[Federal Register Volume 91, Number 127 (Monday, July 6, 2026)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41410-41464]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2026-13550]
[[Page 41409]]
Vol. 91
Monday,
No. 127
July 6, 2026
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood and
Composite Wood Products; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 91 , No. 127 / Monday, July 6, 2026 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 41410]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243; FRL-5185.1-02-OAR]
RIN 2060-AV56
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood
and Composite Wood Products
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
amendments to the national emissions standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) for the Plywood and Composite Wood Products (PCWP)
source category. Specifically, the EPA is finalizing maximum achievable
control technology (MACT) standards in the form of emission limitations
and work practices as appropriate for total hazardous air pollutants
(HAP) (including acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol,
phenol, propionaldehyde), non-mercury (non-Hg) HAP metals, mercury
(Hg), hydrogen chloride (HCl), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH),
dioxin/furan (D/F), and methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI). Sources
affected by the amendments include PCWP process units and lumber kilns
located at facilities that are major sources of HAP emissions. These
final amendments address the 2007 partial remand and vacatur of the
2004 final rule that promulgated the PCWP NESHAP (``2004 rule''). The
final amendments also respond to issues raised in a petition for
reconsideration regarding the 2020 residual risk and technology review
(RTR) and other amendments to the 2020 PCWP NESHAP.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 6, 2026. The incorporation
by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of July 6, 2026.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov/ website. Although listed,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only as
portable document format (PDF) versions that can only be accessed on
the EPA computers in the docket office reading room. Certain databases
and physical items cannot be downloaded from the docket but may be
requested by contacting the docket office at (202) 566-1744. The docket
office has up to 10 business days to respond to these requests. Except
for these items, publicly available docket materials are available
electronically at https://www.regulations.gov/ or on EPA computers in
the docket office reading room at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
The Public Reading Room hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
Eastern Time (ET), Monday through Friday. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the
EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this final rule,
contact U.S. EPA, Attn: Matthew Kollman, Mail Drop: E143-03, 109 T.W.
Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number: (919) 541-1920; and email address:
[email protected]. Individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing,
as well as individuals who have speech or communication disabilities,
may use a telecommunications relay service. To learn more about how to
make an accessible telephone call to any of the telephone numbers shown
in this preamble, please visit https://www.fcc.gov/trs for the relay
service of the Federal Communications Commission, and a list of relay
services is available on their directory page at https://www.fcc.gov/general/trs-state-and-territories.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. Throughout this document the
use of ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is intended to refer to the EPA. We
use multiple acronyms and terms in this preamble. While this list may
not be exhaustive, to ease the reading of this preamble and for
reference purposes, the EPA defines the following terms and acronyms
here:
APCD air pollution control device
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential Business Information
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
D/F dioxin/furan (i.e., polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and
polychlorinated dibenzofurans)
dscm dry standard cubic meter
EDL estimated detection limit
EFB electrified filter bed
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ESP electrostatic precipitator
[deg]F degrees Fahrenheit
FR Federal Register
gr/dscf grains per dry standard cubic foot
HAP hazardous air pollutant(s)
HCl hydrogen chloride
Hg mercury
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR information collection request
kPa kilopascals
lb/MSF \3/4\'' pounds of pollutant per thousand square feet of \3/
4\-inch thick board
lb/MSF \3/8\'' pounds of pollutant per thousand square feet of \3/
8\-inch thick board
lb/ODT pounds of pollutant per oven-dried ton of wood
LVL laminated veneer lumber
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MDF medium density fiberboard
MDI methylene diphenyl diisocyanate
MDL method detection limit
mg/dscm milligrams of pollutant per dry standard cubic meter of air
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
ng/dscm nanograms of pollutant per dry standard cubic meter of air
Non-Hg non-mercury
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
O&M operation and maintenance
OCAP Office of Clean Air Programs
OMB Office of Management and Budget
OSB oriented strandboard
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PBCO production-based compliance option
PCWP plywood and composite wood products
PDF portable document format
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
ppmvd parts per million by volume, dry
psia pounds per square inch absolute
RATA relative accuracy test audit
RCO regenerative catalytic oxidizer
RDL representative detection limit
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RMH resinated material handling
RTC Response to Comments
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR residual risk and technology review
SBA Small Business Administration
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
TEQ toxic equivalency (relative the toxicity of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlordibenzo dioxin)
THC total hydrocarbon
tpy tons per year
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS voluntary consensus standards
WESP wet electrostatic precipitator
3xRDL three times the representative detection limit
Table of Contents
I. General Information
[[Page 41411]]
A. Executive Summary
B. Does this action apply to me?
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
E. Severability
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
B. What is the PCWP source category and how does the current
NESHAP regulate its HAP emissions?
C. What changes did we propose for the PCWP source category in
our May 18, 2023, proposal?
III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments to
the PCWP NESHAP?
A. Analytical Procedures
B. MACT Standards for Direct-Fired PCWP Dryers
C. MACT Standards for Lumber Kilns
D. MACT Standards for Process Units With Organic HAP Emissions
E. MACT Standards for Process Units With MDI Emissions
F. Requirements for Performance Testing, Monitoring, and
Recordkeeping and Reporting
G. Other Actions
H. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected sources?
B. What are the air quality impacts?
C. What are the cost impacts?
D. What are the economic impacts?
E. What are the benefits?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through
Deregulation
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR part 51
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
I. General Information
A. Executive Summary
In this final rule, the EPA is amending the PCWP NESHAP in response
to multiple actions: the partial remand and vacatur of the 2004 final
rule that promulgated the ``2004 rule'', the petition for
reconsideration of the 2020 RTR, and to address previously unregulated
HAP in the PCWP source category.1 2 This final rule
establishes new emission limitations and work practices as appropriate
that reflect MACT for HAP emitted by process units that are part of the
PCWP source category. This action is an amendment to the previous
technology review, not a new technology review as required under CAA
section 112(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 69 FR 45944 (July 30, 2004).
\2\ 85 FR 49434 (Aug. 13, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA promulgated the PCWP NESHAP on July 30, 2004. In the 2004
rule, for several process units, the EPA concluded that the MACT floors
were represented by no emission reduction (or ``no-control'' emission
floors). In 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
vacated and remanded those portions of the 2004 rule.\3\ On August 13,
2020, the EPA took final action on the RTR of the PCWP NESHAP as
required by Clean Air Act (CAA) sections 112(d)(6) and (f)(2). The EPA
acknowledged in the preamble to the proposed RTR that there were
unregulated sources with ``no-control'' MACT determinations in the PCWP
source category, and we stated our plans to address those units in a
separate action subsequent to the RTR.\4\ The EPA also received a
petition for reconsideration following promulgation of the 2020 RTR,
which argued that the EPA failed to set limits for unregulated HAP,
among other issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1364 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
\4\ 84 FR 47077-78 (Sept. 6, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 18, 2023, the EPA proposed revisions to the PCWP NESHAP
(``May 2023 proposal'') to set MACT standards for total HAP (including
acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol,
propionaldehyde), MDI, and combustion-related HAP. The proposed
standards for combustion related HAP include non-Hg HAP metals,
mercury, HCl, PAH, and D/F).\5\ We proposed setting total HAP and MDI
standards for sources with previously vacated no-control floor
determinations, MDI standards for processes that use MDI resins and
coatings, and standards to limit combustion-related HAP from direct
wood- and other fuel-fired dryers. See section II.C of this preamble
for additional details and other proposed changes that were included in
the May 2023 proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 88 FR 31856 (May 18, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The public comment period for the May 2023 proposal closed on July
18, 2023. We summarize some of the more significant comments we timely
received regarding the proposed rule and provide our responses in
section III of this preamble. A summary of all other public comments on
the proposal and the EPA's responses to those comments is available in
the docket for this rulemaking along with a redline strikeout version
of the regulatory language that incorporates the changes.6 7
The EPA is finalizing MACT standards largely as proposed to address
sources with previously vacated no-control floor determinations and
unregulated HAP in the PCWP source category. Changes from the proposed
rule are listed in Table 1 and include setting D/F emission limitations
for direct wood-fired green rotary dryers, adding a definition for PAH,
technical corrections to emissions data analyses, refinement to work
practice standards for sources including lumber kilns, fiber washers,
log vats, and wastewater operations to address comments on technical
feasibility or clarity, and other changes to improve clarity such as
revising the definition for non-HAP resin. Section III.G.4 of this
preamble contains our responses to the issues raised by the petition
for reconsideration that the EPA received on the 2020 RTR final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Plywood and Composite Wood Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD),
Response to Public Comments on May 18, 2023 Proposed Amendments,
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
\7\ Final Regulation Edits for 40 CFR part 63 Subpart DDDD
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Plywood
and Composite Wood Products, available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA estimates that this final rule will result in the reduction
of approximately 720 tons per year (tpy) HAP and 8,500 tpy volatile
organic compounds (VOC) at a total annualized cost of $53 million (2024
dollars) to 219 affected major source facilities. Section IV of this
preamble describes in more detail the final costs, emissions
reductions, and economic impacts of this final rule.
[[Page 41412]]
Table 1--Summary of Final Amendments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Action Summary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finalize standards for lumber Establishes work practice standards
kilns. to limit emissions of organic HAP,
combustion-related HAP, and VOCs
from lumber kilns.
Finalize standards for organic HAP Establishes numeric standards for
emitted by process units with organic HAP for new and existing
previous ``no-control'' MACT atmospheric refiners and heated
determinations. zones of existing fiberboard mat
dryers and press predryers;
establishes work practice standards
for new and existing resinated
material handling process units,
stand-alone digesters, fiber
washers, and log vats; and defines
mixed PCWP process emissions
streams subject to the NESHAP.
Finalize standards for previously Establishes numeric standards for
unregulated resin-related HAP. MDI emissions for reconstituted
wood products presses, tube dryers
that blow-line blend MDI resin, and
miscellaneous coating operations.
Finalize standards for previously Establishes numeric standards for
unregulated combustion-related emissions of combustion-related HAP
HAP. for new and existing direct wood-
fired dryers; establishes work
practice standards to limit
emissions of combustion-related
HAP, including D/F, by requiring
burner tune-ups for burners
associated with direct wood-fired
and direct natural gas-fired dryers
and by requiring continuous
monitoring of an indicator of
combustion unit bypass stack usage
associated with PCWP dryers and
lumber kilns.
Other updates and revisions....... Establishes performance testing
requirements for new and existing
source emission limits; establishes
monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements; removes
obsolete rule language including
the emissions averaging compliance
option for existing affected
sources, dates, and startup/
shutdown provisions that are no
longer in effect; and updates and
clarifies electronic reporting
requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Does this action apply to me?
Regulated entities. Table 2 of this preamble presents categories
and entities that this action potentially regulates.
Table 2--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NESHAP and source category NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plywood and Composite Wood Products (40 321113, 321211, 321212, 321215,
CFR part 63, subpart DDDD). 321219, and 321999.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
The EPA does not intend table 2 of this preamble to be exhaustive
but rather to provide a guide for readers regarding the entities that
this final action is likely to affect. To determine if this action
affects your facility, you should examine the applicability criteria in
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 63, subpart
DDDD. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of any
aspect of this NESHAP, please contact the appropriate person listed in
the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.
C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this action is available on the internet. In accordance with 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(4), a brief summary of this rulemaking may be found at
www.regulations.gov, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/plywood-and-composite-wood-products-manufacture-national-emission.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version of the final rule and key technical documents
at this same website.
D. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) by
September 4, 2026. CAA section 307(b)(2) prohibits a party from
challenging this final rule separately in any civil or criminal
proceedings brought by the EPA for enforcement.
CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) further provides that only an objection to
a rule or procedure that was raised with reasonable specificity during
the period for public comment (including any public hearing) may be
raised during judicial review. This section also requires the EPA to
reconsider the rule if the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the Administrator that it was impracticable to raise such objection
within the period for public comment or if the grounds for such
objection arose after the period for public comment (but within the
time specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule. Any person seeking to make such a
demonstration should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to the
Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, WJC South Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both
the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section, and the Associate General Counsel for the Air and Radiation
Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
E. Severability
This final rule contains several discrete components, which the EPA
views as severable as a practical matter (i.e., they are functionally
independent and will operate in practice independently of the other
components). These discrete components are detailed in sections III.A
through III.G of this preamble and
[[Page 41413]]
the technical memoranda available in the docket. For example, the final
requirements for direct-fired PCWP dryers, lumber kilns, process units
that use MDI resins or coatings, monitoring of process unit bypass
stacks, and performance testing generally function independently of one
another and would not be impacted if a reviewing court were to vacate
one or more of the other final provisions. In addition, as this final
rule revises an existing NESHAP, the EPA notes that if a reviewing
court were to vacate one or more of the standards finalized here, the
affected standards will revert to those present in the 2020 RTR final
rule.
II. Background
A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
CAA section 112, as amended (42 U.S.C. 7412) provides the statutory
authority for this action. CAA section 112 establishes a two-stage
regulatory process to develop standards for emissions of HAP from
stationary sources. Generally, the first stage involves establishing
technology-based standards that reflect MACT or an appropriate
alternative.\8\ The second stage involves evaluating those standards
within eight years to determine whether additional standards are needed
to address any remaining risk associated with HAP emissions.\9\ The EPA
commonly refers to this second stage as the ``residual risk review.''
In addition to the residual risk review, CAA section 112 also requires
the EPA to review the standards at least every eight years and ``revise
as necessary'' taking into account ``developments in practices,
processes, or control technologies.'' \10\ This review, commonly
referred to as the ``technology review,'' is the subject of this final
rule. The discussion that follows identifies the most relevant CAA
section 112 statutory sections and briefly explains the contours of the
methodology used to implement these statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(1)-(4).
\9\ Id. 7412(f)(2).
\10\ Id. 7412(d)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the first stage, the EPA promulgates technology-based standards
under CAA section 112(d) for categories of sources identified as
emitting one or more of the HAP listed in CAA section 112(b). ``Major
sources'' are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any
single HAP at a rate of 10 tpy or more, or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP.\11\ For major sources, these standards are commonly
referred to as MACT standards; CAA section 112(d)(2) provides that
these must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of HAP
achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-air
quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques,
including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAP when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Id. 7412(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CAA section 112(d)(3) establishes a minimum control level for MACT
standards, known as the MACT ``floor,'' based on emission controls
achieved in practice by the best performing sources. For new sources,
the MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than floors 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
five sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30
sources).
In certain instances, as provided in CAA section 112(h), the EPA
may set work practice standards in lieu of numerical emission
standards. Under CAA section 112(h), the EPA may adopt a work practice
standard in lieu of a numerical emission standard if it is ``not
feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce
an emission standard for control of a hazardous air pollutant or
pollutants.'' \12\ CAA section 112(h)(2) defines the phrase ``not
feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' to mean any
situation where the Administrator either determines that a HAP or HAPs
``cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to
emit or capture such pollutant, or that any requirement for, or use of
such a conveyance would be inconsistent with any Federal, State or
local law'' \13\ or determines that ``the application of measurement
methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to
technological and economic limitations.'' \14\ The EPA considers a
measurement to be not technologically practicable within the meaning of
CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) if the majority of the measurements are below
the detection limit. Such measurements raise issues of questionable
reliability, feasibility, and enforceability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Id. 7412(h)(1).
\13\ Id. 7412(h)(2)(A).
\14\ Id. 7412(h)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA also considers control options that are more stringent than
the floor and may establish standards more stringent than the floor,
based on the consideration of the cost of achieving the emissions
reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental impacts, and
energy requirements.\15\ Standards more stringent than the floor are
commonly referred to as ``beyond-the-floor'' standards. In the second
stage of the regulatory process, the CAA section 112(d)(6) requires the
EPA to undertake a technology review no less frequently than every
eight years. Under the technology review, the EPA must review the
technology-based standards and revise them ``as necessary (taking into
account developments in practices, processes, and control
technologies).'' \16\ In conducting this review, the EPA is not
required to recalculate the MACT floors that were established in
earlier rulemakings.\17\ The EPA may consider cost in deciding whether
to revise the standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).\18\
Following the D.C. Circuit's decision in Louisiana Environmental Action
Network (LEAN) v. EPA,\19\ the EPA also reviews available data to
determine if there are unregulated HAP within the source category and
evaluate these data for use in developing new emission standards. The
D.C. Circuit held in LEAN that the EPA is required to address
unregulated HAP from a major source category when the Agency conducts a
technology review of a NESHAP that previously left such HAP
unregulated.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Id. 7412(d)(2).
\16\ CAA section 112(d)(6). CAA section 112 is codified at 42
U.S.C. 7412.
\17\ Ass'n of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. EPA, 716 F.3d 667 (D.C.
Cir. 2013); NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
\18\ 42 U.S.C. 7412(d)(2), (6); Ass'n of Battery Recyclers, 716
F.3d at 673-74.
\19\ 955 F.3d 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
\20\ The Agency is proposing elsewhere, see e.g., 91 FR 21672
(Apr. 22, 2026), that the D.C. Circuit's decision in LEAN did not
address the separate question whether the statute is best read as
mandating that the EPA address any unregulated emission points
during the next available technology review. Rather, as proposed,
the EPA retains discretion to evaluate whether and at what time to
expand the regulatory scope of the NESHAP to include additional
emission points, including whether it is appropriate to regulate
such additional emission points in the NESHAP for the particular
source category at issue or instead as part of a different or new
source category. In this final rule, the EPA is regulating emission
points excluded from the 2004 rule in response to the D.C. Circuit's
2007 remand in NRDC, which held that the Agency had wrongfully
excluded these emission points in the first instance from the 2004
rule that established standards for the PCWP source category. Doing
so at this time is consistent with the EPA's obligations on remand
from NRDC and with the EPA's discretion to address unregulated
emission points when appropriate and in an appropriate manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 41414]]
In the 2004 rule, the EPA concluded that the MACT floors for
several process units were represented by no emission reduction (or
``no control'' emission floors) and declined to set standards for those
units. In 2007, the D.C. Circuit held that the EPA's use of ``no-
control'' emission floors to avoid setting emissions standards in
another source category was unlawful.\21\ In response, the EPA
requested a voluntary remand and vacatur of the portions of the 2004
rule that included these ``no-control'' emission floor
determinations.\22\ The D.C. Circuit remanded and vacated those
portions of the 2004 rule to the EPA to set emission standards for
those units to replace the unlawful ``no-control'' floor
determinations.\23\ On August 13, 2020, the EPA took final action on
the RTR of the PCWP NESHAP as required by CAA sections 112(d)(6) and
(f)(2). The EPA acknowledged in the preamble to the proposed RTR that
there are unregulated sources with ``no-control'' MACT determinations
in the PCWP source category, and we stated our plans to address those
units in a separate action subsequent to the RTR.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ Sierra Club v. EPA, 479 F.3d 875, 883 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
\22\ NRDC, 489 F.3d at 1371.
\23\ See id. at 1375. .
\24\ 84 FR 47077-78 (Sept. 6, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule responds to the partial remand and vacatur of the
2004 rule, the petition for reconsideration of the 2020 RTR, and
addresses previously unregulated HAP in the PCWP source category. This
final rule establishes new standards that reflect MACT for HAP emitted
by process units that are part of the PCWP source category, pursuant to
CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) and, where appropriate, CAA section
112(h). The EPA is setting ``total HAP'' standards (defined in the PCWP
NESHAP as acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and
propionaldehyde) for sources with previously vacated ``no-control''
MACT determinations. In addition to total HAP, the EPA is setting
standards for previously unregulated HAP present in the PCWP source
category, including non-Hg HAP metals, Hg, HCl, PAH, and D/F as a
result of combustion in direct-fired dryers and MDI from processes that
use MDI resins and coatings.
B. What is the PCWP source category and how does the current NESHAP
regulate its HAP emissions?
The EPA originally promulgated the PCWP NESHAP on July 30,
2004.\25\ The standards are codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD.
