimation. Due to differences between PCWP and HON sources 
(discussed below), we do not believe it is necessary for the proposed 
PCWP rule to include a discount factor.
    The HON proposal preamble (57 FR 62652, December 31, 1992) and the 
HON final preamble discuss how cost savings due to emissions averaging 
should be shared between industry and the environment. For the HON, we 
decided that it was appropriate that industry share any cost savings 
realized from emissions averaging and included a discount factor 
because the costs of controlling different emission points could vary 
significantly. The HON proposal preamble also discussed the level of 
uncertainty in estimating emissions reductions that may result from 
facilities using emissions averaging. For the HON, the uncertainty 
arose from differing accuracies available for estimating emissions from 
the number of emission points at a HON facility, the number of HAP 
emitted from HON facilities, and the different types of emission 
points.
    The PCWP industry differs in almost every relevant factor from the 
HON. First, HON facilities can cover several square miles and some 
emission points, such as storage vessels, could be some distance from 
other emission points making them relatively costly to control. Second, 
as discussed previously, the number of points that might be included in 
an emissions average at a PWCP facility is fewer than could be included 
in a HON average and, therefore, less of a concern. Third, the 
magnitude of emissions from HON emission points is typically much 
greater than the emissions from PCWP emission points. Fourth, there are 
six HAP of primary concern emitted from PCWP facilities compared to 
over 140 HAP emitted from HON facilities. Fifth, the kinds of emission 
points found at PCWP facilities are much more similar than those 
regulated by the HON and, therefore, unlikely to introduce additional 
uncertainty.
    We believe the inclusion of emissions averaging into rules and the 
decision on how to design an emission averaging approach for a 
particular source category must be evaluated for each source category. 
Although the HON and the proposed PCWP rule share the same legal basis 
for including emission averaging as a compliance option and the same 
basic system of credits and debits, some of the restrictions reasonable 
for the HON emissions averaging provisions are unnecessary for the 
proposed PCWP rule.
4. Work Practice Requirements
    Section 112(h) of the CAA states that ``* * * if it is not feasible 
in the judgement of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an 
emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or 
pollutants, the Administrator may, in lieu thereof, promulgate a 
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or 
combination thereof * * *'' Section 112(h)(2) further defines the 
phrase ``not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' as 
any situation in which ``* * * a hazardous air pollutant or pollutants 
cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit 
or capture such pollutant, * * * or the application of measurement 
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable * * *''
    Today's proposed rule includes work practice requirements for 
softwood veneer dryers, dry rotary dryers, hardwood veneer dryers, and 
veneer redryers. The proposed work practice requirements for softwood 
veneer dryers include a requirement to minimize fugitive emissions from 
the veneer dryer doors and the green end of the dryer. It is not 
practical for sources to measure the fugitive emissions from the 
softwood veneer dryers; therefore, in lieu of establishing an emission 
limit for fugitive emissions, we are proposing that sources develop a 
plan for minimizing these emissions and keep records to document they 
are following their plan.
    For dry rotary dryers, hardwood veneer dryers, and veneer redryers, 
the proposed work practice requirements would establish limits on how 
these process units are operated and the types of materials processed 
in these units. The MACT floors for dry rotary dryers, hardwood veneer 
dryers and veneer redryers are all equivalent to no emissions 
reductions because none of these process units have add-on control 
devices. The emissions from these three types of process units are 
relatively low compared to the emissions from other PCWP process units 
subject to today's proposed rule. However, if these three types of 
process units were operated in a manner that was inconsistent with how 
they are defined in today's proposed rule, the emissions from these 
process units could increase.
    For example, a green rotary dryer, which has proposed compliance 
options in today's proposed rule, is essentially the same in terms of 
equipment as a dry rotary dryer. However, a dry rotary dryer emits much 
less HAP than a green rotary dryer because it dries wood particles that 
have been previously dried to some extent; thus, much of the HAP 
present in the wood has already been released. The dry rotary dryers 
also operate at lower temperatures, which further reduces the amount of 
HAP emitted. Therefore, the operation of the rotary dryer, and not the 
equipment design, determines whether it is classified as a green or dry 
rotary dryer. Because the dry rotary dryers, veneer redryers and 
hardwood veneer dryers

[[Page 1291]]

are defined and classified based on how they are operated, and we made 
MACT floor determinations based on those classifications, we believe 
that proposing work practice requirements (such as continuously 
monitoring dryer temperature and wood moisture content) that ensure 
that these process units continuously operate as defined in today's 
proposed rule is more appropriate than proposing compliance options for 
these process units.

G. How Did We Select the Test Methods for Determining Compliance With 
the Proposed Rule?

    Today's proposed rule would require you to conduct performance 
tests to demonstrate compliance with the production-based compliance 
options, compliance options for add-on control devices, and the 
emissions averaging alternative. Depending upon which compliance option 
you use, you would be required to measure emissions of methanol, 
formaldehyde, THC, or total HAP. When determining compliance with 
compliance options for presses and board coolers, you also would be 
required to determine the capture efficiency of the enclosures for 
those presses and board coolers that have enclosures that do not 
qualify as PTE. For presses and board coolers that have partial 
enclosures or no enclosures, you must determine the capture efficiency 
of the emissions capture device by installing a TTE as described in EPA 
Method 204 or using the tracer gas method as described in Appendix A to 
today's proposed rule. The test methods you would have to use to 
measure these pollutants and capture efficiency are discussed below.
    We are proposing the use of EPA Method 25A (Determination of Total 
Gaseous Organic Matter Concentration Using a Flame Ionization Analyzer) 
for measuring THC emissions because most of the PCWP facilities that 
are already required to measure THC emissions use this method. Also, 
most of the available emissions data that we used to establish THC 
control efficiencies for the various control systems were measured 
using Method 25A and reported on an ``as carbon'' basis. Method 25A is 
better suited than EPA Method 25 (Measurement of Total Gaseous 
Nonmethane Organic Emissions as Carbon (TGNMO)) for measuring emission 
streams from PCWP process units which typically have lower THC 
concentrations (e.g., less than 50 ppm) and relatively high moisture 
contents. However, unlike Method 25, Method 25A does measure methane as 
a THC. Because many of the well-controlled PCWP facilities are required 
by permit to reduce VOC emissions, these facilities generally are 
allowed to subtract methane emissions from the THC measurement when 
reporting VOC emissions because methane is not a VOC, according to 
EPA's definition of VOC. Therefore, we also would allow you to subtract 
methane emissions from measured THC values using EPA Method 18 
(Measurement of Gaseous Organic Compound Emissions by Gas 
Chromotography). Method 18 is a self-validating method.
    We are proposing the use of the NCASI Method (NCASI Method CI/WP-
98.01, Chilled Impinger Method for Use at Wood Products Mills to 
Measure Formaldehyde, Methanol, and Phenol, 1998) for measuring 
methanol or formaldehyde. We are also proposing the NCASI Chilled 
Impinger Canister Method (NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.01) for measuring 
total HAP emissions. Total HAP emissions are defined, for purposes of 
today's proposed rule, as the sum of the emissions of acetaldehyde, 
acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde. The 
NCASI Chilled Impinger Method (NCASI Method CI/WP-98.01), which we are 
proposing to incorporate by reference, has been validated (using EPA 
Method 301 criteria) for measuring formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol 
from dryers and press vents at PCWP facilities. The NCASI Method IM/
CAN/WP-99.01, which we are proposing to incorporate by reference 
(pending EPA review of the method), is a self-validating method that 
can be used to measure numerous HAP compounds.
    As an alternative to the NCASI methods, we are proposing use of 
other applicable EPA test methods in order to increase the flexibility 
of the proposed rule. You could use EPA Method 320 (Measurement of 
Vapor Phase Organic and Inorganic Emission by Extractive FTIR) to 
measure emissions of methanol, formaldehyde and total HAP. Method 320 
is a self-validating method that uses Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) 
spectroscopy. You could also use EPA Method 308 (Procedure for 
Determination of Methanol Emission from Stationary Sources) for 
measuring emissions of methanol. Method 308 predates the NCASI Chilled 
Impinger Method and the NCASI Impinger Canister Method and has been 
used to test PCWP emission sources in the past. You could use EPA 
Method 0011 (Sampling for Selected Aldehyde and Ketone Emissions from 
Stationary Sources) or EPA Method 316 (Sampling and Analysis for 
Formaldehyde Emissions from Stationary Sources in the Mineral Wool and 
Wool Fiberglass Industries) to measure formaldehyde emissions. Although 
EPA Method 0011 has not been validated for use in the PCWP industry, it 
predates the NCASI methods and EPA Method 320 and is frequently used to 
measure formaldehyde emissions from PCWP process units. A comparison of 
formaldehyde measurements made using the NCASI methods and EPA Method 
0011 showed no significant differences (see Docket number A-98-44); 
therefore, we would allow you to use EPA Method 0011 as an alternative 
to the NCASI Methods for measuring formaldehyde. Although EPA Method 
316 has not been validated for testing of PCWP process units, it is a 
relatively new method for measuring formaldehyde concentrations as low 
as 11 parts per billion. Therefore, it is included as an alternative to 
the other test methods for formaldehyde in today's proposed rule.
    We are proposing the use of EPA Method 204 (Criteria for and 
Verification of Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure) and Methods 
204A through 204F for determining the capture efficiency of enclosures. 
Methods 204A through 204F include the following: Method 204A--Volatile 
Organic Compounds Content In Liquids Input Stream; Method 204B--
Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions In Captured Stream; Method 204C--
Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions In Captured Stream (Dilution 
Technique); Method 204D--Volatile Organic Compounds Emissions In 
Uncaptured Stream From Temporary Total Enclosure; Method 204E--Volatile 
Organic Compounds Emissions In Uncaptured Stream From Building 
Enclosure; and Method 204F--Volatile Organic Compounds Content In 
Liquid Input Stream (Distillation Approach). If the enclosure meets the 
definition and criteria in EPA Method 204 for a PTE, then you may 
assume that its capture efficiency is 100 percent. If the enclosure is 
not a PTE, then you would have to build a total temporary enclosure 
(TTE) around the process unit that meets the definition of a TTE in EPA 
Method 204, and you would be required to determine the capture 
efficiency of the TTE using Methods 204A through 204F (as appropriate). 
You would then have to measure emissions from both the control device 
(if applicable) and the TTE and use the combined emissions to determine 
compliance. If the process unit is uncontrolled, you would have to use 
the capture efficiency of the TTE in determining the uncontrolled 
emissions from the process unit.

[[Page 1292]]

    Industry representatives have expressed concern with using EPA 
Methods 204 and 204A through F for determining capture efficiency of 
press enclosures. The industry representatives have indicated that some 
facilities may have difficulty retrofitting a PTE or TTE that meets the 
EPA Method 204 criteria. Partial enclosures may be able to achieve high 
capture. We recognize the need for flexibility in determining capture 
efficiency for PCWP press enclosures and, therefore, as an alternative 
to Methods 204 and 204A through F, we are working with PCWP industry 
representatives to develop and propose a tracer gas procedure that may 
be used to determine the capture efficiency of PCWP press partial 
enclosures. This alternative tracer gas procedure is provided as 
Appendix A to today's proposed rule. This procedure would be applicable 
for determination of capture efficiency for press enclosures that are 
not considered to be PTE as defined in EPA Method 204, and the 
procedure is proposed as an alternative to the construction of TTE. 
Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) is used as a tracer gas. This gas is not 
indigenous to the ambient atmosphere and is nonreactive. The 
alternative tracer gas procedure provided as Appendix A to today's 
proposed rule is a ``work in progress.'' Industry representatives are 
testing the tracer gas procedure and are expected to provide data and 
feedback that may be used in revising the procedure if necessary. 
Discussions with industry representatives regarding development of the 
proposed alternative tracer gas procedure are documented in Docket A-
98-44. We welcome your comments on the proposed alternative tracer gas 
procedure. We also welcome your comments on additional approaches for 
determining capture efficiency, such as the use of computational fluid 
dynamics (CFD) models or other methods that would meet the data quality 
objective (DQO) or lower confidence limit (LCL) statistical criteria 
outlined in Appendix A to subpart KK of 40 CFR part 63 (National 
Emission Standards for the Printing and Publishing Industry). Today's 
proposed rule would allow facilities to petition the Administrator for 
use of alternative test methods.

H. How Did We Select the Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements?

    We are proposing monitoring and recordkeeping requirements based on 
a combination of general monitoring and recordkeeping requirements in 
the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) and specific 
monitoring methods already in use at PCWP plants. The proposed 
monitoring requirements we selected pertain to the operating 
requirements for control devices and the work practice requirements for 
various dryers.
    The proposed recordkeeping requirements include submitting a copy 
of each notification and report, as well as documentation supporting 
any Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status, 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv). You would also 
have to keep the records specified in Sec.  63.6(e)(3) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM), records of performance tests, 
as required in Sec.  63.7(g)(1), and records for each continuous 
monitoring system (CMS), including CPMS or CEMS. The records for the 
CMS would include records of the applicable operating requirements and 
monitoring data required in today's proposed rule. You also would have 
to keep records to demonstrate compliance with any work practice 
requirements that apply to you.
    How we selected the specific proposed monitoring and recordkeeping 
requirements is discussed in the following subsections.
1. Control Device Parameter Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements
    According to today's proposed rule, you would have the option of 
either monitoring control device operating parameters or operating a 
THC CEMS at the control device outlet to demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the operating requirements. The operating parameters 
for thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, and biofilters were 
selected based on information from the questionnaire responses and 
information from other source categories regarding the parameters that 
are currently used as reliable indicators of control device 
performance.
    For thermal oxidizers, we would require monitoring for the 
temperature in the firebox or in the ductwork immediately downstream of 
the firebox. A sufficiently high temperature in the firebox helps to 
ensure complete combustion of pollutants. We also would require you to 
monitor the static pressure at the inlet of the thermal oxidizer as an 
indicator of capture efficiency and the process unit exhaust flow rate 
entering the thermal oxidizer. You may monitor gas flow rate at the 
thermal oxidizer stack as an alternative to monitoring static pressure. 
Monitoring of gas flow or static pressure can alert the operator to 
problems such as plugging of the thermal oxidizer. Parameter monitoring 
would not be required for combustion units with greater than or equal 
to 44 MW heat input capacity that accept process exhausts into the 
flame zone.
    For catalytic oxidizers, we would require monitoring of the 
temperature at the inlet of the catalyst bed. The rate at which 
pollutants in the exhaust stream are oxidized on the catalyst is 
greatly affected by temperature, as well as other parameters (such as 
residence time and turbulence) that are fixed by the design of the 
catalytic oxidizer. Monitoring of the inlet temperature to the 
catalytic oxidizer helps to ensure that the system is operating as 
designed with a temperature high enough to oxidize the pollutants. As 
for thermal oxidizers, we also would require you to monitor the static 
pressure at the inlet of the catalytic oxidizer or stack gas flow rate.
    If you operate a thermal oxidizer or catalytic oxidizer, you would 
be required to calculate and record 3-hour block averages of the 
operating parameter values. We selected the 3-hour averaging time 
because the initial performance test provisions in today's proposed 
rule require you to perform a minimum of three 1-hour test runs, and 
the control device operating requirements would be based on the average 
values obtained using all test data obtained during the performance 
test. Each 3-hour average parameter value must remain within the level 
established during the performance test in order for you to demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the operating requirement.
    The proposed operating parameters for biofilters are based on 
information about parameters currently monitored for biofilters 
operated in the PCWP industry and on information supplied by a 
biofilter vendor. For biofilters, you would be required to monitor the 
following parameters to demonstrate continuous compliance: (1) 
Temperature of the air stream entering the biofilter, (2) pressure drop 
across the media bed, and (3) pH of the effluent. Monitoring 
temperature and pH help determine the health of the microorganism 
population. Extremes in either temperature or pH can slow or halt 
microbial activity. Monitoring the pressure drop across the biofilter 
can alert the operator to problems such as plugging or drying of the 
bed media. Because factors that affect the performance of biofilters 
and biofilter monitoring methods can be site specific, you would be 
allowed to establish your biofilter operating parameter requirements 
and their corresponding monitoring methods, monitoring frequencies, and 
averaging times based on historical biofilter operating records. We 
allow the use of historical records in setting the biofilter parameter 
limits

[[Page 1293]]

because establishing limits during a 3-hour performance test may not 
adequately identify acceptable operating ranges for biofilter 
parameters. Some facilities in the PCWP industry have been operating 
biofilters for years, and these facilities have learned through 
experience the most appropriate monitoring methods, monitoring 
frequencies, and optimal operating ranges for their biofilters. Because 
historical biofilter operating records may not be available for some 
biofilters (such as new biofilter installations), today's proposed rule 
would allow up to 180 days following the compliance date for the 
necessary operating data to be gathered for use in setting parameter 
requirements. To ensure compliance, all historical operating data used 
to establish the operating parameter limits must be accompanied by 
performance test data for the same time period that show that the 
biofilter was meeting the emission limits in today's proposed rule, and 
that the data were collected using the test methods in today's proposed 
rule. In addition, you would have to certify that no modifications have 
been made to the biofilter or associated process unit(s) subsequent to 
the date the historical data were collected. Because there are only a 
few biofilters operating in the PCWP industry and we have limited 
information on how changes in biofilter operating parameters affect 
biofilter performance, we welcome your comments on these proposed 
monitoring requirements for biofilters.
    If you operate a control device other than a thermal oxidizer, 
catalytic oxidizer, or biofilter, you would be required to petition the 
Administrator for site-specific operating parameters to indicate proper 
operation and continued performance of the control device. You would 
establish the operating parameter values during the performance test 
and maintain the parameters within the range established during the 
performance test. The Administrator would determine whether maximum 
value, minimum value, or a range of operating parameters is 
appropriate. The Administrator would also determine the appropriate 
averaging time for each monitoring parameter for the control device.
    If you comply with the production-based compliance options, then 
you would be required to continuously monitor a process operating 
parameter (temperature). You would monitor dryer inlet temperature for 
green rotary dryers, tube dryers, or strand dryers. You would monitor 
operating temperature for hardboard ovens, press predryers, 
reconstituted wood product presses, fiberboard mat dryer hot zones, and 
softwood veneer dryer hot zones. You would not be required to monitor 
process parameters for reconstituted wood product board coolers or 
pressurized refiners. We request comment on whether the temperature 
parameters are appropriate for monitoring to show compliance with the 
production-based compliance options. The production-based compliance 
options were developed for inherently low-emitting process units or 
process units using pollution prevention. We believe that process unit 
HAP emissions are somewhat dependent on dryer or press temperature; 
however, other factors such as resin HAP content and percent of furnish 
that enters the plant already dried may also affect HAP emissions. It 
is not clear what pollution prevention techniques will be used to 
comply with the production-based compliance options (partly because 
pollution prevention measures are expected to evolve in the future), 
therefore, we request your feedback on how facilities that will use 
pollution prevention could show continuous compliance with the 
production-based compliance options.
    Instead of monitoring process or control system operating 
parameters for thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, biofilters, or 
other control systems, you could choose to monitor THC concentration 
with a CEMS at the control device outlet to show compliance with the 
operating requirements. If you use a THC CEMS, you would be required to 
maintain the average THC concentration at the control device outlet 
below the maximum THC concentration established during the performance 
test. The purpose of monitoring THC concentration is to show compliance 
with the operating requirements (as opposed to the compliance options); 
thus, you could use the THC CEMS instead of CPMS regardless of whether 
you demonstrate compliance with the THC, formaldehyde, methanol, or 
total HAP compliance options. For example, you could conduct a 
performance test to show that you reduce formaldehyde by 90 percent 
while simultaneously operating the THC CEMS to determine the maximum 3-
hour block outlet THC concentration that would become your parameter 
value representing your operating requirement. Generally, the same 
parameters that affect control device formaldehyde, methanol, or total 
HAP reduction efficiency also impact the THC reduction efficiency; 
thus, we believe that allowing use of a THC CEMS instead of a operating 
CPMS to demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating 
requirements is appropriate. If you choose to do so, you may subtract 
methane from the THC concentration measured with your THC CEMS (e.g., 
by using a CEMS that measures TGNMO).
    Control device maintenance requirements vary significantly from 
facility to facility. Although we believe that most of the maintenance 
activities can be accomplished during scheduled facilitywide or partial 
shutdowns, we recognize that some facilities may need to perform more 
maintenance on their control systems than other facilities due to site-
specific factors, such as the nature and quantity of particulate 
entering an RTO or the ability of an RTO to perform online bakeouts (a 
feature often incorporated into newer RTO designs).
    The most widely used add-on control systems at PCWP facilities are 
RTO, RCO, and biofilters. As with any control device in any industry, 
these control devices require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance 
includes activities such as cleaning or replacement of corroded parts, 
media replacement, bakeouts (RTO and RCO), washouts (RTO and RCO), and 
cleaning of ducts. Some PCWP drying processes release particulates and 
salts that can plug and weaken RTO and RCO media beds. Frequent 
bakeouts and washouts are necessary to combat the particulate and salt 
buildup. Partial or total media replacement is done when bakeouts and 
washouts are no longer effective.
    Plywood and composite wood products industry representatives have 
requested that today's proposed rule include a downtime allowance that 
would allow process units to operate while the control device is 
offline for routine maintenance. After considering the available data, 
we included in today's proposed rule a routine control device 
maintenance exemption. To obtain the exemption, you must explain to the 
Administrator why you cannot perform routine control device maintenance 
during process shutdowns and describe how you plan to minimize 
emissions to the greatest extent possible during the maintenance. The 
routine control device maintenance exemption may not exceed 3 percent 
of annual operating uptime for each green rotary dryer, tube dryer, 
strand dryer, or pressurized refiner controlled. The routine control 
device maintenance exemption is limited to 0.5 percent of annual 
operating uptime for each softwood veneer dryer, reconstituted wood 
product press, reconstituted wood product board cooler, hardboard oven, 
press predryer, or fiberboard mat dryer

[[Page 1294]]

controlled. If your control device is used to control a combination of 
equipment with different downtime allowances (e.g., a tube dryer and a 
press), then the highest (i.e., 3 percent) downtime allowance applies. 
The maximum percentages of operating time allowed for the routine 
control device maintenance exemption are based on our independent 
analysis of data from an extensive control device downtime survey 
conducted by the PCWP industry.
    We are requesting comment on the appropriateness of including a 
routine control device maintenance exemption in today's proposed rule 
and whether or not the downtime allowance allotted is appropriate as 
the maximum amount of time per year for such an exemption. Commenters 
should submit information and data that support their comments such as 
detailed maintenance records and descriptions of the add-on control 
systems, sources controlled by the control system, and any particulate 
removal devices that precede the control system.
2. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements for Process Units Without 
Add-On Control Devices
    If you comply with the production-based compliance options in 
today's proposed rule without using an add-on control system, then you 
would be required to monitor and record process unit operating 
parameters. For most process units, temperature would be the required 
process monitoring parameter. Although HAP emissions vary within and 
among process units and no one process parameter is responsible for 
these variations, we selected temperature as the proposed required 
process monitoring parameter for most process units. We chose operating 
temperature because it affects HAP emissions and can be controlled and 
monitored relatively easily.
    As for the control device operating requirements, you could choose 
to monitor THC concentration using a CEMS at the process unit outlet 
instead of monitoring process unit temperature. If you use a THC CEMS, 
you would be required to maintain the average THC concentration at the 
process unit outlet below the maximum THC concentration established 
during the performance test.
    If you elect to use emissions averaging, you would not be required 
to monitor process parameters for those uncontrolled process units that 
are used to generate debits. However, when you determine the total HAP 
emissions from these uncontrolled process units, you would have to 
perform the emissions measurements under representative operating 
conditions, and you would be required to keep records of the hours of 
operation for these uncontrolled process units.
3. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements for Dry Rotary Dryer Work 
Practice Requirements
    Rotary dryers that meet the definition of ``dry rotary dryers'' in 
today's proposed rule would not be subject to the proposed control 
requirements. Green rotary dryers and dry rotary dryers are essentially 
the same in terms of equipment design. The differences between the two 
types of dryers are operational. Green rotary dryers are used to dry 
green furnish, and dry rotary dryers are used to dry furnish that has 
been previously dried. Green rotary dryers are defined as dryers that 
dry wood particles that have a moisture content greater than 30 percent 
on a dry basis or operate at an inlet dryer temperature greater than 
600[deg] F. Conversely, dry rotary dryers dry wood particles that have 
a moisture content less than or equal to 30 percent on a dry basis and 
operate at an inlet dryer temperature less than or equal to 600[deg] F. 
The 30 percent moisture and 600[deg] F values were selected for the 
definitions of dry and green rotary dryers based on values reported in 
literature, in the questionnaire responses, and in the emissions test 
reports.
    Because the differences in dry rotary dryers and green rotary 
dryers are operational, we are including monitoring requirements for 
dry rotary dryers in today's proposed rule that would ensure that these 
dryers operate as dry rotary dryers on a continuous basis. If you own 
or operate a dry rotary dryer, you would be required to continuously 
monitor, calculate, and record the 24-hour average dryer inlet 
temperature and the 24-hour average moisture content of the incoming 
wood particles. In addition to monitoring dryer inlet temperature and 
furnish moisture, you would be required to take representative grab 
samples of wood particles at the dryer inlet once each day of dryer 
operation and manually determine the moisture content of the sample on 
a dry basis. We have included the grab sampling requirement as a means 
of checking the accuracy of the correlation between the moisture 
content measured by the continuous moisture sensor and the dry basis 
moisture content manually determined using a grab sample. The 
continuous moisture sensors measure moisture level as the ratio of the 
weight of water to the volume of wood (in the sensing zone). Today's 
proposed rule defines moisture content, on a dry basis, as the ratio of 
the weight of water to the weight of dry wood, multiplied by 100.
    The requirements for the continuous moisture sensor and the grab 
sample requirement are specified in Sec.  63.2268(f). We plan to add 
performance specifications for the continuous moisture sensor to 
include such parameters as the amount of drift allowed. We request 
comment on drift and any other performance specifications that should 
be added to ensure moisture content is being measured accurately, to 
ensure flexibility in the type of continuous moisture sensor that can 
be used by a facility, and to ensure compliance and enforceability. We 
also plan to add specifications to the grab sample requirements, such 
as including the period of time a sample must maintain a constant 
weight. We request comment on what this period of time should be and 
any other specifications that should be added to ensure accurate and 
precise results.
    However, if you choose or are required by some other regulatory 
action to install a control device designed to reduce VOC or HAP 
emissions from a dry rotary dryer, you would be exempted from the 
process monitoring requirements for dry rotary dryers in today's 
proposed rule.
4. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements for Veneer Redryer Work 
Practice Requirements
    Veneer dryers that meet the definition of ``veneer redryers'' in 
today's proposed rule would not be subject to the proposed control 
requirements. Like the differences between green and dry rotary 
particle dryers, the differences between veneer dryers and veneer 
redryers are operational. Veneer dryers are used to dry green veneer, 
and veneer redryers are used to redry veneer that has been previously 
dried but requires some additional moisture reduction. Thus, in today's 
proposed rule, veneer redryers are defined as veneer dryers with an 
inlet veneer moisture content of less than 25 percent (by weight, dry 
basis). The 25 percent value was selected as the criterion for 
distinguishing between veneer dryers and veneer redryers because 25 
percent was the highest reported veneer dryer outlet moisture content 
in responses to a survey. If you own or operate a veneer redryer, you 
would be required to continuously monitor, calculate, and record the 
24-hour average inlet veneer moisture content to show that you 
continuously meet the definition of a veneer redryer.
    For purposes of today's proposed rule, process units heated by 
microwaves or

[[Page 1295]]

radio frequency that are used to remove moisture from veneer are not 
considered to be veneer dryers or veneer redryers, although these 
process units are typically used to redry veneer. Emissions test data 
from the NCASI sampling program indicate that emissions from radio 
frequency veneer redryers are minimal compared to the emissions from 
veneer dryers heated by conventional means (such as direct firing or 
steam heating). Thus, the monitoring requirements for veneer redryers 
described above would not apply to process units that dry or redry 
veneer using microwaves or radio frequency.
5. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements for Hardwood Veneer Dryer 
Work Practice Requirements
    Veneer dryers that meet the definition of ``hardwood veneer dryer'' 
in today's proposed rule would not be subject to the proposed control 
requirements. Hardwood veneer dryers are defined in the proposed rule 
as veneer dryers that process less than 30 percent softwood species on 
an annual volume basis. If you own or operate a hardwood veneer dryer, 
you would be required to keep a record (such as a purchase or 
production record) of the annual volume percentage of softwood species 
processed in the dryer to show that your dryer continuously meets the 
definition of a hardwood veneer dryer.
6. Monitoring and Recordkeeping Requirements for Softwood Veneer Dryer 
Work Practice Requirements
    The proposed work practice requirement for softwood veneer dryers 
is to minimize fugitive emissions from the dryer doors and green end. 
If you own or operate a softwood veneer dryer, you would be required to 
develop a plan for minimizing fugitive emissions from the dryer, and 
you would have to keep records to document that you are following your 
plan to show continuous compliance with the work practice requirement.
7. Additional Recordkeeping Requirements for Sources Complying With 
Emissions Averaging Alternative
    If you comply with the emissions averaging provisions, you would be 
required to keep records of all information necessary to calculate 
debits and credits, including records of your process unit operating 
hours, records of total HAP measurements for debit-generating process 
units, and records of performance tests for credit-generating process 
units. You would also have to keep monitoring records for add-on 
control systems used to control credit-generating process units.