The PCWP industry consists of facilities engaged in the production of
PCWP or kiln-dried lumber. PCWP 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. PCWP manufacturing facilities also
include facilities that manufacture dry veneer and lumber kilns located
at any facility. PCWP includes (but are not limited to) plywood,
veneer, particleboard, oriented strand board (OSB), hardboard,
fiberboard, medium density fiberboard (MDF), laminated strand lumber,
laminated veneer lumber (LVL), wood I-joists, kiln-dried lumber, and
glue-laminated beams. There are currently 219 major source facilities
that are subject to the PCWP NESHAP, including 93 facilities
manufacturing PCWP and 126 facilities producing kiln-dried lumber. A
major source of HAP is a plant site that emits or has the potential to
emit any single HAP at a rate of 9.07 megagrams (10 tons) or more, or
any combination of HAP at a rate of 22.68 megagrams (25 tons) or more
per year from all emission sources at the plant site.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 69 FR 45944 (July 30, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The affected source under the PCWP NESHAP is the collection of
dryers, refiners, blenders, formers, presses, board coolers, and other
process units associated with the manufacturing of PCWP. The affected
source includes, but is not limited to, green end operations, refining,
drying operations (including any combustion unit exhaust stream
routinely used to direct fire process unit(s)), resin preparation,
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 and
preparation of raw materials used in the manufacturing 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 kind of facility.
The PCWP NESHAP contains several compliance options for process
units subject to the standards: (1) installation and use of emissions
control systems with an efficiency of at least 90 percent; (2)
production-based limits that restrict HAP emissions per unit of product
produced; and (3) emissions averaging that allows control of emissions
from a group of sources collectively (only at existing affected
sources). These compliance options apply for the following process
units: fiberboard mat dryer heated zones (at new affected sources);
green rotary dryers; hardboard ovens; press predryers (at new affected
sources); pressurized refiners; primary tube dryers; secondary tube
dryers; reconstituted wood product board coolers (at new affected
sources); reconstituted wood product presses; softwood veneer dryer
heated zones; rotary strand dryers; and conveyor strand dryers (zone
one at existing affected sources, and zones one and two at new affected
sources). In addition, the PCWP NESHAP includes work practice standards
for dry rotary dryers, hardwood veneer dryers, softwood veneer dryers,
veneer redryers, and group 1 miscellaneous coating operations (defined
in 40 CFR 63.2292).
The 2020 RTR found that the risk associated with air emissions from
the PCWP manufacturing industry (including those from lumber kilns and
other process units and HAP for which we had not yet responded to the
2007 partial remand and vacatur) are acceptable and that the current
PCWP NESHAP provides an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. In the 2020 RTR, the EPA concluded that there were no
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies that
would warrant revisions to the specific standards already promulgated
in 2004. In addition to conclusions with respect to the RTR, the 2020
action contained amendments to remove exemptions from the standards
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM). The 2020
RTR amendments added work practices so there would be standards in
place of the former startup and shutdown exemptions for three specific
events that occur during PCWP production: safety-related shutdowns,
pressurized refiner startup/shutdown, and softwood veneer dryer gas-
burner relights. Lastly, the 2020 RTR amendments included provisions
requiring electronic reporting and repeat emissions testing. In the
2020 RTR, the EPA did not address and reached no conclusions regarding
unregulated HAP. The 2020 RTR did not address
[[Page 41415]]
establishing MACT emissions limits or work practices for the process
units or HAP that were the subject of the 2007 D.C. Circuit's partial
remand and vacatur of the 2004 rule's ``no-control'' MACT
determinations. Consequently, this is the first rulemaking in which the
EPA has addressed emission limits and work practices for these process
units and HAP, since the 2007 ruling.
C. What changes did we propose for the PCWP source category in our May
18, 2023, proposal?
On May 18, 2023, the EPA published a proposal in the Federal
Register for the PCWP NESHAP, 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD to set MACT
standards for total HAP, MDI, and combustion-related HAP including non-
Hg HAP metals, Hg, HCl, PAH, D/F. Total HAP limits were proposed for
fiberboard mat dryers at existing sources, hardboard press predryers at
existing sources, and atmospheric refiners at existing and new sources.
Limits for non-Hg HAP metals in the form of particulate matter (PM),
Hg, HCl, and PAH were proposed for direct wood- and other fuel-fired
dryers at existing and new sources. MDI limits were proposed for
reconstituted wood product presses using MDI, tube dryers blow-line
blending MDI, and miscellaneous coating operations. The proposed rule
also included the addition of burner tune-up requirements for all
direct-fired PCWP dryers, direct-fired lumber kilns, and associated
combustion unit bypass stacks. Work practice standards were also
proposed for lumber kilns, stand-alone digesters, fiber washers, log
vats, wastewater operations, and resinated material handling (RMH)
units, including resin tanks, blenders, formers, reconstituted wood
products board coolers at existing sources, plywood presses, engineered
wood product presses and curing chambers, finishing sanders, finishing
saws, panel trim chippers, humidifiers, and wastewater operations.
The proposed rule included the removal of the emissions averaging
compliance option for existing affected sources (not available for new
affected sources). The proposed rule also included a requirement for
mixed PCWP process streams at existing sources currently meeting the
compliance options present in Table 1B of this subpart to continue
doing so. Additionally, the proposed rule included a requirement to
monitor process unit bypass stack usage at all times; plus, the
proposal added emissions testing; monitoring, reporting, and
recordkeeping requirements relevant to the standards being added. The
proposal incorporated a revised definition of ``pressurized refiner''
to clearly distinguish between stand-alone digesters and pressurized
refiners. Lastly, the proposed rule included the removal of obsolete
date language associated with amendments finalized on August 13, 2020,
that are now implemented.
III. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments to
the PCWP NESHAP?
This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the
technology review provisions of CAA section 112 for the PCWP source
category and amends the PCWP NESHAP based on those determinations. This
action also reflects several changes to the May 2023 proposal in
consideration of comments received during the public comment period
described in section III of this preamble.
Section III.A describes the analytical procedures used to develop
the MACT standards we are finalizing. Section III.B discusses the MACT
standards we are finalizing for combustion-related HAP from direct-
fired PCWP dryers, including rotary strand dryers, green rotary dryers,
dry rotary dryers, tube dryers, and softwood veneer dryers. Section
III.C discusses the MACT standards we are finalizing for all HAP
emitted from lumber kilns. Section III.D discusses the MACT standards
we are finalizing for total HAP from various process units other than
lumber kilns that also had ``no-control'' MACT determinations in the
2004 rule that were vacated and remanded. Section III.E discusses the
MACT standards we are finalizing for process units with MDI emissions,
including reconstituted wood product presses, blow-line blend tube
dryers, and miscellaneous coating operations. Section III.F discusses
the final requirements for performance testing, monitoring, and
recordkeeping and reporting. Section III.G discusses other actions we
are finalizing. Section III.H discusses the effective and compliance
dates of the amendments we are finalizing. Each of these discussions
include a summary of what we proposed, a summary of key comments we
received on what we proposed and our responses, and a summary of our
final decisions and rationale. Comment summaries for all other comments
and the EPA's specific responses can be found in the response to
comments (RTC) document.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Plywood and Composite Wood Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD),
Response to Public Comments on May 18, 2023 Proposed Amendments,
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Analytical Procedures
The MACT standards finalized in this action were developed pursuant
to CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) or, when appropriate, CAA section
112(h). When developing MACT standards, the ``MACT floor'' for existing
sources is calculated based on the average performance of the best
performing units in each category or subcategory and on a consideration
of the variability of HAP emissions from these units. The MACT floor
for new sources is based on the emissions levels that are achieved by
the best performing similar source, with a similar consideration of
variability. For existing sources, the MACT floor is based on the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent
of sources (for which the EPA has emissions information) for source
categories or subcategories with 30 or more sources, or the average
emission limitation achieved by the best performing five sources (for
which the EPA has or could reasonably obtain emissions information) for
categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources. The EPA does
not consider costs when determining the MACT floor. To account for
variability in PCWP manufacturing operations and resulting emissions,
we calculated the MACT floors using the 99 percent Upper Prediction
Limit (UPL) using performance data collected from two CAA section 114
surveys of PCWP facilities in 2017 and 2022.\27\ We note that the MACT
floors for certain existing and new units are based on limited data
sets.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ For more information regarding the general use of the UPL
and why it is appropriate for calculating MACT floors, see Use of
Upper Prediction Limit for Calculating MACT Floors (UPL Memo),
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
\28\ See the memorandum entitled Revised Approach for Applying
the Upper Prediction Limit to Limited Datasets, available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once the UPL is calculated for a pollutant, the representative
detection limit (RDL) for the pollutant measurement method is
considered, if necessary. The RDL is representative of the laboratory
instrument sensitivity and lowest industry-standard method detection
limits (MDL) achieved when analyzing air pollutant samples.
Consideration of the RDL is necessary when pollutants are measured near
or below the detection limit of the analysis method, which was the case
for some HAP measured in the 2022 survey. The EPA compares a value of
three times the RDL (3xRDL) of the pollutant to UPL
[[Page 41416]]
values to ensure that the calculated MACT floors account for
measurement variability.\29\ If the 3xRDL value exceeds the MACT floor
UPL, the 3xRDL value is substituted as the MACT floor emission limit to
ensure that the standard is set no lower than the minimum level at
which emissions can reliably be measured. We applied an established
procedure for cases where we had low detection data to handle below
detection level (BDL) data and develop RDL data when setting MACT
emission limits.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ The factor of three used in the 3xRDL calculation is based
on a scientifically accepted definition of level of quantitation--
simply stated, the level where a test method performs with
acceptable precision. The level of quantitation has been defined as
10 times the standard deviation of seven replicate analyses of a
sample at a concentration level close to the MDL units of the
emission standard. That level is then compared to the MACT floor
value to ensure that the resulting emission limit is in a range that
can be measured with reasonable precision. In other words, if the
3xRDL value were less than the calculated floor (e.g., calculated
from the UPL), we would conclude that measurement variability has
been adequately addressed by the calculated floor; if it were
greater than the calculated floor, we would adjust the emissions
limit to comport with the 3xRDL value to address measurement
variability.
\30\ Westlin, P. & Merrill, R. (2012). Data and procedure for
handling below detection level data in analyzing various pollutant
emissions databases for MACT and RTR emissions limits, available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, under CAA section 112(d)(2), the EPA must examine more
stringent ``beyond-the-floor'' regulatory options to determine MACT.
Unlike the floor minimum stringency requirements, the EPA must consider
various impacts of the more stringent regulatory options in determining
whether MACT standards are to reflect beyond-the-floor requirements.
These impacts include the cost of achieving additional emissions
reduction beyond that achieved by the MACT floor, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts that would result from imposing
controls beyond the floor, and energy requirements of such beyond floor
measures. If the EPA concludes that the more stringent regulatory
options have unreasonable impacts, the EPA selects the MACT floor as
MACT. However, if the EPA concludes that impacts associated with
beyond-the-floor levels of control are reasonable considering
additional HAP emissions reductions achieved, the EPA selects those
beyond-the-floor levels as MACT.
For some process types, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce
a numerical emission standard using the MACT floor and MACT
determination approach described in CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3).
According to CAA section 112(h)(1), MACT standards may take the form of
design, equipment, work practice, or operational standards if it is not
feasible in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce
an emission standard for control of HAP. To support a determination
that it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard
for control of HAP, CAA sections 112(h)(2)(A) and (B) require the EPA
to determine that either: (A) a HAP or pollutants cannot be emitted
through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture such
pollutant, or that any requirement for, or use of, such a conveyance
would be inconsistent with any Federal, State or local law, or (B) the
application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources
is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.
B. MACT Standards for Direct-Fired PCWP Dryers
As proposed, the EPA is finalizing standards for two subcategories
of PCWP direct-fired dryers: (1) wood and other fuel-fired dryers; and
(2) natural gas fuel-fired dryers. We subcategorized PCWP direct-fired
dryers by fuel type because wood and other fuel-fired dryers have
different design and combustion-related HAP emissions profiles from
those firing natural gas (or propane). We are finalizing the addition
of the following definitions to the PCWP NESHAP to delineate the
different types of direct-fired PCWP dryers: PCWP dryer, Direct wood-
fired PCWP dryer, and Direct natural gas-fired PCWP dryer. In addition,
we are finalizing the same definition of natural gas used in the NESHAP
codified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD (``Boiler MACT'').
As proposed, the EPA is finalizing a work practice standard
requiring annual burner tune-ups for the combustion unit(s) that fire
new and existing direct-fired PCWP dryers. The purpose of the annual
burner tune-ups is to control all combustion-related HAP that may be
emitted from direct natural gas-fired PCWP dryers and control D/F
emissions from direct wood-fired dryers. In addition to requiring
annual burner tune-ups for all direct-fired dryers, we are also
finalizing the proposed requirement for new and existing direct-fired
PCWP dryers to continuously monitor an indicator of their combustion
unit bypass stack usage such as flow damper position or temperature to
address any HAP emitted from combustion bypass stacks associated with
direct-fired PCWP dryers. As explained in the preamble, work practice
standards for direct-fired dryer bypass stacks are justified because
emissions are not technically and feasibly measurable.
1. What combustion HAP standards did we propose for direct wood-fired
dryers?
For direct wood-fired PCWP dryers, emission limits for combustion
HAP were developed following the approach described in section III.A.
The MACT emission limits were developed in mass per production and
concentration units to provide compliance options for the various dryer
configurations subject to the standards. Mass per production units are
pounds of pollutant per thousand square feet (lb/MSF) for softwood
veneer dryers and pounds per oven dried ton (lb/ODT) for all other
dryer types. Concentration units include grains per dry standard cubic
foot (gr/dscf) for PM and milligrams per dry standard cubic meter (mg/
dscm) for non-PM pollutants.
The EPA proposed MACT standards for combustion-related HAP (non-Hg
metals, Hg, HCl, PAH, and D/F) from direct wood-fired PCWP dryers,
which include rotary strand dryers, green rotary dryers, dry rotary
dryers, tube dryers, softwood veneer dryers (heated zones), fiberboard
mat dryers (heated zones), and hardboard ovens. The EPA proposed PM
numerical limits to serve as a surrogate to control non-Hg metals and
proposed numerical limits for both mercury and HCl. Additionally, the
EPA proposed PAH numerical limits for all direct wood-fired dryers
based on an aggregate of 19 PAH compounds which serve as a surrogate
for all PAHs in the PCWP source category. Lastly, the EPA proposed a D/
F work practice to address D/F emissions from direct wood-fired dryers
in the PCWP source category. Some, but not all, changes to the direct-
fired standards from the May 2023 proposal are discussed in the
remainder of this section.\31\ A complete discussion of changes is
provided in the RTC document and a docketed memorandum.\32\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 88 FR 31861-67 (May 18, 2023).
\32\ Revised Regulatory Options for Combustion-related HAP from
Plywood and Composite Wood Products Direct-Fired Dryers, available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What comments did we receive on combustion HAP standards for direct
wood-fired dryers?
Comment: The EPA received comments on specific data and production
values used in our calculations of the proposed PM emission limit for
green rotary dryers.
EPA Response: After reevaluating the production values used in the
PM UPL calculations for green rotary dryers, and
[[Page 41417]]
reviewing the technical errors raised by commenters, the EPA agreed
with commenters and found that the new and existing source limits for
PM required correction due to technical errors. See section 3 of the
RTC document located in the docket for this rulemaking for these
specific comments and our responses regarding revisions.
Comment: With regards to the proposed PAH limits for wood-fired
dryers, commenters argued that data quality issues with the PAH data
collected in the 2022 survey render the data unsuitable for setting
these limits. The commenters requested that the EPA remove the PAH
limits based on the collected data and instead rely on the annual
burner tune-up work practice to control PAH emissions. The commenters
noted the annual burner tune-up work practice to reduce D/F formation
would also reduce the formation of PAH.
EPA Response: The EPA agrees, in part, with the commenter's concern
over data quality. The EPA has reevaluated the PAH data and concluded
the data were acceptable for setting MACT limits after two adjustments.
First, we removed one 3-run test with excessive contamination from the
final MACT analysis (in addition to a single test run with lab analysis
problems we had already removed from the proposed MACT analysis).
Second, we removed naphthalene from the MACT floor analysis and from
the rule specific definition of PAH at 40 CFR 63.2292 to preemptively
address naphthalene contamination issues in future compliance
demonstrations.\33\ The EPA received sufficient data in the 2022 survey
to demonstrate that the remaining 18 PAH congeners serve as an
appropriate surrogate for polycyclic organic matter and naphthalene,
the listed HAP that PAH standards are intended to regulate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ See the RTC document and memorandum entitled Revised
Regulatory Options for Combustion-related HAP from Plywood and
Composite Wood Products Direct-Fired Dryers, available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Some commenters argued that our proposal to use the 3xRDL
value of 3.3E-05 mg/dscm as the PAH limit for wood-fired softwood
veneer dryers in the absence of PAH test data was arbitrary and
capricious.
EPA Response: The EPA agrees that we lacked adequate data to
establish a numerical MACT limit for softwood veneer dryers.
Performance data were not collected from direct-wood fired softwood
veneer dryers in the CAA section 114 survey because softwood veneer
dryers were not expected to have the same potential for formation of
detectable PAH emissions as direct wood-fired rotary and tube dryers,
which operate at higher temperatures under more turbulent conditions.
Upon further consideration in response to these comments, we are not
finalizing the proposed 3xRDL limit for wood-fired softwood veneer
dryers and instead are relying on the burner tune-up standards included
in the rule to limit the potential for PAH emissions from wood-fired
softwood veneer dryers. However, we require that wood-fired softwood
veneer dryers conduct performance testing for PAH emissions along with
the compliance tests required for other combustion-related HAPs.
Although we do not expect to find detectable PAH emissions, if PAH are
detected, these test results could be used during the next eight-year
technology review to determine if revision to a numerical standard is
warranted.
Comment: One commenter questioned our analysis of D/F toxic
equivalency (TEQ) emissions data and proposed that a work practice is
justified for D/F from wood-fired dryers because emissions cannot
reliably be measured due to the prevalence of non-detects in more than
55 percent of TEQ runs.\34\ The commenter suggested that the EPA
reevaluate the RDL as a result of D/F test method improvements in
recent years and questioned if the EPA should have compared detected
TEQ to the 3xRDL value as was done for the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ TEQ of dioxin and furan congeners is relative to the
toxicity of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlordibenzo-p-dioxin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA Response: We maintain that use of the current RDL is
appropriate for this rulemaking. The EPA may consider updating the RDL
as additional lab experience and data sets become available for a
broader set of emission sources using the revised EPA Method 23, which
was not finalized at the time of the PCWP CAA section 114 data
collection. However, the EPA agrees with commenters that the RDL is not
the appropriate detection value when determining the number of non-
detect TEQ runs. We updated our analysis of the detected TEQ to compare
to the estimated detection limit (EDL) of 1.8E-02 nanograms per dry
standard cubic meter (ng/dscm) instead of 3xRDL to adhere to guidance
for evaluating when to establish numerical MACT limits versus
establishing work practices.\35\ Upon reanalysis, the percentage of
non-detect TEQ runs remained the same as proposed for wood-fired rotary
strand dryers (100 percent non-detect), dry rotary dryers (100 percent
non-detect), and tube dryers (80 percent non-detect). We no longer
found that a substantial majority of green rotary dryer TEQ runs were
non-detect upon comparison with the EDL. As a result, we are revising
the rule to add a numerical limit for D/F from direct wood-fired green
rotary dryers based on the emissions data sets available at proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ See the June 5, 2014 memorandum entitled Determination of
``non-detect'' from EPA Method 29 (multi-metals) and EPA Method 23
(dioxin/furan) test data when evaluating the setting of MACT floors
versus establishing work practice standards, available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emissions data for D/F (in terms of TEQ) are available for three
out of six direct wood-fired green rotary dryer systems. The UPL MACT
floor calculations for existing sources were based on all three systems
because fewer than 30 direct wood-fired green rotary dryer systems
exist. The UPL MACT floor calculation for new sources was based on the
best performing system. The TEQ MACT floor for existing direct wood-
fired green rotary dryer systems is 1.3E-09 lb/ODT or 1.7E-01 ng/dscm
based on the UPL. The TEQ MACT floor for new direct wood-fired green
rotary dryers is 4.4E-10 lb/ODT or 3.7E-02 ng/dscm based on 3xRDL. The
3xRDL value was substituted for the UPL in the new source MACT floor to
ensure that the standards are established at the minimum level at which
emissions can be measured reliably. The TEQ MACT floors are based on
dryers that already have PM and organic HAP controls in series. The
burner tune-up requirements required for all direct-fired PCWP dryers
are expected to help with meeting the TEQ MACT floors. No options more
stringent than the MACT floors were identified for existing or new
sources. No reductions in TEQ emissions were estimated for existing or
new wood-fired green rotary dryer systems because they are expected to
meet the MACT floor with baseline controls and proper tuning.
3. What Combustion HAP Standards Are We Finalizing for Direct Wood-
Fired Dryers
Table 3 of this preamble summarizes the MACT emission limits being
finalized for direct wood-fired PCWP dryers.
[[Page 41418]]
Table 3--Final Emission Limits for Combustion-Related HAP for Direct Wood-Fired PCWP Dryers \e\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PM (non-Hg HAP
PCWP Dryer metal) limit \a\ Hg limit \a\ HCl limit \a\ PAH limit \a\ \b\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rotary strand dryer--existing... 9.9E-02 lb/ODT or 1.7E-05 lb/ODT or 5.8E-03 lb/ODT or 1.1E-04 lb/ODT or
3.6E-03 gr/dscf. 8.4E-04 mg/dscm. 1.5E-01 mg/dscm. 9.9E-03 mg/dscm.
Rotary strand dryer--new........ 5.6E-02 lb/ODT or 1.7E-05 lb/ODT or 1.7E-03 lb/ODT or 1.8E-05 lb/ODT or
1.3E-03 gr/dscf. 8.4E-04 mg/dscm. 9.0E-02 mg/dscm. 1.5E-03 mg/dscm.
Green rotary dryer--existing.... 2.9E-01 lb/ODT or. 1.5E-05 lb/ODT or 1.1E-02 lb/ODT or 3.2E-04 lb/ODT or
5.2E-03 gr/dscf... 1.3E-03 mg/dscm. 1.7 mg/dscm. 4.2E-02 mg/dscm.
Green rotary dryer--new......... 3.7E-02 lb/ODT or 1.1E-05 lb/ODT or 2.9E-03 lb/ODT or 6.2E-05 lb/ODT or
1.3E-03 gr/dscf. 8.4E-04 mg/dscm. 9.0E-02 mg/dscm. 2.9E-03 mg/dscm.
Dry rotary dryer--existing...... 6.5E-01 lb/ODT or. 1.0E-05 lb/ODT or 1.1E-03 lb/ODT or 4.6E-05 lb/ODT or
9.8E-02 gr/dscf... 8.4E-04 mg/dscm. 9.0E-02 mg/dscm. 4.1E-03 mg/dscm.
Dry rotary dryer--new........... 6.0E-01 lb/ODT or 1.0E-05 lb/ODT or 1.1E-03 lb/ODT or 2.2E-05 lb/ODT or
4.6E-02 gr/dscf. 8.4E-04 mg/dscm. 9.0E-02 mg/dscm. 2.1E-03 mg/dscm.
Primary tube dryer or secondary 3.1E-01 lb/ODT or. 3.9E-05 lb/ODT or 6.4E-03 lb/ODT or 3.0E-04 lb/ODT or
tube dryer--existing. 3.1E-03 gr/dscf... 1.6E-03 mg/dscm. 7.4E-01 mg/dscm. 1.6E-03 mg/dscm.
Primary tube dryer or secondary 9.1E-02 lb/ODT or 3.9E-05 lb/ODT or 4.3E-03 lb/ODT or 3.4E-06 lb/ODT or
tube dryer--new. 1.3E-03 gr/dscf. 8.4E-04 mg/dscm. 9.0E-02 mg/dscm. 1.8E-06 mg/dscm.
Softwood veneer dryer heated 7.2E-02 lb/MSF \3/ 5.8E-05 lb/MSF \3/ (\c\)............. (\d\)
zones--existing. 8\'' or 1.5E-02 8\'' or 4.1E-02
gr/dscf. mg/dscm.
Softwood veneer dryer heated 7.2E-02 lb/MSF \3/ 5.8E-05 lb/MSF \3/ (\c\)............. (\d\)
zones--new. 8\'' or 1.5E-02 8\'' or 4.1E-02
gr/dscf. mg/dscm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ lb/ODT = pounds per oven dried ton, gr/dscf = grains per dry standard cubic foot, mg/dscm = milligrams per
dry standard cubic meter
\b\ Naphthalene was not included in the final PAH limits.
\c\ HCl was not detected.
\d\ A burner-tune up standard applies. See section III.B of this preamble for details.
\e\ A burner-tune up standard applies for D/F emissions for all wood-fired PCWP dryers except green rotary
dryers which have a numerical D/F limit discussed in section III.B of this preamble.
We are modifying the proposed PAH limits to not include
naphthalene. We are not finalizing the proposed PAH limits from
softwood veneer dryers and instead are requiring PAH testing to be
included in the performance tests of these dryers in addition to the
burner tune-up standard. In addition to the limits presented in Table 3
of this preamble, we are revising the rule to add D/F limits for direct
wood-fired green rotary dryers based on reanalysis of the D/F data. In
addition to adjustments stemming from public comments, we removed data
from MACT floor calculations if they were collected from systems that
ceased operations since the pre-proposal analysis was completed. This
adjustment affected some limits and some mass per production based
3xRDL values. We also updated PM 3xRDL values to reflect the most
recent revision to these values.
C. MACT Standards for Lumber Kilns
As explained in the May 2023 proposal, the EPA did not identify any
lumber kilns with add-on air pollution controls.\36\ We explained that
the EPA, as well as State permitting authorities, have evaluated the
possibility of capturing and controlling emissions from lumber kilns
and in each case concluded that capture and control of lumber kiln
emissions is not technically feasible or cost effective for VOC
emissions from batch or continuous kilns, and that these previous
conclusions are equally relevant for capture and control of HAP. The
EPA proposed a work practice standard for lumber kilns based on the
criteria in CAA section 112(h), which states that if it is not feasible
in the judgment of the Administrator to prescribe or enforce an
emission standard for control of a HAP, the Administrator may, in lieu
thereof, promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational
standard, or combination thereof, which in the Administrator's judgment
is consistent with the provisions of CAA section 112(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ 88 FR 31867-71 (May 18, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What lumber kilns standards did we propose?
To reduce HAP from lumber kilns, we proposed a work practice
consisting of four elements: (1) operation and maintenance (O&M) plan
for all kilns to maintain the integrity of lumber kiln internal air
flow and heat distribution components (e.g., baffles, fans, vents,
heating coils, temperature sensors) to provide as uniform a temperature
and air flow as reasonably possible; (2) annual burner tune-up for
direct-fired kilns to reduce the potential for combustion-related HAP
emissions beyond the reduction in these emissions that results from
minimizing lumber over-drying; (3) a work practice option in which all
kilns limit over-drying by operating below a temperature set point,
conducting in-kiln moisture monitoring, or following a site-specific
plan (for temperature and lumber moisture monitoring); and (4) minimum
kiln-dried lumber moisture content limits below which lumber is
considered to be over-dried lumber for all kilns for purposes of the
PCWP NESHAP. The May 2023 proposal described each of these elements in
detail.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ See the June 1, 2026 memorandum entitled Revised
Development of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutant Emission Standards for Lumber Drying Kilns, available in
the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. What comments did we receive on the proposed lumber kiln standards?
Comment: One commenter argued that the EPA has not shown
infeasibility to justify work practice standards over numeric standards
for limiting over-drying of lumber at lumber kilns. Other commenters
agreed with the EPA's determination that it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce emissions standards for lumber kilns.
EPA response: The EPA determined work practice standards are
appropriate because the total volume of emissions cannot be emitted
through a conveyance that is designed and constructed to emit or
capture HAP emissions. Furthermore, direct measurement of flow rate
from batch kilns is not technically feasible because of the numerous
vents and changing flow direction. Similarly, continuous dry kilns
(CDKs) have fugitive emissions from their openings that cannot be
eliminated while allowing for lumber to enter and exit the kiln.
Therefore, the EPA maintains work practice standards for kilns are
justified and establishing numerical limits for kilns is not feasible.
The work practices included in the final rule are justified under CAA
section 112(h) and reflect the maximum degree of emission reduction
achieved by existing lumber
[[Page 41419]]
kilns and the degree of reduction that is achievable based on the EPA's
review and analysis of available information.
Comment: Commenters supported the inclusion of O&M plans for kilns
but suggested edits to plan requirements. Commenters noted components
covered by the O&M plan should not be limited to those listed in the
May 2023 proposal; objected to the proposed charge optimization
practices to promote uniformity in lumber charged into the kiln (e.g.,
sizing, sorting, stickering, conditioning); requested to be allowed
additional time to complete corrective actions; and requested that the
annual kiln inspection be conducted within 13 months of the previous
inspection.
Similarly, a commenter requested that the EPA allow burner tune-ups
to be performed every 13 months instead of every 12 months to help with
process operation or personnel scheduling issues. The commenter also
requested that additional language be added to 40 CFR 63.2271(c)(2) to
specify that any cleaning, repairs, or replacements must be initiated
within 30 days, to remove any interpretation that corrective action
must be initiated immediately. This timeframe is consistent with 40 CFR
63.2253(a)(3)(ii) for initiation of the corrective actions identified
during the annual lumber kiln integrity inspection in the O&M plan. The
commenter did not propose a specific completion timeframe.
EPA response: The EPA agrees that facilities may need an additional
month to perform corrective action and in the burner tune-up compliance
schedule to accommodate process operations and personnel scheduling
issues. In response to these comments, the EPA revised the O&M plan
language. We also revised the rule to allow inspections to occur no
later than 13 months after the previous inspection and added language
for allowing submittal of a written request to the delegated authority
for completing corrective actions after 180 days In response to the
commenter's requests, the EPA revised the final rule to allow annual
tune-ups and burner/grate inspections to be performed no more than 13
months after the previous tune-up, instead of every 12 months. To
address the commenter's concerns regarding the current rule language
being silent on the required timeframe of corrective actions and
potential delays due to availability of parts, the EPA revised 40 CFR
63.2271(c)(2) to clarify that any corrective action taken as part of
the tune-up/inspection must be initiated within 30 days and completed
within 180 days following the annual tune-up/inspection identifying the
need for the corrective action. The EPA also added language specifying
if additional time is necessary to complete corrective actions, an
extension request may be submitted through the delegated authority
consistent with the O&M requirements.
Comment: Commenters stated that the ``temperature set point''
option under the proposed work practices should be referred to as the
``temperature limit'' option. According to the commenter, the EPA has
proposed these temperature limits as ``temperature set points'' but
compliance with the proposed temperature set point option would be
based on the actual kiln dry bulb temperature readings according to 40
CFR 63.2269(m) and 40 CFR 63.2270(h)(1).
Commenters also requested that compliance with the maximum dry bulb
temperatures under this work practice option be demonstrated with a
longer averaging period of at least 24 hours, daily or batch to
accommodate temperature variation instead of with a three-hour block
average as proposed. The commenters noted that shorter averaging
periods are impacted by routine temperature fluctuations in the kiln,
such as temperature increases during fan reversals, which are a normal
part of kiln operation and not indicative of over-drying. They also
noted that facilities hold title V operating permits with 24-hour
averaging periods for temperature monitoring.
Commenters requested that the EPA replace the ``in-kiln moisture
measurement'' option with a hybrid option involving both temperature
and moisture measurement. The commenters stated that most facilities
monitor lumber moisture content after the lumber exits the kiln and
cools, per industry guidance. The commenters suggested a hybrid option
could apply to most lumber kilns conducting higher temperature drying
such as those in the U.S. Southeast. The commenters recommended maximum
dry bulb temperature limits of 240 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) for
batch indirect-fired kilns, 250 [deg]F for batch direct-fired kilns,
and 260 [deg]F for indirect- and direct-fired continuous kilns. Because
the hybrid work practice option would include higher temperature
limits, commenters suggested that facilities could also monitor
moisture content to meet the minimum moisture content limits in the
rule. However, under the hybrid option, the moisture content could be
measured either in the kiln or after the lumber has exited the kiln
(e.g., at the planer).
EPA response: As a result of these comments, to avoid confusion and
clarify intent of the proposed standard, the EPA modified the name of
this option in the final rule to refer to a ``temperature limit''
rather than a ``temperature set point''. The EPA is revising the final
rule to require a batch cycle average for batch kilns and a daily (24-
hour) block average for continuous kilns for the maximum dry bulb
temperature to demonstrate compliance with the work practice standard.
The EPA also agrees with the commentator's request for a hybrid
compliance option involving both temperature and moisture measurement.
Using the large amount of monitoring data generated at the planer,
along with kiln dry bulb temperature is a robust approach to reduce
over-drying and is consistent with practices in place at lumber mills.
Therefore, we revised the final rule to replace the in-kiln moisture
measurement option with the requested hybrid option.
Comment: Relative to the ``site-specific plan'' work practice
option, commenters requested that the EPA extend the deadline to submit
site-specific plans from the 180 days (as proposed) to 18 months to
allow time for facilities to properly develop an effective site-
specific plan and gather data to support the elements of the plan. One
commenter noted that developing a site-specific plan for lumber kilns
could reasonably take more than 12 months.
EPA response: The EPA agrees with the commenter that 18 months will
allow facilities to properly develop a site-specific plan, therefore,
the deadline is being extended to 18 months versus the proposed 180
days (6 months) in the final rule. The EPA acknowledges this extension
will shorten the period for delegated authorities to review and approve
the plans for over 140 lumber kilns in operation.
Comment: One commenter supported the EPA's general methodology of
defining over-dried lumber through the proposed lumber minimum moisture
content limits of the proposed Table 11 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63
(``Table 11''). The commenter also agreed with the EPA's description of
maximum lumber moisture grade in principle but requested that the term
``moisture specification'' be used throughout the rule rather than
``moisture grade.''
EPA response: The EPA agreed and changed the term ``moisture
grade'' to ``moisture specification'' to eliminate potential confusion.
[[Page 41420]]
3. What lumber kiln standards are we finalizing?
After considering comments,\38\ we are finalizing work practice
standards for lumber kilns in 40 CFR 63.2241(e) to reduce HAP emissions
by minimizing lumber over-drying. The final work practice consists of
four elements: (1) O&M plan for all kilns; (2) annual burner tune-up
for direct-fired kilns; (3) a choice of three work practice options
including a temperature limit option, hybrid option involving higher
temperature limit and lumber moisture monitoring, or site-specific plan
for temperature and lumber moisture monitoring; and (4) minimum kiln-
dried lumber moisture content limits below which lumber is considered
to be over-dried lumber for all kilns for purposes of the PCWP NESHAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\ See National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products (40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDDD), Response to Public Comments on May 18, 2023 Proposed
Amendments, available in the docket for this rulemaking for a
complete list of comments and responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. MACT Standards for Process Units With Organic HAP Emissions
The EPA is finalizing MACT standards for organic HAP emissions from
process units that had ``no-control'' MACT determinations in the 2004
rule that were vacated in 2007. In addition to lumber kilns, these
process units include various RMH process units, atmospheric refiners,
stand-alone digesters, fiber washers, fiberboard mat dryers at existing
sources, hardboard press predryers at existing sources, and log vats.
Some of these process units are already subject to new source HAP
standards in the PCWP NESHAP, including fiberboard mat dryers,
hardboard press predryers, and reconstituted wood product board coolers
(which are a type of RMH unit) at new and reconstructed sources.
Therefore, limits for these new and reconstructed sources do not need
to be established in response to the partial remand and vacatur. Mixed
PCWP process streams routed to HAP control devices subject to the
current HAP emission limits in Table 1B are also already subject to the
PCWP NESHAP. Sections III.D.1 through 6 summarize the final standards
for process units with unregulated organic HAP emissions that were
subject to the partial remand and vacatur, the key comments received
and our responses, and our final decisions and rationale on the
standards for this final action.\39\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ See the RTC document and the June 1, 2026 memorandum
entitled Revised Development of Emission Standards for Remanded
Process Units Under the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP,
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. RMH Process Units
RMH process units within the PCWP affected source include resin
tanks, softwood and hardwood plywood presses, engineered wood product
presses and curing chambers, blenders, formers, finishing saws,
finishing sanders, panel trim chippers, reconstituted wood product
board coolers (at existing affected sources), hardboard humidifiers,
and onsite wastewater treatment operations specifically associated with
PCWP manufacturing. These process units handle resin or resinated wood
material downstream of the point in the PCWP process where resin is
applied. The potential for HAP emissions from RMH process units relates
to the material being processed (i.e., resin and wood).
a. What RMH standards did we propose?
As explained in the proposal, RMH process units are not designed
and constructed in a way that allows for HAP emissions capture or
measurement. Therefore, the EPA proposed work practice standards for
RMH process units under CAA section 112(h) to address their resin-
related emissions and wood-related emissions.
We proposed work practice standards to require new and existing
facilities with RMH process units to (i) use only a non-HAP resin,\40\
or (ii) use a resin with a maximum true vapor pressure of less than or
equal to 5.2 kilopascals (kPa), which is equal to 0.75 pounds per
square inch absolute (psia),\41\ or (iii) use a combination of resins
meeting either (i) or (ii). Facilities with RMH process units would
also be required to process wood material that was purchased pre-dried
to a moisture content of no more than 30 percent (weight percent, dry
basis) or that has been dried in a dryer located at the PCWP facility.
The proposed requirement to process dried wood did not apply for wet
formers and wastewater operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ Defined in 40 CFR 63.2292.
\41\ Defined in 40 CFR 63.2292.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
No options more stringent than the RMH process unit work practices
were identified for resin tanks, softwood and hardwood plywood presses,
engineered wood product presses and curing chambers, blenders, formers,
finishing saws, finishing sanders, panel trim chippers, or hardboard
humidifiers at new or existing affected sources, or for reconstituted
wood product board coolers at existing affected sources. Reconstituted
wood product board coolers at new affected sources are already subject
to standards under the PCWP NESHAP, so were not addressed by our
proposal.
For RMH wastewater operations, the EPA proposed a work practice in
addition to the process unit work practice standards that would require
facilities with wastewater operations to implement one of the following
measures:
Follow the plan required in 40 CFR 63.2268 for wet control
devices used as the sole means of reducing HAP emissions from PCWP
process units; or
Reduce the volume of wastewater to be processed by reusing
or recirculating wastewater in the PCWP process or air pollution
control system; or
Store wastewater in a closed system; or
Treat the wastewater by using an onsite biological
treatment system, or by routing the wastewater to an offsite POTW or
industrial wastewater treatment facility.
b. What comments on our proposed RMH standards did we receive?
Comment: One commenter questioned the justification of work
practice standards for RMH process units.
EPA response: We maintain that work practices developed under CAA
section 112(h) are legally justified and are the appropriate format of
standard for RMH process units, because it is not feasible to prescribe
or enforce an emission standard for RMH process units.42 43
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\42\ See the June 1, 2026 memorandum entitled Revised
Development of Emission Standards for Remanded Process Units Under
the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP, available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
\43\ 88 FR 31871-76 (May 18, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Other commenters agreed that work practices are justified
under CAA section 112(h) but expressed significant concern about the
proposed definition of ``non-HAP resin.'' To reduce implementation
uncertainty, the commenters stated that the EPA should focus
application of the weight percent limits (0.1 percent for carcinogens
and 1 percent for non-carcinogens) on known resin-related HAP and
clarify that the limits, which are based on OSHA hazard communication
thresholds for reporting, are not cumulative. One commenter also
requested that the EPA apply the tiered approach from the amino/
phenolic resin NESHAP (based on storage tank capacity) for purposes of
setting the vapor pressure limits in the PCWP NESHAP. The commenters
asserted that these changes are needed to properly scope the standards
to avoid unintended consequences and unaccounted for
[[Page 41421]]
market impacts to upstream suppliers of resins. Commenters also
requested whether the process under 40 CFR 63.6(g) for approval of an
alternative non-opacity emission standard could be used in specific
situations where it is not feasible to use a non-HAP resin or a resin
that meets the vapor pressure standards.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ For a complete list of comments and responses on this
subject see National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products (40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDDD), Response to Public Comments on May 18, 2023 Proposed
Amendments, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA response: The EPA agrees that the definitions around non-HAP
resin and the resin requirements require further clarification. The EPA
also agrees that the vapor pressure requirements should account for
different tank sizes, as suggested by commenters. In this final action
we are clarifying the definition of ``non-HAP resin'' and ``maximum
true vapor pressure'' and incorporating a tiered limits for vapor
pressure based on resin tank size.
Comment: We received numerous comments opposing the proposed
wastewater work practice options. Among other issues, commenters
asserted that the definition of ``wastewater operations'' as proposed
goes beyond the PCWP affected source, the EPA did not account for the
costs associated with this overly broad definition, and the EPA lacked
emissions information to justify the wastewater work practice.
EPA response: The EPA also agrees that, given the broad set of
operations included under the proposed wastewater work practice, most
of which are not part of the affected source as defined in the current
rule, we lacked the authority to impose requirements beyond the defined
affected source.
c. What RMH standards are we finalizing?