I. How Did We Select the Notification and Reporting Requirements?

    We selected the proposed notification and reporting requirements 
based on requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A) and specific requirements for the PCWP source category.
    The notification requirements that we are proposing include Initial 
Notifications, notification of performance test, Notification of 
Compliance Status, and notification dates. These notification 
requirements are based on requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.7(b) and (c), 
63.8(e) and (f), 63.9(b) through (h), and 63.10(d)(2).
    In addition, we selected notification requirements for the 
emissions averaging provisions. If you comply with the emissions 
averaging provisions, you would have to submit an EAP to the 
Administrator for approval at least 1 year prior to the compliance 
date, or 1 year prior to the date you would begin using an emissions 
average to comply with the proposed rule, whichever is later. The EAP 
would have to be submitted prior to the date you would begin using an 
emissions average so that the Administrator would have time to review 
and approve or disapprove the plan, and so that you would have time to 
ensure that the emissions credits would equal or exceed the emissions 
debits.
    The proposed reporting requirements that we selected include 
semiannual compliance reports, required in Sec.  63.10(e)(3), and 
immediate SSM reports, required in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(ii). If there are 
no deviations from the compliance options, operating requirements, or 
work practice requirements during the reporting period, then you would 
only be required to include a statement that there were no deviations 
in your semiannual compliance report. If there are deviations from the 
compliance options, operating requirements, or work practice 
requirements during a reporting period, then you would be required to 
submit the information required in today's proposed rule in your 
semiannual compliance report. If you have a startup, shutdown or 
malfunction during the reporting period, and you take actions 
consistent with your SSM plan (SSMP), then your compliance report would 
have to include the information in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(i). The submittal 
date for the compliance report is based on information in Sec.  
63.10(e)(3)(v).
    If there is a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period, and you take actions inconsistent with the SSMP, then 
you would be required to submit an immediate SSM report. The report 
would have to include the actions taken for the event and the 
information provided in Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(ii). The submittal date for 
the immediate SSM report is based on Sec.  63.10(d)(5)(ii). For 
facilities complying with the emissions averaging provisions, the 
semiannual compliance report would have to contain calculations showing 
that the AMR equals or exceeds the RMR in addition to the requirements 
outlined above for semiannual compliance reports.
    We have included a routine control device maintenance exemption in 
today's proposed rule to provide an allowance for control device 
downtime associated with routine maintenance such as bakeouts, 
washouts, and media replacement. We would like to clarify that there 
will also be instances when a control device is offline for correction 
of malfunctions such as electrical problems, mechanical problems, 
utility supply problems, pre-filer upsets, production malfunctions 
(e.g., dryer fires), and weather-related problems. Because these 
malfunctions are sudden, infrequent, and not reasonably preventable, 
they would be covered under the SSM provisions of today's proposed 
rule. In addition, control device downtime due to process upsets that 
require shutdown and restarting of equipment would be covered under the 
SSM provisions.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts

A. How Many Facilities Are Impacted by This Proposed Rule?

    This proposed rule is expected to affect an estimated 223 existing 
major source facilities that manufacture PCWP. The impacted facilities 
generally manufacture one or more of the following products: softwood 
plywood, softwood veneer, medium density fiberboard (MDF), oriented 
strandboard (OSB), particleboard, hardboard, laminated strand lumber, 
and laminated veneer lumber. The number of impacted facilities was 
determined based on the estimated potential to emit (i.e., uncontrolled 
HAP emissions) from each facility and whether or not the facility 
already operates control systems necessary to meet the proposed 
standards. Facilities with estimated potential to emit 25 tons or more 
of total HAP or 10 or more tons of an individual HAP are major sources 
of HAP and are

[[Page 1296]]

subject to today's proposed rule. Of the estimated 223 facilities 
affected by this proposed rule, an estimated 166 are expected to 
install add-on control systems to reduce emissions. The remaining 
facilities already have installed add-on controls, do not have any 
process units subject to the compliance options, or are expected to 
comply with work practice requirements only.
    The environmental and cost impacts presented in this preamble 
represent the estimated impacts for the 223 facilities. The impact 
estimates were based on the use of RTOs (or in some cases a combination 
WESP and RTO) because RTOs are the most prevalent HAP emissions control 
technology used in the PCWP industry. However, technologies other than 
RTOs could be used to comply with today's proposed standards. For a 
facility that we believe already achieves the emissions reductions 
required by today's proposed rule, only recordkeeping cost impacts were 
estimated.
    The number of affected facilities presented above (223) does not 
include major source facilities with lumber kilns that are not 
otherwise PCWP facilities. Some of these facilities may be major 
sources of HAP emissions due to lumber drying operations. Because 
today's proposed rule contains no control requirements for lumber 
kilns, we expect there to be no cost, environmental, or energy impacts 
associated with today's proposed rule for these facilities.

B. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    We estimate nationwide baseline HAP emissions from the PCWP source 
category to be 17,000 Mg/yr (19,000 tons/yr) at the current level of 
control. We estimate that the proposed standards would reduce total HAP 
emissions from the PCWP source category by about 9,700 Mg/yr (11,000 
tons/yr). In addition, we estimate that the proposed standards would 
reduce VOC emissions (approximated as THC) by about 25,000 Mg/yr 
(27,000 tons/yr) from a baseline level of 45,000 Mg/yr (50,000 tons/
yr).
    In addition to reducing emissions of HAP and VOC, the proposed 
standards would also reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, such as 
carbon monoxide (CO) from direct-fired emission sources and particulate 
matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). We estimate 
that the proposed standards would reduce CO emissions by about 10,000 
Mg/yr (11,000 tons/yr). We estimate that the proposed standards would 
reduce PM10 emissions by about 11,000 Mg/yr (13,000 tons/
yr).
    Combustion of exhaust gases in an RTO generates some emissions of 
nitrogen oxides (NOX). We estimate that the nationwide 
increase in NOX emissions due to the use of RTOs would be 
about 4,300 Mg/yr (4,800 tons/yr). This estimated increase in 
NOX emissions may be an overestimate because some plants may 
select control technologies other than RTOs to comply with the proposed 
standards.
    Indirect air impacts of today's proposed rule would result from 
increased electricity usage associated with operation of control 
devices. Assuming that plants will purchase electricity from a power 
plant, we estimate that the proposed standards may increase secondary 
emissions of criteria pollutants such as PM10, sulfur 
dioxide (SO2), NOX, and CO from power plants by 
about 6,200 Mg/yr (6,900 tons/yr).

C. What Are the Water Quality Impacts?

    Wastewater is produced from WESP blowdown, washing out of RTOs, and 
biofilters. We based all of our impact estimates on the use of RTOs 
(with or without a WESP upstream depending on the process unit). We 
estimate that the wastewater generated from WESP blowdown and RTO 
washouts would increase by about 43 thousand cubic meters per year 
(m3/yr)(11 million gal/yr) as a result of today's proposed 
rule. Facilities would likely dispose of this wastewater by sending it 
to a municipal treatment facility, evaporating it onsite, incinerating 
it in an onsite boiler, reusing it onsite (e.g., in log vats or resin 
mix), or hauling it offsite for spray irrigation.

D. What Are the Solid Waste Impacts?

    Solid waste is produced in the form of solids from WESPs and by RTO 
or RCO media replacement. We estimate that 4,500 Mg/yr (5,000 tons/yr) 
of solid waste would be generated as a result of today's proposed rule. 
This solid material may be disposed of in a landfill or used for other 
purposes. Some PCWP facilities have been able to use RTO or RCO media 
as aggregate in onsite roadbeds. Some facilities have also been able to 
identify a beneficial reuse for wet control device solids (such as 
giving them away to local farmers for soil amendment).

E. What Are the Energy Impacts?

    The overall energy demand (i.e., electricity and natural gas) is 
expected to increase by about 4.3 million gigajoules per year (GJ/yr) 
(4.1 trillion British thermal units per year (Btu/yr)) nationwide under 
the proposed standards. The estimated increase in the energy demand is 
based on the electricity requirements associated with RTOs and WESPs 
and the fuel requirements associated with RTOs. Electricity 
requirements are expected to increase by about 718 gigawatt hours per 
year (Gwh/yr) under the proposed standards. Natural gas requirements 
are expected to increase by about 45 million m3/yr (1.6 
billion cubic feet per year (ft3/yr)) under the proposed 
standards.

F. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    The cost impacts estimated for today's proposed rule represent a 
high-end estimate of costs. Although the use of RTO technology to 
reduce HAP emissions represents the most expensive compliance option, 
we based our nationwide cost estimates on the use of RTO technology at 
all of the impacted facilities because: (1) RTO technology can be used 
to reduce emissions from all types of PCWP process units; and (2) we 
could not accurately predict which facilities would use emissions 
averaging or production-based emissions limits or install less 
expensive add-on control devices, such as RCO and biofilters. 
Therefore, our cost estimates are likely to be overstated, as we 
anticipate that owners and operators of impacted sources will take 
advantage of available cost saving opportunities.
    The high-end estimated total capital costs of today's proposed rule 
are $479 million. These capital costs apply to existing sources and 
include the costs to purchase and install both the RTO equipment (and 
in some cases, a WESP upstream of the RTO) and the monitoring 
equipment, and the costs of performance tests. Permanent total 
enclosure costs are also included for reconstituted wood products 
presses.
    The high-end estimated annualized costs of the proposed standards 
are $142 million. The annualized costs account for the annualized 
capital costs of the control and monitoring equipment, operation and 
maintenance expenses, and recordkeeping and reporting costs. Potential 
control device cost savings and increased recordkeeping and reporting 
costs associated with today's proposed emissions averaging alternative 
standard are not accounted for in either the capital or annualized cost 
estimates.

G. Can We Achieve the Goals of the Proposed Rule in a Less Costly 
Manner?

    We have made every effort in developing this proposal to minimize 
the cost to the regulated community and allow maximum flexibility in 
compliance options consistent with our statutory obligations. We 
recognize, however, that the proposal may still

[[Page 1297]]

require some facilities to take costly steps to further control 
emissions even though those emissions may not result in exposures which 
could pose an excess individual lifetime cancer risk greater than one 
in one million, or which exceed thresholds determined to provide an 
ample margin of safety for protecting public health and the environment 
from the effects of hazardous air pollutants. We are, therefore, 
specifically soliciting comment on whether there are further ways to 
structure the proposed rule to focus on the facilities which pose 
significant risks and avoid the imposition of high costs on facilities 
that pose little risk to public health and the environment.
    Representatives of the plywood and composite wood products industry 
provided EPA with descriptions of three mechanisms that they believed 
could be used to implement more cost-effective reductions in risk. The 
docket for today's proposed rule contains ``white papers'' prepared by 
industry that outline their proposed approaches (see docket number A-
98-44, Item  II-D-525). These approaches could be effective in 
focusing regulatory controls on facilities that pose significant risks 
and avoiding the imposition of high costs on facilities that pose 
little risk to public health or the environment, and we are seeking 
public comment on the utility of each of these approaches with respect 
to this proposed rule.
    One of the approaches, an applicability cutoff for threshold 
pollutants, would be implemented under the authority of CAA section 
112(d)(4); the second approach, subcategorization and delisting, would 
be implemented under the authority of CAA section 112(c)(1) and (c)(9); 
and, the third approach, would involve the use of a concentration-based 
applicability threshold. We are seeking comment on whether these 
approaches are legally justified and, if so, we ask for information 
that could be used to support such approaches.
    The maximum achievable control technology, or MACT, program 
outlined in CAA section 112(d) is intended to reduce emissions of HAP 
through the application of MACT to major sources of toxic air 
pollutants. Section 112(c)(9) is intended to allow EPA to avoid setting 
MACT standards for categories or subcategories of sources that pose 
less than a specified level of risk to public health and the 
environment. The EPA requests comment on whether the approaches 
described here appropriately rely on the provisions of CAA section 112. 
While the approaches focus on assessing the inhalation exposures of HAP 
emitted by a source, EPA specifically requests comment on the 
appropriateness and necessity of extending these approaches to account 
for non-inhalation exposures or to account for adverse environmental 
impacts. In addition to the specific requests for comment noted in this 
section, we are also interested in any information or comment 
concerning technical limitations, environmental and cost impacts, 
compliance assurance, legal rationale, and implementation relevant to 
the identified approaches. We also request comment on appropriate 
practicable and verifiable methods to ensure that sources' emissions 
remain below levels that protect public health and the environment. We 
will evaluate all comments before determining whether either of the 
three approaches will be included in the final rule.
1. Industry Emissions and Potential Health Effects
    For the PCWP source category, six HAP make up about 96 percent of 
the total organic HAP (i.e., does not include metals that are HAP). 
Those six HAP are methanol, formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, phenol, 
acrolein, and propionaldehyde. All HAP are not emitted by all sources. 
However, all of the 223 major sources emit all six of the predominant 
HAP, with a few exceptions. Some engineered wood plants do not emit 
phenol; these plants are major sources but would not be affected by the 
proposed rule because they have no equipment subject to the proposed 
rule. Also, several particleboard plants do not emit propionaldehyde; 
these particleboard plants have dry rotary particle dryers (as opposed 
to green particle dryers), which are not subject to control 
requirements. (For more information, see section III.C.3).
    In accordance with section 112(k), EPA developed a list of 33 HAP 
which present the greatest threat to public health in the largest 
number of urban areas. Some of the PCWP HAP are included on this list 
for the EPA's Urban Air Toxics Program. These HAP include three of the 
six most predominant PCWP HAP (acetaldehyde, acrolein, and 
formaldehyde). Additional urban HAP that may be emitted by PCWP 
facilities include benzene, carbon tetrachloride, chloroform, and 
methylene chloride.
    In November 1998, EPA published ``A Multimedia Strategy for 
Priority Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic (PBT) Pollutants.'' The 
organic HAP emitted by PCWP facilities do not appear on the published 
list of PBT compounds referenced in the EPA strategy.
    To estimate the potential baseline risks posed by the PCWP source 
category and the potential impact of applicability cutoffs, EPA 
performed a ``rough'' risk assessment for 185 of the 223 facilities in 
the PCWP source category. The HAP included in the assessment were 
acetaldehyde, acrolein, benzene, formaldehyde, manganese, methanol, 
methylene chloride, and phenol. Of these HAP, four are presently not 
considered to have thresholds for cancer effects: acetaldehyde, 
benzene, formaldehyde, and methylene chloride.
    Of the 185 facilities assessed, 148 facilities were found to pose 
cancer risks equal to or greater than one in one million to their 
surrounding population. Forty-six facilities were predicted to pose 
cancer risks of one in 100,000 or greater, and two PCWP facilities were 
found to pose cancer risks equal to or greater than one in 10,000.
2. Applicability Cutoffs for Threshold Pollutants Under Section 
112(d)(4) of the CAA
    The first approach is an ``applicability cutoff'' for threshold 
pollutants that is based on EPA's authority under CAA section 112(d)(4) 
to establish standards for HAP which are ``threshold pollutants.'' A 
``threshold pollutant'' is one for which there is a concentration or 
dose below which adverse effects are not expected to occur over a 
lifetime of exposure. For such pollutants, section 112(d)(4) allows EPA 
to consider the threshold level, with an ample margin of safety, when 
establishing emission standards. Specifically, section 112(d)(4) allows 
EPA to establish emission standards that are not based upon the MACT 
specified under section 112(d)(2) for pollutants for which a health 
threshold has been established. Such standards may be less stringent 
than MACT. Historically, EPA has interpreted section 112(d)(4) to allow 
categories of sources that emit only threshold pollutants to avoid 
further regulation if those emissions result in ambient levels that do 
not exceed the threshold, with an ample margin of safety.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 63 FR 18754, 18765-66 (April 15, 1998) (Pulp and Paper 
Combustion Sources Proposed NESHAP)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A different interpretation would allow us to exempt individual 
facilities within a source category that meet the section 112(d)(4) 
requirements. There are three potential scenarios under this 
interpretation of the section 112(d)(4) provision. One scenario would 
allow an exemption for individual facilities that emit only threshold 
pollutants and can demonstrate that their emissions of

[[Page 1298]]

threshold pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the 
threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety, even if the category 
is otherwise subject to MACT. A second scenario would allow the section 
112(d)(4) provision to be applied to both threshold and non-threshold 
pollutants, using the one in a million cancer risk level for 
decisionmaking for non-threshold pollutants. A third scenario would 
allow a section 112(d)(4) exemption at a facility that emits both 
threshold and non-threshold pollutants. For those emission points where 
only threshold pollutants are emitted and where emissions of the 
threshold pollutants would not result in air concentrations above the 
threshold levels, with an ample margin of safety, those emission points 
could be exempt from the MACT standard. The MACT standard would still 
apply to non-threshold emissions from other emission points at the 
source. For this third scenario, emission points that emit a 
combination of threshold and non-threshold pollutants that are co-
controlled by MACT would still be subject to the MACT level of control. 
However, any threshold HAP eligible for exemption under section 
112(d)(4) that are controlled by control devices different from those 
controlling non-threshold HAP would be able to use the exemption, and 
the facility would still be subject to the provisions of the standard 
that control non-threshold pollutants or that control both threshold 
and non-threshold pollutants.
    Estimation of hazard quotients and hazard indices. Under the 
section 112(d)(4) approach, EPA would have to determine that emissions 
of each of the threshold pollutants emitted by PCWP sources at the 
facility do not result in exposures which exceed the threshold levels, 
with an ample margin of safety. The common approach for evaluating the 
potential hazard of a threshold air pollutant is to calculate a 
``hazard quotient'' by dividing the pollutant's inhalation exposure 
concentration (often assumed to be equivalent to its estimated 
concentration in air at a location where people could be exposed) by 
the pollutant's inhalation Reference Concentration (RfC). An RfC is 
defined as an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of 
magnitude) of a continuous inhalation exposure that, over a lifetime, 
likely would not result in the occurrence of adverse health effects in 
humans, including sensitive individuals. The EPA typically establishes 
an RfC by applying uncertainty factors to the critical toxic effect 
derived from the lowest- or no-observed-adverse-effect level of a 
pollutant.\2\ A hazard quotient less than one means that the exposure 
concentration of the pollutant is less than the RfC and, therefore, 
presumed to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. A 
hazard quotient greater than one means that the exposure concentration 
of the pollutant is greater than the RfC. Further, EPA guidance for 
assessing exposures to mixtures of threshold pollutants recommends 
calculating a ``hazard index'' by summing the individual hazard 
quotients for those pollutants in the mixture that affect the same 
target organ or system by the same mechanism.\3\ Hazard index (HI) 
values would be interpreted similarly to hazard quotients; values below 
one would generally be considered to be without appreciable risk of 
adverse health effects, and values above one would generally be cause 
for concern.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Methods for Derivation of Inhalation Reference 
Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation Dosimetry.'' EPA-600/
8-90-066F, Office of Research and Development, USEPA, October 1994.
    \3\ ``Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk 
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures. Risk Assessment Forum Technical 
Panel,'' EPA/630/R-00/002. USEPA, August 2000. http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/pdfs/chem mix/chem mix 08 2001.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the determinations discussed herein, EPA would generally plan 
to use RfC values contained in EPA's toxicology database, the 
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). When a pollutant does not 
have an approved RfC in IRIS, or when a pollutant is a carcinogen, EPA 
would have to determine whether a threshold exists based upon the 
availability of specific data on the pollutant's mode or mechanism of 
action, potentially using a health threshold value from an alternative 
source, such as the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 
(ATSDR) or the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 
Table 2 of this preamble provides RfC's, as well as unit risk 
estimates, for the HAP emitted by facilities in the PCWP source 
category. A unit risk estimate is defined as the upper-bound excess 
lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure to an 
agent at a concentration of 1 [mu]g/m\3\ in air.

    Table 2.--Dose-Response Assessment Values for Some HAP Reported Emitted by the Plywood and Composite Wood
                                          Products Source Category a, b
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Reference concentration c (mg/  Unit risk estimate d (1/(ug/
           Chemical name                CAS No.                  m3)                            m3))
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acetaldehyde......................         75-07-0  9.0E-03                        2.2E-06
                                                    (IRIS)                         (IRIS)
Acrolein..........................        107-02-8  2.0E-05
                                                    (IRIS)
Benzene...........................         71-43-2  6.0E-02                        7.8E-06
                                                    (CAL)                          (IRIS)
Carbon tetrachloride e............         56-23-5  4.0E-02                        1.5E-05
                                                    (CAL)                          (IRIS)
Chloroform e......................         67-66-3  9.8E-02
                                                    (ATSDR)
Formaldehyde......................         50-00-0  9.8E-03                        1.3E-05
                                                    (ATSDR)                        (IRIS)
Manganese compounds...............       7439-96-5  5.0E-05
                                                    (IRIS)
Methanol..........................         67-56-1  4.0E+00
                                                    (CAL)
Methyl ethyl ketone...............         78-93-3  1.0E+00
                                                    (IRIS)
Methylene chloride................         75-09-2  1.0E+00                        4.7E-07
                                                    (ATSDR)                        (IRIS)

[[Page 1299]]

 
Phenol............................        108-95-2  2.0E-01
                                                    (CAL)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Propionaldehyde, a HAP emitted by the PCWP source category, is not included in Table 2 because there are no
  dose-response values for it.
b The table includes many, but not all, of the HAP emitted by the PCWP source category. The following additional
  HAP have been detected at more than one PCWP facility: cumene, methyl isobutyl ketone (MIBK), styrene,
  toluene, m,p-xylene, o-xylene, methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), chloromethane, and ethyl benzene. In
  addition, the following HAP have been detected at only one PCWP facility: acetophenone, biphenyl, bis-(2-
  ethylhexyl phthalate), bromomethane, carbon disulfide, di-n-butyl phthalate, ethyl benzene, hydroquinone, n-
  hexane, 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 4-methyl-2-pentanone, chloroethane, m,p-cresol, and o-cresol. Other HAP,
  including metal compounds (in addition to manganese compounds) may be emitted by facilities in the PCWP source
  category.
c Reference Concentration: An estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a continuous
  inhalation exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups which include children, asthmatics
  and the elderly) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime. It
  can be derived from various types of human or animal data, with uncertainty factors generally applied to
  reflect limitations of the data used.
d Unit Risk Estimate: The upper-bound excess lifetime cancer risk estimated to result from continuous exposure
  to an agent at a concentration of 1 [mu]g/m\3\ in air. The interpretation of the Unit Risk Estimate would be
  as follows: if the Unit Risk Estimate = 1.5 x 10-6 per [mu]g/m\3\, 1.5 excess tumors are expected to develop
  per 1,000,000 people if exposed daily for a lifetime to 1 [mu]g of the chemical in 1 cubic meter of air. Unit
  Risk Estimates are considered upper bound estimates, meaning they represent a plausible upper limit to the
  true value. (Note that this is usually not a true statistical confidence limit.) The true risk is likely to be
  less, but could be greater.
e This HAP was detected at only one PCWP facility.
Sources:
IRIS = EPA Integrated Risk Information System (http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/index.html).
ATSDR = U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/mrls.html).
CAL = California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (http://www.oehha.ca.gov/air/hot_spots/index.html).
HEAST = EPA Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (PB(=97-921199, July 1997).

    To establish an applicability cutoff under section 112(d)(4), EPA 
would need to define ambient air exposure concentration limits for any 
threshold pollutants involved. There are several factors to consider 
when establishing such concentrations. First, we would need to ensure 
that the concentrations that would be established would protect public 
health with an ample margin of safety. As discussed above, the approach 
EPA commonly uses when evaluating the potential hazard of a threshold 
air pollutant is to calculate the pollutant's hazard quotient, which is 
the exposure concentration divided by the RfC.
    The EPA's ``Supplementary Guidance for Conducting Health Risk 
Assessment of Chemical Mixtures'' suggests that the noncancer health 
effects associated with a mixture of pollutants ideally are assessed by 
considering the pollutants' common mechanisms of toxicity.\4\ The 
guidance also suggests, however, that when exposures to mixtures of 
pollutants are being evaluated, the risk assessor may calculate an HI. 
The recommended method is to calculate multiple hazard indices for each 
exposure route of interest and for a single specific toxic effect or 
toxicity to a single target organ. The default approach recommended by 
the guidance is to sum the hazard quotients for those pollutants that 
induce the same toxic effect or affect the same target organ. A mixture 
is then assessed by several HI, each representing one toxic effect or 
target organ. The guidance notes that the pollutants included in the HI 
calculation are any pollutants that show the effect being assessed, 
regardless of the critical effect upon which the RfC is based. The 
guidance cautions that if the target organ or toxic effect for which 
the HI is calculated is different from the RfC's critical effect, then 
the RfC for that chemical can be an overestimate, that is, the 
resultant HI potentially may be overprotective. Conversely, since the 
calculation of an HI does not account for the fact that the potency of 
a mixture of HAP can be more potent than the sum of the individual HAP 
potencies, an HI may potentially be underprotective in some situations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Options for establishing a hazard index limit. One consideration in 
establishing a hazard index limit is whether the analysis considers the 
total ambient air concentrations of all the emitted HAP to which the 
public is exposed.\5\ There are at least several options for 
establishing a hazard index limit for the section 112(d)(4) analysis 
that reflect, to varying degrees, public exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Senate Debate on Conference Report (October 27, 1990), 
reprinted in ``A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments 
of 1990,'' Comm. Print S. Prt. 103-38 (1993) (``Legis. Hist.'' at 
868.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One option is to allow the hazard index posed by all threshold HAP 
emitted from PCWP sources at the facility to be no greater than one. 
This approach is protective if no additional threshold HAP exposures 
would be anticipated from other sources in the vicinity of the facility 
or through other routes of exposure (e.g., through ingestion).
    A second option is to adopt a ``default percentage'' approach, 
whereby the hazard index limit of the HAP emitted by the facility is 
set at some percentage of one (e.g., 20 percent or 0.2). This approach 
recognizes the fact that the facility in question is only one of many 
sources of threshold HAP to which people are typically exposed every 
day. Because noncancer risk assessment is predicated on total exposure 
or dose, and because risk assessments focus only on an individual 
source, establishing a hazard index limit of 0.2 would account for an 
assumption that 20 percent of an individual's total exposure is from 
that individual source. For the purposes of this discussion, we will 
call all sources of HAP, other than the facility in question, 
``background'' sources. If the facility is allowed to emit HAP such 
that its own impacts could result in HI values of one, total exposures 
to threshold HAP in the vicinity of the facility could be substantially 
greater than one due to background sources, and this would not be 
protective of public health since only HI values below one are 
considered to be without appreciable risk of adverse health effects. 
Thus, setting the hazard index limit for the facility at some default 
percentage of one will provide a buffer which would help to ensure that 
total exposures to threshold HAP near the facility (i.e., in 
combination with exposures due to background sources) will generally 
not exceed one and can

[[Page 1300]]

generally be considered to be without appreciable risk of adverse 
health effects.
    The EPA requests comment on using the ``default percentage'' 
approach and on setting the default hazard index limit at 0.2. The EPA 
is also requesting comment on whether an alternative HI limit, in some 
multiple of one, would be a more appropriate applicability cutoff.
    A third option is to use available data (from scientific literature 
or EPA studies, for example) to determine background concentrations of 
HAP, possibly on a national or regional basis. These data would be used 
to estimate the exposures to HAP from non-PCWP sources in the vicinity 
of an individual facility. For example, the EPA's National-Scale Air 
Toxics Assessment (NATA) \6\ and ATSDR's Toxicological Profiles \7\ 
contain information about background concentrations of some HAP in the 
atmosphere and other media. The combined exposures from PCWP sources 
and from other sources (as determined from the literature or studies) 
would then not be allowed to exceed a hazard index limit of one. The 
EPA requests comment on the appropriateness of setting the hazard index 
limit at one for such an analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/nata.
    \7\ See http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A fourth option is to allow facilities to estimate or measure their 
own facility-specific background HAP concentrations for use in their 
analysis. With regard to the third and fourth options, the EPA requests 
comment on how these analyses could be structured. Specifically, EPA 
requests comment on how the analyses should take into account 
background exposure levels from air, water, food and soil encountered 
by the individuals exposed to PCWP emissions. In addition, we request 
comment on how such analyses should account for potential increases in 
exposures due to the use of a new or the increased use of a previously 
emitted HAP, or the effect of other nearby sources that release HAP.
    The EPA requests comment on the feasibility and scientific validity 
of each of these or other approaches. Finally, EPA requests comment on 
how we should implement the section 112(d)(4) applicability cutoffs, 
including appropriate mechanisms for applying cutoffs to individual 
facilities. For example, would the title V permit process provide an 
appropriate mechanism?
    Tiered analytical approach for predicting exposure. Establishing 
that a facility meets the cutoffs under section 112(d)(4) will 
necessarily involve combining estimates of pollutant emissions with air 
dispersion modeling to predict exposures. The EPA envisions that we 
would promote a tiered analytical approach for these determinations. A 
tiered analysis involves making successive refinements in modeling 
methodologies and input data to derive successively less conservative, 
more realistic estimates of pollutant concentrations in air and 
estimates of risk.
    As a first tier of analysis, EPA could develop a series of simple 
look-up tables based on the results of air dispersion modeling 
conducted using conservative input assumptions. By specifying a limited 
number of input parameters, such as stack height, distance to property 
line, and emission rate, a facility could use these look-up tables to 
easily determine whether the emissions from their sources might cause a 
hazard index limit to be exceeded.
    A facility that does not pass this initial conservative screening 
analysis could implement increasingly more site-specific but more 
resource-intensive tiers of analysis using EPA-approved modeling 
procedures in an attempt to demonstrate that exposure to emissions from 
the facility does not exceed the hazard index limit. The EPA's guidance 
could provide the basis for conducting such a tiered analysis.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``A Tiered Modeling Approach for Assessing the Risks due to 
Sources of Hazardous Air Pollutants.'' EPA-450/4-92-001. David E. 
Guinnup, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, March 
1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA requests comment on methods for constructing and 
implementing a tiered analytical approach for determining applicability 
of the section 112(d)(4) criterion to specific PCWP sources. It is also 
possible that ambient monitoring data could be used to supplement or 
supplant the tiered modeling approach described above. It is envisioned 
that the appropriate monitoring to support such a determination could 
be extensive. The EPA requests comment on the appropriate use of 
monitoring in the determinations described above.
    Accounting for dose-response relationships. In the past, EPA 
routinely treated carcinogens as non-threshold pollutants. The EPA 
recognizes that advances in risk assessment science and policy may 
affect the way EPA differentiates between threshold and non-threshold 
HAP. The EPA's Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment 
\9\ suggest that carcinogens be assigned non-linear dose-response 
relationships where data warrant. Moreover, it is possible that dose-
response curves for some pollutants may reach zero risk at a dose 
greater than zero, creating a threshold for carcinogenic effects. It is 
possible that future evaluations of the carcinogens emitted by this 
source category would determine that one or more of the carcinogens in 
the category is a threshold carcinogen or is a carcinogen that exhibits 
a non-linear dose-response relationship but does not have a threshold.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ ``Draft Revised Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment.'' 
NCEA-F-0644. USEPA, Risk Assessment Forum, July 1999. pp 3-9ff. 
http://www.epa.gov/ncea/raf/pdfs/cancer_gls.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The dose-response assessments for formaldehyde and acetaldehyde are 
currently undergoing revision by the EPA. As part of this revision 
effort, EPA is evaluating formaldehyde and acetaldehyde as potential 
non-linear carcinogens. The revised dose-response assessments will be 
subject to review by the EPA Science Advisory Board, followed by full 
consensus review, before adoption into the EPA IRIS. At this time, EPA 
estimates that the consensus review will be completed by the end of 
2003. The revision of the dose-response assessments could affect the 
potency factors of these HAP, as well as their status as threshold or 
non-threshold pollutants. At this time, the outcome is not known. In 
addition to the current reassessment by EPA, there have been several 
reassessments of the toxicity and carcinogenicity of formaldehyde in 
recent years, including work by the World Health Organization and the 
Canadian Ministry of Health.
    The EPA requests comment on how we should consider the state of the 
science as it relates to the treatment of threshold pollutants when 
making determinations under section 112(d)(4). In addition, EPA 
requests comment on whether there is a level of emissions of a non-
threshold carcinogenic HAP (e.g., benzene, methylene chloride) at which 
it would be appropriate to allow a facility to use the approaches 
discussed in this section.
    Risk assessment results. The results of the human health risk 
assessments described below are based on approaches for quantifying 
exposure, risk, and cancer incidence that carry significant 
assumptions, uncertainties, and limitations. For example, in conducting 
these types of analyses, there are typically many uncertainties 
regarding dose-response functions, levels of exposure, exposed 
populations, air quality modeling applications, emission levels, and 
control effectiveness. Because the estimates derived from the various 
scoping approaches are necessarily rough, we are concerned that they 
not convey a