As a result of the comments, we are updating the proposed
definition of ``non-HAP resin'' in the final rule to focus on the known
resin-related HAP and to clarify how the weight percent limits are to
be applied. In the final rule, non-HAP resin is defined as ``a resin
that contains less than 0.1 percent by mass of formaldehyde and less
than 1.0 percent by mass each of phenol, methanol, and MDI.'' Using
this definition and following the intent of the May 2023 proposal for
the weight percentages to be applied for each HAP, an example resin
with 0.5 weight percent phenol and 0.7 weight percent methanol would be
considered a non-HAP resin because the 1.0 weight percent threshold is
applied to each HAP. Under the vapor pressure option, the final
standard contains tiered limits for vapor pressure based on resin tank
size consistent with the amino/phenolic resin NESHAP and updating the
definition of ``maximum true vapor pressure'' for the final rule.\45\
The final vapor pressure limits for resins received at the PCWP
facility are 5.2 kPa (0.75 psia) for resins stored in resin tanks with
capacity greater than or equal to 40,000 gallons and 13.1 kPa (1.9
psia) for resins stored in one or more resin tanks with capacity less
than 40,000 gallons. Finally, we note that under the PCWP NESHAP
facilities can already request approval of an alternative standard
following the process set forth under 40 CFR 63.6(g).\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ 40 CFR part 63, subpart OOO.
\46\ See 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, table 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Considering the EPA's proposed overly broad definition of
wastewater operations that extends beyond the affected source and that
no HAP emission reductions are estimated to be achieved with the
wastewater work practices, the EPA is not finalizing the four work
practice options for ``wastewater operations'' that were proposed in
addition to the work practice standards for RMH process units. For the
final rule, the term ``wastewater operations'' is being replaced with
the wording from the definition of affected source ``onsite wastewater
treatment operations specifically associated with PCWP manufacturing,''
in the definition of RMH process units. The resin-related RMH process
unit standards apply for ``onsite wastewater treatment operations
specifically associated with PCWP manufacturing.''
2. Atmospheric Refiners
Atmospheric refiners operate with continuous infeed and outfeed of
wood material and under atmospheric pressure for refining (rubbing,
grinding, or milling) wood material into fibers or particles used in
particleboard or dry formed hardboard production. Atmospheric refiners
are further characterized based on their placement before or after
dryers in the PCWP production process. In addition to a definition of
``atmospheric refiner,'' we proposed definitions of ``dried wood
atmospheric refiner'' and ``green wood atmospheric refiner'' to
distinguish atmospheric refiners following dryers in the PCWP process
(e.g., dried wood atmospheric refiners) from other atmospheric refiners
(e.g., green wood atmospheric refiners).
a. What atmospheric refiner standards did we propose?
We proposed numerical emission limits for existing and new
atmospheric refiners of each type developed pursuant to CAA sections
112(d)(2) and (3) using performance data collected from the CAA section
114 survey of PCWP facilities in 2022. The proposed standards were
based on the MACT floor. More-stringent beyond-the-floor options were
analyzed and rejected due to the high costs relative to the emission
reductions that would be achieved, energy usage, and other non-air
quality environmental impacts. Although the more stringent beyond-the-
floor options were not proposed, we proposed to include a provision in
40 CFR 63.2240(d)(6) to give facilities the option of complying with
the more stringent limits in Table 1B in place of the proposed limits
in the proposed Table 1C to Subpart DDDD of Part 63 (``Table 1C'') if
they choose to meet the more stringent option.
b. What comments on the proposed atmospheric refiner standards did we
receive?
Comment: We received several comments noting that the numerical
standards were not necessary and suggested using a work practice.
Commenters also requested a concentration-based compliance option as
well as revisions to the proposed definitions and classifications for
atmospheric refiners.
EPA response: The EPA maintains that work practice standards cannot
be established for atmospheric refiners under CAA section 112(h)
because emissions can be captured, conveyed, and measured. However, the
EPA agrees that an additional concentration-based compliance option and
clarifying language is needed to reduce uncertainty and confusion with
the proposed atmospheric refiner standards.
c. What atmospheric refiner standards are we finalizing?
Due to the requirement for EPA to establish emission standards for
atmospheric refiners under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3), we are
finalizing the numerical standards for atmospheric refiners as
proposed. In response to comments received, we are adding
concentration-based standards, in addition to the lb/ODT standards. We
are modifying the proposed definition for atmospheric refiners to
remove reference to wet-formed hardboard and fiberboard. We are also
redefining the proposed ``green wood atmospheric'' and ``dried wood
atmospheric refiner,''
[[Page 41422]]
terms as ``multipurpose atmospheric refiner'' and ``post-dryer
atmospheric refiner,'' respectively, to eliminate confusion surrounding
references to ``green'' and ``dried'' wood when the distinction to be
made hinges on placement of a subset of refiners after dryers in the
PCWP process. In the revised rule, all atmospheric refiners that are
not ``post-dryer atmospheric refiners'' are defined as ``multipurpose
atmospheric refiners.'' These definitional changes do not alter the
proposed MACT floors for green and dried wood atmospheric refiners
because they are consistent with how the MACT floors and MACT were
determined.
The final total HAP standards for multipurpose atmospheric refiners
are 1.2E-01 lb/ODT or 15 parts per million volume, dry (ppmvd) for
existing units and 2.4E-03 lb/ODT or 3.3 ppmvd for new units. The final
standards for existing post-dryer atmospheric refiners are 4.1E-03 lb/
ODT or 8.5E-01 ppmvd, and 3.3E-03 lb/ODT or 6.5E-01 ppmvd for new
units.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ More information on development of these standards can be
found in the memorandum entitled Revised Development of Emission
Standards for Remanded Process Units Under the Plywood and Composite
Wood Products NESHAP, available in the docket for this rulemaking,
and in our responses to comments in the RTC document, also available
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Stand-Alone Digesters and Fiber Washers
Stand-alone digesters are used to steam or water soak wood chips so
that they may be easily rubbed apart or ground into fibers in
atmospheric separate refiners that operate downstream from the
digesters. Stand-alone digesters have batch operating cycles that
differ from pressurized refiner steaming vessels (sometimes called
``digesters'') used to preheat wood chips prior to pressurized
refining. Pressurized refiner steaming vessels have continuous infeed
and outfeed without pressure release between the steaming vessel and
refiner part of the pressurized refiner.
Fiber washers are units in which water-soluble components of wood
(hemicellulose and sugars) that have been produced during digesting and
refining are removed from the wood fiber before the fiber is used in
fiberboard or hardboard production. In a fiber washer, wet fiber
leaving a refiner is further diluted with water and then passed over a
filter, leaving the cleaned fiber on the surface.
One wet/dry process hardboard facility operated a batch stand-alone
digester and a fiber washer at the time of the May 2023 proposal. This
facility has since ceased operations. No PCWP affected sources are
expected to operate stand-alone digesters or fiber washers, but the
possibility cannot be entirely ruled out. Thus, standards for these
process units are being finalized in this action. Both process units
meet the criteria under CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) for establishing a
work practice standard because there are technological and economic
limitations to measuring emissions.
a. What standards for stand-alone digesters and fiber washers were
proposed?
The potential for HAP emissions from stand-alone digesters is
reduced when: (1) clean steam from the boiler is used for the digestion
process (as opposed to steam potentially contaminated with HAP being
reused from another process); and (2) HAP-containing or wood pulping
chemicals \48\ are not added to the digestion process. Thus, we
proposed a work practice requiring clean steam to be used in the
digesters and prohibiting addition of HAP-containing or wood pulping
chemicals to the digestion process. No regulatory options more
stringent than the work practice were identified for further
consideration for existing or new stand-alone digesters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ Wood pulping chemicals added to dissolve lignin in wood
include sodium sulfide (Na2S) in combination with sodium
hydroxide (NaOH), sulfurous acid (H2SO3)
compounds, or sodium sulfite (Na2SO3) in
combination with sodium carbonate (Na2CO3).
Lignin removal is not necessary in the hardboard industry where
natural lignin helps bind wood fibers in processes where synthetic
resins are not used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed a work practice for PCWP fiber washers to use fresh
water for washing and processing fiber without addition of wood pulping
or HAP-containing chemicals.
b. What comments on the proposed stand-alone digester and fiber washer
standards did we receive?
Comment: One commenter explained their wet end process uses a large
amount of water, which is recycled to optimize the volume of water
discharged from the process and balance pH. The commenter requested the
EPA eliminate the requirement to use only fresh water for washing
because it is technically infeasible.
EPA response: The EPA agrees with the commentator's argument that
using fresh water is infeasible due to process design and the increase
in volume of wastewater that would result. Therefore, we are not
finalizing the requirement to use only fresh water for washing in the
work practice standards for fiber washers.
c. What standards for stand-alone digesters and fiber washers are we
finalizing?
We are finalizing the proposed definition of ``stand-alone
digester'' and an amendment to the definition of ``pressurized
refiner'' in 40 CFR 63.2292 to distinguish between these two process
units. Pressurized refiners are already subject to emission standards
in the PCWP NESHAP. We are amending the current definition of
pressurized refiner to state that: ``Pressurized refiners include
steaming vessels that operate under pressure to continuously feed and
vent through the pressurized refiner.'' We are finalizing the stand-
alone digester work practice requiring clean steam to be used in the
digesters and prohibiting addition of HAP-containing or wood pulping
chemicals to the digestion process. Initial and continuous compliance
with the stand-alone digester work practice must be demonstrated
through recordkeeping.
We are finalizing the work practice requirement to process fiber
without addition of HAP-containing or wood pulping chemicals. Initial
and continuous compliance with the fiber washer work practice must be
demonstrated through recordkeeping. No regulatory options more
stringent than the work practice were identified for further
consideration for existing or new fiber washers. No new fiberboard or
hardboard mills are projected. Therefore, no new PCWP affected sources
are expected to use fiber washers.
4. Fiberboard Mat Dryers and Press Predryers at Existing Sources
Fiberboard mat dryers are conveyor-type dryers used to dry wet-
formed fiber mats. Press predryers are used in the wet/dry hardboard
process to remove additional moisture from the hardboard mat after it
exits the fiberboard mat dryer before the mat enters the hardboard
press. The PCWP NESHAP already contains standards for fiberboard mat
dryers (heated zones) and hardboard press predryers at new sources.
a. What Fiberboard mat dryers and press predryers did we propose for
existing sources?
The EPA proposed standards for the heated zones of existing
fiberboard mat dryers and hardboard press predryers. For the fiberboard
mat dryer (heated zones), the proposed MACT floor is 4.9E-02 lb total
HAP per MSF on a 1/8-inch thickness basis. The MACT floor
[[Page 41423]]
for the press predryer is 8.0E-02 lb total HAP per MSF on a 1/8-inch
thickness basis. The emission limit for each dryer was calculated using
HAP test data collected in 2022 through a CAA section 114 survey. These
MACT floor calculations were based on limited data sets.\49\ The units
that were tested in the 2022 survey were at the same wet/dry hardboard
facility discussed in section III.D.3, which has ceased operations
since the May 2023 proposal was published. The EPA considered beyond-
the-floor regulatory options for both dryers, but these options were
rejected because of the high costs relative to the HAP emission
reduction that could be achieved, energy usage, and other non-air
quality environmental impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ See the memorandum entitled Approach for Applying the Upper
Prediction Limit to Limited Datasets, available in the docket for
this rulemaking, for details on the EPA's review of the data sets
and conclusions regarding appropriateness of the proposed MACT
floors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposed standards for
Fiberboard mat dryers and press predryers?
Comment: The EPA received comments supporting and opposing the
proposed emission limits for fiberboard mat dryers and press predryers.
One commenter recommended that the EPA rely on data from sources with
controls that have ceased operation to set MACT standards instead of
data from the only remaining units in operation at the time of
proposal, which were uncontrolled. The commenter argued that the EPA
contravenes the CAA by setting weaker standards using data from this
single source when previously existing sources were better performing.
A different commenter supported the proposed MACT analysis and emission
limits and requested a change to the definition of fiberboard mat dryer
to clarify applicability for units producing wet/dry hardboard. Another
commenter asked the EPA to specify the emission standards for existing
fiberboard mat dryers and press predryers in Table 1C on both a 1/8-
inch and 1/2-inch basis for consistency with Table 1A to Subpart DDDD
of Part 63 (``Table 1A'') and asked the Agency to clarify the dates in
Table 1C.
EPA Response: We disagree with the commenter's statement that
development of these limits contravenes the CAA. According to CAA
section 112(d)(3)(B), the MACT floor for existing sources is the
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing five
sources (for which the Administrator has or could reasonably obtain
emissions information) in a category or subcategory with fewer than 30
sources. The D.C. Circuit has affirmed that CAA section 112 ``says
nothing about what data the Agency should use to calculate emission
standards.'' \50\ The EPA followed the law when developing the MACT
floors for fiberboard mat dryers and hardboard press predryers based on
the emission data from the source remaining in operation at the time of
the 2022 section 114 survey.\51\ The most complete and relevant data on
fiberboard mat dryer and press predryer emissions were collected during
this survey. As noted in this section, the EPA did consider beyond-the-
floor measures for both the fiberboard mat dryer and press predryer
based on control technology and rejected these options for both dryers
because of the high costs relative to the HAP emission reduction that
could be achieved, energy usage, and other non-air quality
environmental impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ Nat'l Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 233 F.3d 625, 632-33 (D.C. Cir.
2000).
\51\ The Agency is proposing elsewhere to rely on information
from the time of the original NESHAP rulemaking to avoid unfairly
subjecting previously unregulated emission points to more stringent
standards than would have been adopted if the EPA had set MACT
floors in the 2004 rule. See 91 FR 21672 (Apr. 22, 2026). This
rulemaking does not raise the same equity concerns because sources
are not subject to more stringent standards than would have been
adopted in 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. What standards for Fiberboard mat dryers and press predryers are we
finalizing?
After considering comments, we are finalizing the proposed
standards for existing source fiberboard mat dryers and press predryers
as proposed. We modified the proposed Table 1C to include the 1/8-inch
limits converted to equivalent values in terms of 1/2-inch. We added a
footnote to the table to clarify that the existing source limits are
not applicable to new sources, which have their own limits from the
2004 rule in Tables 1A or 1B to Subpart DDDD of Part 63. Regarding the
other changes requested by commenters, we clarified the definition
fiberboard mat dryer applies to dryers in the wet/dry hardboard
process.
5. Log Vats
Log vats are used to condition logs before they are cut into veneer
or wood strands. Hot water vats in which logs are immersed are often
open to the atmosphere. In log steaming or ``chest'' vats, logs are
placed in the vat in batches, the door is closed, and steam (which
condenses in the vat) along with hot water sprays are used to condition
the logs for a specified time before the logs are removed for veneer
production. The EPA is finalizing the proposed definition for ``log
vat'' in 40 CFR 63.2292 that applies to both hot water and log steaming
vats.
a. What log vat standards did the EPA propose?
We proposed a work practice standard based on CAA section
112(h)(2)(A) and (B) for log vats at existing or new sources because
log vats have neither the proper emissions capture and conveyance
ductwork nor stacks where emissions testing could be conducted. The
proposed work practice standard would require facilities to: (a)
operate each vat using a site-specific target log temperature that does
not exceed 212 [deg]F, measured in the water used to soak the logs or
in the wood cut at the lathe or stranders; and (b) operate each vat to
reduce the potential for fugitive emissions by either: (1) covering at
least 80 percent of the vat hot water surface area for soaking vats in
which logs are submerged; or (2) keeping doors closed while steam or
hot water showers are being applied inside log steaming vats.
b. What comments on the proposed log vat standards did we receive?
Comment: One commenter opposed distinguishing between hot water
vats and log steaming vats and questioned the EPA's justification for
using work practice standards over numeric standards for log vats.
Other commenters agreed log vats are eligible for work practice
standards but recommended changes in the proposed work practice
standards pertaining to the potential for fugitive emissions. The
commenters stated that covering logs in log vats can create health and
safety concerns and hinder operations. They noted operators with steam
vats already close the doors during steaming/spraying as standard
procedures, making this requirement redundant.
EPA Response: As discussed in a docketed memorandum, the EPA has
concluded that work practice standards for log vats are justified given
the technical limitations and measurement infeasibilities.\52\ The EPA
has also noted the safety concerns raised by commenters, and agrees
that requiring an 80 percent log vat cover would interfere with
operations and potentially lead to health and safety concerns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ See the June 1, 2026 memorandum entitled Revised
Development of Emission Standards for Remanded Process Units Under
the Plywood and Composite Wood Products NESHAP, available in the
docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 41424]]
c. What log vat standards are we finalizing?
As a result of the concerns raised by commenters on the proposed
work practice standards, we are finalizing the temperature limitation
work practice but not the requirement to cover at least 80 percent of
the hot water surface or keep doors of log steaming vats closed. This
change also eliminates the distinction in hot water and steaming vats.
6. Mixed PCWP Process Streams Regulated at Existing Sources
Some PCWP facilities route emission streams from multiple process
units of the same or different types into one shared HAP control system
such as a regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO), regenerative catalytic
oxidizer (RCO), biofilter, or process incineration system to meet the
compliance options in Table 1B. In a few mixed process arrangements, an
emissions stream from a remanded unit was mixed at the inlet to a HAP
control device and co-controlled with other process units listed in
Table 1B such that the combined emission stream became subject to the
Table 1B limits when the control system was initially installed to meet
the PCWP NESHAP or as part of the PCWP plant design. Due to the mixing
of emissions from each individual type of process unit, the PCWP
process stream cannot be distinguished at the inlet or outlet of the
control device.
a. What standards did we propose for mixed process streams?
We proposed a requirement that mixed PCWP process streams from
remanded units meeting the compliance options in Table 1B be treated as
a separate type of emission stream that remains subject to the Table 1B
limits. Mixed PCWP process streams are defined in 40 CFR 63.2292 as an
emission stream from a process unit subject to the final amendments
that was commingled with emissions stream(s) from process unit(s)
subject to the compliance options in Table 1B before July 6, 2026 at an
affected source that commenced construction (or reconstruction) on or
before May 18, 2023. The definition of ``mixed PCWP process stream''
refers specifically to a ``stream'' as opposed to a whole process unit
because there can be uncaptured or uncontrolled emissions from a
remanded process unit in addition to the captured emission stream from
the remanded unit that is routed to the HAP control device as part of a
mixed PCWP process stream.
b. What comments on the proposed mixed PCWP process stream limits did
we receive?
Comment: Two commenters agreed with the EPA's proposal that mixed
PCWP process streams continue to meet compliance options in Table 1B.
One commenter requested the Notice of Compliance Status (NOCS) for
mixed PCWP process streams be due within a short timeframe after
publication in the Federal Register (e.g., 30 or 60 days) rather than
on the date of publication.
EPA Response: We acknowledge commenters support for the proposed
requirement that mixed PCWP process streams comply with options in
Table 1B. We agree that 30 days would allow facilities the necessary
time to create and submit their NOCS.
c. What mixed PCWP process stream limits are we finalizing?
In response to these comments, we are finalizing requirements for
the mixed PCWP process streams as proposed with the exception that the
NOCS shall be due no later than 30 days after the date of publication.
E. MACT Standards for Process Units With MDI Emissions
The EPA is finalizing standards to regulate MDI emissions from
reconstituted wood product presses using MDI, tube dryers that blow-
line blend MDI resin, and miscellaneous coating operations. Sections
III.E.1 through 3 summarize the final standards, the key comments
received and our responses, and our final decisions and rationale on
the standards for this final action. A complete discussion of changes
from the May 2023 proposal can be found in the RTC document and a
docketed memorandum.\53\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ See the June 1, 2026 memorandum entitled Revised Regulatory
Options for MDI Emissions from Plywood and Composite Wood Products
Reconstituted Wood Products Presses, Tube Dryers, and Miscellaneous
Coating Operations, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Reconstituted Wood Product Presses
a. What reconstituted wood product press MDI standards did we propose?
The EPA proposed MDI emission standards for reconstituted wood
product presses that produce OSB and for reconstituted wood product
presses that produce particleboard or MDF (PB/MDF). We developed
separate standards because product differences affect MDI emissions.
For OSB presses, the proposed MACT standards for both new and
existing sources are based on 3xRDL for MDI, which exceeded the
calculated MACT floor. The 3xRDL values were substituted for the
calculated MACT floor to ensure that the standards are established at
the minimum level at which emissions can be measured reliably. The
proposed MACT standards for new and existing OSB presses are 2.5E-04 lb
MDI/MSF 3/4'' (1.3E-04 lb/MSF 3/8'') or 2.7E-02 mg MDI/dscm.