[[Page 1301]]

false sense of precision. It is expected that any point estimate of 
risk reduction or benefits generated by these approaches should be 
considered as part of a range of potential estimates.
    If the final rule is implemented as proposed at all PCWP 
facilities, annual cancer incidence would be reduced from about 0.09 
cases/year to about 0.02 cases/year, while the number of people at or 
above a cancer risk level of one in a million would be reduced from 
about 900,000 to 150,000. In addition, the number of people exposed to 
HI values equal to or greater than one was estimated to be reduced from 
about 270,000 to about 30,000, and the number of people exposed to HI 
values of 0.2 or greater was predicted to decrease from about 1,500,000 
to about 250,000. (Details of these analyses are available in the 
docket.)
    Based on the results of this rough assessment, if the section 
112(d)(4) approach is applied only to threshold pollutants, EPA 
estimates that few, if any, of the 223 facilities in the plywood source 
category could obtain an exemption from the rule, since it appears that 
all or nearly all facilities emit some amount of one or more non-
threshold pollutants. If the revised dose-response assessments for 
formaldehyde and acetaldehyde determine that they are threshold 
carcinogens, these estimates could increase. This application of the 
section 112(d)(4) approach is estimated to produce minimal potential 
cost savings.
    The second scenario under the section 112(d)(4) provision would 
apply to both threshold and non-threshold pollutants. If this 
interpretation is selected, EPA estimates that, if a HI limit of one 
and a cancer risk level of 10-6 were used, as many as 33 of 
the 223 facilities in the source category may be exempt from the 
proposed rule and that, if a HI limit of 0.2 and a cancer risk level of 
10-6 were used, as many as 26 of the 223 facilities may be 
exempt. The EPA estimates that the cost of the rule as proposed would 
be approximately $142 million per year, resulting in an annual cost 
savings of about $9 million per year (for a HI limit of one) or about 
$7 million per year (for a HI limit of 0.2) (as compared to 
establishing a MACT standard for all plants in the industry).
    The EPA does not expect the third scenario, which would allow 
emission point exemptions, to be applicable for the PCWP source 
category because mixtures of threshold and non-threshold pollutants are 
co-emitted, and the same emission controls would apply to both. The 
risk estimates from this rough assessment are based on typical facility 
configurations (i.e., model plants) and, as such, they are subject to 
significant uncertainties, such that the actual risks at any one 
facility could be significantly higher or lower. Therefore, while these 
risk estimates assist in providing a broad picture of impacts across 
the source category, they should not be the basis for an exemption from 
the requirements of the proposed rule. Rather, facility-specific risks 
would require site-specific data and a more refined analysis.
    For either of the first two approaches described above, the actual 
number of facilities that would qualify for an exemption would depend 
upon site-specific risk assessments and the specified hazard index 
limit. If the section 112(d)(4) approach were adopted, the rulemaking 
would likely indicate that the requirements of the rule do not apply to 
any source that demonstrates, based on a tiered approach that includes 
EPA-approved modeling of the affected source's emissions, that the 
anticipated HAP exposures do not exceed the specified hazard index 
limit.
3. Subcategory Delisting Under Section 112(c)(9)(B) of the CAA
    The EPA is authorized to establish categories and subcategories of 
sources, as appropriate, pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(1), in order to 
facilitate the development of MACT standards consistent with section 
112 of the CAA. Further, section 112(c)(9)(B) allows EPA to delete a 
category (or subcategory) from the list of major sources for which MACT 
standards are to be developed when the following can be demonstrated: 
(1) In the case of carcinogenic pollutants, that ``* * * no source in 
the category * * * emits (carcinogenic) air pollutants in quantities 
which may cause a lifetime risk of cancer greater than one in one 
million to the individual in the population who is most exposed to 
emissions of such pollutants from the source''; (2) in the case of 
pollutants that cause adverse noncancer health effects, that ``* * * 
emissions from no source in the category or subcategory * * * exceed a 
level which is adequate to protect public health with an ample margin 
of safety''; and (3) in the case of pollutants that cause adverse 
environmental effects, that ``* * * no adverse environmental effect 
will result from emissions from any source.''
    Given these authorities and the suggestions from the white paper 
prepared by industry representatives (see docket number A-98-44), EPA 
is considering whether it would be possible to establish a subcategory 
of facilities within the larger PCWP category that would meet the risk-
based criteria for delisting. Such criteria would likely include the 
same requirements as described previously for the second scenario under 
the section 112(d)(4) approach, whereby a facility would be in the low-
risk subcategory if its emissions of threshold pollutants do not result 
in exposures which exceed the HI limits and if its emissions of non-
threshold pollutants do not result in exposures which exceed a cancer 
risk level of 10-6. The EPA requests comment on what an 
appropriate HI limit would be for a determination that a facility be 
included in the low-risk subcategory.
    Since each facility in such a subcategory would be a low-risk 
facility (i.e., if each met these criteria), the subcategory could be 
delisted in accordance with section 112(c)(9), thereby limiting the 
costs and impacts of the proposed MACT rule to only those facilities 
that do not qualify for subcategorization and delisting. The EPA 
estimates that the maximum potential effect of this approach would be 
the same as that of applying the section 112(d)(4) approach that allows 
exemption of facilities emitting threshold and non-threshold pollutants 
if exemption criteria are met (i.e., as many as 33 of the 223 
facilities may be exempt under this approach, if an HI limit of one and 
a cancer risk level of 10-6 are used; or, as many as 26 of 
the 223 may be exempt if an HI limit of 0.2 and a cancer risk level of 
10-6 are used).
    Facilities seeking to be included in the delisted subcategory would 
be responsible for providing all data required to determine whether 
they are eligible for inclusion. Facilities that could not demonstrate 
that they are eligible to be included in the low-risk subcategory would 
be subject to MACT and possible future residual risk standards. The EPA 
solicits comment on implementing a risk-based approach for establishing 
subcategories of PCWP facilities.
    Establishing that a facility qualifies for the low-risk subcategory 
under section 112(c)(9) will necessarily involve combining estimates of 
pollutant emissions with air dispersion modeling to predict exposures. 
The EPA envisions that we would employ the same tiered analytical 
approach described earlier in the section 112(d)(4) discussion for 
these determinations.
    One concern that EPA has with respect to this section 112(c)(9) 
approach is the effect that it could have on the MACT floors. If many 
of the facilities in the low-risk subcategory are well-controlled, that 
could make the

[[Page 1302]]

MACT floor less stringent for the remaining facilities. One approach 
that has been suggested to mitigate this effect would be to establish 
the MACT floor now, based on controls in place for the entire category, 
and to allow facilities to become part of the low-risk subcategory in 
the future, after the MACT standard is established. This would allow 
low risk facilities to use the section 112(c)(9) exemption without 
affecting the MACT floor calculation. The EPA requests comment on this 
suggested approach.
    Another approach under section 112(c)(9) would be to define a 
subcategory of facilities within the PCWP source category based upon 
technological differences, such as differences in production rate, 
emission vent flow rates, overall facility size, emissions 
characteristics, processes, or air pollution control device viability. 
The EPA requests comment on how we might establish PCWP subcategories 
based on these, or other, source characteristics. If it could then be 
determined that each source in this technologically-defined subcategory 
presents a low risk to the surrounding community, the subcategory could 
then be delisted in accordance with section 112(c)(9). The EPA requests 
comment on the concept of identifying technologically-based 
subcategories that may include only low-risk facilities within the PCWP 
source category.
    If this section 112(c)(9) approach were adopted, the rulemaking 
would likely indicate that the rule does not apply to any source that 
demonstrates that it belongs in a subcategory which has been delisted 
under section 112(c)(9).
    Consideration of criteria pollutants. Finally, EPA projects that 
adoption of the MACT floor level of controls would result in increases 
in NOX emissions. This pollutant is a precursor in the 
formation of fine PM, which has been associated with a variety of 
adverse health effects (including premature mortality, chronic 
bronchitis, and increased frequency of asthma attacks). The EPA 
requests comment on the extent to which consideration should be given 
to the adverse effects of the possible increase in NOX 
emissions from applying MACT technology, in the context of implementing 
our authority under section 112(c)(9) or other exemptions.

H. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    The economic impact analysis shows that the expected price 
increases for affected output would range from only 0.7 to 2.5 percent 
as a result of the proposed NESHAP for PCWP manufacturers. The expected 
change in production of affected output is a reduction of 0.1 to 0.7 
percent for PCWP manufacturers as a result of the proposed rule. There 
is only one plant closure expected out of the 223 facilities affected 
by the proposed rule. It should be noted that the baseline economic 
condition of the facility predicted to close rather than incur the 
costs of compliance with the proposed rule affects the closure estimate 
provided by the economic model, and that the facility predicted to 
close appears to have low profitability levels currently. Therefore, it 
is likely that there is no adverse impact expected to occur for those 
industries that produce output affected by the proposed rule, such as 
hardboard, softwood plywood and veneer, engineered wood products, and 
other wood composites.

I. What Are the Social Costs and Benefits?

    Our assessment of costs and benefits of the proposed rule is 
detailed in the ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed Plywood 
and Composite Wood Products MACT.'' The Regulatory Impact Analysis 
(RIA) is located in Docket number A-98-44.
    It is estimated that 3 years after implementation of the proposed 
requirements, HAP would be reduced by 9,700 Mg/yr (11,000 tons/yr) due 
to reductions in formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, methanol, phenol 
and several other HAP from existing PCWP emission sources. The health 
effects associated with these HAP are discussed earlier in this 
preamble.
    At this time, we are unable to provide a comprehensive 
quantification and monetization of the HAP-related benefits of this 
proposal. Nevertheless, it is possible to derive rough estimates for 
one of the more important benefit categories, i.e., the potential 
number of cancer cases avoided and cancer risk reduced as a result of 
the imposition of the MACT level of control on this source category. 
Our analysis suggests that imposition of the MACT level of control 
would reduce cancer cases by zero to less than one case per year, on 
average, starting some years after implementation of the standards. We 
present these results in the RIA. This risk reduction estimate is 
uncertain and should be regarded as an extremely rough estimate and 
should be viewed in the context of the full spectrum of unquantified 
noncancer effects associated with the HAP reductions.
    The control technologies used to reduce the level of HAP emitted 
from PCWP sources are also expected to reduce emissions of CO, 
PM10, and VOC. It is estimated that CO emission reductions 
total approximately 10,000 Mg/yr (11,000 tons/yr), PM10 
emission reductions total approximately 11,000 Mg/yr (13,000 tons/yr), 
and VOC emission reductions (approximated as THC) total approximately 
25,000 Mg/yr (27,000 tons/yr). These estimated reductions occur from 
existing sources in operation 3 years after the implementation of the 
requirements of the proposed rule and are expected to continue 
throughout the life of the sources. Human health effects associated 
with exposure to CO include cardiovascular system and central nervous 
system (CNS) effects, which are directly related to reduced oxygen 
content of blood and which can result in modification of visual 
perception, hearing, motor and sensorimotor performance, vigilance, and 
cognitive ability. The VOC emissions reductions may lead to some 
reduction in ozone concentrations in areas in which the affected 
sources are located. There are both human health and welfare effects 
that result from exposure to ozone, and these effects are listed in 
Table 3 of this preamble.
    At the present time, we cannot provide a monetary estimate for the 
benefits associated with the reductions in CO. We also did not provide 
a monetary estimate for the benefits associated with the changes in 
ozone concentrations that result from the VOC emission reductions since 
we are unable to do the necessary air quality modeling to estimate the 
ozone concentration changes. For PM10, we did not provide a 
monetary estimate for the benefits associated with the reduction of the 
emissions, although these reductions are likely to have significant 
health benefits to populations living in the vicinity of affected 
sources.
    There may be increases in NOX emissions associated with 
the proposed rule as a result of increased use of incineration-based 
controls. These NOX emission increases by themselves could 
cause some increase in ozone and PM concentrations, which could lead to 
impacts on human health and welfare as listed in Table 3. The potential 
impacts associated with increases in ambient PM and ozone due to these 
emission increases are discussed in the RIA. In addition to potential 
NOX increases at affected sources, the proposed rule may 
also result in additional electricity use at affected sources due to 
application of controls. These potential increases in electricity use 
may increase emissions of SO2 and NOX from 
electricity generating utilities. As such, the proposed rule may result 
in additional health impacts from increased ambient PM and ozone from 
these increased

[[Page 1303]]

utility emissions. We did not quantify or monetize these impacts.
    Every benefit-cost analysis examining the potential effects of a 
change in environmental protection requirements is limited to some 
extent by data gaps, limitations in model capabilities (such as 
geographic coverage), and uncertainties in the underlying scientific 
and economic studies used to configure the benefit and cost models. 
Deficiencies in the scientific literature often result in the inability 
to estimate changes in health and environmental effects, such as 
potential increases in premature mortality associated with increased 
exposure to carbon monoxide. Deficiencies in the economics literature 
often result in the inability to assign economic values even to those 
health and environmental outcomes which can be quantified. These 
general uncertainties in the underlying scientific and economics 
literatures are discussed in detail in the RIA and its supporting 
documents and references.
    A full listing of the benefit categories that could not be 
quantified or monetized in our analysis are provided in Table 3 of this 
preamble. A full appreciation of the overall economic consequences of 
the proposed PCWP standards requires consideration of all benefits and 
costs expected to result from today's proposed rule, not just those 
benefits and costs which could be expressed here in dollar terms.

         Table 3.--Unquantified Benefit Categories From HAP, Ozone-Related, and PM Emissions Reductions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Unquantified effect      Unquantified effect      Unquantified effect
                                        categories associated    categories associated    categories associated
                                               with HAP                with ozone                with PM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Categories....................  Carcinogenicity          Airway responsiveness,   Premature mortality,
                                        mortality,               Pulmonary                Chronic bronchitis,
                                        Genotoxicity             inflammation,            Hospital admissions
                                        mortality, Noncancer     Increased                for chronic
                                        lethality, Pulmonary     susceptibility to        obstructive pulmonary
                                        function, decrement,     respiratory infection,   disease, pneumonia,
                                        Dermal irritation, Eye   Acute inflamation and    cardiovascular
                                        irritation,              respiratory cell         diseases, and asthma,
                                        Neurotoxicity,           damage, Chronic          Changes in pulmonary
                                        Immunotoxicity,          respiratory damage/      function,
                                        Pulmonary function       Premature aging of       Morphological changes,
                                        decrement, Liver         lungs, Emergency room    Altered host defense
                                        damage,                  visits for asthma,       mechanisms, Cancer,
                                        Gastrointestinal         Hospital admissions      Other chronic
                                        toxicity, Kidney         for respiratory          respiratory disease,
                                        damage, Cardiovascular   diseases, Asthma         Emergency room visits
                                        impairment,              attacks, Minor           for asthma, Lower and
                                        Hematopoietic (Blood     restricted activity      upper respiratory
                                        disorders),              days.                    symptoms, Acute
                                        Reproductive/                                     bronchitis, Shortness
                                        Developmental toxicity.                           of breath, Minor
                                                                                          restricted activity
                                                                                          days, Asthma attacks,
                                                                                          Work loss days.
Welfare Categories...................  Corrosion/               Ecosystem and            Materials damage,
                                        Deterioration,           vegetation effects in    Damage to ecosystems
                                        Unpleasant odors,        Class I areas (e.g.,     (e.g., acid sulfate
                                        Transportation safety    national parks),         deposition), Nitrates
                                        concerns, Yield          Damage to urban          in drinking water.
                                        reductions/Foliar        ornamentals (e.g.,
                                        injury, Biomass          grass, flowers,
                                        decrease, Species        shrubs, and trees in
                                        richness decline,        urban areas),
                                        Species diversity        Commercial field
                                        decline, Community       crops, Fruit and
                                        size decrease,           vegetable crops,
                                        Organism lifespan,       Reduced yields of tree
                                        decrease, Trophic web    seedlings, commercial
                                        shortening.              and non-commercial
                                                                 forests, Damage to
                                                                 ecosystems, Materials
                                                                 damage, Reduced worker
                                                                 productivity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Relationship to Other Standards and Programs Under the CAA and Other 
Statutes

A. Wood Building Products Surface Coating NESHAP Proposal

    The proposed PCWP rule includes some miscellaneous coating 
operations that are performed where the substrate is manufactured. We 
included these miscellaneous coating operations in the proposed PCWP 
rule instead of the upcoming Wood Building Products Surface Coating 
NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart QQQQ) so that most facilities would be 
subject to only one of the rules. The miscellaneous coating operations 
proposed today include the application of any of the following to 
plywood or composite wood products: edge seals, moisture sealants, 
anti-skid coatings, company logos, trademark or grade stamps, nail 
lines, synthetic patches, wood patches, wood putty, concrete forming 
oils, glues for veneer composing, and shelving edge fillers. In 
addition, miscellaneous coating operations also include the application 
of primer to OSB siding that occurs at the same site as the OSB 
manufacture.

B. Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP (40 CFR Part 63, 
Subpart JJ)

    The Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP apply to wood 
furniture manufacturing facilities that are engaged, either in part or 
in whole, in the manufacture of wood furniture or wood furniture 
components that are located at a plant site that is a major source of 
HAP emissions. In the preamble to the final rule (60 FR 62936, December 
7, 1995), we stated that wood furniture manufacturing operations 
involving urea-formaldehyde resins were excluded from the Wood 
Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP and would be covered by the 
proposed PCWP rule. Today's proposed rule covers manufacturing 
operations at wood furniture manufacturing facilities that use urea-
formaldehyde resins. These operations include, but are not limited to, 
the manufacture of hardwood plywood, particleboard, and medium density 
fiberboard, all of which are included in the definition of a PCWP 
manufacturing facility. Although some wood furniture plants may be 
subject to both the Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations NESHAP and 
today's proposed rule, there are no overlapping

[[Page 1304]]

requirements for individual process units.

C. Combustion Related NESHAP

    Plywood and composite wood products facilities operate combustion 
units such as boilers, fuel cells, and thermal oil heaters that supply 
heat to process units such as dryers and presses that are used in the 
manufacture of PCWP. When the combustion unit supplies heat by directly 
exhausting the combustion gas through a dryer, the dryer is considered 
a ``direct-fired dryer.'' Therefore, the HAP emissions from a direct-
fired dryer are actually a combination of the emissions from the 
combustion unit exhausting into the dryer and the emissions that result 
from drying the wood. Because today's proposed rule regulates emissions 
from direct-fired dryers, those combustion units associated with 
direct-fired dryers are excluded from the requirements of other 
combustion-related NESHAP, such as the Industrial/Commercial/
Institutional Boilers NESHAP and the Process Heaters NESHAP. However, 
those combustion units that supply heat or steam to indirect-fired 
dryers or presses (i.e., combustion unit exhaust does not contact wood 
particles or veneers), and those thermal oil heaters that supply hot 
oil for presses but which don't exhaust through dryers are not covered 
by today's proposed rule and would be subject to the requirements of 
the applicable combustion related NESHAP.

D. New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Applicability

    We expect that many of the PCWP facilities impacted by today's 
proposed rule will install RTOs to comply with the proposed HAP control 
requirements. However, RTOs can generate NOX emissions 
during normal operation. If NOX emission increases are great 
enough, they may trigger the need for preconstruction permits under the 
nonattainment new source review (NSR) or prevention of significant 
deterioration (PSD) program (referred to in the remainder of this 
preamble as ``major NSR''). During the development of today's proposed 
rule, representatives from the PCWP industry requested that we consider 
the application of an RTO to reduce HAP emissions to be a pollution 
control project (PCP), as defined within the context of PSD and NSR, 
such that RTOs installed to meet today's proposed rule would qualify 
for an exemption from NSR/PSD.
    In 1992, the EPA adopted an explicit PCP exclusion for electric 
utility steam generating units (57 FR 32314). In a July 1, 1994 
guidance memorandum, we provided guidance to permitting authorities on 
the approvability of PCP exclusions for source categories other than 
electric utilities. In that guidance (available on the TTN; see 
``Pollution Control Projects and New Source Review (NSR) 
Applicability'' from John S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to EPA Regional 
Air Division Directors), we indicated that add-on controls and fuel 
switches to less polluting fuels may qualify for an exclusion from 
major NSR as a PCP. To be eligible to be excluded from otherwise 
applicable major NSR requirements, a PCP must, on balance, be 
``environmentally beneficial,'' and the permitting authority must 
ensure that the project will not cause or contribute to a violation of 
the NAAQS or PSD increment, or adversely affect visibility or other air 
quality related values (AQRV) in a Class I area, and that offsetting 
reductions are secured in the case of a project which would result in a 
significant increase of a nonattainment pollutant. The permitting 
authority can make these determinations outside of the major NSR 
process. The 1994 guidance did not supercede existing NSR requirements, 
including approved State NSR programs, nor void or create an exclusion 
from any applicable minor source preconstruction review requirements in 
an approved SIP. Any minor NSR permitting requirements in a SIP would 
continue to apply, regardless of any exclusion from major NSR that 
might be approved for a source under the PCP exclusion policy.
    In the July 1, 1994 guidance memorandum, we specifically identified 
the RTO as an example of an add-on control that is an appropriate 
candidate for a case-by-case exclusion from major NSR as a PCP. We 
believe that the current guidance on the PCP exclusion adequately 
provides for the possible exemption from major NSR for PCP resulting 
from today's proposed rule. Permitting authorities should follow that 
guidance to the extent allowed under the applicable SIP in order to 
determine whether the installation of an RTO in a given circumstance 
qualifies as a PCP. Projects that qualify for the exclusion would be 
covered under minor source regulations in the applicable SIP, and 
permitting authorities would be expected to provide adequate safeguards 
against NAAQS and increment violations and adverse impacts on AQRV in 
Federal Class I areas. Only in those areas where potential adverse 
impacts cannot be resolved through the minor NSR programs or other 
mechanisms would major NSR apply.

E. Interrelationship Between MACT Provisions and PSD

    We have received comments from some in industry who would like to 
use the provisions of the proposed PCWP rule to satisfy requirements 
for PSD. While many of the proposed PCWP provisions for HAP may be used 
to comply with PSD, the PCWP provisions are not universally applicable. 
In cases where one rule is more stringent than the other, you must 
comply with both rules.
    We do not usually state this explicitly in rule preambles because 
it is established as a matter of law and precedence. However, because 
of some misunderstandings from some in industry and our on-going 
enforcement review of PSD compliance in the PCWP industry, we believe 
it is helpful to discuss areas where the proposed PCWP rule and PSD may 
have different requirements.
    First, the proposed PCWP rule is a rule that would regulate HAP. 
Decisions on control levels and compliance demonstrations are based on 
HAP reductions. If decisions had been based on control of VOC, the 
control level may have been different. For example, this proposed rule 
requires 90 percent reduction of HAP from affected process units. 
Prevention of significant deterioration may require control 
efficiencies in excess of 90 percent. Another example is which process 
units require control. In the proposed PCWP rule, the level of control 
that represents the MACT floor for dry rotary dryers and hardwood 
veneer dryers is no emissions reductions. We determined that requiring 
controls was not cost effective for HAP. However, these process units 
emit more VOC than HAP; therefore, we may determine for PSD that dry 
rotary dryers and hardwood veneer dryers should be controlled.
    Second, we want to clarify that THC is not the same as VOC. Two of 
the compliance options in the proposed PCWP rule are based on 
measurement of THC, as carbon, either with or without methane, as a 
surrogate for measuring HAP. While THC, as carbon, is a good way to 
determine percent reduction of a control device for HAP of concern for 
the PCWP industry, it may not be appropriate for VOC.

F. Effluent Guidelines

    Effluent guidelines applicable to categories and subcategories of 
industrial point sources are issued under authority of the Clean Water 
Act (sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501). The current 
effluent guidelines are applicable to many PCWP

[[Page 1305]]

facilities and are found at 40 CFR part 429. Effluent limitations for a 
number of the subcategories covered in 40 CFR part 429 prohibit 
discharge of process wastewater pollutants into navigable waters of the 
United States. Industry has requested that we propose to amend the 
effluent guidelines in 40 CFR part 429, specifically the definition of 
process wastewaters at Sec.  429.11(c), which affects all subparts 
requiring no discharge of process wastewater pollutants, to allow 
discharge of certain wastewaters, specifically wastewaters associated 
with APCD operation and maintenance, by excluding them from the 
applicability of these subparts. Industry has asserted that effluent 
limitations for these wastewaters could be developed by permit writers 
on a case-by-case basis based upon best professional judgment. Industry 
comments are in Docket number A-98-44.
    At this time, we are not proposing to amend the effluent guidelines 
because many PCWP facilities are disposing of these wastewaters in 
compliance with the existing regulations, for example, by recycling 
them in the process or discharging them to a publicly owned treatment 
works. We lack comprehensive information to support the industry's 
suggestion that simultaneous compliance with the proposed rule and the 
existing effluent guidelines would not be possible.
    In order to consider industry's request, we would need to obtain 
additional and more-detailed information than currently available that: 
(1) Quantifies the volumes and pollutants present in the wastewaters 
generated by APCD used to comply with the proposed rule so that 
comparisons can be made with wastewaters regulated by the existing 
effluent guidelines, and (2) documents the industry's wastewater 
treatment and disposal practices to support the assertions that any 
additional APCD wastewaters that may not have been considered in the 
original rulemaking for part 429 are not or could not be disposed of in 
a manner compliant with the existing effluent guidelines. We are 
requesting comment and additional detailed information and supporting 
data from interested parties on whether 40 CFR part 429, subparts B, C, 
D, F, K, L, M, and O, should be amended by revising the applicability 
of any or all of these subparts requiring no discharge of process 
wastewater pollutants (i.e., by changing the definition of process 
wastewater at Sec.  429.11(c)), such that the effluent guidelines would 
not apply to wastewater produced by operation or maintenance of APCD 
that are used to comply with the proposed rule. Any new information and 
data will be considered and, if appropriate, could serve as the basis 
for amending the definition of process wastewater found at 40 CFR Sec.  
429.11(c) at the time the final PCWP MACT rule is promulgated. (The EPA 
would consider employing a direct final rule to promulgate any such 
amendment if we receive convincing supporting information as described 
above and do not receive significant adverse comment on this issue in 
response to today's proposed rule. If we do receive adverse comments, 
we would need to propose the amendment prior to promulgation.) If 
appropriate and promulgated, this amendment, or a similar amendment 
designed to achieve the same result, would allow for the discharge of 
such APCD wastewater that may result from compliance with the PCWP MACT 
rule. We are considering an amendment to 40 CFR Sec.  429.11(c), to 
read as follows (amending language in italics): The term ``process 
wastewater'' specifically excludes non-contact cooling water, material 
storage yard runoff (either raw material or processed wood storage), 
boiler blowdown, and wastewater from air pollution control devices 
installed to comply with the proposed national emissions standards for 
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for plywood and composite wood 
products (PCWP) facilities (40 CFR Sec.  63.22). For the dry process 
hardboard, veneer, finishing, particleboard, and sawmills and planing 
mills subcategories, fire control water is excluded from the 
definition.
    The actual discharge allowances would be determined initially on a 
case-by-case basis by NPDES permitting authorities using their best 
professional judgment (See 40 CFR Sec.  125.3). (In this regard, the 
industry has suggested that discharge limitations could be expressed in 
the form of allowances for the discharges attributable to the proposed 
PCWP MACT rule.) If we promulgate an amendment to part 429 of the type 
described above at the time we promulgate the final PCWP MACT rule, we 
will consider, through the CWA section 304(m) planning process, whether 
it is appropriate to revise part 429 at a later time in order to 
establish category-or subcategory-specific effluent limitations and 
standards for such APCD wastewater discharges.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligation of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined that this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory 
action'' because the annual costs of complying with the rule as 
proposed are expected to exceed $100 million. Consequently, this action 
was submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866. Any 
written comments from OMB and written EPA responses are available in 
the docket (see ADDRESSES section of this preamble).
    We did not estimate health and welfare benefits associated with 
changes in emissions of HAP, CO, VOC, PM, NOX and SO2 for 
this proposed rule.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with

[[Page 1306]]

State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble 
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS 
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their 
concerns and the agency's position supporting the need to issue the 
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of 
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a 
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review 
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification 
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely 
manner.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 
The proposed rule would not impose directly enforceable requirements on 
States, nor would it preempt them from adopting their own more 
stringent programs to control emissions from PCWP facilities. Moreover, 
States are not required under the CAA to take delegation of Federal 
NESHAP and bear their implementation costs, although States are 
encouraged and often choose to do so. Thus, the requirements of section 
6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this proposed rule. Although 
section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed 
rule, EPA is providing State and local officials an opportunity to 
comment on this proposed rule. A summary of the concerns raised during 
the notice and comment process and EPA's response to those concerns 
will be provided in the final rulemaking notice.

C. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No 
affected plant sites are owned or operated by Indian tribal 
governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. 
In the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy 
to promote communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA 
specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from 
tribal officials.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental health 
or safety risks associated with the emissions addressed by this 
proposed rule present a disproportionate risk to children. The public 
is invited to submit or identify peer-reviewed studies and data, of 
which the Agency may not be aware, that assess the results of early 
life exposure to the pollutants addressed by this proposed rule and 
suggest a disproportionate impact.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. 
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or 
more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written 
statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA 
to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives 
and adopt the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome 
alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of 
section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable 
law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other 
than the least-costly, most cost-effective, or least-burdensome 
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an 
explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA 
establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    Since this rule is estimated to impose costs to the private sector 
in excess of $100 million per year, it is considered a significant 
regulatory action. Therefore, we have prepared the following statement 
with respect to sections 202 through 205 of the UMRA.
1. Statutory Authority
    This proposed rule establishes control requirements for existing 
and new PCWP sources pursuant to section 112 of the CAA. The CAA 
requires NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions 
of HAP that is achievable. This is commonly referred to as MACT. 
Section 112(d)(3) further

[[Page 1307]]

defines a minimum level of control that can be considered for MACT 
standards, commonly referred to as the MACT floor--which for new 
sources, is the level of control achieved by the best controlled 
similar source, and for existing sources is the level of control 
achieved by the average of the best performing 12 percent of sources in 
the category (or the best-performing five sources for categories with 
fewer than 30 sources).
    Control technologies and their performance are discussed in the 
background information document for this proposal (Docket number A-98-
44). We considered emission reductions, costs, environmental impacts, 
and energy impacts in selecting the proposed MACT standards. The 
proposed standards achieve sizable reductions in HAP and other 
pollutant emissions.
2. Social Costs and Benefits
    The regulatory analyses prepared for this proposed rule, including 
our assessment of costs and benefits, is detailed in the ``Regulatory 
Impact Analysis for the Proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Products 
NESHAP'' in Docket A-98-44. Based on estimated compliance costs 
associated with this proposed rule and the predicted change in prices 
and production in the affected industries, the estimated social costs 
of this proposed rule are $134.2 million (1999 dollars). The social 
costs of this proposed rule are the costs imposed upon society as a 
result of efforts toward compliance, and include the effects upon 
consumers of products made by the affected facilities.
    It is estimated that 3 years after implementation of the 
requirements as proposed, HAP would be reduced by 9,700 Mg/yr (11,000 
tons/yr) due to reductions in formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, acrolein, 
methanol and other HAP from PCWP sources. Formaldehyde and acetaldehyde 
have been classified as ``probable human carcinogens.'' Acrolein, 
methanol and the other HAP are not considered carcinogenic, but produce 
several other toxic effects. If implemented, the requirements of this 
proposed rule would also achieve reductions of 10,000 Mg/yr (11,000 
tons/yr) of CO, approximately 11,000 Mg/yr (13,000 tons/yr) of 
PM10, and approximately 25,000 Mg/yr (27,000 tons/yr) of VOC 
(approximated as THC). Exposure to CO can effect the cardiovascular 
system and the central nervous system. The PM emissions can result in 
fatalities and many respiratory problems (such as asthma or 
bronchitis).
    At the present time, we cannot provide a monetary estimate for the 
benefits associated with the reductions in HAP and CO. For VOC, we are 
not able to estimate the benefits associated with the reductions due to 
a lack of available air quality modeling to estimate the change in 
ozone concentrations that occur with VOC emissions reductions. We 
estimated the benefits associated with health effects of 
PM10 but were unable to quantify all categories of benefits 
(particularly those associated with ecosystem and environmental 
effects). The estimated benefits include the effects of potential 
additional NOX emissions that result from additional 
combustion controls. The estimates of the potential additional 
NOX emissions are presented in Section IV of this preamble. 
Nitrogen oxides are transformed into PM10 in the atmosphere, 
and these emissions hence offset the benefits from the PM10 
reductions mentioned above. Total monetized benefits for the 
PME10 and NOX emissions changes using our 
preferred approach to value benefits is $8.5 million (1999 dollars), 
and $5.3 million (1999 dollars) using an alternative age-adjusted 
approach recommended by others. The two approaches to valuing benefits 
is discussed in more detail in this preamble in the Executive Order 
12866 section and in the Regulatory Impact Analysis. The monetized 
benefits should be considered along with the many categories of 
benefits that we are unable to place a dollar value on to consider the 
total benefits of this proposed rule.
3. Regulatory Alternatives Considered
    The proposed standards reflect the MACT floor, the least stringent 
regulatory alternative we may propose. In addition, we are proposing 
the least burdensome and most flexible monitoring, reporting, and 
recordkeeping requirements that we believe will assure compliance with 
the compliance options and requirements of this proposed rule. 
Therefore, the proposed regulatory alternative reflects the least 
costly, most cost-effective, and least burdensome regulatory option 
that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule.
4. Effects on the National Economy
    The economic impact analysis for this proposed rule estimates 
effects upon employment and foreign trade for the industries affected 
by this proposed rule. The total reduction in employment for the 
affected industries is 0.3 percent of the current employment level (or 
225 employees). This estimate includes the increase in employment among 
firms in these industries that do not incur any cost associated with 
the proposed rule. There is also minimal change in the foreign trade 
behavior for the firms in these industries since the level of imports 
of affected composite wood products only increases by less than 0.1 
percent.
5. Consultation With Government Officials
    Throughout the development of this proposed rule, we interacted 
with representatives of affected State and local officials to inform 
them of the progress of our rulemaking efforts. We also consulted with 
representatives from other entities affected by the proposed rule, such 
as the American Forest & Paper Association, National Council for Air 
and Stream Improvement, APA--The Engineered Wood Association, Composite 
Panel Association, American Hardboard Association, Hardwood Plywood and 
Veneer Association, and representatives from affected companies. We 
will continue to interact with government officials and other entities 
during the public comment period for this proposed rule and throughout 
development of the promulgated PCWP standards.
    The number of small entities that are significantly affected by 
today's proposed PCWP standards is not expected to be substantial. This 
proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly affect small governments because no PCWP facilities are 
owned by such governments. The full analysis of potential regulatory 
impacts on small organizations, small governments, and small businesses 
is included in the economic impact analysis in the docket and is listed 
at the beginning of today's action under SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. 
Because the number of small entities that are likely to experience 
significant economic impacts as a result of today's proposed standards 
is not expected to be substantial, no plan to inform and advise small 
governments is required under section 203 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 1996, 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a

[[Page 1308]]

substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business 
ranging from 500 to 750 employees; (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impact of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, we certify that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In accordance with 
the RFA, we conducted an assessment of the proposed standards on small 
businesses in the industries affected by the proposed rule. Based on 
SBA size definitions for the affected industries and reported sales and 
employment data, the Agency identified 17 of the 52 companies, or 32 
percent, owning affected facilities as small businesses. Although small 
businesses represent 32 percent of the companies within the source 
category, they are expected to incur only 8 percent of the total 
industry compliance costs of $142 million. There are only three small 
firms with compliance costs equal to or greater than 3 percent of their 
sales. In addition, there are seven small firms with cost-to-sales 
ratios between 1 and 3 percent.
    We performed an economic impact analysis to estimate the changes in 
product price and production quantities for the firms affected by this 
proposed rule. The analysis shows that of the 32 facilities owned by 
affected small firms, only one would be expected to shut down rather 
than incur the cost of compliance with the proposed rule. Although any 
facility closure is cause for concern, it should be noted that the 
baseline economic condition of the facilities predicted to close 
affects the closure estimate provided by the economic model. Facilities 
which are already experiencing adverse economic conditions for reasons 
unconnected to this proposed rule are more vulnerable to the impact of 
any new costs than those that are not.
    The analysis indicates that the proposed rule should not generate a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities for the 
PCWP manufacturing source category for the following reasons. First, of 
the ten small firms that have compliance costs greater than 1 percent 
of sales, only three have compliance costs of greater than 3 percent of 
sales. Second, the results of the economic impact analysis show that 
only one facility owned by a small firm out of the 32 facilities owned 
by affected small firms may close due to the implementation of this 
proposed rule. The facility that may close rather than incur the cost 
of compliance appears to have low profitability levels currently. It 
also should be noted that the estimate of compliance costs for this 
facility is likely to be an overestimate due to the lack of facility-
specific data available to assign a precise control cost in this case. 
In sum, the analysis supports today's certification under the RFA 
because, while a few small firms may experience significant impacts, 
there will not be a substantial number incurring such a burden.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we minimized the 
impact of this proposed rule on small entities in several ways. First, 
we considered subcategorization based on production and throughput 
level to determine whether smaller process units would have a different 
MACT floor than larger process units. Our data show that 
subcategorization based on size would not result in a less stringent 
level of control for the smaller process units. Second, we chose to set 
the control requirements at the MACT floor control level and not at a 
control level more stringent. Thus, the control level specified in the 
proposed PCWP rule is the least stringent allowed by the CAA. Third, 
the proposed rule contains multiple compliance options to provide 
facilities with the flexibility to comply in the least costly manner 
while maintaining a workable and enforceable rule. The compliance 
options include emissions averaging and production-based compliance 
options which allow inherently low-emitting process units to comply 
without installing add-on control devices and facilities to use 
innovative technology and pollution prevention methods. Fourth, the 
proposed rule includes multiple test method options for measuring 
methanol, formaldehyde, and total HAP. In addition, we worked with 
various trade associations during the development of the proposed rule. 
We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed 
rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such 
impacts.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will 
be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information Collection 
Request (ICR) document (1984.01), and you may obtain a copy from Susan 
Auby by mail at Office of Environmental Information, Collection 
Strategies Division (2822T), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., 
Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at [email protected], or by calling 
(202) 566-1672. You may also download a copy off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information requirements are not effective until 
OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to national emission standards. These recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 114 
of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA 
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a 
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency 
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The proposed rule would require maintenance inspections of the 
control devices but would not require any notifications or reports 
beyond those required by the NESHAP General Provisions. The 
recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed 
to determine compliance.
    The annual monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection (averaged over the first 3 years after the effective date of 
the rule) is estimated to be 4,658 labor hours per year, at a total 
annual cost of $207,322. This estimate includes notifications that 
facilities are subject to the rule; notifications of performance tests; 
notifications of compliance status, including the results of 
performance tests and other initial compliance demonstrations that do 
not include performance tests; startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
reports; semiannual compliance reports; and recordkeeping. In addition 
to the requirements of 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, facilities that wish 
to implement emissions averaging provisions must submit an emissions 
averaging plan. Facilities may also submit a request for a routine 
control device maintenance exemption to justify the need for routine

[[Page 1309]]

maintenance on the control device and to show how the facilities plan 
to minimize emissions to the greatest extent possible during the 
maintenance. Total capital/startup costs associated with the testing, 
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements over the 3-year 
period of the ICR are estimated to be $122,040, with operation and 
maintenance costs of $3,957.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to: (1) Review instructions; (2) develop, acquire, install, and 
utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, 
validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining 
information, and disclosing and providing information; (3) adjust the 
existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and 
requirements; (4) train personnel to be able to respond to a collection 
of information; (5) search data sources; (6) complete and review the 
collection of information; and (7) transmit or otherwise disclose the 
information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the Agency's need for this information, 
the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested 
methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of 
automated collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the 
Director, Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2822); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; and 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503, marked 
``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in any 
correspondence. Since OMB is required to make a decision concerning the 
ICR between 30 and 60 days after January 9, 2003, a comment to OMB is 
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by February 
10, 2003. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public comments on 
the information collection requirements contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs us 
to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory and procurement 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more 
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs us to provide Congress, 
through annual reports to the OMB, with explanations when we do not use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    In this proposed rule, we are proposing requirements to use EPA 
Methods 1, 1a, 2, 2a, 2c, 2d, 2f, 2g, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 18, 25a, 204, 
204(a-f), 308, 316, 320, and SW 846 0011, and the NCASI methods 
previously discussed in this preamble. Consistent with the NTTAA, we 
conducted searches to identify voluntary consensus standards that could 
be used in addition to the EPA methods.
    No voluntary consensus standards were identified as applicable to 
this proposed rule. For EPA Methods 1a, 2a, 2d, 2f, 2g, 204, 204a-f, 
308, 316, and SW 846 0011, no applicable voluntary consensus standards 
were found. The search and review results are documented in Docket A-
98-44. For EPA Methods 1, 2, 2c, 3, 3a, 3b, 4, 18, and 25a, we 
identified voluntary consensus standards that would not be practical 
due to lack of equivalency, detail, and/or quality assurance/quality 
control requirements. Specific reasons why the voluntary consensus 
standards are not practical are detailed in Docket A-98-44. For EPA 
Methods 2, 3a, 25a, and 320, we identified voluntary consensus 
standards that are under development or under EPA review. These 
voluntary consensus standards are listed in Docket A-98-44. Therefore, 
we do not propose to use any voluntary consensus standards.
    We are requesting comment on compliance demonstration requirements 
in this proposed rule and specifically invite you to identify 
potentially-applicable voluntary consensus standards. You should 
explain why this regulation should adopt a particular voluntary 
consensus standard in lieu of or in addition to EPA's methods and/or 
the NCASI methods. Emission test methods and performance specifications 
submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the 
recommendation, including method validation data and the procedure used 
to validate the candidate method (if method other than Method 301, 40 
CFR part 63, appendix A, was used).
    Table 4 of proposed subpart DDDD lists the testing methods and 
performance standards included in the proposed regulations. Several of 
the methods have been used by States and industry for more than 10 
years. Nevertheless, under Sec.  63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f), the proposal 
also allows any State or source to apply to EPA for permission to use 
an alternative method in place of any of the EPA testing methods or 
performance standards listed in Table 4 of proposed subpart DDDD.

I. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001), provides that agencies shall prepare and submit 
to the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects 
for certain actions identified as ``significant energy actions.'' 
Section 4(b) of Executive Order 13211 defines ``significant energy 
actions'' as ``any action by an agency (normally published in the 
Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the 
promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of 
inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of 
proposed rulemaking: (1) (i) That is a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866 or any successor order, and (ii) is likely 
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy; or (2) that is designated by the Administrator of the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy 
action.'' The proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' 
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the 
supply, distribution, or use of energy. The basis for the determination 
is as follows.
    This proposed rule affects manufacturers in the softwood veneer and 
plywood (NAICS 321212), reconstituted wood products (NAICS 321219), and 
engineered wood products (NAICS 321213) industries. There is no crude 
oil, fuel, or coal production from these industries. Hence, there is no 
direct effect on such energy production related to implementation of 
this proposal. In fact, as previously mentioned in this preamble, there 
will be an increase in energy consumption, and hence an increase in 
energy

[[Page 1310]]

production, resulting from installation of RTO and WESP likely needed 
for sources to meet the requirements of the proposed rule. This 
increase in energy consumption is equal to 718 million kilowatt-hours/
year (kWh/yr) for electricity and 45 million cubic meters/year 
(m3/yr) for natural gas. These increases are equivalent to 
0.012 percent of 1998 U.S. electricity production and 0.000001 percent 
of 1998 U.S. natural gas production.\10\ It should be noted, however, 
that the reduction in demand for product output from these industries 
may lead to a negative indirect effect on such energy production, for 
the output reduction will lead to less energy use by these industries 
and thus some reduction in overall energy production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 
Administration. Annual Energy Review, End-Use Energy Consumption for 
1998. Located on the Internet at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/enduse.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For fuel production, the result of this indirect effect from 
reduced product output is a reduction of only about 1 barrel per day 
nationwide, or a 0.00001 percent reduction nationwide based on 1998 
U.S. fuel production data.\11\ For coal production, the resulting 
indirect effect from reduced product output is a reduction of only 
2,000 tons per year nationwide, or only a 0.00001 percent reduction 
nationwide based on 1998 U.S. coal production data. For electricity 
production, the resulting indirect effect from reduced product output 
is a reduction of 42.8 million kWh/yr, or only a 0.00013 percent 
reduction nationwide based on 1998 U.S. electricity production data. 
Given that the estimated price increase for product output from any of 
the affected industries is no more than 2.5 percent, there should be no 
price increase for any energy type by more than this amount. The cost 
of energy distribution should not be affected by this proposal at all 
since the rule does not affect energy distribution facilities. Finally, 
with changes in net exports being a minimal percentage of domestic 
output (0.01 percent) from the affected industries, there will be only 
a negligible change in international trade, and hence in dependence on 
foreign energy supplies. No other adverse outcomes are expected to 
occur with regards to energy supplies.Thus, the net effect of this 
proposed rule on energy production is an increase in electricity output 
of 0.012 percent compared to 1998 output data, and a negligible change 
in output of other energy types. All of the results presented above 
account for the passthrough of costs to consumers, as well as the cost 
impact to producers. These results also account for how energy use is 
related to product output for the affected industries.\12\ For more 
information on the estimated energy effects, please refer to the 
background memo \13\ to these calculations and the economic impact 
analysis for the proposed rule. The background memo and economic impact 
analysis are available in the public docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Ibid.
    \12\ U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information 
Administration. 1998 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey. 
Located on the Internet at http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs98/datatables/contents.html.
    \13\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. ``Energy Impact 
Analysis of the Proposed Plywood and Composite Wood Products 
NESHAP.'' July 30, 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we conclude that the rule if implemented as proposed is 
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental 
relations, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: November 26, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (f) to read as 
follows: Sec.  63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
    (f) The following material is available from the National Council 
of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), 
Methods Manual, P.O. Box 133318, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3318, 
(919) 558-1987, or at http://www.ncasi.org.
    (1) NCASI Method DI/MEOH-94.02, Methanol in Process Liquids GC/FID 
(Gas Chromatography/Flame Ionization Detection), August 1998, IBR 
approved for Sec.  63.457(c)(3)(ii).
    (2) NCASI Method CI/WP-98.01, Chilled Impinger Method For Use At 
Wood Products Mills to Measure Formaldehyde, Methanol, and Phenol, 
1998, IBR approved for proposed Sec.  63.2262.
    (3) NCASI Method IM/CAN/WP-99.01, Impinger/Canister Source Sampling 
Method For Speciated HAPs at Wood Products Facilities, 1999, IBR 
approved for proposed Sec.  63.2262.
* * * * *
    3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart DDDD to read as follows:
Subpart DDDD--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: 
Plywood and Composite Wood Products

What This Subpart Covers

Sec.
63.2230 What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.2231 Does this subpart apply to me?
63.2232 What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.2233 When do I have to comply with this subpart?

Compliance Options, Operating Requirements, and Work Practice 
Requirements

63.2240 What are the compliance options and operating requirements 
and how must I meet them?
63.2241 What are the work practice requirements and how must I meet 
them?

General Compliance Requirements

63.2250 What are the requirements for periods of startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction?
63.2251 What are the requirements for the routine control device 
maintenance exemption

Initial Compliance Requirements

63.2260 How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the compliance 
options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements?
63.2261 By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.2262 How do I conduct performance tests and establish operating 
requirements?
63.2263 Initial compliance demonstration for a dry rotary dryer.
63.2264 Initial compliance demonstration for a hardwood veneer 
dryer.
63.2265 Initial compliance demonstration for a softwood veneer 
dryer.
63.2266 Initial compliance demonstration for a veneer redryer.
63.2267 Initial compliance demonstration for a reconstituted wood 
product press or board cooler.
63.2268 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.2270 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate continuous 
compliance?
63.2271 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice 
requirements?

[[Page 1311]]

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.2280 What notifications must I submit and when?
63.2281 What reports must I submit and when?
63.2282 What records must I keep?
63.2283 In what form and how long must I keep my records?

Other Requirements and Information

63.2290 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.2291 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.2292 What definitions apply to this subpart?

Tables

Table 1A to Subpart DDDD--Production-Based Compliance Options
Table 1B to Subpart DDDD--Add-On Control Systems Compliance Options
Table 2 to Subpart DDDD--Operating Requirements
Table 3 to Subpart DDDD--Work Practice Requirements
Table 4 to Subpart DDDD--Requirements for Performance Tests
Table 5 to Subpart DDDD--Performance Testing and Initial Compliance 
Demonstrations for the Compliance Options and Operating Requirements
Table 6 to Subpart DDDD--Initial Compliance Demonstrations for Work 
Practice Requirements
Table 7 to Subpart DDDD--Continuous Compliance With the Compliance 
Options and Operating Requirements
Table 8 to Subpart DDDD--Continuous Compliance With the Work 
Practice Requirements
Table 9 to Subpart DDDD--Requirements for Reports
Table 10 to Subpart DDDD--Applicability of General Provisions to 
Subpart DDDD

Appendix

Appendix A to Subpart DDDD--Alternative Procedure to Determine 
Capture Efficiency From A Hot Press Enclosure in the Plywood and 
Composite Wood Products Industry Using Sulfur Hexafluoride Tracer 
Gas

What This Subpart Covers


Sec.  63.2230  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national compliance options, operating 
requirements, and work practice requirements for hazardous air 
pollutants (HAP) emitted from plywood and composite wood products 
manufacturing facilities. This subpart also establishes requirements to 
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with the compliance 
options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements.


Sec.  63.2231  Does this subpart apply to me?

    This subpart applies to you if you meet the criteria in paragraphs 
(a) and (b) of this section.
    (a) You own or operate a plywood and composite wood products (PCWP) 
manufacturing facility. A PCWP manufacturing facility is a plant site 
that manufactures plywood and/or composite wood products by bonding 
wood material (fibers, particles, strands, veneers, etc.) or 
agricultural fiber, generally with resin under heat and pressure, to 
form a structural panel or engineered wood product. Plywood and 
composite wood products manufacturing facilities also include 
facilities that manufacture dry veneer and lumber kilns located at any 
facility. Plywood and composite wood products include (but are not 
limited to) plywood, veneer, particleboard, oriented strandboard, 
hardboard, fiberboard, medium density fiberboard, laminated strand 
lumber, laminated veneer lumber, wood I-joists, kiln-dried lumber, and 
glue-laminated beams.
    (b) The PCWP manufacturing facility is located at a major source of 
HAP emissions. A major source of HAP emissions is any stationary source 
or group of stationary sources within a contiguous area and under 
common control that emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP 
at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more per year or any 
combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more per 
year.


Sec.  63.2232  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This rule applies to each new, reconstructed, or existing 
affected source at a PCWP manufacturing facility.
    (b) The affected source is the collection of dryers, blenders, 
formers, presses, board coolers, and other process units associated 
with the manufacturing of plywood and composite wood products at a 
plant site. The affected source includes, but is not limited to, green 
end operations, drying operations, blending and forming operations, 
pressing and board cooling operations, and miscellaneous finishing 
operations (such as sanding, sawing, patching, edge sealing, and other 
finishing operations not subject to other NESHAP). The affected source 
also includes onsite storage of raw materials used in the manufacture 
of plywood and/or composite wood products, such as resins; onsite 
wastewater treatment operations specifically associated with plywood 
and composite wood products manufacturing; and miscellaneous coating 
operations (defined in Sec.  63.2292). The affected source includes 
lumber kilns at PCWP manufacturing facilities and at any other kind of 
facility.
    (c) An affected source is a new affected source if you commenced 
construction of the affected source after January 9, 2003 and you meet 
the applicability criteria at the time you commenced construction.
    (d) An affected source is reconstructed if you meet the criteria as 
defined in Sec.  63.2.
    (e) An affected source is existing if it is not new or 
reconstructed.


Sec.  63.2233  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have a new or reconstructed affected source, you must 
comply with this subpart according to paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this 
section, whichever is applicable.
    (1) If the initial startup of your affected source is before the 
effective date of the subpart, then you must comply with the compliance 
options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements for new 
and reconstructed sources in this subpart no later than the effective 
date of the subpart.
    (2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after the 
effective date of the subpart, then you must comply with the compliance 
options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements for new 
and reconstructed sources in this subpart upon initial startup of your 
affected source.
    (b) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
the compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice 
requirements for existing sources no later than the date 3 years after 
the effective date of the subpart.
    (c) If you have an area source that increases its emissions or its 
potential to emit such that it becomes a major source of HAP, you must 
be in compliance with this subpart by the date 3 years after the 
effective date of the subpart or upon initial startup of your affected 
source as a major source, whichever is later.
    (d) You must meet the notification requirements according to the 
schedule in Sec.  63.2280 and according to 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. 
Some of the notifications must be submitted before you are required to 
comply with the compliance options, operating requirements, and work 
practice requirements in this subpart.

[[Page 1312]]

Compliance Options, Operating Requirements, and Work Practice 
Requirements


Sec.  63.2240  What are the compliance options and operating 
requirements and how must I meet them?

    You must meet the compliance options and operating requirements 
described in Tables 1A, 1B, and 2 of this subpart and in paragraph (c) 
of this section by using one or more of the compliance options listed 
in paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) of this section. The process units 
subject to the compliance options are listed in Tables 1A and 1B (the 
same process units are listed in both tables) and are defined in Sec.  
63.2292. You need only to meet one of the compliance options outlined 
in paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section for each process unit. 
You cannot use multiple compliance options for a single process unit. 
(For example, you cannot use a production-based compliance option for 
one vent of a veneer dryer and an add-on control system compliance 
option for another vent on the same veneer dryer. You must use either 
the production-based compliance option or an add-on control system 
compliance option for the entire dryer.)
    (a) Production-based compliance options. Meet the production-based 
total HAP compliance options in Table 1A of this subpart and the 
applicable operating requirements in Table 2 of this subpart. You may 
not use an add-on control system to meet the production-based 
compliance options.
    (b) Compliance options for add-on control systems. Use an emissions 
control system and demonstrate that the resulting emissions meet the 
compliance options and operating requirements in Tables 1B and 2 of 
this subpart. If you own or operate a reconstituted wood product press 
at a new or existing affected source or a reconstituted wood product 
board cooler at a new affected source, and you choose to comply with 
one of the concentration-based compliance options for a control system 
outlet (presented as option numbers 2, 4, and 6 in Table 1B of this 
subpart), you must have a capture device that either meets the EPA 
Method 204 criteria for a permanent total enclosure (PTE) or achieves a 
capture efficiency of greater than or equal to 95 percent.
    (c) Emissions averaging compliance option (for existing sources 
only). Using the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 
section, demonstrate that emissions included in the emissions average 
meet the compliance options and operating requirements. New sources may 
not use emissions averaging to comply with this subpart.
    (1) Calculation of required and actual mass removal. Limit 
emissions of total HAP, as defined in Sec.  63.2292, to include 
acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and 
propionaldehyde from your affected source to the standard specified by 
Equations 1, 2, and 3 of this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA03.016

(Eq. 1)(Eq. 2) (Eq. 3)Where:

RMR = required mass removal of total HAP from all process units 
generating debits (i.e., all process units that are subject to the 
compliance options in Tables 1A and 1B of this subpart and that are 
either uncontrolled or under-controlled), pounds per semiannual period
AMR = actual mass removal of total HAP from all process units 
generating credits (i.e., all process units that are controlled as part 
of the Emissions Averaging Plan), pounds per semiannual period
UCEPi = mass of total HAP from an uncontrolled or under-
controlled process unit (i) that generates debits, pounds per hour
OHi = number of hours a process unit (i) is operated during 
the semiannual period, hours per 6 month period
CDi = control system efficiency for the emission point (i) 
for total HAP, expressed as a fraction, and not to exceed 90 percent, 
unitless
OCEPi = mass of total HAP from a process unit (i) that 
generates credits, pounds per hour
0.90 = required control system efficiency of 90 percent multiplied, 
unitless

    (2) Requirements for debits and credits. You must calculate debits 
and credits as specified in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (vi) of this 
section.
    (i) You must limit process units in the emissions average to those 
process units located at the existing affected source, as defined in 
Sec.  63.2292.
    (ii) You cannot use nonoperating process units to generate 
emissions averaging credits. You cannot use process units that are 
shutdown to generate emissions averaging debits or credits.
    (iii) You may not include in your emissions average process units 
controlled to comply with a State, Tribal, or Federal rule other than 
this subpart, except when the control system installation and process 
unit inclusion in the emissions average both pre-date the effective 
date of the State, Tribal, or Federal rule.
    (iv) You must use actual measurements of total HAP emissions from 
process units to calculate your required mass removal (RMR) and actual 
mass removal (AMR). The total HAP measurements must be obtained 
according to Sec.  63.2262(b) through (d), (g), and (h), using the 
methods specified in Table 4 of this subpart.
    (v) Your initial demonstration that the credit-generating process 
units will be capable of generating enough credits to offset the debits 
from the debit-generating process units must be made under 
representative operating conditions. After the compliance date, you 
must use actual operating data for all debit and credit calculations.
    (vi) Do not include emissions from the following time periods in 
your emissions averaging calculations:
    (A) Emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction 
as

[[Page 1313]]

described in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (B) Emissions during periods of monitoring malfunctions, associated 
repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities or during 
periods of control device maintenance covered in your routine control 
device maintenance exemption. No credits may be assigned to credit-
generating process units, and maximum debits must be assigned to debit-
generating process units during these periods.
    (3) Operating requirements. You must meet the operating 
requirements in Table 2 of this subpart for each process unit or 
control device used in calculation of emissions averaging credits.


Sec.  63.2241  What are the work practice requirements and how must I 
meet them?

    (a) You must meet each work practice requirement in Table 3 of this 
subpart that applies to you.
    (b) As provided in Sec.  63.6(g), we, the EPA, may choose to grant 
you permission to use an alternative to the work practice requirements 
in this section.

General Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.2250  What are the requirements for periods of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the compliance options, 
operating requirements, and the work practice requirements in this 
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction; prior to initial startup; and during the routine control 
device maintenance exemption specified in Sec.  63.2251.
    (b) You must always operate and maintain your affected source, 
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment, according to 
the provisions in Sec.  63.6(e)(1)(i).
    (c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan (SSMP) according to the provisions in Sec.  
63.6(e)(3).
    (d) The compliance options, operating requirements, and work 
practice requirements do not apply during times when the process 
unit(s) subject to the compliance options, operating requirements, and 
work practice requirements are not operating, or during scheduled 
startup and shutdown periods, and during malfunctions. These startup 
and shutdown periods must not exceed the minimum amount of time 
necessary for these events, and during these events, you must minimize 
emissions to the greatest extent possible.
    (e) You must, at the beginning of each semiannual compliance 
period, record your control device maintenance schedule for that 
period. To the extent practical, startup and shutdown of emission 
control systems must be scheduled during times when process equipment 
is also shutdown for routine maintenance.
    (f) If you use a catalytic oxidizer, you must maintain and operate 
the catalyst according to the manufacturer's specifications.


Sec.  63.2251  What are the requirements for the routine control device 
maintenance exemption?

    (a) You may request a routine control device maintenance exemption 
from the Administrator. Your request must justify the need for the 
routine maintenance on the control device and the time required to 
accomplish the maintenance activities, describe the maintenance 
activities and the frequency of the maintenance activities, explain why 
the maintenance cannot be accomplished during process shutdowns, 
describe how you plan to minimize emissions to the greatest extent 
possible during the maintenance, and provide any other documentation 
required by the Administrator.
    (b) The routine control device maintenance exemption must not 
exceed the percentages of process unit operating uptime in paragraphs 
(b)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) If the control device is used to control a green rotary dryer, 
tube dryer, strand dryer, or pressurized refiner, then the routine 
control device maintenance exemption must not exceed 3 percent of 
annual operating uptime for each process unit controlled.
    (2) If the control device is used to control a softwood veneer 
dryer, reconstituted wood product press, reconstituted wood product 
board cooler, hardboard oven, press predryer, or fiberboard mat dryer, 
then the routine control device maintenance exemption must not exceed 
0.5 percent of annual operating uptime for each process unit 
controlled.
    (3) If the control device is used to control a combination of 
equipment listed in both paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section, 
such as a tube dryer and a reconstituted wood product press, then the 
routine control device maintenance exemption must not exceed 3 percent 
of annual operating uptime for each process unit controlled.
    (c) The request for the routine control device maintenance 
exemption, if approved by the Administrator, must be incorporated by 
reference in and attached to the affected source's title V permit.
    (d) The compliance options and operating requirements do not apply 
during times when control device maintenance covered under your 
approved routine control device maintenance exemption is performed. You 
must minimize emissions to the greatest extent possible during these 
routine control device maintenance periods.
    (e) You must, at the beginning of each semiannual compliance 
period, record your control device maintenance schedule for that 
period. To the extent practical, startup and shutdown of emission 
control systems must be scheduled during times when process equipment 
is also shutdown.

Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.2260  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice 
requirements?

    (a) To demonstrate initial compliance with the compliance options 
and operating requirements, you must conduct performance tests and 
establish each site-specific operating requirement in Table 2 of this 
subpart according to the requirements in Sec.  63.2262 and Table 4 of 
this subpart. Combustion units with heat input capacity of greater than 
or equal to 44 megawatts that accept process exhausts into the flame 
zone are exempt from the initial performance testing and operating 
requirements for thermal oxidizers.
    (b) You must demonstrate initial compliance with each compliance 
option, operating requirement, and work practice requirement that 
applies to you according to Tables 5 and 6 of this subpart and 
according to Sec. Sec.  63.2260 through 63.2268 of this subpart.
    (c) You must submit the Notification of Compliance Status 
containing the results of the initial compliance demonstration 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.2280(d).


Sec.  63.2261  By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) You must conduct performance tests upon initial startup or no 
later than 180 calendar days after the compliance date that is 
specified for your source in Sec.  63.2233 and according to Sec.  
63.7(a)(2), whichever is later.
    (b) You must conduct initial compliance demonstrations that do not 
require performance tests upon initial startup or no later than 30 
calendar days after the compliance date that is specified for your 
source in Sec.  63.2233, whichever is later.