The proposed MACT floor for existing PB/MDF presses using MDI is
8.4E-04 lb/MSF 3/4'' or 2.0E-01 mg MDI/dscm. For new sources, the 3xRDL
values exceeded the calculated MACT floor concentration and emission
rate. Therefore, the 3xRDL values were used in place of the calculated
MACT floor for new source PB/MDF presses using MDI to ensure that the
standards are established at the minimum level at which emissions can
be measured reliably. For new PB/MDF presses the MDI proposed MACT
limit based on the 3xRDL values is 2.3E-04 lb MDI/MSF 3/4'' or 2.7E-02
mg MDI/dscm.
Considering the low levels of MDI emitted and that reconstituted
wood product presses already meet HAP limits in the PCWP NESHAP using
robust HAP controls, no regulatory options more stringent than the
existing or new source MACT floors for MDI were identified for OSB or
PB/MDF reconstituted wood product presses.
b. What comments on the proposed MDI reconstituted wood product press
standards did we receive?
Comment: The EPA received comments supporting and opposing
subcategorization of reconstituted wood product presses for purposes of
limiting MDI.
EPA response: The EPA maintains subcategorizing reconstituted wood
product presses using MDI by product is within the EPA's authority in
CAA section 112(d)(1), which states, ``The Administrator may
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category or subcategory in establishing standards.'' The manner and
type of press operation are distinct between products. Depending on the
product type (i.e., OSB, or PB/MDF), presses require different
operating temperatures (e.g., OSB is pressed at higher temperature) and
feed stocks (e.g., OSB are created with larger wood strands), which
affect emission rates. Therefore, subcategorizing by product is
appropriate.
Comment: The EPA also received a comment stating that it is
unnecessary for the EPA to set numerical standards for MDI, and that
MDI emissions would be more appropriately regulated under
[[Page 41425]]
the work practice for RMH process units.
EPA response: We maintain that the EPA is required to set standards
for HAP such as MDI that are known to be emitted from reconstituted
wood products presses. Reconstituted wood products presses do not meet
the criteria under CAA section 112(h) for establishing work practices.
c. What MDI reconstituted wood product press standards are we
finalizing?
The EPA is finalizing the proposed MDI MACT limits for
reconstituted wood product presses. The EPA is maintaining the
designated subcategorization based on the product type, as described
above. Reconstituted wood product presses operating HAP controls are
expected to meet the MACT floor for existing and new sources. However,
it is currently unknown whether presses at two particleboard facilities
that meet the PCWP production-based compliance option (PBCO) using
pollution prevention measures would meet the MDI MACT
floor.54 55
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ Table 1A to subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63 contains the
PBCO total HAP limits.
\55\ See the June 1, 2026 memorandum entitled Revised Cost,
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Subpart DDDD Regulatory
Options, available in the docket for this rulemaking, for additional
discussion the on impact of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Tube Dryers
Primary tube dryers often incorporate blow-line blending in which
resin is added to wood fibers as they enter the primary tube dryer. The
resin and wood fibers mix with the turbulent conditions in the primary
tube dryer as the wood fiber is dried. Primary and secondary tube
dryers are often co-controlled. Primary tube dryers may also be co-
controlled with a reconstituted wood product press.
a. What MDI standards did the EPA propose for tube dryers?
The proposed MACT standard for MDI from new and existing tube
dryers is 1.7E-02 lb/ODT or 0.68 mg MDI/dscm. This standard is based on
the MACT floor. No regulatory options more stringent than the MACT
floor were identified for tube dryers that blow-line blend MDI.
b. What comments on the proposed MDI standard for tube dryers did
we receive?
Comment: One commenter indicated MDI standards for tube dryers are
not necessary because all tube dryers with blow-line blending MDI resin
are equipped with HAP emissions controls and the standard will only
serve to incur an additional cost of emissions testing every five years
with no environmental benefit.
EPA response: The EPA disagrees with the commenters claim that MDI
standards for tube dryers are not necessary. Tube dryers blow-line
blending MDI were identified as one of the primary sources of MDI
emissions in the PCWP source category in the 2020 RTR.\56\ Further,
source testing in 2022 identified MDI emissions from an RTO-controlled
tube dryer to be above the detection limit. For these reasons,
establishing standards for tube dryers is appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ 85 FR 49434 (Aug. 13, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
c. What MDI standards are we finalizing for tube dryers?
The EPA is finalizing the proposed MACT standard for MDI from new
and existing tube dryers. The MACT standard for tube dryers is 1.7E-02
lb/ODT or 0.68 mg MDI/dscm.
3. Miscellaneous Coatings Operations
a. What MDI standards did we propose for miscellaneous coatings
operations?
The EPA proposed MDI emission standards for miscellaneous coating
operations in which MDI moisture sealants are applied to engineered
wood products such as parallel strand lumber or LVL.
b. What comments did the EPA receive on the proposed MDI standards for
miscellaneous coatings operations?
Comment: Commenters questioned the necessity of the MDI numerical
limit and requested reduced testing frequency for the MDI coating
operation.
EPA response: The EPA maintains the standard is required to ensure
MDI is properly regulated across miscellaneous coatings operations.
Emissions from this source are measurable and capturable; therefore,
they do not meet the criteria under CAA section 112(h) for establishing
a work practice. See section III.F for an explanation of EPA's
performance testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping and reporting
requirements
c. What MDI standards did we finalize for miscellaneous coatings
operations?
The final MACT limit for existing and new sources is 1.9E-03 lb MDI
emitted/lb sealant applied, or 1.4E-05 lb MDI/ft\2\ surface area coated
based on coating HAP content. The limit is based on the MACT floor. No
options more stringent than the MACT floor emission level were
identified for further analysis. The EPA is finalizing the five-year
testing frequency, as proposed.
F. Requirements for Performance Testing, Monitoring, and Recordkeeping
and Reporting
1. Performance Testing
No comments were received on the proposed emission test methods
included in Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63 (``Table 4''). We are
finalizing the proposed methods without change. The final emissions
test methods for total HAP include EPA Method 320,\57\ NCASI Method IM/
CAN/WP-99.02,\58\ NCASI Method ISS/FP-A105.0,\59\ or ASTM D6348-12e1
\60\ with the conditions discussed in section V.J of this preamble. EPA
Method 326 \61\ is required for MDI emissions measurement, in which a
minimum sample of 1 dscm must be collected. For PM as a surrogate to
HAP metals, either EPA Method 5 \62\ or EPA Method 29 \63\ is required
with a minimum sample volume of 2 dscm. For Hg, EPA Method 29 or EPA
Method 30B \64\ are required, with a minimum sample volume of 2 dscm
for EPA Method 29. EPA Method 26A \65\ was proposed for HCl emissions
measurement with a minimum sample volume of 2 dscm. The recently
updated EPA Method 23 \66\ is required for PAH and D/F emission
measurement with a minimum sample volume of 3 dscm. Consistent with the
treatment of non-detect data used to establish the emission standards,
we are finalizing a requirement that non-detect data be treated as the
MDL in test averages used to demonstrate compliance with the standards
in Table 1C, Table 1D to Subpart DDDD of Part 63 (``Table 1D''), or
Table 1E to Subpart DDDD of Part 63 (``Table 1E''). We are revising the
rule to add Table 12 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63 (``Table 12'') to
provide the toxic equivalence factors (TEFs) to multiply by the
individual D/F congener test results to determine TEQ.\67\ In addition,
we are adding EPA Method 9 \68\ to the
[[Page 41426]]
rule for use in conjunction with pressure drop monitoring across
mechanical collectors and other dry control devices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63.
\58\ IBR in 40 CFR 63.14.
\59\ IBR in 40 CFR 63.14.
\60\ IBR in 40 CFR 63.14.
\61\ Appendix A to 40 CFR part 63.
\62\ Appendix A-3 to 40 CFR part 60.
\63\ Appendix A-8 to 40 CFR part 60.
\64\ Appendix A-8 to 40 CFR part 60.
\65\ Appendix A-8 to 40 CFR part 60.
\66\ Appendix A-8 to 40 CFR part 60.
\67\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Recommended
Toxicity Equivalence Factors (TEFs) for Human Health Risk
Assessments of 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and Dioxin-Like
Compounds: https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2013-09/documents/tefs-for-dioxin-epa-00-r-10-005-final.pdf.
\68\ Appendix A-4 to 40 CFR part 60.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. What performance testing frequency did we propose?
For the new and existing source emission limits being added to the
PCWP NESHAP, we proposed that performance testing would be required
every 5 years (60 months).
b. What comments did we receive on the proposed performance testing
frequency?
Comment: Multiple commenters expressed concern about the proposed
five-year frequency of emissions testing. One commenter argued that
testing every five years is too infrequent to ensure compliance and
recommended semiannual testing or a continuous emission monitoring
system (CEMS). Other commenters requested the EPA allow performance
testing of PAH, HCl, and Hg be one time sampling events rather than
repeated every five years considering the high costs of testing,
complexity of test methods, and lack of laboratory availability for
these trace compounds.
EPA response: Regarding the assertion that stack testing every five
years cannot ensure compliance, we note that demonstration of
compliance is not accomplished by performance testing alone but is
paired with ongoing parametric monitoring established during
performance testing to show compliance with the emission limits.
Routine performance testing is necessary to provide periodic
verification of the operation of control devices and to ensure the
parametric monitoring remains relatable to actual emissions. We
maintain that the proposed testing frequency, in combination with
required parametric monitoring, is sufficient to ensure compliance and
that CEMS are unnecessary for PCWP standards being finalized.
c. What performance testing requirements are we finalizing?
The final rule requires initial performance tests to be completed
within 180 days after the compliance date for the new standards and
subsequent performance testing every five years (60 months),
thereafter.
2. Parameter Monitoring
The preamble for the May 2023 proposal described the proposed
parametric monitoring requirements in detail.\69\ After reviewing
public comments, we are finalizing the parametric monitoring
requirements substantially as proposed with the following key changes:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\ 88 FR 31878-79 (May 18, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are allowing the owner or operator to monitor pressure
drop weekly opacity observations in lieu of continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS) for mechanical collectors (or other dry
control devices not otherwise mentioned in Table 2 to Subpart DDDD of
Part 63 [``Table 2'']) to demonstrate continuous compliance with PM
limits.
We are clarifying language in Table 10 to Subpart DDDD of
Part 63 ``Table 10'' to require the notification and reporting
requirements for performance evaluations for only COMs and CEMS,
although we are retaining the requirement to perform performance
evaluations on other continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS).
We have corrected typographical errors related to
electrified filter bed (EFB) monitoring by clarifying that only voltage
monitoring is required for EFB.
We changed the semiannual flow sensor calibration to an
annual calibration, which is consistent with other calibration
requirements throughout the rule.
We are amending the rule to include language specifying
when pressure drop is to be monitored.
For more details and our rationale surrounding these changes and
other minor changes to the monitoring requirements, please see the RTC
document in the docket for this action. The final monitoring
requirements are summarized in this section.
Continuous compliance with the standards proposed in Tables 1C, 1D,
or 1E must be demonstrated through control device parameter monitoring
coupled with the proposed periodic emissions testing described in
section III.F.1. The parametric monitoring already required in Table 2
for thermal oxidizers, catalytic oxidizers, or biofilters to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the compliance options in Table
1B is also required to demonstrate ongoing compliance with the
standards in Tables 1C, 1D, or 1E. In addition to the parametric
monitoring currently specified for thermal oxidizers, catalytic
oxidizers, or biofilters, the amendments to Table 2 as revised by this
final action include the following parameter monitoring requirements
for the types of air pollution control devices (APCDs) that we expect
to be used to comply with the standards in Tables 1D or 1E:
For wet electrostatic precipitator (WESP), secondary
electric power input and liquid flow rate;
For dry electrostatic precipitator (ESP), secondary
electric power input or opacity;
For wet PM scrubbers, liquid flow rate and pressure drop;
For wet acid gas scrubbers, liquid flow rate and effluent
pH;
For EFBs, ionizer voltage or current and pressure drop;
and
For mechanical collectors (e.g., cyclone or multiclone) or
other dry control devices, a choice of opacity monitored using a COMS
or pressure drop with weekly opacity observations.
The operating limits for these parameters must be established
consistently with the existing provisions of 40 CFR 63.2262, as the
average of the three test run averages during the performance test.
Continuous compliance with the parameters for WESP, dry ESP, wet
scrubbers, and EFB must be determined by comparing the three-hour block
average parameter average to the limit established during the
performance test.
Consistent with existing provisions in Table 2, the rule is amended
to require that a source owner choosing to rely on a control device
other than a thermal oxidizer, catalytic oxidizer, or biofilter used to
meet a compliance option in Table 1C petition the Administrator for
site-specific operating parameters to be monitored or to maintain the
three-hour block average total hydrocarbon (THC) concentration within
the limits established during the performance test. The source owner of
process units that meet a compliance option in Tables 1C, 1D, or 1E
without using a control device must maintain on a daily basis the
process unit controlling operating parameter(s) within the ranges
established during the performance test or maintain the three-hour
block average THC concentration within the limits established during
the performance test.
For control devices where opacity is used as an operating
parameter, a COMS is required, and the 24-hour block average opacity
must not exceed 10 percent (or the highest hourly average measured
during the performance test). Table 10 indicates that the requirements
for opacity standards in 40 CFR 63.6(h)(2) through (9) do not apply
because opacity is an operating limit and not an emission standard.
Continuous monitoring requirements associated with the work
practices in Table 3 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63 (``Table 3'') include
combustion unit bypass stack usage monitoring (e.g., temperature or
bypass damper position), lumber kiln dry bulb temperature
[[Page 41427]]
monitoring for comparison with the batch average or daily block average
dry bulb temperature limit, monitoring of lumber moisture (with
semiannual averaging) for comparison to lumber minimum moisture content
limits in Table 11, or monitoring of lumber kiln temperature (with 3-
hour block averaging) and lumber moisture (with semiannual averaging)
for comparison to limits in an approved site-specific plan.
We are finalizing as proposed a requirement to continuously monitor
process unit bypass stack usage at all times while the process units
are operating, including times when the process unit is undergoing
startup or shutdown, and during the operating conditions as specified
in 40 CFR 63.2250(f)(2) through (4). This requirement is included to
ensure that reliable data are available to evaluate continuous
compliance with the PCWP NESHAP requirements.
Consistent with NESHAP general provisions at 40 CFR part 63,
subpart A, a source owner is required to operate and maintain the
source, its air pollution control equipment, and its monitoring
equipment in a manner consistent with safety and good air pollution
control practices for minimizing emissions, to include operating and
maintaining equipment in accordance with the manufacturer's
recommendations. Owners are required to prepare and keep records of
calibration and accuracy checks of the continuous monitoring system
(CMS) to document proper operation and maintenance of the monitoring
system.
3. Recordkeeping and Reporting
The EPA received no significant comments on the recordkeeping
requirements, so they are being finalized as proposed. A source owner
is required to submit semi-annual compliance summary reports that
document both compliance with the requirements of the PCWP NESHAP and
any deviations from compliance with any of those requirements,
consistent with existing requirements in the PCWP NESHAP. Owners and
operators are required to maintain the records specified by 40 CFR
63.10 and, in addition, are required to maintain records of all
monitoring data, in accordance with the PCWP NESHAP.\70\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\70\ 40 CFR 63.2282.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Other Actions
We are finalizing revisions to the PCWP NESHAP to remove obsolete
rule language including the emissions averaging compliance option for
existing affected sources, dates, and startup/shutdown provisions that
are no longer in effect. Removing the outdated language from the PCWP
NESHAP streamlines the rule and makes it easier to read. We are also
finalizing updates and clarifications of the electronic reporting
requirements. In addition, we reviewed issues raised by reconsideration
petitioners following the 2020 RTR. The final revisions and rationale
are presented in this section.
1. Emissions Averaging
Emissions averaging was included in the 2004 rule as a compliance
option for use at existing affected sources. We proposed to remove the
emissions averaging compliance option in the May 2023 proposal because
no existing facilities are using it, and emissions averaging is not an
option for new affected facilities. The only facility to use the option
has now ceased PCWP production. Also, the new emission standards being
added for process units and HAP subject to the 2007 partial remand and
vacatur with this action further diminish opportunities for emissions
averaging, and removing the emission averaging language simplifies the
rule. Two commenters agreed with removing the emissions averaging
option and no commenters objected. Therefore, we are removing the
emissions averaging option from the PCWP NESHAP in this final action.
2. Obsolete Dates and Provisions
On August 13, 2020, the EPA published several amendments to the
PCWP NESHAP with corresponding compliance dates for transitioning from
obsolete provisions that have since passed.\71\ This final rule
contains additional amendments with multiple associated dates discussed
in section III.H of this preamble. We proposed in the May 2023 proposal
to remove the obsolete dates and provisions that are no longer in
effect to improve clarity of the PCWP NESHAP, including:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\71\ 85 FR 49434 (Aug. 13, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 40 CFR 63.2233(1) through (3), cross-references to
specific paragraphs needed to implement the 2020 RTR amendments were
proposed to be removed and replaced with a reference to the proposed 40
CFR 63.2233(e), which provides compliance dates for the rule
requirements proposed in this action.
Paragraphs 40 CFR 63.2250(a) through (c) were proposed to
be removed and reserved because their requirements no longer apply.
Date language was proposed to be removed in paragraphs 40
CFR 63.2250(f) and (g), which are paragraphs that replaced the obsolete
paragraphs 40 CFR 63.2250(a) through (c) in the 2020 RTR amendments.
Paragraphs 40 CFR 63.2280(b) and (d) contained dates for
when electronic submittal of initial notifications and performance test
results became effective. 40 CFR 63.2281(b)(6) contained dates for when
electronic submittal of semiannual reports became effective. These
dates have passed, and the electronic reporting requirements are in
full effect, so we proposed to remove dates to make the rule easier to
read.
The first part of paragraph 40 CFR 63.2281(c)(4) contains
dates for language that was phased out as well as dates for when
electronic reporting requirements were phased in. Similarly, 40 CFR
63.2282(a)(2) contains obsolete dates and language intended to phase
out some records and phase in other records. We proposed to remove the
obsolete language to simplify the rule because the dates have now
passed.
Row 2 in Table 9 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63 was proposed
to be removed and reserved because the requirement for an SSM report is
no longer in effect.
The 2020 RTR amendments added a column to Table 10 to
clarify which general provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A applied
before and after August 13, 2021, for existing sources. The now
obsolete column pertaining to requirements before August 13, 2021, was
proposed to be removed. Those amendments pertain to SSM provisions that
were removed and to reporting provisions that were added on August 13,
2020.
For clarity, we are retaining date language from the 2020 RTR that
specified compliance dates for standards and electronic reporting
provisions added with that rulemaking. We have also taken care to
insert compliance date language for the new standards finalized in this
action as discussed further in section III.H of this preamble.\72\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\72\ 40 CFR 63.2240(d) and (e), tables 1C, 1D, 1E to subpart
DDDD of 40 CFR part 63, 40 CFR 63.2241(d) through (g), and table 3
to subpart DDDD of 40 CFR part 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We received no substantial comments on removal of the obsolete
dates and provisions. Therefore, we are finalizing the changes as
proposed.
3. Electronic Reporting Updates and Clarifications
On November 19, 2020, the EPA published a final rule incorporating
standard electronic reporting language into the general provisions at
40 CFR
[[Page 41428]]
63.9(k). We proposed to update the electronic reporting language in 40
CFR part 63, subpart DDDD, to refer to the provisions in 40 CFR 63.9(k)
in addition to other revisions. The proposed revisions are as follows:
We proposed to require that initial notifications and
notifications of compliance status be submitted in a user-specified
format such as PDF in 40 CFR 63.2280(b) and (d) instead of 40 CFR
63.2281(h).
General provisions pertaining to submittal of CBI were
proposed to be removed from 40 CFR 63.2281(h), (i)(3), and (j)(3).
In 40 CFR 63.2281(k), we proposed to replace language
pertaining to Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI)
outageswith additional detailed procedures for submitting CBI in
electronic format.\73\ The update provides an email address that source
owners and operators can use to electronically mail CBI to the Office
of Clean Air Programs (OCAP) CBI Office when submitting compliance
reports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\73\ Now in 40 CFR 63.9(k).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 40 CFR 63.2281(l), we proposed to remove the provisions
related to force majeure claims which are now in 40 CFR 63.9(k).