[[Page 1314]]

Sec.  63.2262  How do I conduct performance tests and establish 
operating requirements?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.7(e)(1), the requirements in paragraphs (b) 
through (o) of this section, and according to the methods specified in 
Table 4 of this subpart.
    (b) Periods when performance tests must be conducted.
    (1) You must not conduct performance tests during periods of 
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, as specified in Sec.  63.7(e)(1).
    (2) You must test under representative operating conditions as 
defined in Sec.  63.2292. You must describe representative operating 
conditions in your performance test report for the process and control 
systems and explain why they are representative.
    (c) Number of test runs. You must conduct three separate test runs 
for each performance test required in this section, as specified in 
Sec.  63.7(e)(3). Each test run must last at least 1 hour except for: 
testing of a temporary total enclosure (TTE) conducted using Methods 
204A through 204F which require three separate test runs of at least 3 
hours each; and testing of an enclosure conducted using the alternative 
tracer gas method in appendix A to this subpart which requires a 
minimum of three separate runs of at least 20 minutes each.
    (d) Location of sampling sites. Sampling sites must be located at 
the inlet (if emission reduction testing or documentation of inlet 
methanol or formaldehyde concentration is required) and outlet of the 
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (e) Collection of monitoring data. You must collect operating 
parameter monitoring system or continuous emissions monitoring system 
(CEMS) data at least every 15 minutes during the entire initial 
performance test and determine the parameter or concentration value for 
the operating requirement during the performance test using the methods 
specified in paragraphs (k) through (o) of this section.
    (f) Collection of production data. To comply with any of the 
production-based compliance options, you must measure and record the 
process unit throughput during each test.
    (g) Nondetect data. When determining total HAP, formaldehyde, 
methanol, or THC emission rates, all nondetect data, as defined in 
Sec.  63.2292, must be treated as one-half of the method detection 
limit.
    (h) Calculation of percent reduction across a control system. When 
determining the control system efficiency for any control system 
included in your emissions averaging plan (not to exceed 90 percent) 
and when complying with any of the compliance options based on percent 
reduction across a control system in Table 1B of this subpart, as part 
of the performance test, you must calculate the percent reduction using 
Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA03.008

Where:

PR = percent reduction, percent
CE = capture efficiency, percent (determined for reconstituted wood 
product presses and board coolers as required in Table 4 of this 
subpart)
ERin = emission rate of total HAP (calculated as the sum of 
the emission rates of acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, 
phenol, and propionaldehyde), THC, formaldehyde, or methanol in the 
inlet vent stream of the control device, pounds per hour
ERout = emission rate of total HAP (calculated as the sum of 
the emission rates of acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, 
phenol, and propionaldehyde), THC, formaldehyde, or methanol in the 
outlet vent stream of the control device, pounds per hour

    (i) Calculation of mass per unit production. To comply with any of 
the production-based compliance options in Table 1A of this subpart, 
you must calculate your mass per unit production emissions for each 
test run using Equation 2 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA03.009

Where:

MP = mass per unit production, pounds per oven dried ton OR pounds per 
thousand square feet on a specified thickness basis (see paragraph (j) 
of this section if you need to convert from one thickness basis to 
another)
ERHAP = emission rate of total HAP (calculated as the sum of 
the emission rates of acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, 
phenol, and propionaldehyde) in the stack, pounds per hour
P = process unit production rate (throughput), oven dried tons per hour 
OR thousand square feet per hour on a specified thickness basis
CE = capture efficiency, percent (determined for reconstituted wood 
product presses and board coolers as required in Table 4 of this 
subpart)

     ?(j) Thickness basis conversion. Use Equation 3 of this 
section to convert from one thickness basis to another:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA03.010

Where:

MSFA = thousand square feet on an A-inch basis
MSFB = thousand square feet on a B-inch basis
A = old thickness you are converting from, inches
B = new thickness you are converting to, inches

    (k) Establishing thermal oxidizer operating requirements. If you 
operate a thermal oxidizer, you must establish your thermal oxidizer 
operating parameters according to paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) During the initial performance test, you must continuously 
monitor the firebox temperature during each of the required 1-hour test 
runs. The minimum firebox temperature must then be established as the 
average of the three minimum 15-minute firebox temperatures monitored 
during the three test runs. Multiple 3-run performance tests may be 
conducted to establish a range of parameter values under different 
operating conditions.
    (2) If you choose to monitor inlet static pressure during the 
initial performance test, you must continuously monitor the static 
pressure at the inlet of the thermal oxidizer during each of the 
required 1-hour test runs. The static pressure operating range must 
then be established as the maximum and minimum of the 15-minute static 
pressures monitored during the entire 3-hour test. Multiple 3-run 
performance tests may be conducted to establish a range of parameter 
values under different operating conditions.
    (3) If you choose to monitor stack gas flow during the initial 
performance test, you must continuously monitor the gas flow rate at 
the thermal oxidizer stack during each of the required 1-hour test 
runs. The maximum flow rate must then be established as the average of 
the three maximum 15-minute flow rates monitored during the three test 
runs. Multiple 3-run performance tests may be conducted to establish a 
range of parameter values under different operating conditions.
    (4) You may establish a different minimum firebox temperature, 
static

[[Page 1315]]

pressure operating range, or maximum stack gas flow rate for your 
thermal oxidizer by submitting the notification specified in Sec.  
63.2280(g) and conducting a repeat performance test as specified in 
paragraphs (k)(1) and (3) of this section that demonstrates compliance 
with the compliance options in Table 1B of this subpart.
    (5) If your thermal oxidizer is a combustion unit with a heat input 
capacity greater than or equal to 44 megawatts, then you are exempt 
from the initial performance testing and monitoring requirements 
specified in paragraphs (k)(1) through (4) of this section. To 
demonstrate initial compliance, you must submit documentation with your 
Notification of Compliance Status showing that your combustion unit has 
a heat input capacity of greater than or equal to 44 megawatts and that 
process exhausts controlled by the combustion unit enter into the flame 
zone.
    (l) Establishing catalytic oxidizer operating requirements. If you 
operate a catalytic oxidizer, you must establish your catalytic 
oxidizer operating parameters according to paragraphs (l)(1) through 
(4) of this section.
    (1) During the initial performance test, you must continuously 
monitor the temperature upstream of the catalyst bed during the 
required 1-hour test runs. The minimum upstream temperature must then 
be established as the average of the three minimum 15-minute 
temperatures upstream of the catalyst bed monitored during the three 
test runs. Multiple 3-run performance tests may be conducted to 
establish a range of parameter values under different operating 
conditions.
    (2) If you choose to monitor inlet static pressure during the 
initial performance test, you must continuously monitor the static 
pressure at the inlet of the catalytic oxidizer during each of the 
required 1-hour test runs. The static pressure operating range must 
then be established as the maximum and minimum of the 15-minute static 
pressures monitored during the entire 3-hour test. Multiple 3-run 
performance tests may be conducted to establish a range of parameter 
values under different operating conditions.
    (3) If you choose to monitor stack gas flow during the initial 
performance test, you must continuously monitor the gas flow rate at 
the catalytic oxidizer stack during each of the required 1-hour test 
runs. The maximum flow rate must then be established as the average of 
the three maximum 15-minute flow rates monitored during the three test 
runs. Multiple 3-run performance tests may be conducted to establish a 
range of parameter values under different operating conditions.
    (4) You may establish a different minimum upstream temperature, 
static pressure operating range, or maximum stack gas flow rate for 
your catalytic oxidizer by submitting the notification specified in 
Sec.  63.2280(g) and conducting a repeat performance test as specified 
in paragraphs (l)(1) through (3) of this section that demonstrates 
compliance with the compliance options in Table 1B of this subpart.
    (m) Establishing biofilter operating requirements. If you operate a 
biofilter, you must establish your average biofilter operating 
requirements according to paragraphs (m)(1) through (3) of this 
section.
    (1) During the initial performance test, you must monitor the 
temperature of the air stream entering the biofilter, pH of the 
biofilter effluent, and pressure drop across the biofilter bed. You 
must specify appropriate monitoring methods, monitoring frequencies, 
and averaging times for the parameters. You also must specify 
appropriate minimum limits, maximum limits, or operating ranges for the 
parameters you will monitor. You may base operating ranges on values 
recorded during previous performance tests provided that the data used 
to establish the operating ranges have been obtained using the test 
methods required in this subpart. If you use data from previous 
performance tests, you must certify that the biofilter and associated 
process unit(s) have not been modified subsequent to the date the 
historical data were collected.
    (2) If historical operating records are not readily available (as 
would be the case for a new biofilter installation), you will be 
allowed up to 180 days following the compliance date to gather data and 
complete the requirements in paragraph (m)(1) of this section.
    (3) You may establish different operating ranges for your biofilter 
operating parameters by submitting the notification specified in Sec.  
63.2280(g) and conducting a repeat performance test as specified in 
paragraph (m)(1) of this section that demonstrates compliance with the 
compliance options in Table 1B of this subpart.
    (n) Establishing uncontrolled process unit operating requirements. 
If you operate a process unit that meets a compliance option in Table 
1A of this subpart without the use of a control device, you must 
establish your process unit operating parameters according to 
paragraphs (n)(1) through (2) of this section.
    (1) During the initial performance test, you must continuously 
monitor the process unit inlet temperature or operating temperature 
(whichever applies, as specified for different process units in Table 2 
of this subpart) during each of the required 1-hour test runs. The 
maximum inlet temperature or maximum operating temperature must then be 
established as the average of the three maximum 15-minute temperatures 
monitored during the three test runs. Multiple 3-run performance tests 
may be conducted to establish a range of parameter values under 
different operating conditions.
    (2) You may establish a different maximum temperature for your 
process unit by submitting the notification specified in Sec.  
63.2280(g) and conducting a repeat performance test as specified in 
paragraph (n)(1) of this section that demonstrates compliance with the 
compliance options in Table 1A of this subpart.
    (o) Establishing operating requirements using total hydrocarbon 
(THC) CEMS. If you choose to meet the operating requirements by 
monitoring THC concentration instead of monitoring control device or 
process operating parameters, you must establish your THC concentration 
operating requirement according to paragraphs (o)(1) through (2) of 
this section.
    (1) During the initial performance test, you must continuously 
monitor THC concentration using your CEMS during each of the required 
1-hour test runs. The maximum THC concentration must then be 
established as the average of the three maximum 15-minute THC 
concentrations monitored during the three test runs. Multiple 3-run 
performance tests may be conducted to establish a range of THC 
concentration values under different operating conditions.
    (2) You may establish a different maximum THC concentration by 
submitting the notification specified in Sec.  63.2280(g) and 
conducting a repeat performance test as specified in paragraph (o)(1) 
of this section that demonstrates compliance with the compliance 
options in Tables 1A and 1B of this subpart.


Sec.  63.2263  Initial compliance demonstration for a dry rotary dryer.

    If you operate a dry rotary dryer, you must demonstrate that your 
dryer processes furnish with an inlet moisture content of less than or 
equal to 30 percent (by weight, dry basis) and operates with a dryer 
inlet temperature of less than or equal to 600 [deg]F. You must 
designate and clearly identify each dry rotary dryer. You must record 
the inlet furnish moisture content (dry basis) and inlet dryer

[[Page 1316]]

operating temperature according to Sec.  63.2268(a), (b), and (f) for a 
minimum of 30 calendar days. You must submit the highest recorded 24-
hour average inlet furnish moisture content and the highest recorded 
24-hour average dryer inlet temperature with your Notification of 
Compliance Status. In addition, submit with the Notification of 
Compliance Status a signed statement by a responsible official that 
certifies with truth, accuracy, and completeness that the dry rotary 
dryer will dry furnish with a maximum inlet moisture content less than 
or equal to 30 percent (by weight, dry basis) and will operate with a 
maximum inlet temperature of less than or equal to 600[deg]F in the 
future.


Sec.  63.2264  Initial compliance demonstration for a hardwood veneer 
dryer.

    If you operate a hardwood veneer dryer, you must record the annual 
volume percentage of softwood veneer species processed in the dryer as 
follows:
    (a) Use Equation 1 of this section to calculate the annual volume 
percentage of softwood species dried:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA03.011

Where:

SW[percnt] = annual volume percent softwood species dried
SW = softwood veneer dried during the previous 12 months, thousand 
square feet (\3/8\-inch basis)
T = total softwood and hardwood veneer dried during the previous 12 
months, thousand square feet (\3/8\-inch basis)

    (b) You must designate and clearly identify each hardwood veneer 
dryer. Submit with the Notification of Compliance Status the annual 
volume percentage of softwood species dried in the dryer based on your 
dryer production for the 12 months prior to the compliance date 
specified for your source in Sec.  63.2233. If you did not dry any 
softwood species in the dryer during the 12 months prior to the 
compliance date, then you need only to submit a statement indicating 
that no softwood species were dried. In addition, submit with the 
Notification of Compliance Status a signed statement by a responsible 
official that certifies with truth, accuracy, and completeness that the 
veneer dryer will be used to process less than 30 volume percent 
softwood species in the future.


Sec.  63.2265  Initial compliance demonstration for a softwood veneer 
dryer.

    If you operate a softwood veneer dryer, you must develop a plan for 
review and approval for minimizing fugitive emissions from the veneer 
dryer heated zones, and you must submit the plan with your Notification 
of Compliance Status.


Sec.  63.2266  Initial compliance demonstration for a veneer redryer.

    If you operate a veneer redryer, you must record the inlet moisture 
content of the veneer processed in the redryer according to Sec.  
63.2268(a) and (f) for a minimum of 30 calendar days. You must 
designate and clearly identify each veneer redryer. You must submit the 
highest recorded 24-hour average inlet veneer moisture content with 
your Notification of Compliance Status to show that your veneer redryer 
processes veneer with an inlet moisture content of less than or equal 
to 25 percent (by weight, dry basis). In addition, submit with the 
Notification of Compliance Status a signed statement by a responsible 
official that certifies with truth, accuracy, and completeness that the 
veneer redryer will dry veneer with a moisture content less than 25 
percent (by weight, dry basis) in the future.


Sec.  63.2267  Initial compliance demonstration for a reconstituted 
wood product press or board cooler.

    If you operate a reconstituted wood product press at a new or 
existing affected source or a reconstituted wood product board cooler 
at a new affected source, then you must verify the capture efficiency 
of the capture device for the press or board cooler using Methods 204 
and 204A through 204F of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M (as appropriate) or 
using the alternative tracer gas method contained in appendix A to this 
subpart. You must submit the results of the capture efficiency 
verification with your Notification of Compliance Status.


Sec.  63.2268  What are my monitoring installation, operation, and 
maintenance requirements?

    (a) General continuous parameter monitoring requirements. You must 
install, operate, and maintain each continuous parameter monitoring 
system (CPMS) according to paragraphs (a)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (1) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15-minute period. To calculate a valid hourly value, 
you must have at least three equally spaced data values for that hour 
from a CPMS that is not out of control.
    (2) At all times, you must maintain the monitoring equipment 
including, but not limited to, maintaining necessary parts for routine 
repairs of the monitoring equipment.
    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(4) of this section, 
determine the 3-hour block average of all recorded readings, calculated 
after every 3 hours of operation as the average of the previous 3 
operating hours (not including startup, shutdown, and malfunction or 
periods of control device maintenance covered by any approved routine 
control device maintenance exemption).
    (4) For dry rotary dryer and veneer redryer wood moisture 
monitoring and for dry rotary dryer temperature monitoring, determine 
the 24-hour block average of all recorded readings, calculated after 
every 24 hours of operation as the average of the previous 24 operating 
hours (not including startup, shutdown, and malfunction). To calculate 
the average wood moisture or temperature for each 24-hour averaging 
period, you must have at least 75 percent of the hourly averages for 
that period using only hourly average values that are based on valid 
data (i.e., not from periods when the monitor is out of control).
    (5) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
    (b) Temperature monitoring. For each temperature monitoring device, 
you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b)(1) through (6) 
of this section.
    (1) Locate the temperature sensor in a position that provides a 
representative temperature.
    (2) Use a temperature sensor with a minimum tolerance of 4 [deg]F 
or 0.75 percent of the temperature value, whichever is larger.
    (3) If a chart recorder is used, it must have a sensitivity in the 
minor division of at least 20 [deg]F.
    (4) Perform an electronic calibration at least semiannually 
according to the procedures in the manufacturer's owners manual. 
Following the electronic calibration, you must conduct a temperature 
sensor validation check in which a second or redundant temperature 
sensor placed nearby the process temperature sensor must yield a 
reading within 30 [deg]F of the process temperature sensor's reading.
    (5) Conduct calibration and validation checks any time the sensor 
exceeds the manufacturer's specified maximum operating temperature 
range or install a new temperature sensor.
    (6) At least quarterly, inspect all components for integrity and 
all electrical connections for continuity, oxidation, and galvanic 
corrosion.
    (c) Pressure monitoring. For each pressure measurement device, you 
must

[[Page 1317]]

meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (c)(1) through (7) of this 
section.
    (1) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that 
provides a representative measurement of the pressure.
    (2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and 
internal and external corrosion.
    (3) Use a gauge with a minimum tolerance of 0.5 inches of water 
column or a transducer with a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the 
pressure range.
    (4) Check pressure tap daily to ensure it is not plugged.
    (5) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly.
    (6) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range or install a 
new pressure sensor.
    (7) At least quarterly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (d) pH monitoring. For each pH measurement device, you must meet 
the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (d)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Locate the pH sensor in a position that provides a 
representative measurement of pH.
    (2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the 
fluid to be measured.
    (3) Check the pH meter's calibration on at least two points every 8 
hours of process operation.
    (4) At least quarterly, inspect all components for integrity and 
all electrical connections for continuity.
    (e) Flow monitoring. For each flow measurement device, you must 
meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (e)(1) through (5) of this 
section.
    (1) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment such as 
straightening vanes in a position that provides a representative flow.
    (2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum tolerance of 2 percent of the 
flow rate.
    (3) Reduce swirling flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to 
upstream and downstream disturbances.
    (4) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually.
    (5) At least quarterly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (f) Wood moisture monitoring. For each furnish or veneer moisture 
meter, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1), (2), (4) 
and (5) and paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Use a moisture monitor with a minimum accuracy of 1 percent 
moisture or better. Alternatively, you may use a moisture monitor with 
a minimum accuracy of 5 percent moisture or better for dry rotary 
dryers used to dry furnish with less than 25 percent moisture or for 
veneer redryers used to redry veneer with less than 20 percent 
moisture.
    (2) Locate the moisture meter in a position that provides a 
representative measure of furnish or veneer moisture.
    (3) Check the moisture meter's calibration by manually determining 
the moisture content of samples of furnish or veneer at least once each 
day of process operation as follows:
    (i) Collect a sample of furnish or veneer just as it passes by the 
meter.
    (ii) Record the moisture meter reading for the sample of furnish or 
veneer collected.
    (iii) Determine the moisture content of the furnish or veneer 
sample by first weighing the wet sample and thoroughly drying the 
sample until it reaches a constant weight in a bench-scale dryer. Use 
Equation 1 of this section to calculate the furnish or veneer moisture 
weight percent on a dry basis:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA03.012

Where:

MC = moisture content of wood material (weight percent, dry basis)
Wwet = original weight of the wood, pounds
Wdry = weight of the dried wood, pounds

    (4) At least quarterly, inspect all components of the moisture 
meter for integrity and all electrical connections for continuity.
    (g) Continuous emission monitoring system(s). Each CEMS must be 
installed, operated, and maintained according to paragraphs (g)(1) 
through (4) of this section.
    (1) Each CEMS for monitoring THC concentration must be installed, 
operated, and maintained according to Performance Specification 8 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix B. You must also comply with Procedure 1 of 40 
CFR part 60, appendix F.
    (2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each CEMS 
according to the requirements in 40 CFR 63.8 and according to 
Performance Specification 8 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    (3) As specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(4)(ii), each CEMS must complete a 
minimum of one cycle of operation (sampling, analyzing, and data 
recording) for each successive 15-minute period.
    (4) The CEMS data must be reduced as specified in Sec.  63.8(g)(2) 
and paragraph (a)(3) of this section.

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec.  63.2270  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) You must monitor and collect data according to this section.
    (b) Except for, as appropriate, monitor malfunctions, associated 
repairs, and required quality assurance or control activities 
(including, as applicable, calibration checks and required zero and 
span adjustments), you must conduct all monitoring in continuous 
operation at all times that the process unit is operating. For purposes 
of calculating data averages, you must not use data recorded during 
monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, out-of-control periods, or 
required quality assurance or control activities. You must use all the 
data collected during all other periods in assessing compliance. A 
monitoring malfunction is any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 
preventable failure of the monitoring to provide valid data. Monitoring 
failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless 
operation are not malfunctions. Any period for which the monitoring 
system is out-of-control and data are not available for required 
calculations constitutes a deviation from the monitoring requirements.
    (c) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control 
activities or data recorded during periods of control device downtime 
covered in any approved routine control device maintenance exemption in 
data averages and calculations used to report emission or operating 
levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum data 
availability requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data 
collected during all other periods in assessing the operation of the 
control system.


Sec.  63.2271  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice 
requirements?

    (a) You must demonstrate continuous compliance with the compliance 
options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  63.2240 and 63.2241 that apply to you according to the 
methods specified in Tables 7 and 8 of this subpart.
    (b) You must report each instance in which you did not meet each 
compliance option, operating requirement, and work practice

[[Page 1318]]

requirement in Tables 7 and 8 of this subpart that applies to you. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction and periods of 
control device maintenance specified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (3) of 
this section. These instances are deviations from the compliance 
options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements in this 
subpart. These deviations must be reported according to the 
requirements in Sec.  63.2281.
    (1) During periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction, you must 
operate in accordance with the SSMP.
    (2) Consistent with Sec.  63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that 
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
you were operating in accordance with the SSMP. The Administrator will 
determine whether deviations that occur during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction are violations, according to the provisions in 
Sec.  63.6(e).
    (3) Deviations that occur during periods of control device 
maintenance covered by any approved routine control device maintenance 
exemption are not violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's 
satisfaction that you were operating in accordance with the approved 
routine control device maintenance exemption.

Notifications, Reports, and Records


Sec.  63.2280  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Sec. Sec.  63.7(b) 
and (c), 63.8(e), (f)(4) and (f)(6), 63.9(b) through (e), and (g) and 
(h) by the dates specified.
    (b) You must submit an Initial Notification no later than 120 
calendar days after the effective date of the subpart or after initial 
startup, whichever is later, as specified in Sec.  63.9(b)(2) and (3).
    (c) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a written notification of intent to conduct a performance test 
at least 60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to 
begin as specified in Sec.  63.7(b)(1).
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design 
evaluation, or other initial compliance demonstration as specified in 
Tables 4, 5, and 6 of this subpart, you must submit a Notification of 
Compliance Status as specified in Sec.  63.9(h)(2)(ii).
    (1) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Table 5 
or 6 of this subpart that does not include a performance test, you must 
submit the Notification of Compliance Status before the close of 
business on the 30th calendar day following the completion of the 
initial compliance demonstration.
    (2) For each initial compliance demonstration required in Tables 5 
and 6 of this subpart that includes a performance test conducted 
according to the requirements in Table 4 of this subpart, you must 
submit the Notification of Compliance Status, including the performance 
test results, before the close of business on the 60th calendar day 
following the completion of the performance test according to Sec.  
63.10(d)(2).
    (e) If you request a routine control device maintenance exemption 
according to Sec.  63.2251, you must submit your request for the 
exemption no later than 30 days before the compliance date.
    (f) If you use the emissions averaging compliance option in Sec.  
63.2240(c), you must submit an Emissions Averaging Plan to the 
Administrator for approval no later than 1 year before the compliance 
date or no later than 1 year before the date you would begin using an 
emissions average, whichever is later. The Emissions Averaging Plan 
must include the information in paragraphs (f)(1) through (6) of this 
section.
    (1) Identification of all the process units to be included in the 
emissions average indicating which process units will be used to 
generate credits, and which process units that are subject to 
compliance options in Tables 1A and 1B of this subpart will be 
uncontrolled or under-controlled (used to generate debits).
    (2) Description of the control system used to generate emission 
credits for each process unit used to generate credits.
    (3) Determination of the total HAP control efficiency for the 
control system used to generate emission credits for each credit-
generating process unit.
    (4) Calculation of the RMR and AMR, as calculated using Equations 1 
through 3 of Sec.  63.2240(c)(1).
    (5) Documentation of total HAP measurements made according to Sec.  
63.2240(c)(2)(iv) and other relevant documentation to support 
calculation of the RMR and AMR.
    (6) A summary of the operating parameters you will monitor and 
monitoring methods for each credit-generating process unit.
    (g) You must notify the Administrator within 30 days before you 
take any of the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of 
this section.
    (1) You modify or replace the control system for any process unit 
subject to the compliance options and operating requirements in this 
subpart.
    (2) You shutdown any process unit included in your Emissions 
Averaging Plan.
    (3) You change a continuous monitoring parameter or the value or 
range of values of a continuous monitoring parameter for any process 
unit or control device.


Sec.  63.2281  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit each report in Table 9 of this subpart that 
applies to you.
    (b) Unless the Administrator has approved a different schedule for 
submission of reports under Sec.  63.10(a), you must submit each report 
by the date in Table 9 of this subpart and as specified in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) The first compliance report must cover the period beginning on 
the compliance date that is specified for your affected source in Sec.  
63.2233 ending on June 30 or December 31, and lasting at least 6 
months, but less than 12 months. For example, if your compliance date 
is March 1, then the first semiannual reporting period would begin on 
March 1 and end on December 31.
    (2) The first compliance report must be postmarked or delivered no 
later than July 31 or January 31 for compliance periods ending on June 
30 and December 31, respectively.
    (3) Each subsequent compliance report must cover the semiannual 
reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the semiannual 
reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (4) Each subsequent compliance report must be postmarked or 
delivered no later than July 31 or January 31 for the semiannual 
reporting period ending on June 30 and December 31, respectively.
    (5) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting 
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports 
pursuant to Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec.  71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), you 
may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to the 
dates the permitting authority has established instead of according to 
the dates in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (c) The compliance report must contain the information in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section.

[[Page 1319]]

    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official with that official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your SSMP, the 
compliance report must include the information specified in Sec.  
63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) A description of control device maintenance performed while the 
control device was offline and one or more of the process units 
controlled by the control device was operating, including the 
information specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) through (iii) of this 
section.
    (i) The date and time when the control device was shutdown and 
restarted.
    (ii) Identification of the process units that were operating and 
the number of hours that each process unit operated while the control 
device was offline.
    (iii) A statement of whether or not the control device maintenance 
was included in your approved routine control device maintenance 
exemption developed pursuant to Sec.  63.2251. If the control device 
maintenance was included in your approved routine control device 
maintenance exemption, then you must report the information in 
paragraphs (c)(5)(iii)(A) through (C) of this section.
    (A) The total amount of time that each process unit controlled by 
the control device operated during the semiannual compliance period and 
during the previous semiannual compliance period.
    (B) The amount of time that each process unit controlled by the 
control device operated while the control device was down for 
maintenance covered under the routine control device maintenance 
exemption during the semiannual compliance period and during the 
previous semiannual compliance period.
    (C) Based on the information recorded under paragraphs 
(c)(5)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section for each process unit, compute 
the annual percent of process unit operating uptime during which the 
control device was offline for routine maintenance using Equation 1 of 
this section.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA03.013

Where:

RM = Annual percentage of process unit uptime during which control 
device is down for routine control device maintenance
PUp = Process unit uptime for the previous semiannual 
compliance period
PUc = Process unit uptime for the current semiannual 
compliance period
DTp = Control device downtime claimed under the routine 
control device maintenance exemption for the previous semiannual 
compliance period
DTc = Control device downtime claimed under the routine 
control device maintenance exemption for the current semiannual 
compliance period
    (6) The results of any performance tests conducted during the 
semiannual reporting period.
    (7) If there are no deviations from any applicable compliance 
option or operating requirement, and there are no deviations from the 
requirements for work practice requirements in Table 8 of this subpart, 
a statement that there were no deviations from the compliance options, 
operating requirements, or work practice requirements during the 
reporting period.
    (8) If there were no periods during which the continuous monitoring 
system(s) (CMS), including CEMS and CPMS, was out-of-control as 
specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(7), a statement that there were no periods 
during which the CMS was out-of-control during the reporting period.
    (d) For each deviation from a compliance option or operating 
requirement and for each deviation from the work practice requirements 
in Table 8 of this subpart that occurs at an affected source where you 
are not using a CMS to comply with the compliance options, operating 
requirements, or work practice requirements in this subpart, the 
compliance report must contain the information in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (6) of this section and the information in paragraphs (d)(1) 
and (2) of this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, 
and malfunction and routine control device maintenance.
    (1) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (2) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable), as applicable, and the 
corrective action taken.
    (e) For each deviation from a compliance option or operating 
requirement occurring at an affected source where you are using a CMS 
to comply with the compliance options and operating requirements in 
this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (6) and the information in paragraphs (e)(1) through (11) of 
this section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction and routine control device maintenance.
    (1) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (2) The date and time that each CMS was inoperative, except for 
zero (low-level) and high-level checks.
    (3) The date, time, and duration that each CMS was out-of-control, 
including the information in Sec.  63.8(c)(8).
    (4) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction; during a period of control device maintenance covered 
in your approved routine control device maintenance exemption; or 
during another period.
    (5) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (6) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
system problems, control device maintenance, process problems, other 
known causes, and other unknown causes.
    (7) A summary of the total duration of CMS downtime during the 
reporting period and the total duration of CMS downtime as a percent of 
the total source operating time during that reporting period.
    (8) A brief description of the process units.
    (9) A brief description of the CMS.
    (10) The date of the latest CMS certification or audit.
    (11) A description of any changes in CMS, processes, or controls 
since the last reporting period.
    (f) If you comply with the emissions averaging compliance option in 
Sec.  63.2240(c), you must include in your semiannual compliance report 
calculations based on operating data from the semiannual reporting 
period that demonstrate that actual mass removal equals or exceeds the 
required mass removal.
    (g) Each affected source that has obtained a title V operating 
permit pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71 must report all deviations as 
defined in this subpart in the semiannual monitoring report required by 
Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec.  71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If an affected 
source submits a compliance report pursuant to

[[Page 1320]]

Table 9 of this subpart along with, or as part of, the semiannual 
monitoring report required by Sec.  70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or Sec.  
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all required 
information concerning deviations from any compliance option, operating 
requirement, or work practice requirement in this subpart, submission 
of the compliance report shall be deemed to satisfy any obligation to 
report the same deviations in the semiannual monitoring report. 
However, submission of a compliance report shall not otherwise affect 
any obligation the affected source may have to report deviations from 
permit requirements to the permitting authority.