We proposed to remove the provision in 40 CFR 63.2283(d)
that states that records submitted to CEDRI may be maintained in
electronic format, because 40 CFR 63.10(b)(1) already allows the
retention of all records electronically.
In Table 10, we proposed to indicate that all of the
provisions in 40 CFR 63.9(k) apply to 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD.
In addition, we proposed to amend 40 CFR 63.2281(c)(4) to clarify
the compliance reporting requirements for the work practices in Table 3
(rows 6, 7, or 8). The EPA proposed to clarify that the requirement to
report the date, time, and duration of every instance in which one of
the work practices is used applies only if that individual work
practice is used for more than 100 hours during the reporting period.
The EPA's original intent was for the 100-hour reporting threshold to
be compared to the semiannual usage of each of the three work practices
individually, not for the total usage of all three work practices
combined. As stated in 40 CFR 63.2281(c)(4), when one of the work
practices is used for less than 100 hours per semiannual reporting
period, a summary of the number of instances and total amount of time
that work practice was used is required to be reported. As noted in
section III.F.2 of this preamble, we also proposed to require
continuous monitoring and recording of process unit bypass stack usage
at all times including during the operating conditions specified in 40
CFR 63.2250(f)(2) through (4) and Table 3 (rows 6, 7, or 8) to ensure
that reliable data are available to evaluate continuous compliance with
the PCWP NESHAP requirements.
One commenter offered comments on the updated CEDRI reporting
template provided with the May 2023 proposal and requested an
additional opportunity to review the template before it is
finalized.\74\ The commenter's recommendations and the EPA's responses
are provided in the RTC located in the docket. The EPA's revised CEDRI
reporting template for this final rule is available in the docket but
will not be required until implemented in CEDRI.\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\ 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD--Plywood and Composite Wood
Products Semiannual Compliance Reporting Spreadsheet Template.
Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243-0417.
\75\ 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD--Plywood and Composite Wood
Products Semiannual Compliance Reporting Spreadsheet Template (Final
ICR Draft, 2026), available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Issues Raised by Petitioners Following the RTR
Following publication of the 2020 RTR,\76\ the EPA received a
petition for reconsideration (Petition) from Earthjustice on behalf of
Greater Birmingham Alliance to Stop Pollution, Louisiana Environmental
Action Network, and Sierra Club (``Petitioners''). The Petitioners
asked the EPA to reconsider certain aspects of the 2020 RTR and other
amendments under the authority of CAA section 307(d)(7)(B), arguing
that the EPA's rationale for four decisions all appeared for the first
time in the 2020 RTR and RTC document accompanying the final rule.\77\
This section summarizes the four issues raised by the Petitioners, the
EPA's proposed revisions to the PCWP NESHAP to address some of these
issues, comments received on the proposed revisions and our responses,
and our final decisions and rationale on the issues for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\76\ 85 FR 49434 (Aug. 13, 2020).
\77\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Plywood and Composite Wood Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD)
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments, Responses to
Public Comments on September 6, 2019, Proposal. Document ID No. EPA-
HQ-OAR-2016-0243-0244, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. What were the issues raised by the Petitioners and what were our
proposed revisions?
In the first issue raised, the Petitioners alleged that the EPA
failed to set limits for unregulated HAP. Although we do not agree that
the Petitioners met their burden under CAA section 307(d)(7)(B) to show
that it was impracticable to raise this objection during the public
comment period for the proposed 2020 RTR, and thereby compel
reconsideration of this issue, the May 2023 proposal contained new
standards for unregulated HAP that are being finalized in response to
the 2007 partial remand and vacatur of the 2004 rule and to address
unregulated HAP, such that the Petitioners' concern regarding this
issue is resolved with this final action.
In the second and third issues raised by the Petitioners, they
disagreed with two work practices the EPA finalized on August 13, 2020,
for safety-related shutdowns and pressurized refiner startup and
shutdowns, and objected to what they perceived to be the EPA's changed
or new rationale for these work practices between proposal and
finalization of the 2020 RTR, claiming that they did not have an
opportunity to raise their objections during the public comment period.
The Petitioners disagreed with the EPA's use of CAA section 112(h) to
develop work practice standards for safety-related shutdowns and
pressurized refiner startup and shutdown events. For safety-related
shutdowns, the Petitioners took issue with the EPA's rationale that
facilities cannot capture and convey HAP emissions to a control device
during these periods for safety reasons, saying that whether emissions
can be conveyed to a control device is irrelevant under CAA section
112(h)(2)(A).\78\ In response to this critique, and to ensure that
there is a full opportunity for all stakeholders to comment on the
EPA's rationale for these work practices, the EPA requested comment in
the May 2023 proposal on the relevance of the ability of facilities to
capture and convey emissions to a control device to CAA section
112(h)(2)(A), given that CAA section 112(h)(2)(A) explicates CAA
section 112(h)(1), which explicitly refers to the EPA's judgment as to
when it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard
for control of a HAP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\78\ National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
Plywood and Composite Wood Products (40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD)
Residual Risk and Technology Review, Final Amendments: Response to
Public Comments on September 6, 2019 Proposal. Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2016-0243-0244 Available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 41429]]
Regarding the EPA's rationale under CAA section 112(h)(2)(B) for
the safety-related shutdown and pressurized refiner startup and
shutdown work practices, the Petitioners expressed discontent with the
EPA's conclusion that stack tests (which typically take one to three
hours) cannot be conducted for events lasting only minutes. The
Petitioners asserted that the EPA should have considered the
practicability of other measurement methodologies including CEMS or
continuous parameter monitoring. In response to the Petitioners'
concerns, in the May 2023 proposal we maintained that stack testing is
not feasible for safety-related shutdown events lasting only minutes or
for pressurized refiner startup/shutdown events lasting less than 15
minutes. We requested comment in the May 2023 proposal on how the EPA
could feasibly prescribe or enforce a numeric emission limit for such
short-term events without the ability to conduct stack testing.
Further, continuous operation of CEMS on bypass stacks that are unused
for the majority of process operating time is not technically (e.g.,
because of the calibration drift likely to occur while the CEMS goes
unused) or economically practicable. The source testing required for
conducting a relative accuracy test audit (RATA) of CEMS would not be
possible without requiring the use of the bypass during the RATA.
Obtaining emissions data to correlate with parameters to establish
continuously monitored parameter limits also necessitates stack
testing. Although CEMS or specific continuously monitored parameter
limits are not an appropriate measurement methodology for safety-
related shutdowns and pressurized refiner startups and shutdowns
themselves because of technical and economic limitations, in 2023 we
proposed additional continuous parameter monitoring of bypass stack
usage in addition to the work practices for safety-related shutdowns
and pressurized refiner startup/shutdown events to address the
Petitioners' concern. As discussed in section III.B of this preamble,
we proposed to require continuous monitoring of combustion unit bypass
stacks and to require annual tune-ups of combustion units used to
direct-fire dryers. As discussed in section III.F of this preamble, we
also proposed to require continuous monitoring of process unit bypass
stack usage at all times while the process units are operating,
including times when the process unit is undergoing startup or
shutdown, and during safety-related shutdowns and pressurized refiner
startup/shutdown events to ensure that reliable data are available to
evaluate continuous compliance with the PCWP NESHAP requirements.
The Petitioners also took issue with inclusion of measures that
facilities have developed to protect workers and equipment in the
safety-related shutdown work practice. The Petitioners argued that the
steps an operator takes to protect workers and equipment are not
necessarily the steps needed to prevent excess emissions or to remove
raw materials and the heat source from the process as expeditiously as
possible. We disagree with the Petitioners that the phrase ``to protect
workers and equipment'' detracts from the safety-related shutdown work
practice requirements to ensure that the flow of raw materials (such as
furnish or resin) and fuel or process heat (as applicable) ceases, and
that material is removed from the process unit(s) as expeditiously as
possible given the system design to reduce air emissions. However, we
requested comment in the May 2023 proposal on inclusion of measures
facilities developed to protect workers and equipment from the safety-
related shutdown provision. We also requested comment on all aspects of
the work practice provisions (which appear in Table 3, rows 6 and 7)
based on operational experience now that these narrowly defined
provisions have been implemented in place of the broader SSM exemptions
that were removed from the PCWP NESHAP.
In their fourth issue raised, the Petitioners disagreed with the
EPA's statement in the September 6, 2019, proposed technology review
and 2020 RTR that use of low-HAP resins is a development under CAA
section 112(d)(6), claiming the EPA must revise standards for any
development identified to require the maximum degree of reduction that
is achievable through its application. In the 2019 proposed and 2020
final technology reviews, when noting that low-HAP resins may be a
development, the EPA also explained that the EPA did not identify
information to suggest that the resin system changes have significantly
altered the type of process units or HAP pollution control technologies
used in the PCWP industry to date or have led to processes or practices
that have not been accounted for in the promulgated PCWP NESHAP
compliance options. The Petitioners dismissed as irrelevant the EPA's
explanation that there are many types of resin systems used in the
manufacture of the various PCWP and that the resin-system solution for
one facility's product may not be applicable for another product
produced at a different facility. The Petitioners also argued that it
is irrelevant the EPA noted in 2020 plans for additional action for the
PCWP NESHAP source category with respect to remanded PCWP process units
in which the EPA would further consider the effects of resin system
changes.
Given the Petitioners' objections, we rearticulated in the May 2023
proposal our conclusion from the 2020 RTR. Specifically, we retracted
our characterization of low-HAP resins as a ``development'' under CAA
section 112(d)(6) with respect to the standards established for the
PCWP source category in 2004. As noted in 2020, the EPA did not
identify information suggesting that the resin system changes have
significantly altered the type of process units or HAP pollution
control technologies used in the PCWP industry or have led to processes
or practices that were not accounted for in the 2004 rule compliance
options. Therefore, we agree with the Petitioners that it may have been
inappropriate to describe resin changes as a ``development'' under CAA
section 112(d)(6) that occurred after the PCWP NESHAP was promulgated
in 2004. Moreover, we disagree with the Petitioners' claim that if
resin changes were in fact such a ``development,'' the EPA would be
required to establish MACT standards under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and
(3) as a consequence of that development. CAA section 112(d)(6) does
not require the EPA to reconduct MACT determinations, as the D.C.
Circuit made clear in Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA,
529 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Instead, CAA section 112(d)(6) provides
the EPA with the ability to exercise its judgment to determine what
revisions to preexisting standards are necessary, after considering
such developments. The mere presence of a development does not alone
compel the EPA to determine that revising a promulgated MACT standard
is necessary. Rather, the EPA is required to review the standard and
determine whether to revise the standard after taking into account the
development. This preserves the EPA's ability to exercise judgment
regarding whether a change to a promulgated standard is necessary. In
any event, as discussed in section III.D of this preamble, we proposed
work practice standards under CAA section 112(h) for RMH process units
for which no emission standards were in place to respond to the 2007
partial remand and vacatur of the 2004 rule. These work practices were
based on the use of non-HAP resins or resins with low vapor
[[Page 41430]]
pressure, which have a low potential for HAP emissions, including resin
types that were available at the time of the 2004 rule.
b. What comments did we receive on our proposed revisions to address
the issues and what were our responses and final decisions?
We received comments on the safety-related shutdown and pressurized
refiner work practices. One commenter opposed these work practices
while another commenter supported them. Upon review of the comments
provided, the EPA has reconsidered the work practices for safety-
related shutdown and pressurized refiner startup and shutdown events,
and the Agency is retaining these work practice standards as
promulgated in the 2020 RTR.\79\ The specific comments related to the
work practices and our detailed response are in the RTC located in the
docket.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\ 85 FR 49434 (Aug. 13, 2020).
\80\ see National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products (40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDDD), Response to Public Comments on May 18, 2023 Proposed
Amendments, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243, available in the
docket for this rulemaking
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also received a comment concerning the EPA's proposed retraction
of a finding published in the 2019 proposed technology review.\81\ The
EPA stated in the 2019 review that the increased availability of low-
HAP resins constituted a ``development'' that must be considered
pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6).\82\ Commenters asserted that the
EPA's proposed retraction of this finding in the May 2023 proposal is
arbitrary. The commenter noted that pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6),
the EPA must evaluate whether this development warrants strengthening
the MACT standard. A different commenter indicated the EPA correctly
determined that the option for facilities to reformulate resins was
already contemplated during the development of the 2004 rule. The
commenter stated that as an alternative to installing controls to
reduce emissions, facilities can utilize the PBCO and meet HAP emission
limits for each process unit. Upon review of the comments provided, we
are reaffirming our conclusion from the 2020 RTR that no change to the
preexisting PCWP NESHAP standards is warranted as a result of resin
system changes. The specific comments and our detailed response are in
the RTC located in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\81\ 84 FR 47074 (Sept. 6, 2019).
\82\ Id. at 47092.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
As proposed, the final rule requires affected sources that commence
construction or reconstruction on or before May 18, 2023, to comply
with the new emission standards within three years after the effective
date (i.e., by July 6, 2029). For affected sources that commenced
construction or reconstruction after May 18, 2023, owners and operators
must comply with the new provisions by July 6, 2026 or upon startup,
whichever is later. An affected source is the collection of process
units at a PCWP facility. Examples of new affected sources are new
greenfield PCWP or lumber facilities, existing facilities constructing
new PCWP manufacturing process lines in addition to (or as a
replacement for) existing process lines, and existing lumber facilities
adding (or replacing) lumber kilns in projects that meet the definition
of reconstruction.
Commenters offered differing opinions on our proposal to provide
three years after the effective date of the new provisions for existing
affected sources to comply. One commenter argued that three years was
too long, while another commenter argued that the three-year compliance
period was too short to implement all new requirements.
Amendments to the PCWP NESHAP finalized in this rulemaking for
adoption under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) are subject to the
compliance deadlines outlined in the CAA under CAA section 112(i). For
existing sources, CAA section 112(i)(3) provides that there shall be
compliance ``as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later
than 3 years after the effective date of such standard'' subject to
certain exemptions further detailed in the statute. In determining what
compliance period is as ``expeditious as practicable,'' we consider the
amount of time needed to plan and construct projects and change
operating procedures. As provided in CAA section 112(i), all new
affected sources would comply with these provisions by the effective
date of the final amendments to the PCWP NESHAP or upon startup,
whichever is later.
The EPA projects that many existing sources will need to make
changes (e.g., review operations, assemble documentation, install add-
on controls and monitoring equipment) to comply with the finalized
limits for various process units in their facility. These sources will
require time to develop plans, construct, conduct performance testing,
and implement monitoring to comply with the revised provisions.
Therefore, the final rule allows three years for existing sources to
become compliant with the applicable emission standards finalized in
this action.
IV. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted
A. What are the affected sources?
There are currently 219 major source facilities subject to the PCWP
NESHAP. We estimated that six new PCWP facilities will be constructed
and become subject to the NESHAP in the five years following the May
2023 proposal. A memorandum documenting the revised changes to the
facility list since the 2023 proposed rule can be found in the docket
for this rulemaking.\83\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\83\ See the June 1, 2026 memorandum entitled ``Revised Updates
to List of Plywood and Composite Wood Products Facilities'',
available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. What are the air quality impacts?
This final action is expected to reduce 721 tpy of directly-
regulated HAPs compared to baseline emissions of 7,250 tpy.
Additionally, the final rule will result in a decrease of other air
emissions that are not regulated by this rule. In comparison to
baseline emissions of 58,036 tpy VOC, the EPA estimates VOC emission
reductions of approximately 8,504 tpy.\84\ We also estimate that the
final action would result in additional reductions of 202 tpy of PM,
144 tpy of PM <2.5 [micro]m in diameter (PM2.5), 132 tpy of
NOx, 719 tpy of CO, 12 tpy of SO2.\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\84\ Baseline emissions estimates include only those process
units for which new standards are being finalized in this action.
\85\ More information about the estimated emission reductions
and secondary impacts of this final action can be found in the
document entitled Revised Cost, Environmental, and Energy Impacts of
Subpart DDDD Regulatory Options, available in the docket for this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. What are the cost impacts?
The EPA estimates that this final action would cost approximately
$121 million in total capital costs (distributed across multiple years)
and $53 million per year (in 2024 dollars) in total annualized
costs.\86\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\ More information about the estimated cost of this final
action can be found in the document entitled Revised Cost,
Environmental, and Energy Impacts of Subpart DDDD Regulatory
Options, available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. What are the economic impacts?
For the final rule, the EPA estimated the cost of compliance with
the final emission limits. This includes the capital costs of
installation, subsequent maintenance and operation of the
[[Page 41431]]
controls, and other one-time and annual costs. To assess the potential
economic impacts, the EPA prepared a partial equilibrium analysis
modeling impacts to prices, production, and imports and exports. The
EPA additionally performed a screening analysis that compared the
expected annualized cost of compliance to the total sales revenue for
the ultimate owners of affected facilities.
For this final rule, the partial equilibrium analysis estimated an
expected economic cost to both producers and consumers and accounting
for changes to prices and quantities caused by the final amendments
equal to $53 million. The expected annualized compliance cost from the
screening analysis is $237,680 (on average) for each facility,
including 219 existing and six projected new facilities, with an
estimated nationwide annualized cost of $53,500,000. The 219 existing
affected facilities are owned by 64 parent companies, and the
compliance costs associated with the final amendments are expected to
be on average about 0.27 percent of annual sales revenue per ultimate
owner.
Information on our cost and economic impact estimates for the PCWP
manufacturing source category is contained in Economic Impact Analysis
for the Final National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products Amendments, available
in the docket for this rulemaking.\87\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\87\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. What are the benefits?
The EPA is obligated to present the Agency's best scientific
understanding and the implications of that science when developing
policies and regulations. However, the EPA's analytical practices often
provided the public with false precision and confidence regarding the
monetized impacts of fine PM2.5 and ozone due to changes in
emissions of PM2.5 as well as PM2.5 and ozone
precursors. In addition, the science regarding the exposure, health
effects from exposure, and valuation of reduction in health effect are
evolving with better data and methods, especially at low concentrations
of PM and ozone. Some of the sources of uncertainties include the set
of assumptions used in projecting the health impact of reducing PM.
These projections are based on a series of models that take into
account emissions changes, resulting distributions of changes in
ambient air quality, the estimated reductions in health effects from
changes in exposure, and the composition of the population that will
benefit from the reduced exposure. Each component includes assumptions,
each with varying degrees of uncertainty.
In addition, the EPA historically provided point estimates rather
than just ranges or only quantifying emissions, which leads the public
to believe the Agency has a better understanding of the monetized
impacts of exposure to PM2.5 and ozone than it does in
reality. Therefore, to address these concerns, the EPA is no longer
monetizing benefits from PM2.5 and ozone but will continue
to quantify the emissions until the Agency is confident enough in the
modeling to properly monetize those impacts. Implementing the final
amendments is expected to reduce emissions of HAP and non-HAP
pollutants, such as VOC. We estimate that the final amendments would
reduce HAP emissions from the source category by approximately 721 tpy.
The amendments would regulate emissions of acetaldehyde, acrolein,
formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, propionaldehyde, non-Hg HAP metals, Hg,
HCl, PAH, D/F and MDI. Information regarding the health effects of
these compounds can be found in Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous
Air Pollutants \88\ and in the EPA Integrated Risk Information System
database.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\88\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (Last updated Nov.
24, 2025). Health Effects Notebook for Hazardous Air Pollutants:
https://www.epa.gov/haps/health-effects-notebook-hazardous-air-pollutants.
\89\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2026). List of
Substances on IRIS: https://iris.epa.gov/AtoZ/?list_type=alpha.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final amendments would reduce emissions of VOC which, in
conjunction with NOx and in the presence of sunlight, form ground-level
ozone. There are health benefits of reducing VOC emissions in terms of
the number and value of avoided ozone-attributable deaths and
illnesses. The Integrated Science Assessment for Ozone \90\ found
short-term (less than one month) exposures to ozone to be causally
related to respiratory effects, a ``likely to be causal'' relationship
with metabolic effects, and a ``suggestive of, but not sufficient to
infer, a causal relationship'' for central nervous system effects,
cardiovascular effects, and total mortality. The ISA reported that
long-term exposures (one month or longer) to ozone are ``likely to be
causal'' for respiratory effects including respiratory mortality, and a
``suggestive of, but not sufficient to infer, a causal relationship''
for cardiovascular effects, reproductive effects, central nervous
system effects, metabolic effects, and total mortality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2020). Integrated
Science Assessment for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants.
EPA/600/R-20/012: https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-ozone-and-related-photochemical-oxidants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The human health risk estimated for this source category for the
2020 RTR was determined to be acceptable, and the standards were
determined to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health. Specifically, the maximum individual cancer risk was 30-in-1
million for actual and allowable emissions and the noncancer hazard
indices for chronic exposure were below 1 (i.e., 0.8 for actual and
allowable emissions). The maximum noncancer hazard quotient for acute
exposure was 4. These health risk estimates were based on HAP emissions
from the source category after addition of air pollution controls used
to meet the MACT standards promulgated in 2004, as well as the baseline
HAP emissions from process units for which standards are being
promulgated in this action. While the 2020 RTR final amendments reduced
emissions by an unquantified amount by removing the SSM exemption and
adding repeat testing requirements, the changes to the PCWP NESHAP in
this final action will reduce emissions by an additional 721 tons of
HAP per year and will further improve human health exposures for
populations in all demographic groups.
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.
B. Executive Order 14192: Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation
This action is not an Executive Order 14192 regulatory action
because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
The information collection activities in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to OMB under the PRA. The information collection
request (ICR) document that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR
number 1984.12. You can find a copy of the ICR in the
[[Page 41432]]
docket for this rule, and it is briefly summarized here.
The final changes to the reporting and recordkeeping requirements
for the PCWP NESHAP incorporate the reporting and recordkeeping
requirements associated with the MACT standards being added to the rule
for multiple HAP from new and existing process units.
Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of PCWP or kiln-
dried lumber manufacturing plants that are major sources, or that are
located at, or are part of, major sources of HAP emissions.
Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\91\ 40 CFR part 63, subpart DDDD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated number of respondents: On average over the next three
years, approximately 219 existing major sources would be subject to
these standards. It is also estimated that six additional respondents
would become subject to the emission standards over the three-year
period.
Frequency of response: The frequency of responses varies depending
on the burden item (e.g., one-time, semiannual, annual, every five
years).
Total estimated burden: The average annual burden to industry over
the next three years from the final recordkeeping and reporting
requirements is estimated to be 44,400 hours per year. Burden is
defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
Total estimated cost: The total annual recordkeeping and reporting
cost for all facilities to comply with all the requirements in the
NESHAP, including the requirements in this final rule, is estimated to
be $10,290,000 per year including $3,870,000 in annualized capital and
O&M costs.
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 the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When OMB
approves this ICR, the Agency will announce that approval in the
Federal Register and publish a technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 to
display the OMB control number for the approved information collection
activities contained in this rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of this action are small
businesses as defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
The EPA prepared a small business screening analysis to determine if
any of the identified affected entities are small entities, as defined
by the SBA. This analysis is available in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243). The Agency has
determined that 18 out of 64 small ultimate PCWP manufacturing parent
companies may experience an impact ranging from approximately 0.03
percent to approximately 1.09 percent of annual sales, with three of
the 18 ultimate parent companies experiencing an impact of more than
one percent of annual sales. The 18 parent companies own 22 affected
PCWP facilities. The EPA does not expect a substantial economic impact
from these final amendments because only three out of 18 small business
ultimate parent owners in the PCWP manufacturing source category face
incremental total annualized compliance costs more than one percent but
less than three percent of annual sales revenue.
Details of this analysis are presented in Economic Impact Analysis
for the Final National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants: Plywood and Composite Wood Products Amendments, located in
the docket for this action.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\92\ Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
This action does not contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or
more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. While this action
creates an enforceable duty on the private sector and one facility
owned by a Tribal government, the cost does not exceed $100 million or
more.
F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It 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.
G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have Tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. 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. There are facilities subject to this rule
located on the lands of the Coeur D'Alene Tribe, the Confederated
Tribes and Bands of the Yakima Nation, and the Choctaw Nation.
Consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribes, the EPA offered consultation opportunities for Tribal
officials early in the process of developing this rule to permit them
to have meaningful and timely input into its development. The Choctaw
Nation requested and received a pre-proposal meeting, a summary of
which is available in the docket for this rulemaking. The EPA also
offered consultation opportunities to all federally recognized Tribes
during the comment period from May 18, 2023, to July 18, 2023, but
received no request for consultation.
H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA
does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action present a disproportionate risk to children.
I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This action 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. In this final action, the EPA is
setting emission standards for the PCWP source category. This does not
impact energy supply, distribution, or use.
J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51
This action involves technical standards. Therefore, the EPA
conducted searches for the PCWP NESHAP through the Enhanced National
Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database managed by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI). We also conducted a review of
voluntary consensus standards (VCS) organizations and accessed and
searched their databases. We conducted searches for EPA Methods 1, 1A,
2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F of appendix A-1 to part 60 of this chapter; EPA Test
Methods 2G, 3, 3A, 3B of appendix A-2 to part 60 of this chapter; EPA
Test Methods 4, 5 of appendix A-3 to part 60 of this chapter;
[[Page 41433]]
EPA Test Method 10 of appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter; EPA Test
Method 18 of appendix A-6 to part 60 of this chapter; EPA Test Methods
23, 25A of appendix A-7 to part 60 of this chapter; EPA Test Methods
26A, 29 of appendix A-8 to part 60 of this chapter; EPA Test Methods
204, 204A, 204B, 204C, 204D, 204E, 204F, 205 of appendix M to part 51
of this chapter; EPA Test Methods 308, 316, 320, 326 of appendix A to
part 63 of this chapter; and EPA Test Method 0011 (incorporated by
reference at 40 CFR 260.11(c)(4)). During the EPA's VCS search, if the
title or abstract (if provided) of the VCS described technical sampling
and analytical procedures that are similar to the EPA's referenced
method, the EPA ordered a copy of the standard and reviewed it as a
potential equivalent method. We reviewed all potential standards to
determine the practicality of the VCS for this rule. This review
requires significant method validation data that meet the requirements
of EPA Method 301 for accepting alternative methods or scientific,
engineering, and policy equivalence to procedures in the EPA referenced
methods. The EPA may reconsider determinations of impracticality when
additional information is available for any particular VCS.
Detailed information on the VCS search and determination can be
found in the memorandum, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for
NEHSAP: Plywood and Composite Wood Products, which is available in the
docket for this action.\93\ Two VCS were identified as acceptable
alternatives to the EPA test methods for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\ Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0243-0415.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas
Analyses,'' is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B manual
portions only and not the instrumental portion. This method determines
quantitatively the gaseous constituents of exhausts resulting from
stationary combustion sources. The manual procedures (but not
instrumental procedures) of ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10 may be
used as an alternative to EPA Method 3B for measuring the oxygen or
carbon dioxide content of the exhaust gas. The gases covered in ASME/
ANSI PTC 19.10-1981 are oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide,
nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, sulfur trioxide, nitric oxide, nitrogen
dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrocarbons. However, the use in this
rule is only applicable to oxygen and carbon dioxide. This VCS may be
obtained from American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Three
Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016-5990, telephone (800) 843-2763, https://www.asme.org. The EPA is finalizing our proposal to incorporate by
reference (IBR) the VCS ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981 Part 10, ``Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' as an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B
manual portions only and not the instrumental portion.
The VCS ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by
Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' is
an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 with certain conditions.
The VCS ASTM D6348-12e1 employs an extractive sampling system to direct
stationary source effluent to an FTIR spectrometer for the
identification and quantification of gaseous compounds. Concentration
results are provided. This test method is potentially applicable for
the determination of compounds that (1) have sufficient vapor pressure
to be transported to the FTIR spectrometer; and (2) absorb a sufficient
amount of infrared radiation to be detected. The VCS ASTM D6348-12e1
may be obtained from https://www.astm.org or from the ASTM Headquarters
at 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken,
Pennsylvania, 19428-2959. The EPA is finalizing our proposal to IBR the
VCS ASTM D6348-12e1, ``Determination of Gaseous Compounds by Extractive
Direct Interface Fourier Transform (FTIR) Spectroscopy,'' as an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 in place of ASTM D6348-03.
ASTM D6348-03(2010) was determined to be equivalent to EPA Method 320
with caveats. ASTM D6348-12e1 is a revised version of ASTM D6348-
03(2010) and includes a new section on accepting the results from the
direct measurement of a certified spike gas cylinder but lacks the
caveats placed on the ASTM D6348-03(2010) version. ASTM D6348-12e1 is
an extractive FTIR field test method used to quantify gas phase
concentrations of multiple analytes from stationary source effluent and
is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 320 at this time with
caveats requiring inclusion of selected annexes to the standard as
mandatory. When using ASTM D6348-12e1, the following conditions must be
met:
The test plan preparation and implementation in the
Annexes to ASTM D6348-03, sections A1 through A8 are mandatory; and
In ASTM D6348-03, Annex A5 (Analyte Spiking Technique),
the percent (%) R must be determined for each target analyte.\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\94\ Equation A5.5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order for the test data to be acceptable for a compound, percent
R must be 70 percent <= R <= 130 percent. If the percent R value does
not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test data is not
acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated for that
analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure should be
adjusted before a retest). The percent R value for each compound must
be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must be
corrected with the calculated percent R value for that compound by
using the following equation: Reported Results = (Measured
Concentration in Stack)/(percent R) x 100.
In addition to the VCS mentioned earlier in this section, we are
finalizing our proposal to IBR ASTM D1835-05, ``Standard Specification
for Liquefied Petroleum (LP) Gases,'' for use in the definition of
natural gas in 40 CFR 63.2292. The VCS ASTM D-1835-05 covers those
products commonly referred to as liquefied petroleum gases, consisting
of propane, propene (propylene), butane, and mixtures of these
materials. This specification is designed to properly define acceptable
LP products for domestic, commercial, or industrial uses. This VCS may
be obtained from https://www.astm.org or from the ASTM Headquarters at
100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,
19428-2959.
K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Lee Zeldin,
Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Environmental
Protection Agency amends part 63 of title 40, chapter I, of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
[[Page 41434]]
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
0
2. Amend Sec. 63.14 by revising paragraphs (f)(1) and (i)(13), (86),
and (88) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], issued August 31, 1981; Sec. Sec.
63.116(c) and (h); 63.128(a); 63.145(i); 63.309(k); 63.365(b);
63.457(k); 63.490(g); 63.772(e) and (h); 63.865(b); 63.997(e);
63.1282(d) and (g); 63.1426(c); 63.1450(a), (b), (d), (e), (f), and
(g); 63.1625(b); table 5 to subpart EEEE; Sec. Sec. 63.3166(a);
63.3360(e); 63.3545(a); 63.3555(a); 63.4166(a); 63.4362(a); 63.4766(a);
63.4965(a); 63.5160(d); table 4 to subpart UUUU; table 3 to subpart
YYYY; table 5 to subpart AAAAA; Sec. 63.7322(b); table 5 to subpart
DDDDD; Sec. Sec. 63.7822(b); 63.7824(e); 63.7825(b); 63.8000(d); table
4 to subpart JJJJJ; table 4 to subpart KKKKK; Sec. Sec. 63.9307(c);
63.9323(a); 63.9621(b) and (c); table 4 to subpart SSSSS; table 5 of
subpart UUUUU; table 1 to subpart ZZZZZ; Sec. Sec. 63.11148(e);
63.11155(e); 63.11162(f); 63.11163(g); table 4 to subpart JJJJJJ;
Sec. Sec. 63.11410(j); 63.11551(c); 63.11646(a); 63.11945(d).
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(13) ASTM Method D1835-05, Standard Specification for Liquefied
Petroleum (LP) Gases, approved April 1, 2005, IBR approved for
Sec. Sec. 63.2292, 63.7575, and 63.11237.
* * * * *
(86) ASTM D6348-03, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, including Annexes A1 through A8, Approved
October 1, 2003, IBR approved for Sec. Sec. 63.457(b), 63.997(e), and
63.1349, table 5 to subpart EEEE, table 4 to subpart UUUU, table 4
subpart ZZZZ, and table 8 to subpart HHHHHHH.
* * * * *
(88) ASTM D6348-12e1, Standard Test Method for Determination of
Gaseous Compounds by Extractive Direct Interface Fourier Transform
Infrared (FTIR) Spectroscopy, Approved February 1, 2012, IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 63.997(e), 63.1571(a), and 63.2354(b), table 4 to
subpart DDDD, table 5 to subpart EEEE, table 4 to subpart UUUU,
Sec. Sec. 63.7142(a) and (b) and 63.8000(d), and table 4 to subpart
SSSSS.
* * * * *
SUBPART DDDD--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS: PLYWOOD AND COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS
0
3. Amend Sec. 63.2233 by revising paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) and (b)
and adding paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2233 When do I have to comply with this subpart?
(a) * * *
(1) If the initial startup of your affected source is before
September 28, 2004, 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 September 28, 2004,
except as otherwise specified in paragraph (e) of this section or
elsewhere in this subpart.
(2) If the initial startup of your affected source is after
September 28, 2004, 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, except as otherwise specified in paragraph (e) of this
section or elsewhere in this subpart.
(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 October 1, 2007, except
as otherwise specified in paragraph (e) of this section or elsewhere in
this subpart.
* * * * *
(e) The compliance dates in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this
section apply for the compliance options, operating requirements, and
work practice requirements that became effective on July 6, 2026. The
compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice
requirements that became effective on July 6, 2026, are listed in
paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(1) If construction or reconstruction of your affected source is
commenced after May 18, 2023, you must comply with the compliance
options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements listed
in paragraph (e)(3) of this section beginning on July 6, 2026, or upon
initial startup, whichever is later.
(2) If construction or reconstruction of your affected source is
commenced on or before May 18, 2023, you must comply with the
compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice
requirements listed in paragraph (e)(3) of this section beginning on
July 6, 2029, except as otherwise specified for mixed PCWP process
streams in Sec. 63.2240(d)(5).
(3) The compliance options, operating requirements, and work
practice requirements that became effective on July 6, 2026, include
the compliance options and operating requirements in Sec. 63.2240(d)
and (e) and tables 2 (rows 6 to 12), 1C, 1D, 1E, 4 (rows 12 to 19), 5
(rows 9 to 12), and 7 (rows 8 to 14) to this subpart; and the work
practice requirements Sec. 63.2241(d) through (g) and tables 3 (rows 9
to 14), 6 (rows 9 to 14), 8 (rows 9 to 17) and 11 to this subpart.
0
4. Amend Sec. 63.2240 by:
0
a. Revising the introductory text;
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (c); and
0
c. Adding paragraphs (d) and (e).
The revision and additions read as follows:
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 to this subpart by using one or more
of the compliance options listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section. You must meet the compliance options in tables 1C through 1E
to this subpart according to paragraph (d) of this section. The process
units subject to the compliance options are listed in tables 1A through
1E to this subpart and are defined in Sec. 63.2292. You need only to
meet one of the compliance options outlined in paragraph (a) or (b) of
this section for each process unit. You cannot combine compliance
options in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section for a single process
unit. (For example, you cannot use a production-based compliance option
in paragraph (a) of this section for one vent of a veneer dryer and an
add-on control system compliance option in paragraph (b) of this
section 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.)
* * * * *
(d) Additional compliance requirements. After July 6, 2026, you
must comply with the compliance
[[Page 41435]]
options in tables 1C through 1E to this subpart and associated
operating limits in table 2 to this subpart as specified in paragraphs
(d)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Process units at an affected source that commenced construction
or reconstruction on or before May 18, 2023, must comply with the
compliance options in table 1C to this subpart on and after July 6,
2029.
(2) Process units at an affected source that commenced construction
or reconstruction after May 18, 2023, must comply with the compliance
options in table 1C to this subpart beginning on July 6, 2026, or upon
initial startup, whichever is later.
(3) Direct-wood fired PCWP dryers at an affected source that
commenced construction or reconstruction on or before May 18, 2023,
must comply with the compliance options in table 1D to this subpart on
and after July 6, 2029. In addition to the limits in table 1D to this
subpart, direct wood-fired green rotary dryers that commenced
construction or reconstruction on or before May 18, 2023, must limit
emissions of dioxins and furans toxic equivalency (TEQ) to no more than
1.3E-09 pounds per oven dried ton (lb/ODT) or 1.7E-01 nanogram per dry
standards cubic meter (ng/dscm) on and after July 6, 2029.
(4) Direct-wood fired PCWP dryers at an affected source that
commenced construction or reconstruction after May 18, 2023, must
comply with the compliance options in table 1E to this subpart
beginning on July 6, 2026, or upon initial startup, whichever is later.
In addition to the limits in table 1E to this subpart, direct wood-
fired green rotary dryers that commenced construction or reconstruction
after May 18, 2023, must limit emissions of dioxins and furans TEQ to
no more than 4.4E-10 lb/ODT or 3.7E-02 ng/dscm on and after July 6,
2029.
(5) Mixed PCWP process streams (defined in Sec. 63.2292) complying
with the compliance options for add-on control systems in table 1B to
this subpart according to paragraph (b) of this section before July 6,
2026, must continue to comply with the compliance options in table 1B
to this subpart after July 6, 2026.
(6) Affected facilities may choose to comply with the add-on
control system compliance options in table 1B to this subpart (and
associated operating limits in table 2 to this subpart) instead of the
compliance options in table 1C to this subpart for fiberboard mat dryer
heated zones, press predryers, post-dryer atmospheric refiners, or
multipurpose atmospheric refiners.
(e) Process unit bypass stack operating requirement. After July 6,
2026, you must comply with the operating requirement in table 2 to this
subpart for process unit bypass stacks (defined in Sec. 63.2292) by
the compliance dates specified in Sec. 63.2233(e).
0
5. Amend Sec. 63.2241 by adding paragraphs (d) through (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.2241 What are the work practice requirements and how must I
meet them?
* * * * *
(d) The following combustion unit tune-up and bypass stack
monitoring requirements must be conducted for all direct-fired dryers
(including direct wood-fired PCWP dryers, direct natural gas-fired PCWP
dryers, and direct-fired lumber kilns) by the dates specified in Sec.
63.2233(e) and table 3 to this subpart. You must conduct an annual
tune-up of each combustion unit used to directly-fire the PCWP dryer or
lumber kiln following the procedures in Sec. 63.2271(c) as specified
in paragraphs (d)(1) through (3) of this section. You must monitor
usage of combustion unit bypass stacks (defined in Sec. 63.2292)
following the procedures specified in Sec. 63.2269(k) by the
compliance date specified in Sec. 63.2233(e).
(1) The initial tune-up must be completed by the compliance date
specified in Sec. 63.2233(e). After the initial tune-up, each annual
tune-up is required to be completed no more than 13 months after the
previous tune-up.
(2) If a combustion unit that direct-fires a PCWP dryer or lumber
kiln is not operating on the required date for a tune-up, the tune-up
must be conducted within 30 calendar days of startup of the combustion
unit for the purpose of direct-firing a PCWP dryer or lumber kiln.
(3) For combustion units with tune-up requirements in this subpart,
you may use documentation (required in Sec. 63.7550(c)(1)) of the
tune-up conducted according to Sec. Sec. 63.7515(d) and
63.7540(a)(10), in place of the annual combustion unit tune-up
requirements in this paragraph (d) and Sec. 63.2271(c), provided the
documentation required in Sec. 63.7550(c)(1) is provided according to
the schedule in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(e) For each lumber kiln, you must minimize lumber over-drying to
reduce HAP emissions by meeting the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1)
through (4) of this section by the dates specified in Sec. 63.2233(e)
and table 3 to this subpart.
(1) Lumber kiln operation and maintenance (O&M). Develop and
maintain onsite an O&M plan for the lumber kilns at the facility. The
O&M plan must include the kiln maintenance, charge optimization,
inspection, and corrective action elements specified in Sec.
63.2253(a).
(2) Lumber kiln burner tune-up. For direct-fired lumber kilns,
conduct annual burner tune-ups according to paragraph (d) of this
section and Sec. 63.2271(c).
(3) Lumber kiln work practice. Minimize lumber over-drying by
operating according to one of the work practice options in paragraph
(e)(3)(i), (ii), or (iii) of this section.
(i) Temperature limit option. Operate the lumber kiln with a
maximum dry bulb temperature limit of no more than 210 [deg]F for batch
indirect fired (IF) kilns, 235 [deg]F for batch direct-fired (DF)
kilns, 245 [deg]F for continuous IF kilns, or 245 [deg]F for continuous
DF kilns. You must continuously monitor and record the dry bulb
temperature during the kiln drying cycle according to Sec. 63.2269(m)
and maintain the batch cycle average dry bulb temperature (for batch
kilns) or daily block average dry bulb temperature (for continuous
kilns) below the maximum limit specified in this paragraph (e)(3)(i)
according to Sec. 63.2270(h)(1).