Sec.  63.2282  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(4) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
Initial Notification or Notification of Compliance Status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) The records in Sec.  63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related
    to startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) The records in Sec.  63.2250(e) relating to control device 
maintenance and documentation of your approved routine control device 
maintenance exemption, if you request such an exemption under Sec.  
63.2251.
    (4) Records of performance tests and performance evaluations as 
required in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) You must keep the records required in Tables 7 and 8 of this 
subpart to show continuous compliance with each compliance option, 
operating requirement, and work practice requirement that applies to 
you.
    (c) For each CEMS, you must keep the following records.
    (1) Records described in Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
    (2) Previous (i.e., superseded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan as required in Sec.  63.8(d)(3).
    (3) Request for alternatives to relative accuracy testing for CEMS 
as required in Sec.  63.8(f)(6)(i).
    (4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and 
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
    (d) If you comply with the emissions averaging compliance option in 
Sec.  63.2240(c), you must keep records of all information required to 
calculate emission debits and credits.


Sec.  63.2283  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

    (a) Your records must be in a form suitable and readily available 
for expeditious review as specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec.  63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record 
for 5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after 
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 
action, report, or record according to Sec.  63.10(b)(1). You can keep 
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.

Other Requirements and Information


Sec.  63.2290  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 10 of this subpart shows which parts of the General 
Provisions in Sec. Sec.  63.1 through 63.13 apply to you.


Sec.  63.2291  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the U.S. EPA or 
a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal agency. If 
the EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your State, local, or 
tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to implement and 
enforce this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to 
find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal 
agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under section 40 CFR part 
63, subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this 
section are retained by the EPA Administrator and are not transferred 
to the State, local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or 
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this 
section.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to the compliance options, operating 
requirements, and work practice requirements in Sec. Sec.  63.2240 and 
63.2241 as specified in Sec.  63.6(g). For the purposes of delegation 
authority under 40 CFR part 63, subpart E, ``compliance options'' 
represent ``emission limits''; ``operating requirements'' represent 
``operating limits''; and ``work practice requirements'' represent 
``work practice standards.''
    (2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods as specified in 
Sec.  63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring as specified in 
Sec.  63.8(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
as specified in Sec.  63.10(f) and as defined in Sec.  63.90.


Sec.  63.2292  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in 40 
CFR 63.2, the General Provisions, and in this section as follows:
    Affected source means the collection of dryers, blenders, formers, 
presses, board coolers, and other process units associated with the 
manufacturing of plywood and composite wood products at a plant site. 
The affected source includes, but is not limited to, green end 
operations, drying operations, blending and forming operations, 
pressing and board cooling operations, and miscellaneous finishing 
operations (such as sanding, sawing, patching, edge sealing, and other 
finishing operations not subject to other NESHAP). The affected source 
also includes onsite storage of raw materials used in the manufacture 
of plywood and/or composite wood products, such as resins; onsite 
wastewater treatment operations specifically associated with plywood 
and composite wood products manufacturing; and miscellaneous coating 
operations (defined elsewhere in this section). The affected source 
includes lumber kilns at PCWP manufacturing facilities and at any other 
kind of facility.
    Biofilter means an enclosed control system such as a tank or series 
of tanks with a fixed roof that are filled with media (such as bark) 
and use microbiological activity to transform organic pollutants in a 
process exhaust stream to innocuous compounds such as carbon dioxide, 
water, and inorganic salts. Wastewater treatment systems such as 
aeration lagoons or activated sludge systems are not considered to be 
biofilters.
    Capture device means a hood, enclosure, or other means of 
collecting emissions into a duct so that the emissions can be measured.
    Capture efficiency means the fraction (expressed as a percentage) 
of the pollutants from an emission source that are collected by a 
capture device.
    Catalytic oxidizer means a control system that combusts or 
oxidizes, in the presence of a catalyst, exhaust gas from a process 
unit. Catalytic oxidizers include regenerative catalytic oxidizers and 
thermal catalytic oxidizers.

[[Page 1321]]

    Control device means any equipment that reduces the quantity of a 
hazardous air pollutant that is emitted to the air. The device may 
destroy the hazardous air pollutant or secure the hazardous air 
pollutant for subsequent recovery. Control devices include, but are not 
limited to, thermal or catalytic oxidizers, combustion units that 
incinerate process exhausts, biofilters, and condensers.
    Control system or add-on control system means the combination of 
capture and control devices used to reduce hazardous air pollutant 
emissions to the atmosphere.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart including, but not limited to, any compliance option, operating 
requirement, or work practice requirement;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart, and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any compliance option, operating requirement, or 
work practice requirement in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or 
malfunction, regardless or whether or not such failure is permitted by 
this subpart.
    Dryer heated zones means the zones of a softwood veneer dryer or 
fiberboard mat dryer that are equipped with heating and hot air 
circulation units. The cooling zone(s) of the dryer through which 
ambient air is blown are not part of the dryer heated zones.
    Dry rotary dryer means a rotary dryer that dries wood particles or 
fibers with a maximum inlet moisture content of less than or equal to 
30 percent (by weight, dry basis) and operates with a maximum inlet 
temperature of less than or equal to 600[deg]F. A dry rotary dryer is a 
process unit.
    Dry forming means the process of making a mat of resinated fiber to 
be compressed into a reconstituted wood product such as particleboard, 
oriented strandboard (OSB), medium density fiberboard (MDF), or 
hardboard.
    Fiber means the slender threadlike elements of wood or similar 
cellulosic material, which are separated by chemical and/or mechanical 
means, as in pulping, that can be formed into boards.
    Fiberboard means a composite panel composed of cellulosic fibers 
(usually wood or agricultural material) made by wet forming and 
compacting a mat of fibers. Fiberboard density is less than 0.50 grams 
per cubic centimeter (31.5 pounds per cubic foot).
    Fiberboard mat dryer means a dryer used to reduce the moisture of 
wet-formed wood fiber mats by operation at elevated temperature. A 
fiberboard mat dryer is a process unit.
    Furnish means the fibers, particles, or strands used for making 
boards.
    Glue-laminated beam means a structural wood beam made by bonding 
lumber together along its faces with resin.
    Green rotary dryer means a rotary dryer that dries wood particles 
or fibers with an inlet moisture content of greater than 30 percent (by 
weight, dry basis) at any dryer inlet temperature or operates with an 
inlet temperature of greater than 600 [deg]F with any inlet moisture 
content. A green rotary dryer is a process unit.
    Hardboard means a composite panel composed of cellulosic fibers 
made by dry or wet forming and pressing of a resinated fiber mat. 
Hardboard has a density of 0.50 to 1.20 grams per cubic centimeter 
(31.5 to 75 pounds per cubic foot).
    Hardboard oven means an oven used to heat treat or temper hardboard 
after hot pressing. Humidification chambers are not considered as part 
of hardboard ovens. A hardboard oven is a process unit.
    Hardwood means the wood of a broad-leafed tree, either deciduous or 
evergreen. Examples of hardwoods include (but are not limited to) 
aspen, birch, and oak.
    Hardwood veneer dryer means a dryer that removes excess moisture 
from veneer by conveying the veneer through a heated medium on rollers, 
belts, cables, or wire mesh. Hardwood veneer dryers are used to dry 
veneer with less than 30 percent softwood species on an annual volume 
basis. Veneer kilns that operate as batch units, veneer dryers heated 
by radio frequency or microwaves that are used to redry veneer, and 
veneer redryers (defined elsewhere in this section) that are heated by 
conventional means are not considered to be hardwood veneer dryers. A 
hardwood veneer dryer is a process unit.
    Kiln-dried lumber means solid wood lumber that has been dried in a 
lumber kiln.
    Laminated strand lumber (LSL) means a composite product formed into 
a billet made of thin wood strands cut from whole logs, resinated, and 
pressed together with the grain of each strand oriented parallel to the 
length of the finished product.
    Laminated veneer lumber (LVL) means a composite product formed into 
a billet made from layers of resinated wood veneer sheets or pieces 
pressed together with the grain of each veneer aligned primarily along 
the length of the finished product. Laminated veneer lumber includes 
parallel strand lumber (PSL).
    Lumber kiln means an enclosed dryer operated at elevated 
temperature to reduce the moisture content of lumber.
    Medium density fiberboard (MDF) means a composite panel composed of 
cellulosic fibers (usually wood) made by dry forming and pressing of a 
resinated fiber mat.
    Method detection limit means the minimum concentration of an 
analyte that can be determined with 99 percent confidence that the true 
value is greater than zero.
    Miscellaneous coating operations means application of any of the 
following to plywood or composite wood products: Edge seals, moisture 
sealants, anti-skid coatings, company logos, trademark or grade stamps, 
nail lines, synthetic patches, wood patches, wood putty, concrete 
forming oils, glues for veneer composing, and shelving edge fillers. 
Miscellaneous coating operations also include the application of primer 
to OSB siding that occurs at the same site as OSB manufacture.
    MSF means thousand square feet (92.9 square meters). Square footage 
of panels is usually measured on a thickness basis, such as \3/8\-inch, 
to define the total volume of panels. Equation 6 of Sec.  63.2262(j) 
shows how to convert from one thickness basis to another.
    Nondetect data means, for the purposes of this subpart, any value 
that is below the method detection limit.
    Oriented strandboard (OSB) means a composite panel produced from 
thin wood strands cut from whole logs, formed into resinated layers 
(with the grain of strands in one layer oriented perpendicular to the 
strands in adjacent layers), and pressed.
    Oven-dried ton(s) (ODT) means tons of wood dried until all of the 
moisture in the wood is removed. One oven-dried ton equals 907 oven-
dried kilograms.
    Particle means a distinct fraction of wood or other cellulosic 
material produced mechanically and used as the aggregate for a 
particleboard. Particles are larger in size than fibers.
    Particleboard means a composite panel composed of cellulosic 
materials (usually wood or agricultural fiber) in the form of discrete 
pieces or particles, as distinguished from fibers, which are pressed 
together with resin.
    Permanent total enclosure (PTE) means a permanently installed

[[Page 1322]]

containment that meets the criteria of Method 204 (40 CFR part 51, 
appendix M).
    Plant site means all contiguous or adjoining property that is under 
common control, including properties that are separated only by a road 
or other public right-of-way. Common control includes properties that 
are owned, leased, or operated by the same entity, parent entity, 
subsidiary, or any combination thereof.
    Plywood and composite wood products (PCWP) manufacturing facility 
means a plant site that manufactures plywood and/or composite wood 
products by bonding wood material (fibers, particles, strands, veneers, 
etc.) or agricultural fiber, generally with resin under heat and 
pressure, to form a structural panel or engineered wood product. 
Plywood and composite wood products manufacturing facilities also 
include facilities that manufacture dry veneer and lumber kilns located 
at any facility. Plywood and composite wood products include (but are 
not limited to) plywood, veneer, particleboard, oriented strandboard, 
hardboard, fiberboard, medium density fiberboard, laminated strand 
lumber, laminated veneer lumber, wood I-joists, kiln-dried lumber, and 
glue-laminated beams.
    Plywood means a panel product consisting of layers of wood veneers 
hot pressed together with resin. Plywood includes panel products made 
by hot pressing (with resin) veneers to a substrate such as 
particleboard, MDF, or lumber.
    Press predryer means a dryer used to reduce the moisture and 
elevate the temperature of a wet-formed fiber mat before the mat enters 
a hot press. A press predryer is a process unit.
    Pressurized refiner means a piece of equipment operated under 
pressure for preheating (usually by steaming) wood material and 
refining (rubbing or grinding) the wood material into fibers. 
Pressurized refiners are operated with continuous infeed and outfeed of 
wood material and maintain elevated internal pressures (i.e., there is 
no pressure release) throughout the preheating and refining process. A 
pressurized refiner is a process unit.
    Process unit means equipment classified according to its function 
such as a blender, dryer, press, former, or board cooler.
    Reconstituted wood product board cooler means a piece of equipment 
designed to reduce the temperature of a board by means of forced air or 
convection within a controlled time period after the board exits the 
reconstituted wood product press unloader. Board coolers include wicket 
and star type coolers commonly found at MDF and particleboard plants. 
Board coolers do not include cooling sections of dryers (e.g., veneer 
dryers or fiberboard mat dryers) or coolers integrated into or 
following hardboard bake ovens or humidifiers. A reconstituted wood 
product board cooler is a process unit.
    Reconstituted wood product press means a press, including (if 
applicable) the press unloader, that presses a resinated mat of wood 
fibers, particles, or strands between hot platens or hot rollers to 
compact and set the mat into a panel by simultaneous application of 
heat and pressure. Reconstituted wood product presses are used in the 
manufacture of hardboard, medium density fiberboard, particleboard, and 
oriented strandboard. Extruders are not considered to be reconstituted 
wood product presses. A reconstituted wood product press is a process 
unit.
    Representative operating conditions means operation of a process 
unit during performance testing under the conditions that the process 
unit will typically be operating in the future, including use of a 
representative range of materials (e.g., wood material of a typical 
species mix and moisture content or typical resin formulation) and 
representative operating temperature range.
    Resin means the synthetic adhesive (including glue) or natural 
binder, including additives, used to bond wood or other cellulosic 
materials together to produce plywood and composite wood products.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40 
CFR 70.2 and 71.2.
    Softwood means the wood of a coniferous tree. Examples of softwoods 
include (but are not limited to) Southern yellow pine, Douglas fir, and 
White spruce.
    Softwood veneer dryer means a dryer that removes excess moisture 
from veneer by conveying the veneer through a heated medium on rollers, 
belts, cables, or wire mesh. Softwood veneer dryers are used to dry 
veneer with greater than or equal to 30 percent softwood species on an 
annual volume basis. Veneer kilns that operate as batch units, veneer 
dryers heated by radio frequency or microwaves that are used to redry 
veneer, and veneer redryers (defined elsewhere in this section) that 
are heated by conventional means are not considered to be softwood 
veneer dryers. A softwood veneer dryer is a process unit.
    Startup means bringing equipment online and starting the production 
process.
    Startup, initial means the first time equipment is put into 
operation. Initial startup does not include operation solely for 
testing equipment. Initial startup does not include subsequent startups 
(as defined in this section) following malfunction or shutdowns or 
following changes in product or between batch operations. Initial 
startup does not include startup of equipment that occurred when the 
source was an area source.
    Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan (SSMP) means a plan 
developed according to the provisions of Sec.  63.6(e)(3).
    Strand means a long (with respect to thickness and width), flat 
wood piece specially cut from a log for use in oriented strandboard, 
laminated strand lumber, or other wood strand-based product.
    Strand dryer means a dryer operated at elevated temperature and 
used to reduce the moisture of wood strands used in the manufacture of 
OSB, LSL, or other wood strand-based products. A strand dryer is a 
process unit.
    Temporary total enclosure (TTE) means an enclosure constructed for 
the purpose of measuring the capture efficiency of pollutants emitted 
from a given source, as defined in Method 204 of 40 CFR part 51, 
appendix M.
    Thermal oxidizer means a control system that combusts or oxidizes 
exhaust gas from a process unit. Thermal oxidizers include regenerative 
thermal oxidizers and burners or combustion units that accept process 
exhausts in the flame zone.
    Total hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions means, for purposes 
of this rulemaking, the sum of the emissions of the following six 
compounds: acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and 
propionaldehyde.
    Tube dryer means a single-stage or multistage dryer operated at 
elevated temperature and used to reduce the moisture of wood fibers or 
particles as they are conveyed (usually pneumatically) through the 
dryer. Resin may or may not be applied to the wood material before it 
enters the tube dryer. A tube dryer is a process unit.
    Veneer means thin sheets of wood peeled or sliced from logs for use 
in the manufacture of wood products such as plywood, laminated veneer 
lumber, or other products.
    Veneer redryer means a dryer heated by conventional means, such as 
direct wood-fired, direct-gas-fired, or steam heated, that is used to 
redry veneer that has been previously dried. Because the veneer dried 
in a veneer redryer has been previously dried, the inlet

[[Page 1323]]

moisture content of the veneer entering the redryer is less than 25 
percent (by weight, dry basis). Batch units used to redry veneer (such 
as redry cookers) are not considered to be veneer redryers. A veneer 
redryer is a process unit.
    Wet forming means the process of making a slurry of water, fiber, 
and additives into a mat of fibers to be compressed into a fiberboard 
or hardboard product.
    Wood I-joists means a structural wood beam with an I-shaped cross 
section formed by bonding (with resin) wood or laminated veneer lumber 
flanges onto a web cut from a panel such as plywood or oriented 
strandboard.
    Work practice requirement means any design, equipment, work 
practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is 
promulgated pursuant to section 112(h) of the Clean Air Act.

     Table 1A to Subpart DDDD.--Production-Based Compliance Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          You must meet the following
 For the following process units . .  production-based compliance option
                  .                        (total HAPa basis) . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Fiberboard mat dryer heated       0.022 lb/MSF \1/2\''
 zones (at new affected sources
 only).
(2) Green rotary dryers.............  0.058 lb/ODT
(3) Hardboard ovens.................  0.022 lb/MSF \1/8\''
(4) Press predryers (at new affected  0.037 lb/MSF \1/2\''
 sources only).
(5) Pressurized refiners............  0.039 lb/ODT
(6) Tube dryers.....................  0.26 lb/ODT
(7) Reconstituted wood product board  0.015 lb/MSF \3/4\''
 coolers (at new affected sources
 only).
(8) Reconstituted wood product        0.30 lb/MSF \3/4\''
 presses.
(9) Softwood veneer dryer heated      0.022 lb/MSF \3/8\''
 zones.
(10) Strand dryers..................  0.18 lb/ODT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Total HAP, as defined in Sec.   63.2292, includes acetaldehyde,
  acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde. lb/ODT
  = pounds per oven dried ton; lb/MSF = pounds per thousand square feet
  with a specified thickness basis (inches). Section 63.2262(j) shows
  how to convert from one thickness basis to another.


  Table 1B to Subpart DDDD.--Add-on Control Systems Compliance Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         You must comply with one of the
For each of the following process units      following six compliance
                 . . .                    options by using an emissions
                                               control system . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiberboard mat dryer heated zones (at    (1) Reduce emissions of total
 new affected sources only); Green        HAP, measured as THC (as
 rotary dryers; Hardboard ovens; Press    carbon),\a\ by 90 percent; or
 predryers (at new affected sources      (2) Limit emissions of total
 only); Pressurized refiners; Tube        HAP, measured as THC (as
 dryers; Reconstituted wood product       carbon),\a\ to 20 parts per
 board coolers (at new affected sources   million by volume, dry
 only); Reconstituted wood product        (ppmvd); or
 presses; Softwood veneer dryer heated   (3) Reduce methanol emissions
 zones; and Strand dryers.                by 90 percent; or
                                         (4) Limit methanol emissions to
                                          less than or equal to 1 ppmvd
                                          if uncontrolled methanol
                                          emissions entering the control
                                          device are greater than or
                                          equal to 10 ppmvd; or
                                         (5) Reduce formaldehyde
                                          emissions by 90 percent; or
                                         (6) Limit formaldehyde
                                          emissions to less than or
                                          equal to 1 ppmvd if
                                          uncontrolled formaldehyde
                                          emissions entering the control
                                          device are greater than or
                                          equal to 10 ppmvd.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ You may choose to subtract methane from THC as carbon measurements.


                                Table 2 to Subpart DDDD.--Operating Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      If you operate a(n) . . .             You must . . .         Or you must . . .        Or you must . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Thermal oxidizer.................  Maintain the 3-hour      Maintain the 3-hour      Maintain the 3-hour
                                        block average firebox    block average firebox    block average THC
                                        temperature above the    temperature above the    concentration a in the
                                        minimum temperature      minimum temperature      thermal oxidizer
                                        established during the   established during the   exhaust below the
                                        performance test; AND    performance test; AND    maximum concentration
                                        maintain in 3-hour       maintain the 3-hour      established during
                                        block average static     block average gas flow   performance test.
                                        pressure at the inlet    at the outlet of the
                                        of the thermal           thermal oxidizer below
                                        oxidizer within the      the maximum flow rate
                                        operating range          established during the
                                        established during the   performance test.
                                        performance test.
--------------------------------------

[[Page 1324]]

 
(2) Catalytic oxidizer...............  Maintain the 3-hour      Maintain the 3-hour      Maintain the 3-hour
                                        block average            block average            block average THC
                                        temperature upstream     temperature upstrem of   concentration a in the
                                        of the catalyst bed      the catalyst bed above   catalytic oxidizer
                                        above the minimum        the minimum              exhaust below the
                                        temperature              temperature              maximum concentration
                                        established during the   established during the   established during the
                                        performance test; AND    performance test; AND    performance test.
                                        maintain the 3-hour      maintain the 3-hour
                                        block average static     block average gas flow
                                        pressure at the inlet    at the outlet of the
                                        of the catalytic         catalytic oxidizer
                                        oxidizer within the      below the maximum flow
                                        operating range          rate established
                                        established during the   during the performance
                                        performance test.        test.
--------------------------------------
(3) Biofilter........................  Maintain the             Maintain the 3-hour
                                        temperature of the air   block average THC
                                        stream entering the      concentration a in the
                                        biofilter, pH of the     biofilter exhaust
                                        biofilter effluent,      below the maximum
                                        and pressure drop        concentration
                                        across the biofilter     established during the
                                        bed within the ranges    performance test.
                                        established according
                                        to Sec.   63.2262(m).
--------------------------------------
(4) Control device other than a        Petition the             Maintain the 3-hour
 thermal oxidizer, catalytic            Administrator for site-  block average THC
 oxidizer, or biofilter.                specific operating       concentration a in the
                                        parameter(s) to be       control device exhaust
                                        established during the   below the maximu
                                        performance test and     concentration
                                        maintain the average     established during the
                                        operating parameter(s)   performance test.
                                        within the range(s)
                                        established during the
                                        performance test.
--------------------------------------
(5) Process unit that meets a          Maintain the 3-hour      Maintain the 3-hour
 compliance option in Table 1A of       block average inlet      block average tHC
 this subpart.                          temperature below the    concentration a in the
                                        maximum inlet            process unit exhaust
                                        temperature              below the maximum
                                        established during the   concentration
                                        performance test if      established during the
                                        the process unit is a    performance test .
                                        green rotary dryer,
                                        tube dryer, or strand
                                        dryer; OR maintain the
                                        3-hour block average
                                        process unit operating
                                        temperature below the
                                        maximum operating
                                        temperature
                                        established during the
                                        performance test if
                                        the process unit is a
                                        hardboard oven, press
                                        predryer, or
                                        reconstituted wood
                                        product press; OR
                                        maintain the 3-hour
                                        block average
                                        operating temperature
                                        in each of the hot
                                        zones below the
                                        maximum hot zone
                                        temperatures
                                        established during the
                                        performance test if
                                        the process unit is a
                                        fiberboard mat dryer
                                        or softwood veneer
                                        dryer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a You may choose to substract methane from THC measurements.


          Table 3 to Subpart DDDD.--Work Practice Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following process units at
existing or new affected sources .             You must . . .
                . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Dry rotary dryers.............  Process furnish with a 24-hour block
                                     average inlet moisture content of
                                     less than or equal to 30 percent
                                     (by weight, dry basis); AND operate
                                     with a 24-hour block average inlet
                                     dryer temperature of less than or
                                     equal to 600[deg]F.
-----------------------------------
(2) Hardwood veneer dryers........  Process less than 30 volume percent
                                     softwood species on an annual
                                     basis.
-----------------------------------
(3) Softwood veneer dryers........  Minimize fugitive emissions from the
                                     dryer doors through (proper
                                     maintenance procedures) and the
                                     green end of the dryers (though
                                     proper balancing of the heated zone
                                     exhausts).
-----------------------------------

[[Page 1325]]

 
(4) Veneer redryers...............  Process veneer that has been
                                     previously dried, such that the 24-
                                     hour block average inlet moisture
                                     content of the veneer is less than
                                     or equal to 25 percent (by weight,
                                     dry basis).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table 4 to Subpart DDDD.--Requirements for Performance Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            For . . .               You must . . .        Using . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Each process unit subject to  Select sampling     Method 1 or 1A of
 a compliance option in Table 1A   port's location     40 CFR part 60,
 or 1B of this subpart or used     and the number of   appendix A (as
 in calculation of an emissions    traverse ports.     appropriate).
 average under Sec.   63.2240(c).
---------------------------------
(2) Each process unit subject to  Determine velocity  Method 2 in
 a compliance option in Table 1A   and volumetric      addition to
 or 1B of this subpart or used     flow rate.          Method 2A, 2C,
 in calculation of an emissions                        2D, 2F, or 2G in
 average under Sec.   63.2240(c).                      appendix A to 40
                                                       CFR part 60 (as
                                                       appropriate).
---------------------------------
(3) Each process unit subject to  Conduct gas         Method 3, 3A, or
 a compliance option in Table 1A   molecular weight    3B in appendix A
 or 1B of this subpart or used     analysis.           to 40 CFR part 60
 in calculation of an emissions                        (as appropriate).
 average under Sec.   63.2240(c).
---------------------------------
(4) Each process unit subject to  Measure moisture    Method 4 in
 a compliance option in Table 1A   content of the      appendix A to 40
 or 1B of this subpart or used     stack gas.          CFR part 60.
 in calculation of an emissions
 average under Sec.   63.2240(c).
---------------------------------
(5) Each process unit subject to  Measure emissions   Method 25A in
 a compliance option in Table 1B   of total HAP as     appendix A to 40
 of this subpart for which you     THC.                CFR part 60. You
 choose to demonstrate                                 may measure
 compliance using a total HAP as                       emissions of
 THC compliance option.                                methane using EPA
                                                       Method 18 in
                                                       appendix A to 40
                                                       CFR part 60 and
                                                       subtract the
                                                       methane emissions
                                                       from the
                                                       emissions of
                                                       total HAP as THC.
---------------------------------
(6) Each process unit subject to  Measure emissions   Method 320 in
 a compliance option in Table      of total HAP (as    appendix A to 40
 1A; OR for each process unit      defined in Sec.     CFR part 63; OR
 used in calculation of an         63.2292).           the NCASI Method
 emissions average under Sec.                          IM/CAN/WP-99.01
 63.2240(c).                                           (incorporated by
                                                       reference, see
                                                       Sec.   63.14(f)).
---------------------------------
(7) Each process unit subject to  Measure emissions   Method 308 in
 a compliance option in Table 1B   of methanol.        appendix A to 40
 of this subpart for which you                         CFR part 63; OR
 choose to demonstrate                                 Method 320 in
 compliance using a methanol                           appendix A to 40
 compliance option.                                    CFR part 63; OR
                                                       the NCASI Method
                                                       CI/WP-98.01
                                                       (incorporated by
                                                       reference, see
                                                       Sec.   63.14(f));
                                                       OR the NCASI
                                                       Method IM/CAN/WP-
                                                       99.01
                                                       (incorporated by
                                                       reference, see
                                                       Sec.   63.14(f)).
---------------------------------
(8) Each process unit subject to  Measure emissions   Method 316 in
 a compliance option in Table 1B   of formaldehyde.    appendix A to 40
 of this subpart for which you                         CFR part 63; OR
 choose to demonstrate                                 Method 320 in
 compliance using a formaldehyde                       appendix A to 40
 compliance option.                                    CFR part 63; OR
                                                       Method 0011 in
                                                       ``Test Methods
                                                       for Evaluating
                                                       Solid Waste,
                                                       Physical/Chemical
                                                       Methods'' (EPA
                                                       Publication No.
                                                       SW-846) for
                                                       formaldehyde; OR
                                                       the NCASI Method
                                                       CI/WP-98.01
                                                       (incorporated by
                                                       reference, see
                                                       Sec.   63.14(f));
                                                       OR the NCASI
                                                       Method IM/CAN/WP-
                                                       99.01
                                                       (incorporated by
                                                       reference, see
                                                       Sec.   63.14(f)).
---------------------------------
(9) Each reconstituted wood       Determine the       Methods 204 and
 product press at a new or         percent capture     204A through 204F
 existing affected source or       efficiency of the   of 40 CFR part
 reconstituted wood product        enclosure           51, appendix M.
 board cooler at a new affected    directing           Enclosures that
 source subject to a compliance    emissions to an     meet the Method
 option in Table 1B or used in     add-on control      204 requirements
 calculation of an emissions       device.             for a PTE are
 average under Sec.   63.2240(c).                      assumed to have a
                                                       capture
                                                       efficiency of
                                                       100%. Enclosures
                                                       that do not meet
                                                       the PTE
                                                       requirements must
                                                       determine the
                                                       capture
                                                       efficiency by
                                                       constructing a
                                                       TTE according to
                                                       the requirements
                                                       of Method 204 and
                                                       applying Methods
                                                       204A through 204F
                                                       (as appropriate).
                                                       As an alternative
                                                       to Methods 204
                                                       and 204A through
                                                       204F, you may use
                                                       the tracer gas
                                                       method contained
                                                       in appendix A to
                                                       this subpart.
---------------------------------

[[Page 1326]]

 
(10) Each reconstituted wood      Determine the       A TTE and Methods
 product press at a new or         percent capture     204 and 204A
 existing affected source or       efficiency.         through 204F (as
 reconstituted wood product                            appropriate) of
 board cooler at a new affected                        40 CFR part 51,
 source subject to a compliance                        appendix M. As an
 option in Table 1A of this                            alternative to
 subpart.                                              installing a TTE
                                                       and using Methods
                                                       204 and 204A
                                                       through 204F, you
                                                       may use the
                                                       tracer gas method
                                                       contained in
                                                       appendix A to
                                                       this subpart.
---------------------------------
(11) Each process unit subject    Establish the site- Data from the
 to a compliance option in         specific            parameter
 Tables 1A and 1B of this          operating           monitoring system
 subpart or used in calculation    requirements        or THC CEMS and
 of emissions averaging credits    (including the      the applicable
 under Sec.   63.2240(c).          parameter limits    performance test
                                   or THC              method(s).
                                   concentration
                                   limits) in Table
                                   2 of this subpart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 5 to Subpart DDDD.--Performance Testing and Initial Compliance
  Demonstrations for the Compliance Options and Operating Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                For the following
                                    compliance
                                   options and     You have demonstrated
        For each . . .              operating      initial compliance if
                                 requirements . .          . . .
                                        .
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Process unit listed in      Meet the           The average total HAP
 Table 1A of this subpart.       production-based   emissions measured
                                 compliance         using the methods in
                                 options listed     Table 4 of this
                                 in Table 1A of     subpart over the 3-
                                 this subpart.      hour initial
                                                    performance test are
                                                    no greater than the
                                                    compliance option in
                                                    Table 1A of this
                                                    subpart; AND you
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating
                                                    requirement(s)
                                                    listed in Table 2 of
                                                    this subpart for the
                                                    process unit over
                                                    the performance test
                                                    during which
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed the
                                                    compliance option
                                                    value.
-------------------------------
(2) Process unit listed in      Reduce emissions   Total HAP emissions,
 Table 1B of this subpart.       of total HAP,      measured using the
                                 measured as THC,   methods in Table 4
                                 by 90 percent.     of this subpart over
                                                    the 3-hour
                                                    performance test,
                                                    are reduced by at
                                                    least 90 percent, as
                                                    calculated using the
                                                    procedures in Sec.
                                                    63.2262; AND you
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating
                                                    requirement(s)
                                                    listed in Table 2 of
                                                    this subpart for the
                                                    process unit over
                                                    the performance test
                                                    during which
                                                    emissions were
                                                    reduced by at least
                                                    90 percent.
-------------------------------
(3) Process unit listed in      Limit emissions    The average total HAP
 Table 1B of this subpart.       of total HAP,      emissions, measured
                                 measured as THC,   using the methods in
                                 to 20 ppmvd.       Table 4 of this
                                                    subpart over the 3-
                                                    hour initial
                                                    performance test, do
                                                    not exceed 20 ppmvd;
                                                    AND you have a
                                                    record of the
                                                    operating
                                                    requirement(s)
                                                    listed in Table 2 of
                                                    this subpart for the
                                                    process unit over
                                                    the performance test
                                                    during which
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 20 ppmvd.
-------------------------------
(4) Process unit listed in      Reduce methanol    The methanol or
 Table 1B of this subpart.       or formaldehyde    formaldehyde
                                 emissions by 90    emissions measured
                                 percent.           using the methods in
                                                    Table 4 of this
                                                    subpart over the 3-
                                                    hour initial
                                                    performance test,
                                                    are reduced by at
                                                    least 90 percent, as
                                                    calculated using the
                                                    procedures in Sec.
                                                    63.2262; AND you
                                                    have a record of the
                                                    operating
                                                    requirement(s)
                                                    listed in Table 2 of
                                                    this subpart for the
                                                    process unit over
                                                    the performance test
                                                    during which
                                                    emissions were
                                                    reduced by at least
                                                    90 percent.
-------------------------------
(5) Process unit listed in      Limit methanol or  The average methanol
 Table 1B of this subpart.       formaldehyde       or formaldehyde
                                 emissions to       emissions, measured
                                 less than or       using the methods in
                                 equal to 1 ppmvd   Table 4 of this
                                 (if uncontrolled   subpart over the 3-
                                 emissions are      hour initial
                                 greater than or    performance test, do
                                 equal to 10        not exceed 1 ppmvd;
                                 ppmvd).            AND you have a
                                                    record of the
                                                    operating
                                                    requirement(s)
                                                    listed in Table 2 of
                                                    this subpart for the
                                                    process unit over
                                                    the performance test
                                                    during which
                                                    emissions did not
                                                    exceed 1 ppmvd. If
                                                    the process unit is
                                                    a reconstituted wood
                                                    product press or a
                                                    reconstituted wood
                                                    product board
                                                    cooler, your capture
                                                    device either meets
                                                    the EPA Method 204
                                                    criteria for a PTE
                                                    or achieves a
                                                    capture efficiency
                                                    of greater than or
                                                    equal to 95 percent.
-------------------------------
(6) Reconstituted wood product  Compliance         You submit the
 press at a new or existing      options in         results of capture
 affected source, or             Tables 1A and 1B   efficiency
 reconstituted wood product      of this subpart    verification using
 board cooler at a new           or the emissions   the methods in Table
 affected source.                averaging          4 of this subpart
                                 compliance         with your
                                 option in Sec.     Notification of
                                 63.2240(c).        Compliance Status.
-------------------------------

[[Page 1327]]

 
(7) Process unit listed in      Compliance         You submit with your
 Table 1B of this subpart        options in Table   Notification of
 controlled by routing exhaust   1B of this         Compliance Status
 to a combustion unit with       subpart or the     documentation
 heat input capacity greater     emissions          showing that your
 than or equal to 44 megawatts.  averaging          combustion unit has
                                 compliance         a heat input
                                 option in Sec.     capacity greater
                                 63.2240(c).        than or equal to 44
                                                    megawatts and that
                                                    the process exhausts
                                                    controlled enter
                                                    into the flame zone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 6 to Subpart DDDD.--Initial Compliance Demonstrations for Work
                          Practice Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           You have
                                   For the following     demonstrated
          For each. . .              work practice    initial compliance
                                   requirements. . .        if. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Dry rotary dryer............  Process furnish     You meet the work
                                   with an inlet       practice
                                   moisture content    requirement AND
                                   less than or        you submit a
                                   equal to 30         signed statement
                                   percent (by         with the
                                   weight, dry         Notification of
                                   basis) AND          Compliance Status
                                   operate with an     that the dryer
                                   inlet dryer         meets the
                                   temperature of      criteria of a
                                   less than or        ``dry rotary
                                   equal to            dryer'' AND you
                                   600[deg]F.          have a record of
                                                       the inlet
                                                       moisture content
                                                       and inlet dryer
                                                       temperature (as
                                                       required in Sec.
                                                        63.2263).
---------------------------------
(2) Hardwood veneer dryer.......  Process less than   You meet the work
                                   30 volume percent   practice
                                   softwood species.   requirement AND
                                                       you submit a
                                                       signed statement
                                                       with the
                                                       Notification of
                                                       Compliance Status
                                                       that the dryer
                                                       meets the
                                                       criteria of a
                                                       ``hardwood veneer
                                                       dryer'' AND you
                                                       have a record of
                                                       the percentage of
                                                       softwoods
                                                       processed in the
                                                       dryer (as
                                                       required in Sec.
                                                        63.2264).
---------------------------------
(3) Softwood veneer dryer.......  Minimize fugitive   You meet the work
                                   emissions from      practice
                                   the dryer doors     requirement AND
                                   and the green end.  you submit with
                                                       the Notification
                                                       of Compliance
                                                       Status a copy of
                                                       your plan for
                                                       minimizing
                                                       fugitive
                                                       emissions from
                                                       the veneer dryer
                                                       heated zones (as
                                                       required in Sec.
                                                        63.2265).
---------------------------------
(4) Veneer redryers.............  Process veneer      You meet the work
                                   with an inlet       practice
                                   moisture content    requirement AND
                                   of less than or     you submit a
                                   equal to 25         signed statement
                                   percent (by         with the
                                   weight, dry         Notification of
                                   basis).             Compliance Status
                                                       that the dryer
                                                       operates only as
                                                       a redryer AND you
                                                       have a record of
                                                       the veneer inlet
                                                       moisture content
                                                       of the veneer
                                                       processed in the
                                                       redryer (as
                                                       required in Sec.
                                                        63.2266).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 7 to Subpart DDDD.--Continuous Compliance With the Compliance
                   Options and Operating Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           You must
                                   For the following      demonstrate
            For . . .             compliance options      continuous
                                     and operating     compliance by . .
                                  requirements . . .           .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Each process unit listed in   Compliance options  Collecting and
 Tables 1A and 1B of this          in Tables 1A and    recording the
 subpart or used in calculation    1B of this          operating
 of emissions averaging credits    subpart or the      parameter
 under Sec.   63.2240(c).          emissions           monitoring system
                                   averaging           data listed in
                                   compliance option   Table 2 of this
                                   in Sec.             subpart for the
                                   63.2240(c) and      process unit
                                   the operating       according to Sec.
                                   requirements in       63.2268(a)-(e);
                                   Table 2 of this     AND reducing the
                                   subpart based on    operating
                                   monitoring of       parameter
                                   operating           monitoring system
                                   parameters.         data to the
                                                       specified average
                                                       in units of the
                                                       applicable
                                                       requirement
                                                       according to
                                                       calculations in
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.2268(a); AND
                                                       maintaining the
                                                       average operating
                                                       parameter at or
                                                       above the
                                                       maximum, at or
                                                       below the
                                                       minimum, or
                                                       within the range
                                                       (whichever
                                                       applies)
                                                       established
                                                       according to Sec.
                                                         63.2262.
---------------------------------
(2) Each process unit listed in   Compliance options  Collecting and
 Tables 1A and 1B of this          in Tables 1A and    recording the THC
 subpart or used in calculation    1B of this          monitoring data
 of emissions averaging credits    subpart or the      listed in Table 2
 under Sec.   63.2240(c).          emissions           of this subpart
                                   averaging           for the process
                                   compliance option   unit according to
                                   in Sec.             Sec.
                                   63.2240(c) and      63.2268(g); AND
                                   the operating       reducing the CEMS
                                   requirements in     data to 3-hour
                                   Table 2 of this     block averages
                                   subpart based on    according to
                                   THC CEMS data.      calculations in
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.2268(g); AND
                                                       maintaining the 3-
                                                       hour block
                                                       average THC
                                                       concentration in
                                                       the exhaust gases
                                                       less than or
                                                       equal to the THC
                                                       concentration
                                                       established
                                                       according to Sec.
                                                         63.2262.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1328]]


 Table 8 to Subpart DDDD.--Continuous Compliance With the Work Practice
                              Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           You must
                                   For the following      demonstrate
            For . . .                work practice        continuous
                                  requirements . . .   compliance by . .
                                                               .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Dry rotary dryer............  Process furnish     Maintaining the
                                   with an inlet       inlet furnish
                                   moisture content    moisture content
                                   less than or        at less than or
                                   equal to 30         equal to 30
                                   percent (by         percent (by
                                   weight, dry         weight, dry
                                   basis) AND          basis) AND
                                   operate with an     maintaining the
                                   inlet dryer         inlet dryer
                                   temperature of      temperature at
                                   less than or        less than or
                                   equal to 600        equal to 600
                                   [deg]F.             [deg]F; AND
                                                       keeping records
                                                       of the inlet
                                                       furnish moisture
                                                       content and inlet
                                                       dryer
                                                       temperature.
---------------------------------
(2) Hardwood veneer dryer.......  Process less than   Maintaining the
                                   30 volume percent   volume percent
                                   softwood species.   softwood species
                                                       processed below
                                                       30 percent AND
                                                       keeping records
                                                       of the volume
                                                       percent softwood
                                                       species
                                                       processed.
---------------------------------
(3) Softwood veneer dryer.......  Minimize fugitive   Following (and
                                   emissions from      documenting that
                                   the dryer doors     you are
                                   and the green end.  following) your
                                                       plan for
                                                       minimizing
                                                       fugitive
                                                       emissions.
---------------------------------
(4) Veneer redryers.............  Process veneer      Maintaining the
                                   with an inlet       inlet moisture
                                   moisture content    content of the
                                   of less than or     veneer processed
                                   equal to 25         at or below 25
                                   percent (by         percent AND
                                   weight, dry         keeping records
                                   basis).             of the inlet
                                                       moisture content
                                                       of the veneer
                                                       processed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


           Table 9 to Subpart DDDD.--Requirements for Reports
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    The report must     You must submit
   You must submit a(n) . . .        contain . . .     the report . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Compliance report...........  The information in  Semiannually
                                   Sec.   63.2281(c)   according to the
                                   through (g).        requirements in
                                                       Sec.
                                                       63.2281(b).
---------------------------------
(2) Immediate startup, shutdown,  (i) Actions taken   By fax or
 and malfunction report if you     for the event.      telephone within
 had a startup, shutdown, or                           2 working days
 malfunction during the                                after starting
 reporting period that is not                          actions
 consistent with your SSMP.                            inconsistent with
                                                       the plan.
                                  (ii) The            By letter within 7
                                   information in      working days
                                   Sec.                after the end of
                                   63.10(d)(5)(ii).    the event unless
                                                       you have made
                                                       alternative
                                                       arrangements with
                                                       the permitting
                                                       authority.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                 Table 10 to Subpart DDDD.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart DDDD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Citation                        Subject             Brief description     Applies to subpart DDDD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.1..........................  Applicability..........  Initial applicability    Yes.
                                                                 determination;
                                                                 Applicability after
                                                                 standard established;
                                                                 Permit requirements;
                                                                 Extensions,
                                                                 notifications.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.2..........................  Definitions............  Definitions for part 63  Yes.
                                                                 standards.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.3..........................  Units and Abbreviations  Units and abbreviations  Yes.
                                                                 for part 63 standards.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.4..........................  Prohibited Activities..  Prohibited Activities;   Yes.
                                                                 Compliance date;
                                                                 Circumvention,
                                                                 severability.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.5..........................  Construction/            Applicability;           Yes.
                                        Reconstruction.          applications;
                                                                 approvals.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(a).......................  Applicability..........  GP apply unless          Yes.
                                                                 compliance extension;
                                                                 GP apply to area
                                                                 sources that become
                                                                 major.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(b)(1)-(4)................  Compliance Dates for     Standards apply at       Yes.
                                        New and Reconstructed    effective date; 3
                                        sources.                 years after effective
                                                                 date; upon startup; 10
                                                                 years after
                                                                 construction or
                                                                 reconstruction
                                                                 commences for section
                                                                 112(f).
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(b)(5)....................  Notification...........  Must notify if           Yes.
                                                                 commenced construction
                                                                 or reconstruction
                                                                 after proposal.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(b)(6)....................  [Reserved].............  .......................  .......................
--------------------------------------

[[Page 1329]]

 
Sec.   63.6(b)(7)....................  Compliance Dates for     Area sources that        Yes.
                                        New and Reconstructed    become major must
                                        Area Sources that        comply with major
                                        Become Major.            source standards
                                                                 immediately upon
                                                                 becoming major,
                                                                 regardless of whether
                                                                 required to comply
                                                                 when they were an area
                                                                 source.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(c)(1)-(2)................  Compliance Dates for     Comply according to      Yes.
                                        Existing Sources.        date in subpart, which
                                                                 must be no later than
                                                                 3 years after
                                                                 effective date; for
                                                                 section 112(f)
                                                                 standards, comply
                                                                 within 90 days of
                                                                 effective date unless
                                                                 compliance extension.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(c)(3)-(4)................  [Reserved].............  .......................  .......................
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(c)(5)....................  Compliance Dates for     Area sources that        Yes.
                                        Existing Area Sources    become major must
                                        that Become Major.       comply with major
                                                                 source standards by
                                                                 date indicated in
                                                                 subpart or by
                                                                 equivalent time period
                                                                 (e.g., 3 years).
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(d).......................  [Reserved].............  .......................  .......................
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(e)(1)-(2)................  Operation & Maintenance  Operate to minimize      Yes.
                                                                 emissions at all
                                                                 times; correct
                                                                 malfunctions as soon
                                                                 as practicable;
                                                                 operation and
                                                                 maintenance
                                                                 requirements
                                                                 independently
                                                                 enforceable;
                                                                 information
                                                                 Administrator will use
                                                                 to determine if
                                                                 operation and
                                                                 maintenance
                                                                 requirements were met.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(e)(3)....................  Startup, Shutdown, and   Requirement for SSM and  Yes.
                                        Malfunction Plan         SSMP; Content of SSMP.
                                        (SSMP).
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(f)(1)....................  Compliance Except        You must comply with     Yes.
                                        During SSM.              emission standards at
                                                                 all times except
                                                                 during SSM.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(f)(2)-(3)................  Methods for Determining  Compliance based on      Yes.
                                        Compliance.              performance test,
                                                                 operation and
                                                                 maintenance plans,
                                                                 records, inspection.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(g)(1)-(3)................  Alternative Standard...  Procedures for getting   Yes.
                                                                 an alternative
                                                                 standard.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(h)(1)-(9)................  Opacity/Visible          Requirements for         NA.
                                        Emission (VE)            opacity and visible
                                        Standards.               emission standards.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(i)(1)-(14)...............  Compliance Extension...  Procedures and criteria  Yes.
                                                                 for Administrator to
                                                                 grant compliance
                                                                 extension.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.6(j).......................  Presidential Compliance  President may exempt     Yes.
                                        Exemption.               source category from
                                                                 requirement to comply
                                                                 with rule.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(a)(1)-(2)................  Performance Test Dates.  Dates for Conducting     Yes.
                                                                 Initial Performance
                                                                 Testing and Other
                                                                 Compliance
                                                                 Demonstrations; Must
                                                                 conduct 180 days after
                                                                 first subject to rule.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(a)(3)....................  Section 114 Authority..  Administrator may        Yes.
                                                                 require a performance
                                                                 test under CAA section
                                                                 114 at any time.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(b)(1)....................  Notification of          Must notify              Yes.
                                        Performance Test.        Administrator 60 days
                                                                 before the test.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(b)(2)....................  Notification of          If have to reschedule    Yes.
                                        Rescheduling.            performance test, must
                                                                 notify Administrator 5
                                                                 days before scheduled
                                                                 date of rescheduled
                                                                 date.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(c).......................  Quality Assurance/Test   Requirement to submit    Yes.
                                        Plan.                    site-specific test
                                                                 plan 60 days before
                                                                 the test or on date
                                                                 Administrator agrees
                                                                 with; test plan
                                                                 approval procedures;
                                                                 performance audit
                                                                 requirements; internal
                                                                 and external QA
                                                                 procedures for testing.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(d).......................  Testing Facilities.....  Requirements for         Yes.
                                                                 testing facilities.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(e)(1)....................  Conditions for           Performance tests must   Yes.
                                        Conducting Performance   be conducted under
                                        Tests.                   representative
                                                                 conditions; cannot
                                                                 conduct performance
                                                                 tests during SSM; not
                                                                 a violation to exceed
                                                                 standard during SSM.
--------------------------------------

[[Page 1330]]

 
Sec.   63.7(e)(2)....................  Conditions for           Must conduct according   Yes.
                                        Conducting Performance   to rule and EPA test
                                        Tests.                   methods unless
                                                                 Administrator approves
                                                                 alternative.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(e)(3)....................  Test Run Duration......  Must have three test     Yes.
                                                                 runs of at least one
                                                                 hour each; compliance
                                                                 is based on arithmetic
                                                                 mean of three runs;
                                                                 specifies conditions
                                                                 when data from an
                                                                 additional test run
                                                                 can be used.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(f).......................  Alternative Test Method  Procedures by which      Yes.
                                                                 Administrator can
                                                                 grant approval to use
                                                                 an alternative test
                                                                 method.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(g).......................  Performance Test Data    Must include raw data    Yes.
                                        Analysis.                in performance test
                                                                 report; must submit
                                                                 performance test data
                                                                 60 days after end of
                                                                 test with the
                                                                 notification of
                                                                 compliance status;
                                                                 keep data for 5 years.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.7(h).......................  Waiver of Tests........  Procedures for           Yes.
                                                                 Administrator to waive
                                                                 performance test.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(a)(1)....................  Applicability of         Subject to all           Yes.
                                        Monitoring               monitoring
                                        Requirements.            requirements in
                                                                 standard.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(a)(2)....................  Performance              Performance              Yes.
                                        Specifications.          Specifications in
                                                                 Appendix B of Part 60
                                                                 apply.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(a)(3)....................  [Reserved].............  .......................  .......................
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(a)(4)....................  Monitoring with Flares.  Requirements for flares  NA
                                                                 in Sec.   63.11 apply.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(b)(1)....................  Monitoring.............  Must conduct monitoring  Yes.
                                                                 according to standard
                                                                 unless Administrator
                                                                 approves alternative.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(b)(2)-(3)................  Multiple Effluents and   Specific requirements    Yes.
                                        Multiple Monitoring      for installing
                                        Systems.                 monitoring systems;
                                                                 must install on each
                                                                 effluent before it is
                                                                 combined and before it
                                                                 is released to the
                                                                 atmosphere unless
                                                                 Administrator approves
                                                                 otherwise; if more
                                                                 than one monitoring
                                                                 system on an emission
                                                                 point, must report all
                                                                 monitoring system
                                                                 results, unless one
                                                                 monitoring system is a
                                                                 backup.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)....................  Monitoring System        Maintain monitoring      Yes.
                                        Operation and            system in a manner
                                        Maintenance.             consistent with good
                                                                 air pollution control
                                                                 practices.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(i).................  Routine and Predictable  Follow the SSM plan for  Yes.
                                        SSM.                     routine repairs; keep
                                                                 parts for routine
                                                                 repairs readily
                                                                 available; reporting
                                                                 requirements for SSM
                                                                 when action is
                                                                 described in SSM plan.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(ii)................  SSM not in SSMP........  Reporting requirements   Yes.
                                                                 for SSM Yes when
                                                                 action is not
                                                                 described in SSM plan.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(c)(1)(iii)...............  Compliance with          How Administrator        Yes.
                                        Operation and            determines if source
                                        Maintenance              complying with
                                        Requirements.            operation and
                                                                 maintenance
                                                                 requirements; review
                                                                 of source O&M
                                                                 procedures, records;
                                                                 manufacturer's
                                                                 instructions,
                                                                 recommendations;
                                                                 inspection.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(c)(2)-(3)................  Monitoring System        Must install to get      Yes.
                                        Installation.            representative
                                                                 emission of parameter
                                                                 measurements; must
                                                                 verify operational
                                                                 status before or at
                                                                 performance test.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(c)(4)....................  Continuous Monitoring    CMS must be operating    Yes.
                                        System (CMS)             except during
                                        Requirements.            breakdown, out-of-
                                                                 control, repair,
                                                                 maintenance, and high-
                                                                 level calibration
                                                                 drifts; COMS must have
                                                                 a minimum of one cycle
                                                                 of sampling and
                                                                 analysis for each
                                                                 successive 10-second
                                                                 period and one cycle
                                                                 of data recording for
                                                                 each successive 6-
                                                                 minute period; CEMS
                                                                 must have a minimum of
                                                                 one cycle of operation
                                                                 for each successive 15-
                                                                 minute period.
--------------------------------------

[[Page 1331]]

 
Sec.   63.8(c)(5)....................  COMS Minimum Procedures  COMS minimum procedures  NA.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(c)(6)-(8)................  CMS Requirements.......  Zero and high level      Yes.
                                                                 calibration check
                                                                 requirements; out-of-
                                                                 control periods.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(d).......................  CMS Quality Control....  Requirements for CMS     Yes.
                                                                 quality control,
                                                                 including calibration,
                                                                 etc.; must keep
                                                                 quality control plan
                                                                 on record for 5 years.
                                                                 Keep old versions for
                                                                 5 years after
                                                                 revisions.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(e).......................  CMS Performance          Notification,            Yes.
                                        Evaluation.              performance evaluation
                                                                 test plan, reports..
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(f)(1)-(5)................  Alternative Monitoring   Procedures for           Yes.
                                        Method.                  Administrator to
                                                                 approve alternative
                                                                 monitoring.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(f)(6)....................  Alternative Relative     Procedures for           Yes.
                                        Accuracy Test.           Administrator to
                                                                 approve alternative
                                                                 relative accuracy
                                                                 tests for CEMS.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.8(g).......................  Data Reduction.........  COMS 6-minute averages   Yes.
                                                                 calculated over at
                                                                 least 36 evenly spaced
                                                                 data points; CEMS 1
                                                                 hour averages computed
                                                                 over at least 4
                                                                 equally spaced data
                                                                 points; data that
                                                                 can't be used in
                                                                 average.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(a).......................  Notification             Applicability and State  Yes.
                                        Requirements.            Delegation.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(b)(1)-(5)................  Initial Notifications..  Submit notification 120  Yes.
                                                                 days after effective
                                                                 date; notification of
                                                                 intent to construct/
                                                                 reconstruct;
                                                                 notification of
                                                                 commencement of
                                                                 construct/reconstruct;
                                                                 notification of
                                                                 startup; contents of
                                                                 each.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(c).......................  Request for Compliance   Can request if cannot    Yes
                                        Extension.               comply by date or if
                                                                 installed BACT/LAER.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(d).......................  Notification of Special  For sources that         Yes
                                        Compliance               commence construction
                                        Requirements for New     between proposal and
                                        Source.                  promulgation and want
                                                                 to comply 3 years
                                                                 after effective date.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(e).......................  Notification of          Notify Administrator 60  Yes.
                                        Performance Test.        days prior.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(f).......................  Notification of VE/      Notify Administrator 30  No.
                                        Opacity Test.            days prior.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(g).......................  Additional               Notification of          Yes.
                                        Notifications When       performance
                                        Using CMS.               evaluation;
                                                                 notification using
                                                                 COMS data;
                                                                 notification that
                                                                 exceeded criterion for
                                                                 relative accuracy.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(h)(1)-(6)................  Notification of          Contents; due 60 days    Yes.
                                        Compliance Status.       after end of
                                                                 performance test or
                                                                 other compliance
                                                                 demonstration, except
                                                                 for opacity/VE, which
                                                                 are due 30 days after;
                                                                 when to submit to
                                                                 Federal vs. State
                                                                 authority.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(i).......................  Adjustment of Submittal  Procedures for           Yes.
                                        Deadlines.               Administrator to
                                                                 approve change in when
                                                                 notifications must be
                                                                 submitted.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.9(j).......................  Change in Previous       Must submit within 15    Yes.
                                        Information.             days after the change.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(a)......................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  Applies to all, unless   Yes.
                                                                 compliance extension;
                                                                 when to submit to
                                                                 Federal vs. State
                                                                 authority; procedures
                                                                 for owners of more
                                                                 than 1 source.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(b)(1)...................  Recordkeeping/Reporting  General Requirements;    Yes.
                                                                 keep all records
                                                                 readily available;
                                                                 keep for 5 years.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(i)-(iv)...........  Records related to       Occurrence of each of    Yes.
                                        Startup, Shutdown, and   operation (process
                                        Malfunction.             equipment); occurrence
                                                                 of each malfunction of
                                                                 air pollution
                                                                 equipment; maintenance
                                                                 on air pollution
                                                                 control equipment;
                                                                 actions during
                                                                 startup, shutdown, and
                                                                 malfunction.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vi) and (x)-(xi)..  CMS Records............  Malfunctions,            Yes.
                                                                 inoperative, out-of-
                                                                 control.
--------------------------------------

[[Page 1332]]

 
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(vii)-(ix).........  Records................  Measurements to          Yes.
                                                                 demonstrate compliance
                                                                 with compliance
                                                                 options and operating
                                                                 requirements;
                                                                 performance test,
                                                                 performance
                                                                 evaluation, and
                                                                 visible emission
                                                                 observation results;
                                                                 measurements to
                                                                 determine conditions
                                                                 of performance tests
                                                                 and performance
                                                                 evaluations.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xii)..............  Records................  Records when under       Yes.
                                                                 waiver.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiii).............  Records................  Records when using       Yes.
                                                                 alternative to
                                                                 relative accuracy test.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(b)(2)(xiv)..............  Records................  All documentation        Yes.
                                                                 supporting initial
                                                                 notification and
                                                                 notification of
                                                                 compliance status.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(b) (3)..................  Records................  Applicability            Yes.
                                                                 Determinations.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(c)(1)-(6),(9)-(15)......  Records................  Additional Records for   Yes.
                                                                 CMS.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(c)(7)-(8)...............  Records................  Records of excess        No.
                                                                 emissions and
                                                                 parameter monitoring
                                                                 exceedances for CMS.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(d)(1)...................  General Reporting        Requirement to report..  Yes.
                                        Requirements.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(d)(2)...................  Report of Performance    When to submit to        Yes.
                                        Test Results.            Federal or State
                                                                 authority.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(d)(3)...................  Reporting Opacity or VE  What to report and when  NA.
                                        Observations.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(d)(4)...................  Progress Reports.......  Must submit progress     Yes.
                                                                 reports on schedule if
                                                                 under compliance.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(d)(5)...................  Startup, Shutdown, and   Contents and submission  Yes.
                                        Malfunction Reports.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(e)(1)-(2)...............  Additional CMS Reports.  Must report results for  Yes.
                                                                 each CEM Reports on a
                                                                 unit; written copy of
                                                                 performance
                                                                 evaluation; 3 copies
                                                                 of COMS performance
                                                                 evaluation.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(e)(3)...................  Reports................  Excess Emission Reports  No.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(e)(4)...................  Reporting COMS data....  Must submit COMS data    NA.
                                                                 with performance test
                                                                 data.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.10(f)......................  Waiver for               Procedures for           Yes.
                                        Recordkeeping/           Administrator to waive.
                                        Reporting.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.11.........................  Flares.................  Requirements for flares  NA.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.12.........................  Delegation.............  State authority to       Yes.
                                                                 enforce standards.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.13.........................  Addresses..............  Addresses where          Yes.
                                                                 reports,
                                                                 notifications, and
                                                                 requests are send.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.14.........................  Incorporation by         Test methods             Yes.
                                        Reference.               incorporated by
                                                                 reference.
--------------------------------------
Sec.   63.15.........................  Availability of          Public and confidential  Yes.
                                        Information.             information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Appendix A to Subpart DDDD--Alternative Procedure To Determine Capture 
Efficiency From A Hot Press Enclosure in the Plywood and Composite Wood 
Products Industry Using Sulfur Hexafluoride Tracer Gas

1.0 Scope and Application

    This procedure has been developed specifically for the proposed 
rule for the plywood and composite wood products industry and is 
used to determine the capture efficiency of a partial hot press 
enclosure in that industry. This procedure is applicable for the 
determination of capture efficiency for press enclosures that are 
not considered to be permanent total enclosures (PTEs) as defined in 
EPA Method 204 and is proposed as an alternative to the construction 
of temporary total enclosures (TTEs). Sulfur hexafluoride 
(SF6) is used as a tracer gas (other tracer gases may be 
used if approved by the Administrator). This gas is not indigenous 
to the ambient atmosphere and is nonreactive.
    This procedure uses infrared spectrometry (IR) as the analytical 
technique. When the infrared spectrometer used is a Fourier-
Transform Infrared spectrometer (FTIR), an alternate instrument 
calibration procedure may be used; the alternate calibration 
procedure is the calibration transfer standard (CTS) procedure of 
EPA Method 320. Other analytical techniques which are capable of

[[Page 1333]]

equivalent Method Performance (Section 13.0) also may be used. 
Specifically, gas chromatography with electron capture detection 
(GC/ECD) is an applicable technique for analysis of SF6.

2.0 Summary of Method

    A constant mass flow rate of SF6 tracer gas is 
released through manifolds at multiple locations within the 
enclosure to mimic the release of HAP during the press process. This 
test method requires a minimum of three SF6 injection 
points (two at the press unloader and one at the press) and provides 
details about considerations for locating the injection points. An 
infrared spectrometer (or GC/ECD) is used to measure the 
concentration of SF6 at the inlet duct to the control 
device (outlet duct from enclosure). Simultaneously, EPA Method 2 is 
used to measure the flow rate at the inlet duct to the control 
device. The concentration and flow rate measurements are used to 
calculate the mass emission rate of SF6 at the control 
device inlet. Through calculation of the mass of SF6 
released through the manifolds and the mass of SF6 
measured at the inlet to the control device, the capture efficiency 
of the enclosure is calculated.
    In addition, optional samples of the ambient air may be taken at 
locations around the perimeter of the enclosure to quantify the 
ambient concentration of SF6 and to identify those areas 
of the enclosure that may be performing less efficiently; these 
samples would be taken using disposable syringes and would be 
analyzed using a GC/ECD.
    Finally, in addition to the requirements specified in this 
procedure, the data quality objectives (DQO) or lower confidence 
limit (LCL) criteria specified in Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart KK, Data Quality Objective and Lower Confidence Limit 
Approaches for Alternative Capture Efficiency Protocols and Test 
Methods, must also be satisfied. A minimum of three test runs are 
required for this procedure; however, additional test runs may be 
required based on the results of the DQO or LCL analysis.

3.0 Definitions

    3.1 Capture efficiency (CE). The weight per unit time of 
SF6entering the control device divided by the weight per 
unit time of SF6 released through manifolds at multiple 
locations within the enclosure.
    3.2 Control device (CD). The equipment used to reduce, by 
destruction or removal, press exhaust air pollutants prior to 
discharge to the ambient air.
    3.3 Control/destruction efficiency (DE). The VOC or HAP removal 
efficiency of the control device.
    3.4 Data Quality Objective (DQO) Approach. A statistical 
procedure to determine the precision of the data from a test series 
and to qualify the data in the determination of capture efficiency 
for compliance purposes. If the results of the DQO analysis of the 
initial three test runs do not satisfy the DQO criterion, the LCL 
approach can be used or additional test runs must be conducted. If 
additional test runs are conducted, then the DQO or LCL analysis is 
conducted using the data from both the initial test runs and all 
additional test runs.
    3.5 Lower Confidence Limit (LCL) Approach. An alternative 
statistical procedure that can be used to qualify data in the 
determination of capture efficiency for compliance purposes. If the 
results of the LCL approach produce a CE that is too low for 
demonstrating compliance, then additional test runs must be 
conducted until the LCL or DQO is met. As with the DQO, data from 
all valid test runs must be used in the calculation.
    3.6 Minimum Measurement Level (MML). The minimum tracer gas 
concentration expected to be measured during the test series. This 
value is selected by the tester based on the capabilities of the IR 
spectrometer (or GC/ECD) and the other known or measured parameters 
of the hot press enclosure to be tested. The selected MML must be 
above the low-level calibration standard and preferably below the 
mid-level calibration standard.
    3.7 Method 204. The U.S. EPA Method 204, ``Criteria For and 
Verification of a Permanent or Temporary Total Enclosure'' (40 CFR 
part 51, Appendix M). If the permanent total enclosure (PTE) 
criteria in Method 204 are satisfied, the PTE around a hot press is 
assumed to be 100 percent capture efficient.
    3.8 Method 205. The U.S. EPA Method 205, ``Verification of Gas 
dilution Systems for Field Instrument Calibrations'' (40 CFR part 
51, Appendix M).
    3.9 Method 320. The U.S. EPA Method 320, ``Measurement of Vapor 
Phase Organic and Inorganic Emissions by Extractive Fourier 
Transform Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy'' (40 CFR part 63, Appendix 
A).
    3.10 Overall capture and control efficiency (CCE). The 
collection and control/destruction efficiency of both the PPE and CD 
combined. The CCE is calculated as the product of the CE and DE.
    3.11 Partial press enclosure (PPE). The physical barrier that 
``partially'' encloses the press equipment, captures a significant 
amount of the associated emissions, and transports those emissions 
to the CD.
    3.12 Test series. A minimum of three test runs or, when more 
than three runs are conducted, all of the test runs conducted.

4.0 Interferences

    There are no known interferences.

5.0 Safety

    Sulfur hexafluoride is a colorless, odorless, nonflammable 
liquefied gas. It is stable and nonreactive and, because it is 
noncorrosive, most structural materials are compatible with it. The 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEL-TWA and TLV-TWA 
concentrations are 1,000 parts per million. Sulfur hexafluoride is 
an asphyxiant. Exposure to an oxygen deficient atmosphere (less than 
19.5 percent oxygen) may cause dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, 
vomiting, excess salivation, diminished mental alertness, loss of 
consciousness and death. Exposure to atmospheres containing less 
than 12 percent oxygen will bring about unconsciousness without 
warning and so quickly that the individuals cannot help themselves. 
Contact with liquid or cold vapor may cause frostbite. Avoid 
breathing sulfur hexafluoride gas. Self contained breathing 
apparatus may be required by rescue workers. Sulfur hexafluoride is 
not listed as a carcinogen or a potential carcinogen.

6.0 Equipment and Supplies

    This method requires equipment and supplies for: (a) The 
injection of tracer gas into the enclosure, (b) the measurement of 
the tracer gas concentration in the exhaust gas entering the control 
device, and (c) the measurement of the volumetric flow rate of the 
exhaust gas entering the control device. In addition, the requisite 
equipment needed for EPA Methods 1--4 will be required. Equipment 
and supplies for optional ambient air sampling are discussed in 
Section 8.6.
    6.1 Tracer Gas Injection.
    6.1.1 Manifolds. This method requires the use of tracer gas 
supply cylinder(s) along with the appropriate flow control elements. 
Figure 1 shows a schematic drawing of the injection system showing 
potential locations for the tracer gas manifolds. Figure 2 shows a 
schematic drawing of the recommended configuration of the injection 
manifold. Three tracer gas discharge manifolds are required at a 
minimum.
    6.1.2 Flow Control Meter. Flow control and measurement meter for 
measuring the quantity of tracer gas injected. A mass flow, 
volumetric flow, or critical orifice control meter can be used for 
this method. The meter must be accurate to within +/- 5 percent at 
the flow rate used. This means that the flow meter must be 
calibrated against a primary standard for flow measurement at the 
appropriate flow rate.
    6.2 Measurement of Tracer Gas Concentration.
    6.2.1 Sampling Probes. Use Pyrex or stainless steel sampling 
probes of sufficient length to reach the traverse points calculated 
according to EPA Method 1.
    6.2.2 Sampling Line. Use a heated Teflon sampling line to 
transport the sample to the analytical instrument.
    6.2.3 Sampling Pump. Use a sampling pump capable of extracting 
sufficient sample from the duct and transporting to the analytical 
instrument.
    6.2.4 Sample Conditioning System. Use a particulate filter 
sufficient to protect the sampling pump and analytical instrument. 
At the discretion of the tester and depending on the equipment used 
and the moisture content of the exhaust gas, it may be necessary to 
further condition the sample by removing moisture using a condenser.
    6.2.5 Analytical Instrument. Use one of the following analytical 
instruments.
    6.2.1.1 Spectrometer. Use an infrared spectrometer designed to 
measuring SF6 tracer gas and capable of meeting or exceeding the 
specifications of this procedure. An FTIR meeting the specifications 
of Method 320 may be used.
    6.2.1.2 GC/ECD. Use a GC/ECD designed to measure SF6 tracer gas 
and capable of meeting or exceeding the specifications of this 
procedure.
    6.2.6 Recorder. At a minimum, use a recorder with linear strip 
chart. An automated data acquisition system (DAS) is recommended.
    6.3 Exhaust Gas Flow Rate Measurement. Use equipment specified 
for EPA Methods 2,

[[Page 1334]]

3, and 4 for measuring flow rate of exhaust gas at the inlet to the 
control device.

7.0 Reagents and Standards

    7.1 Tracer Gas. Use SF6 as the tracer gas. The manufacturer of 
the SF6 tracer gas should provide a recommended shelf life for the 
tracer gas cylinder over which the concentration does not change 
more than +/- 2 percent from the certified value. A gas mixture of 
SF6 diluted with nitrogen should be used; based on experience and 
calculations, pure SF6 gas is not necessary to conduct tracer gas 
testing. Select a concentration and flow rate that is appropriate 
for the analytical instrument's detection limit, the minimum 
measurement level (MML), and the exhaust gas flow rate from the 
enclosure (see section 8.1.1). You may use a tracer gas other than 
SF6 with the prior approval of the Administrator. If you use an 
approved tracer gas other than SF6, all references to SF6 in this 
protocol instead refer to the approved tracer gas.
    7.2 Calibration Gases. The SF6 calibration gases 
required will be dependent on the selected MML and the appropriate 
span selected for the test. Commercial cylinder gases certified by 
the manufacturer to be accurate to within 1 percent of the certified 
label value are preferable, although cylinder gases certified by the 
manufacturer to 2 percent accuracy are allowed. Additionally, the 
manufacturer of the SF6 calibration gases should provide a 
recommended shelf life for each calibration gas cylinder over which 
the concentration does not change more than +/- 2 percent from the 
certified value. Another option allowed by this method is for the 
tester to obtain high concentration certified cylinder gases and 
then use a dilution system meeting the requirements of EPA Method 
205, 40 CFR part 51, Appendix M, to make multi-level calibration gas 
standards. Low-level, mid-level, and high-level calibration gases 
will be required. The MML must be above the low-level standard, the 
high-level standard must be no more than four times the low-level 
standard, and the mid-level standard must be approximately halfway 
between the high- and low-level standards. See section 12.1 for an 
example calculation of this procedure.

    Note: If using an FTIR as the analytical instrument, the tester 
has the option of following the CTS procedures of Method 320; the 
calibration standards (and procedures) specified in Method 320 may 
be used in lieu of the calibration standards and procedures in this 
protocol.

    7.2.1 Zero Gas. High purity nitrogen.
    7.2.2 Low-Level Calibration Gas. An SF6 calibration gas in 
nitrogen with a concentration equivalent to 20 to 30 percent of the 
applicable span value.
    7.2.3 Mid-Level Calibration Gas. An SF6 calibration gas in 
nitrogen with a concentration equivalent to 45 to 55 percent of the 
applicable span value.
    7.2.4 High-Level Calibration Gas. An SF6 calibration gas in 
nitrogen with a concentration equivalent to 80 to 90 percent of the 
applicable span value.

8.0 Sample Collection, Preservation, Storage, and Transport

    8.1 Test Design
    8.1.1 Determination of Minimum Tracer Gas Flow Rate.
    8.1.1.1 Determine (via design calculations or measurements) the 
approximate flow rate of the exhaust gas through the enclosure 
(acfm).
    8.1.1.2 Calculate the minimum tracer gas injection rate 
necessary to assure a detectable SF6 concentration at the exhaust 
gas measurement point (see section 12.1 for calculation).
    8.1.1.3 Select a flow meter for the injection system with an 
operating range appropriate for the injection rate selected.
    8.1.2 Determination of the Approximate Time to Reach 
Equilibrium.
    8.1.2.1 Determine the volume of the enclosure.
    8.1.2.2 Calculate the air changes per minute of the enclosure by 
dividing the approximate exhaust flow rate (8.1.1.1 above) by the 
enclosed volume (8.1.2.1 above).
    8.1.2.3 Calculate the time at which the tracer concentration in 
the enclosure will achieve approximate equilibrium. Divide 3 by the 
air changes per minute (8.1.2.2 above) to establish this time. This 
is the approximate length of time for the system to come to 
equilibrium. Concentration equilibrium occurs when the tracer 
concentration in the enclosure stops changing as a function of time 
for a constant tracer release rate. Because the press is 
continuously cycling, equilibrium may be exhibited by a repeating, 
but stable, cyclic pattern rather than a single constant 
concentration value. Assure sufficient tracer gas is available to 
allow the system to come to equilibrium, and to sample for a minimum 
of 20 minutes and repeat the procedure for a minimum of 3 test runs. 
Additional test runs may be required based on the results of the DQO 
and LCL analyses described in 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK, Appendix 
A.
    8.1.3 Location of Injection Points. This method requires a 
minimum of three tracer gas injection points. The injection points 
should be located within leak prone, VOC/HAP-producing areas around 
the press, or horizontally within 12 inches of the defined 
equipment. One potential configuration of the injection points is 
depicted in Figure 1. The effect of wind, exfiltration through the 
building envelope, and air flowing through open building doors 
should be considered when locating tracer gas injection points 
within the PPE. The injection points should also be located at a 
vertical elevation equal to the VOC/HAP generating zones. The 
injection points should not be located beneath obstructions that 
would prevent a natural dispersion of the gas. Document the selected 
injection points in a drawing(s).
    8.1.4 Location of Flow Measurement and Tracer Sampling. Accurate 
CD inlet gas flow rate measurements are critical to the success of 
this procedure. Select a measurement location meeting the criteria 
of EPA Method 1 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A), Sampling and Velocity 
Traverses for Stationary Sources. Also, when selecting the 
measurement location, consider whether stratification of the tracer 
gas is likely at the location (e.g., do not select a location 
immediately after a point of air in-leakage to the duct).
    8.2 Tracer Gas Release. Release the tracer gas at a calculated 
flow rate (see section 12.1 for calculation) through a minimum of 
three injection manifolds located as described above in 8.1.3. The 
tracer gas delivery lines must be routed into the enclosure and 
attached to the manifolds without violating the integrity of the 
enclosure.
    8.3 Pretest Measurements.
    8.3.1 Location of Sampling Point(s). If stratification is not 
suspected at the measurement location, select a single sample point 
located at the centroid of the CD inlet duct or at a point no closer 
to the CD inlet duct walls than 1 meter. If stratification is 
suspected, establish a ``measurement line'' that passes through the 
centroidal area and in the direction of any expected stratification. 
Locate three traverse points at 16.7, 50.0 and 83.3 percent of the 
measurement line and sample from each of these three points during 
each run, or follow the procedure in section 8.3.2 to verify whether 
stratification does or does not exist.
    8.3.2 Stratification Verification. The presence or absence of 
stratification can be verified by using the following procedure. 
While the facility is operating normally, initiate tracer gas 
release into the PPE. For rectangular ducts, locate at least nine 
sample points in the cross section such that the sample points are 
the centroids of similarly-shaped, equal area divisions of the cross 
section. Measure the tracer gas concentration at each point. 
Calculate the mean value for all sample points. For circular ducts, 
conduct a 12-point traverse (i.e., six points on each of the two 
perpendicular diameters) locating the sample points as described in 
40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, Method 1. Perform the measurements and 
calculations as described above. Determine if the mean pollutant 
concentration is more than 10 percent different from any single 
point. If so, the cross section is considered to be stratified, and 
the tester may not use a single sample point location, but must use 
the three traverse points at 16.7, 50.0, and 83.3 percent of the 
entire measurement line. Other traverse points may be selected, 
provided that they can be shown to the satisfaction of the 
Administrator to provide a representative sample over the stack or 
duct cross section.
    8.4 CD Inlet Gas Flow Rate Measurements. The procedures of EPA 
Methods 1-4 (40 CFR part 60, Appendix A) are used to determine the 
CD inlet gas flow rate. Molecular weight (Method (3) and moisture 
(Method (4) determinations are only required once for each test 
series. However, if the test series is not completed within 24 
hours, then the molecular weight and moisture measurements should be 
repeated daily. As a minimum, velocity measurements are conducted 
according to the procedures of Methods 1 and 2 before and after each 
test run, as close to the start and end of the run as practicable. A 
velocity measurement between two runs satisfies both the criterion 
of ``after'' the run just completed and ``before'' the run to be 
initiated. Accurate exhaust gas flow rate measurements are critical 
to the success of this procedure. If significant temporal variations 
of flow rate are anticipated during the test run under normal 
process operating conditions, take

[[Page 1335]]

appropriate steps to accurately measure the flow rate during the 
test. Examples of steps that might be taken include: (1) Conducting 
additional velocity traverses during the test run; or (2) 
continuously monitoring a single point of average velocity during 
the run and using these data, in conjunction with the pre- and post-
test traverses, to calculate an average velocity for the test run.
    8.5 Tracer Gas Measurement Procedure.
    8.5.1 Calibration Error Test. Immediately prior to the emission 
test (within 2 hours of the start of the test), introduce zero gas 
and high-level calibration gas at the calibration valve assembly. 
Zero and calibrate the analyzer according to the manufacturer's 
procedures using, respectively, nitrogen and the calibration gases. 
Calculate the predicted response for the low-level and mid-level 
gases based on a linear response line between the zero and high-
level response. Then introduce the low-level and mid-level 
calibration gases successively to the measurement system. Record the 
analyzer responses for the low-level and mid-level calibration gases 
and determine the differences between the measurement system 
responses and the predicted responses using the equation in section 
12.3. These differences must be less than 5 percent of the 
respective calibration gas value. If not, the measurement system 
must be replaced or repaired prior to testing. No adjustments to the 
measurement system shall be conducted after the calibration and 
before the drift determination (section 8.5.4). If adjustments are 
necessary before the completion of the test series, perform the 
drift checks prior to the required adjustments and repeat the 
calibration following the adjustments. If multiple electronic ranges 
are to be used, each additional range must be checked with a mid-
level calibration gas to verify the multiplication factor.

    Note: If using an FTIR for the analytical instrument, you may 
choose to follow the pretest preparation, evaluation, and 
calibration procedures of Method 320 (section 8.0) (40 CFR part 63, 
Appendix A) in lieu of the above procedure.

    8.5.2 Response Time Test. Conduct this test once prior to each 
test series. Introduce zero gas into the measurement system at the 
calibration valve assembly. When the system output has stabilized, 
switch quickly to the high-level calibration gas. Record the time 
from the concentration change to the measurement system response 
equivalent to 95 percent of the step change. Repeat the test three 
times and average the results.
    8.5.3 SF6 Measurement. Sampling of the enclosure 
exhaust gas at the inlet to the CD should begin at the onset of 
tracer gas release. If necessary, adjust the tracer gas injection 
rate such that the measured tracer gas concentration at the CD inlet 
is within the spectrometer's calibration range (i.e., between the 
MML and the span value). Once the tracer gas concentration reaches 
equilibrium, the SF6 concentration should be measured 
using the infrared spectrometer continuously for at least 20 minutes 
per run. Continuously record (i.e., record at least once per minute) 
the concentration. Conduct at least three test runs. On the 
recording chart, in the data acquisition system, or in a log book, 
make a note of periods of process interruption or cyclic operation 
such as the cycles of the hot press operation. Table 1 summarizes 
the physical measurements required for the press enclosure testing.

    Note: If a GC/ECD is used as the analytical instrument, a 
continuous record (at least once per minute) likely will not be 
possible; make a minimum of five injections during each test run. 
Also, the minimum test run duration criterion of 20 minutes applies.

    8.5.4 Drift Determination. Immediately following the completion 
of the test run, reintroduce the zero and mid-level calibration 
gases, one at a time, to the measurement system at the calibration 
valve assembly. (Make no adjustments to the measurement system until 
both the zero and calibration drift checks are made.) Record the 
analyzer responses for the zero and mid-level calibration gases and 
determine the difference between the instrument responses for each 
gas prior to and after the emission test run using the equation in 
section 12.4. If the drift values exceed the specified limits 
(section 13), invalidate the test results preceding the check and 
repeat the test following corrections to the measurement system. 
Alternatively, recalibrate the test measurement system as in section 
8.5.1 and report the results using both sets of calibration data 
(i.e., data determined prior to the test period and data determined 
following the test period).

    Note: If using an FTIR for the analytical instrument, you may 
choose to follow the post-test calibration procedures of Method 320 
(section 8.11.2) in lieu of the above procedures.

    8.6 Ambient Air Sampling (Optional). Sampling the ambient air 
surrounding the enclosure is optional. However, taking these samples 
during the capture efficiency testing will identify those areas of 
the enclosure that may be performing less efficiently.
    8.6.1 Location of Ambient Samples Outside the Enclosure 
(Optional). In selecting the sampling locations for collecting 
samples of the ambient air surrounding the enclosure, consider 
potential leak points, the direction of the release, and laminar 
flow characteristics in the area surrounding the enclosure. Samples 
should be collected from all sides of the enclosure, downstream in 
the prevailing room air flow, and in the operating personnel 
occupancy areas.
    8.6.2 Collection of Ambient Samples (Optional). During the 
tracer gas release, collect ambient samples from the area 
surrounding the enclosure perimeter at predetermined location using 
disposable syringes or some other type of containers that are non-
absorbent, inert and that have low permeability (i.e., polyvinyl 
fluoride film or polyester film sample bags or polyethylene, 
polypropylene, nylon or glass bottles). The use of disposable 
syringes allows samples to be injected directly into a gas 
chromatograph. Concentration measurements taken around the perimeter 
of the enclosure provide evidence of capture performance and will 
assist in the identification of those areas of the enclosure that 
are performing less efficiently.
    8.6.3 Analysis and Storage of Ambient Samples (Optional). 
Analyze the ambient samples using an analytical instrument 
calibrated and operated according to the procedures of this appendix 
or ASTM E 260 and ASTM E 697. Samples may be analyzed immediately 
after a sample is taken, or they may be stored for future analysis. 
Experience has shown no degradation of concentration in 
polypropylene syringes when stored for several months as long as the 
needle or syringe is plugged. Polypropylene syringes should be 
discarded after one use to eliminate the possibility of cross 
contamination of samples.

9.0 Quality Control

    9.1 Sampling, System Leak Check. A sampling system leak check 
should be conducted prior to and after each test run to ensure the 
integrity of the sampling system.

9.2 Zero and Calibration Drift Tests

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Quality control
             Section                    measure             Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.5.4...........................  Zero and            Ensures that bias
                                   calibration drift   introduced by
                                   tests.              drift in the
                                                       measurement
                                                       system output
                                                       during the run is
                                                       no greater than 3
                                                       percent of span.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

10.0 Calibration and Standardization

    10.1 Control Device Inlet Air Flow Rate Measurement Equipment. 
Follow the equipment calibration requirements specified in Methods 
2, 3, and 4 for measuring the velocity, molecular weight, and 
moisture of the control device inlet air.
    10.2 Tracer Gas Injection Rate. A dry gas volume flow meter, 
mass flow meter, or orifice can be used to measure the tracer gas 
injection flow rate. The selected flow measurement device must have 
an accuracy of greater than +/- 5 percent at the field operating 
range. Prior to the test, verify the calibration of the selected 
flow measurement device using either a wet test meter, spirometer, 
or liquid displacement meter as the calibration device. Select a 
minimum of two flow rates to bracket the expected field

[[Page 1336]]

operating range of the flow meter. Conduct three calibration runs at 
each of the two selected flow rates. For each run, note the exact 
quantity of gas as determined by the calibration standard and the 
gas volume indicated by the flow meter. For each flow rate, 
calculate the average percent difference of the indicated flow 
compared to the calibration standard.
    10.3 Spectrometer. Follow the calibration requirements specified 
by the equipment manufacturer for infrared spectrometer measurements 
and conduct the pretest calibration error test specified in section 
8.5.1. Note: if using an FTIR analytical instrument see Method 320, 
section 10.
    10.4 Gas Chromatograph. Follow the pre-test calibration 
requirements specified in section 8.5.1.
    10.4 Gas Chromatograph for Ambient Sampling (Optional). For the 
optional ambient sampling, follow the calibration requirements 
specified in section 8.5.1 or ASTM E 260 and E 697 and by the 
equipment manufacturer for gas chromatograph measurements.

11.0 Analytical Procedures

    The sample collection and analysis are concurrent for this 
method (see section 8.0).

12.0 Calculations and Data Analysis

    12.1 Estimate MML and Span. The MML is the minimum measurement 
level. The selection of this level is at the discretion of the 
tester. However, the MML must be higher than the low-level 
calibration standard and the tester must be able to measure at this 
level with a precision of <=10 percent. As an example, select the 
MML as 10 times the instrument's published detection limit. The 
detection limit of one instrument is 0.01 parts per million by 
volume (ppmv). Therefore, the MML would be 0.10 
ppmv. Select the low-level calibration standard as 0.08 
ppmv. The high-level standard would be four times the 
low-level standard or 0.32 ppmv. A reasonable mid-level 
standard would then be 0.20 ppmv (halfway between the 
low-level standard and the high-level standard). Finally, the span 
value would be approximately 0.40 ppmv (the high-level 
value is 80 percent of the span). In this example, the following 
MML, calibration standards, and span values would apply:

MML = 0.10 ppmv
Low-level standard = 0.08 ppmv
Mid-level standard = 0.20 ppmv
High-level standard = 0.32 ppmv
Span value = 0.40 ppmv

    12.2 Estimate Tracer Gas Injection Rate for the Given Span. To 
estimate the minimum and maximum tracer gas injection rate, assume a 
worst case capture efficiency of 80 percent, and calculate the 
tracer gas flow rate based on known or measured parameters. To 
estimate the minimum tracer gas injection rate, assume that the MML 
concentration (10 times the IR detection limit in this example) is 
desired at the measurement location. The following equation can be 
used to estimate the minimum tracer gas injection rate:

((QT-MIN x 0.8)/QE) x (CT / 100) x 
106 = MML
QT-MIN = 1.25 x MML x (QE /CT) x 
10-4

Where:

QT-MIN = minimum volumetric flow rate of tracer gas 
injected, scfm
QE = volumetric flow rate of exhaust gas, scfm
CT = Tracer gas (SF6) concentration in gas 
blend, percent by volume
MML = minimum measured level, ppmv = 10 x IRDL 
(for this example)
IRDL= IR detection limit, ppmv

    Standard conditions: 20 [deg]C, 760 mm Hg.
    To estimate the maximum tracer gas injection rate, assume that 
the span value is desired at the measurement location. The following 
equation can be used to estimate the maximum tracer gas injection 
rate:

((QT-MAX x 0.8)/QE) x (CT / 100) x 
106 = span value
QT-MAX = 1.25 x span value x (QE /
CT) x 10-4

Where:

QT-MAX = maximum volumetric flow rate of tracer gas 
injected, scfm
Span value = Instrument span value, ppmv

    The following example illustrates this calculation procedure:
    Find the range of volumetric flow rate of tracer gas to be 
injected when the following parameters are known:

QE = 60,000 scfm (typical exhaust gas flow rate from a 
press enclosure)
CT = 2 percent SF6 in nitrogen
IRDL= 0.01 ppmv (per manufacturer's 
specifications)
MML = 10 x IRDL = 0.10 ppmv
Span value = 0.40 ppmv
QT = ?

    Minimum tracer gas volumetric flow rate:

QT-MIN = 1.25 x MML x (QE /CT) x 
10-4
QT-MIN = 1.25 x 0.10 x (60,000/2) x 10-4 = 
0.375 scfm

    Maximum tracer gas volumetric flow rate:

QT-MAX = 1.25 x span value x (QE /
CT) x 10-4
QT-MAX = 1.25 x 0.40 x (60,000/2) x 10-4 = 1.5 
scfm

    In this example, the estimated total volumetric flow rate of the 
two percent SF6 tracer gas injected through the manifolds 
in the partial enclosure lies between 0.375 and 1.5 scfm.
    12.3 Calibration Error. Calculate the calibration error for the 
low-level and mid-level calibration gases using the following 
equation:

Err = [bond] Cstd - Cmeas [bond] / 
Cstd x 100

Where:

Err = Calibration error, percent
Cstd = Low-level or mid-level calibration gas value, 
ppmv
Cmeas = Measured response to low-level or mid-level 
concentration gas, ppmv

    12.4 Calibration Drift. Calculate the calibration drift for the 
zero and low-level calibration gases using the following equation:

D = [bond] Cinitial - Cfinal [bond] / 
Cspan x 100

Where:

D = Calibration drift, percent
Cinitial = Low-level or mid-level calibration gas value 
measured before test run, ppmv
Cfinal = Low-level or mid-level calibration gas value 
measured after test run, ppmv
Cspan = Span value, ppmv

    12.5 Calculate Capture Efficiency. The equation to calculate 
press enclosure capture efficiency is provided below:

CE = (SF6-CD / SF6-INJ) x 100

Where:

CE = capture efficiency
SF6-CD = mass of SF6 measured at the inlet to 
the CD
SF6-INJ = mass of SF6 injected from the tracer 
source into the PPE

Calculate the CE for each of the initial three test runs. Then, 
follow the procedures outlined in section 12.6 to calculate the 
Overall Capture Efficiency.
    12.6 Calculate Overall Capture Efficiency. After calculating the 
capture efficiency for each of the initial three test runs, follow 
the procedures in 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK, Appendix A to 
determine if the results of the testing can be used in determining 
compliance with the requirements of the proposed rule. There are two 
methods that can be used: the DQO and LCL methods. The DQO method is 
described in section 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK, Appendix A and 
provides a measure of the precision of the capture efficiency 
testing conducted. Section 3 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart KK, Appendix 
A provides an example calculation using results from a facility. If 
the DQO criteria are met using the first set of three test runs, 
then the facility can use the average capture efficiency of these 
test results to determine the capture efficiency of the partial hot 
press enclosure. If the DQO criteria are not met then the facility 
can conduct another set of three runs and run the DQO analysis again 
using the results from the six runs OR the facility can elect to use 
the LCL approach.
    The LCL method is described in section 4 of 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart KK, Appendix A and provides sources that may be performing 
much better than their regulatory requirement a screening option by 
which they can demonstrate compliance. The LCL approach compares the 
80 percent lower confidence limit for the mean measured CE value to 
the applicable regulatory requirement. If the LCL capture efficiency 
is higher than the applicable limit, then the facility is in initial 
compliance and would use the LCL capture efficiency as the capture 
efficiency to determine compliance. If the LCL capture efficiency is 
lower than the applicable limit, then the facility must perform 
additional test runs and re-run the DQO or LCL analysis.

13.0 Method Performance

    13.1 Measurement System Performance Specifications.
    13.1.1 Zero Drift. Less than +/- 3 percent of the span value.
    13.1.2 Calibration Drift. Less than +/- 3 percent of the span 
value.
    13.1.3 Calibration Error. Less than +/- 5 percent of the 
calibration gas value.
    13.2 Flow Measurement Specifications. The mass flow, volumetric 
flow, or critical orifice control meter used should have an accuracy 
of greater than +/- 5 percent at the flow rate used.
    13.3 Calibration and Tracer Gas Specifications. The manufacturer 
of the

[[Page 1337]]

calibration and tracer gases should provide a recommended shelf life 
for each calibration gas cylinder over which the concentration does 
not change more than +/- 2 percent from the certified value.

14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]

15.0 Waste Management [Reserved]

16.0 References

    1. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, EPA Method 1--Sample and velocity 
traverses for stationary sources.
    2. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, EPA Method 2--Determination of 
stack gas velocity and volumetric flow rate.
    3. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, EPA Method 3--Gas analysis for 
the determination of dry molecular weight.
    4. 40 CFR part 60, Appendix A, EPA Method 4--Determination of 
moisture content in stack gases.
    5. SEMI F15-93 Test Method for Enclosures Using Sulfur 
Hexafluoride Tracer Gas and Gas Chromotography.
    6. Memorandum from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, to EPA Regional Directors, Revised 
Capture Efficiency Guidance for Control of Volatile Organic Compound 
Emissions, February 7, 1995. (That memorandum contains an attached 
technical document from Candace Sorrell, Emission Monitoring and 
Analysis Division, ``Guidelines for Determining Capture 
Efficiency,'' January 9, 1994).
    7. Technical Systems Audit of Testing at Plant ``C,'' EPA-454/R-
00-26, May 2000.
    8. Material Safety Data Sheet for SF6. Air Products 
and Chemicals, Inc. Website: www3.airproducts.com. October 2001.

17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data

               Table 1.--Summary of Critical Physical Measurements for the Press Enclosure Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Measurement
             Measurement                   instrumentation       Measurement  frequency      Measurement site
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracer gas injection rate............  Mass flow meter,         Continuous.............  Injection manifolds
                                        volumetric flow meter                             (cylinder gas).
                                        or critical orifice.
--------------------------------------
Tracer gas concentration at control    Infrared Spectrometer    Continuous (at least     Inlet duct to the
 device inlet.                          or GC/ECD.               one reading per          control device (outlet
                                                                 minute) for a minimum    duct of enclosure).
                                                                 of 20 minutes.
--------------------------------------
Volumetric air flow rate.............  EPA Methods 1, 2, 3, 4   Each test run for        Inlet duct to the
                                        (40 CFR part 60,         velocity (minimum);      control device (outlet
                                        Appendix A).             Daily for moisture and   duct of enclosure).
                                       [sbull] Velocity sensor   molecular weight.
                                        (Manometer/Pito t
                                        tube).
                                       [sbull] Thermocouple...
                                       [sbull] Midget Impinger
                                        sampler.
                                       [sbull] Orsat or Fyrite
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 1338]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA03.014


[[Page 1339]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP09JA03.015

[FR Doc. 03-84 Filed 1-8-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C