(ii) Hybrid option. Operate the lumber kiln according to paragraphs
(e)(3)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section.
(A) Operate the lumber kiln with a maximum dry bulb temperature
limit of no more than 240 [deg]F for batch indirect fired (IF) kilns,
250 [deg]F for batch direct-fired (DF) kilns, 260 [deg]F for continuous
IF kilns, or 260 [deg]F for continuous DF kilns. You must continuously
monitor and record the dry bulb temperature during the kiln drying
cycle according to Sec. 63.2269(m) and maintain the batch cycle
average dry bulb temperature (for batch kilns) or daily block average
dry bulb temperature (for continuous kilns) below the maximum limit
specified in this paragraph (e)(3)(ii)(A) according to Sec.
63.2270(h)(1).
(B) Operate the kiln to dry to a semiannual average lumber moisture
content (weight percent, dry basis) at or above the minimum limit of
moisture content considered to be over-dried lumber as specified in
paragraph (e)(4) of this section and table 11 of this subpart. Lumber
moisture must be monitored and recorded according to Sec. 63.2269(n).
The semiannual average must be determined according to Sec.
63.2270(i).
(iii) Site-specific plan option. Develop and operate according to a
site-specific plan to minimize lumber over-drying
[[Page 41436]]
through temperature and lumber moisture monitoring as required in
paragraphs (e)(3)(iii)(A) and (B) of this section. The site-specific
plan must be submitted to the delegated authority for approval and the
site-specific limits from the plan must be incorporated into the
facility's operating permit as specified in Sec. 63.2253(b).
(A) The site-specific plan must identify one temperature parameter
(such as wet or dry bulb temperature, wet bulb depression, or
temperature drop across the load) to be continuously monitored during
the kiln drying cycle; include a description of how the temperature
parameter is measured and used to minimize over-drying of lumber; and
include a site-specific limit for the temperature parameter that
minimizes over-drying. You must continuously monitor and record the
temperature parameter according to Sec. 63.2269(m) and calculate the
3-hour block average for comparison to the site-specific temperature
limit according to Sec. 63.2270(h)(2).
(B) The site-specific plan must include a method for monitoring
lumber moisture content (weight percent, dry basis); specify the
location of such monitoring within the lumber manufacturing process
(for example, at the kiln unloading track, in lumber storage, or at the
planer); specify the minimum kiln-dried lumber moisture content limit
based on the lumber moisture specifications produced at the facility
based on paragraph (e)(4) of this section and table 11 of subpart DDDD;
and adhere to the minimum data and lumber moisture content averaging
requirements in Sec. Sec. 63.2269(o) and 63.2270(j).
(4) Over-dried lumber. As used in this subpart, the ``maximum
lumber moisture specification'' means the upper limit of lumber
moisture content (weight percent on a dry basis) that meets the
relevant lumber grade standard for a lumber product. For each maximum
lumber moisture specification, table 11 to this subpart provides the
corresponding minimum kiln-dried lumber moisture content limits below
which lumber is considered to be over-dried for purposes of this
subpart.
(f) By the dates specified in Sec. 63.2233(e) and table 3 to this
subpart, you must operate each log vat using a site-specific target log
temperature that does not exceed 212 [deg]F measured in the water used
to soak the logs or in the wood as it is cut from the log.
(g) By the dates specified in Sec. 63.2233(e) and table 3 to this
subpart, you must meet the work practice standards in paragraphs (g)(1)
and (2) of this section for resinated material handling process units,
including resin tanks, softwood and hardwood plywood presses,
engineered wood product presses and curing chambers, blenders, formers,
finishing saws, finishing sanders, panel trim chippers, and
reconstituted wood products board coolers (at existing affected
sources), hardboard humidifiers, and onsite wastewater treatment
operations specifically associated with PCWP manufacturing.
(1) You must meet one of the resin-related requirements in
paragraphs (g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.
(i) Use only a non-HAP resin as defined in Sec. 63.2292; or
(ii) Use only a resin with maximum true vapor pressure (defined in
Sec. 63.2292) of less than or equal to 13.1 kPa (1.9 psia) if the
resin is stored in resin tanks with capacity of less than 40,000
gallons, or use only a resin with maximum true vapor pressure (defined
in Sec. 63.2292) of less than 5.2 kPa (0.75 psia) if the resin is
stored in one or more resin tanks with capacity of 40,000 gallons or
more; or
(iii) Use a combination of resins meeting either paragraph
(g)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(2) Process wood material that was purchased pre-dried to a
moisture content of no more than 30 percent (weight percent, dry
basis), or has been dried in a dryer located at the PCWP facility. This
paragraph (g)(2) does not apply for wet formers and onsite wastewater
treatment operations specifically associated with PCWP manufacturing.
0
6. Amend Sec. 63.2250 by:
0
a. Removing and reserving paragraphs (a) through (c);
0
b. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text and paragraph (f)(6);
0
c. Adding paragraph (f)(7); and
0
d. Revising paragraph (g).
The revisions and addition read as follows:
Sec. 63.2250 What are the general requirements?
* * * * *
(f) You must be in compliance with the compliance options,
operating requirements, and the work practice requirements in this
subpart when the process unit(s) subject to the compliance options,
operating requirements, and work practice requirements are operating,
except as specified in paragraphs (f)(1) through (7) of this section.
* * * * *
(6) The applicable standard during each of the operating conditions
specified in paragraphs (f)(2) through (4) of this section are the work
practice requirements in table 3 to this subpart for safety-related
shutdowns (row 6), pressurized refiner startup and shutdown (row 7),
and direct-fired softwood veneer dryers undergoing startup or shutdown
of gas-fired burners (row 8). The otherwise applicable compliance
options, operating requirements, and work practice requirements (in
rows 1 through 5 of table 3 to this subpart) do not apply during the
operating conditions specified in paragraphs (f)(2) through (4) of this
section, with the exception of the operating requirement in Sec.
63.2240(e) which applies at all times.
(7) When using a wet scrubber, electrified filter bed, or
mechanical collector (or other dry control device not mentioned
elsewhere in table 2 to this subpart), you are not required to meet the
minimum limit for pressure drop across the control device during
startup or shutdown. Parameter limits other than pressure drop continue
to apply during startup and shutdown.
(g) You must always operate and maintain your affected source,
including air pollution control and monitoring equipment in a manner
consistent with good air pollution control practices for minimizing
emissions at least to the levels required by this subpart. The general
duty to minimize emissions does not require you to make any further
efforts to reduce emissions if levels required by the applicable
standard have been achieved. Determination of whether a source is
operating in compliance with operation and maintenance requirements
will be based on information available to the Administrator which may
include, but is not limited to, monitoring results, review of operation
and maintenance procedures, review of operation and maintenance
records, and inspection of the source.
Sec. 63.2252 [Removed and Reserved]
0
7. Remove and reserve Sec. 63.2252.
0
8. Under the undesignated center heading ``General Compliance
Requirements'' add Sec. 63.2253 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2253 What are the general requirements for lumber kilns?
(a) Lumber kiln O&M plan. The lumber kiln O&M plan must include the
elements specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section and
be maintained according to paragraph (a)(4) of this section.
(1) Procedures for maintaining the integrity of lumber kiln
internal air flow and heat distribution components (such as, baffles,
fans, vents, heating coils, or
[[Page 41437]]
temperature sensors) to provide as uniform a temperature and air flow
as reasonably possible.
(2) Charge optimization practices to reduce over drying.
(3) At least annually, you must inspect lumber kiln integrity and
review the charge optimization practices used. You must implement
corrective actions as needed and maintain records of the inspections
and corrective actions taken.
(i) The initial inspection of kiln integrity must be completed by
the compliance date specified in Sec. 63.2233(e). After the initial
inspection, each annual inspection is required to be completed no more
than 13 months after the previous inspection.
(ii) Corrective actions must be initiated within 30 days after the
inspection and completed within 180 days following the inspection
identifying the need for the corrective action. If the corrective
action cannot be completed within 180 days, a written request for an
extension may be submitted to the delegated authority, who may grant an
extension if they determine additional time is necessary.
(4) After the compliance date in Sec. 63.2233(e), any updates made
to the O&M plan maintained onsite must be described in the semiannual
compliance report. Delegated authorities may require modification of
the O&M plan, as needed, upon review.
(b) Lumber kiln site-specific plan approval. If you choose to
comply with the work practice option in Sec. 63.2241(e)(3)(iii) using
a site-specific plan for temperature and lumber moisture monitoring,
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section
apply.
(1) The site-specific plan must be developed and submitted to the
delegated authority by January 6, 2028.
(2) The written site-specific plan must be maintained onsite at the
facility and is enforceable upon the compliance date specified in Sec.
63.2233.
(3) After the compliance date, you must report deviations from the
site-specific plan according to Sec. 63.2281.
(4) Once the site-specific plan is approved by the delegated
authority, the site-specific limits from the plan must be incorporated
into the facility's title V permit when the title V permit is next
reopened for cause or renewed, as applicable.
(5) After the compliance date in Sec. 63.2233(e), any updates made
to the site-specific plan must be approved by the delegated authority,
and any updates to the site-specific limits from the plan must be
incorporated into the facility's title V permit when the title V permit
is next reopened for cause or renewed, as applicable.
0
9. Amend Sec. 63.2260 by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
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 to this
subpart according to the requirements in Sec. 63.2262 and table 4 to
this subpart. Combustion units that accept process exhausts into the
flame zone are exempt from the performance testing to show compliance
with the compliance options in table 1B or 1C to this subpart and the
operating requirements for thermal oxidizers.
* * * * *
0
10. Revise Sec. 63.2262 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2262 How do I conduct performance tests and establish
operating requirements?
(a) Testing procedures. You must conduct each performance test
according to the requirements in paragraphs (b) through (o) of this
section and according to the methods specified in table 4 to this
subpart.
(b) Periods when performance tests must be conducted. You must
conduct each performance test based on representative performance
(i.e., performance based on representative operating conditions as
defined in Sec. 63.2292) of the affected source for the period being
tested. Representative conditions exclude periods of startup and
shutdown. You may not conduct performance tests during periods of
malfunction. You must describe representative operating conditions in
your performance test report for the process and control systems and
explain why they are representative. You must record the process
information that is necessary to document operating conditions during
the test and include in such record an explanation to support that such
conditions are representative. Upon request, you shall make available
to the Administrator such records as may be necessary to determine the
conditions of performance tests.
(c) Number and duration 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 as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Testing of a temporary total enclosure (TTE) conducted using
EPA Methods 204A through 204F of appendix M of part 51 of this chapter,
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.
(2) Test runs longer than 1 hour may be required to meet minimum
sample volume requirements specified in table 4 to this subpart.
(d) Location of sampling sites. (1) 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 (defined in Sec. 63.2292) and prior to any releases to
the atmosphere. For control sequences with wet control devices (defined
in Sec. 63.2292) followed by control devices (defined in Sec.
63.2292), sampling sites may be located at the inlet and outlet of the
control sequence and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(2) Sampling sites for process units meeting compliance options
without a control device must be located prior to any releases to the
atmosphere. Facilities demonstrating compliance with a production-based
compliance option for a process unit equipped with a wet control device
must locate sampling sites prior to the wet control device.
(3) Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control
device (defined in Sec. 63.2292), if a control device is used, and
prior to any releases to the atmosphere to demonstrate compliance with
the compliance options in table 1C, 1D, or 1E to this subpart and for
compliance with the dioxin and furan limits in Sec. 63.2240(d)(2) and
(3).
(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 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 in table 1A to this subpart, or
compliance options in terms of mass per unit production in table 1C,
1D, or 1E to this subpart, you must measure and record the process unit
throughput during each performance test.
[[Page 41438]]
(g) Nondetect data. (1) Except as specified in paragraphs (g)(2)
and (3) of this section, all nondetect data (defined in Sec. 63.2292)
must be treated as one-half of the method detection limit when
determining total HAP, formaldehyde, methanol, or total hydrocarbon
(THC) emission rates.
(2) When showing compliance with the production-based compliance
options in table 1A to this subpart, you may treat emissions of an
individual HAP as zero if all three of the performance test runs result
in a nondetect measurement, and the method detection limit is less than
or equal to 1 parts per million by volume, dry basis (ppmvd).
Otherwise, nondetect data for individual HAP must be treated as one-
half of the method detection limit.
(3) Nondetect data must be treated as the method detection limit
when showing compliance with Sec. 63.2240(d)(3) or (4) and the
compliance options in table 1C, 1D, or 1E to this subpart. When
determining 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin toxicity equivalency
(TEQ), the value of zero may be used for nondetect results.
(h) Calculation of percent reduction across a control system. When
determining the control system efficiency for any control system when
complying with any of the compliance options based on percent reduction
across a control system in table 1B to this subpart, as part of the
performance test, you must calculate the percent reduction using the
following equation:
Equation 1 to Paragraph (h)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY26.003
Where:
PR = Percent reduction, percent.
CE = Capture efficiency, percent (determined for reconstituted wood
product presses and board coolers as required in table 4 to 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 to this subpart, or
compliance options in terms of mass per unit production in table 1C,
1D, or 1E to this subpart, you must calculate your mass per unit
production emissions for each performance test run using the following
equation:
Equation 2 to Paragraph (i)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY26.004
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) or other pollutant in table
1C, 1D, or 1E to this subpart being measured 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 to this
subpart).
(j) Thickness basis conversion. Use the following equation to
convert from one thickness basis to another:
Equation 3 to Paragraph (j)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY26.005
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 (3) of this
section.
(1) During the performance test to meet a compliance option in
table 1B or 1C to this subpart (or a PAH limit in table 1D or 1E to
this subpart), you must continuously monitor the firebox temperature
during each of the required 1-hour test runs. For regenerative thermal
oxidizers, you may measure the temperature in multiple locations (e.g.,
one location per burner) in the combustion chamber and calculate the
average of the temperature measurements prior to reducing the
temperature data to 15-minute averages for purposes of establishing
your minimum firebox temperature. 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 demonstrating
compliance with the applicable standards. Multiple three-run
performance tests may be conducted to establish a range of parameter
values under different operating conditions.
(2) You may establish a different minimum firebox temperature for
your thermal oxidizer by submitting the notification specified in Sec.
63.2280(g) and conducting a repeat performance test as specified in
paragraph (k)(1) of this section that demonstrates compliance with the
applicable compliance options of this subpart.
(3) If your thermal oxidizer is a combustion unit that accepts
process exhaust into the flame zone, then you are exempt from the
performance testing and monitoring requirements specified in paragraphs
(k)(1) and (2) of this section. To demonstrate initial compliance, you
must submit documentation with your Notification of Compliance Status
showing 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) and (2) of
this section.
(1) During the performance test to meet a compliance option in
table 1B or 1C to this subpart (or a PAH limit in table 1D or 1E to
this subpart), you must continuously monitor during the required 1-hour
test runs either the temperature at the inlet to each catalyst bed or
the temperature in the
[[Page 41439]]
combustion chamber. For regenerative catalytic oxidizers, you must
calculate the average of the temperature measurements from each
catalyst bed inlet or within the combustion chamber prior to reducing
the temperature data to 15-minute averages for purposes of establishing
your minimum catalytic oxidizer temperature. The minimum catalytic
oxidizer temperature must then be established as the average of the
three minimum 15-minute temperatures monitored during the three test
runs demonstrating compliance with the applicable standards. Multiple
three-run performance tests may be conducted to establish a range of
parameter values under different operating conditions.
(2) You may establish a different minimum catalytic oxidizer
temperature by submitting the notification specified in Sec.
63.2280(g) and conducting a repeat performance test as specified in
this paragraph (l) that demonstrates compliance with the applicable
compliance options of this subpart.
(m) Establishing biofilter operating requirements. If you operate a
biofilter, you must establish your biofilter operating requirements
according to paragraphs (m)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) During the performance test to meet a compliance option in
tables 1B through 1E to this subpart, you must continuously monitor the
biofilter bed temperature during each of the required 1-hour test runs.
To monitor biofilter bed temperature, you may use multiple
thermocouples in representative locations throughout the biofilter bed
and calculate the average biofilter bed temperature across these
thermocouples prior to reducing the temperature data to 15-minute
averages for purposes of establishing biofilter bed temperature limits.
The biofilter bed temperature range must be established as the
temperature values 10 percent below the minimum and 10 percent (not to
exceed 8 [deg]F) above the maximum 15-minute biofilter bed temperatures
monitored during the three test runs demonstrating compliance with the
applicable standards. You may base your biofilter bed temperature range
on values recorded during previous performance tests provided that the
data used to establish the temperature 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 of the performance tests. Replacement of the biofilter media with
the same type of material is not considered a modification of the
biofilter for purposes of this section.
(2) For a new biofilter installation, you will be allowed up to 180
days following the compliance date or 180 days following initial
startup of the biofilter to complete the requirements in paragraph
(m)(1) of this section.
(3) You may expand your biofilter bed temperature operating range
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 applicable
compliance options of this subpart.
(n) Establishing operating requirements for process units meeting
compliance options without a control device. If you operate a process
unit that meets a compliance option in table 1A, 1C, 1D, or 1E to this
subpart without the use of a control device, you must establish your
process unit operating parameters according to paragraphs (n)(1) and
(2) of this section.
(1) During the performance test, you must identify and document the
process unit controlling parameter(s) that affect HAP emissions during
the three-run performance test. The controlling parameters you identify
must coincide with the representative operating conditions you describe
according to paragraph (b) of this section. For each parameter, you
must specify appropriate monitoring methods, monitoring frequencies,
and for continuously monitored parameters, averaging times not to
exceed 24 hours. The operating limit for each controlling parameter
must then be established as the minimum, maximum, range, or average (as
appropriate depending on the parameter) recorded during the performance
test. Multiple three-run performance tests may be conducted to
establish a range of parameter values under different operating
conditions.
(2) You may establish different controlling parameter limits 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, 1C, 1D, or 1E to this subpart for an
uncontrolled process unit.
(o) Establishing operating requirements using 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) and (2) of this section.
(1) During the 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 demonstrating compliance with the applicable
standards. Multiple three-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 to this subpart.
(p) Establishing wet electrostatic precipitator operating
requirements. If you use a wet electrostatic precipitator to meet a
compliance option in table 1D or 1E to this subpart, you must establish
your wet electrostatic precipitator operating requirements according to
paragraphs (p)(1) through (3) of this section except as specified in
paragraph (p)(4) of this section if you are using a COMS.
(1) During the PM or Hg performance test, you must continuously
monitor the total secondary electric power during each of the required
test runs. The minimum total secondary electric power must then be
established as the average of the three minimum 15-minute total
secondary electric power values monitored during the three test runs
demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limits in this
subpart.
(2) During the PM, Hg, or HCl performance test, you must
continuously monitor the liquid flow rate to the wet electrostatic
precipitator during each of the required test runs. The minimum liquid
flow rate must then be established as the average of the three minimum
15-minute liquid flow rate values monitored during the three test runs
demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limits in this
subpart.
(3) You may establish a different minimum total secondary power or
liquid flow rate limits for your wet electrostatic precipitator by
submitting the notification specified in Sec. 63.2280(g) and
conducting a repeat performance test as specified in paragraphs (p)(1)
and (2) of this section that demonstrates
[[Page 41440]]
compliance with the applicable emission limits in this subpart.
Multiple three-run performance tests may be conducted to establish a
range of parameter values under different operating conditions.
(4) For a WESP followed by a control device with a dry exhaust for
which you choose to use a COMS instead of WESP parameter monitoring,
you must follow the procedures in paragraph (t) of this section for
establishing the opacity operating limit.
(q) Establishing dry electrostatic precipitator operating
requirements. If you use a dry electrostatic precipitator to meet a
compliance option in table 1D or 1E to this subpart, you must establish
your dry electrostatic precipitator operating requirements according to
paragraphs (q)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) During the PM or Hg performance test, you must continuously
monitor the total secondary electric power during each of the required
test runs. The minimum total secondary electric power must then be
established as the average of the three minimum 15-minute total
secondary electric power values monitored during the three test runs
demonstrating compliance with the emission limits in this subpart.
(2) You may establish a different minimum total secondary power
limits for your dry electrostatic precipitator by submitting the
notification specified in Sec. 63.2280(g) and conducting a repeat
performance test as specified in paragraph (q)(1) of this section that
demonstrates compliance with the applicable emission limits in this
subpart. Multiple three-run performance tests may be conducted to
establish a range of parameter values under different operating
conditions.
(r) Establishing wet scrubber operating requirements. If you use a
wet scrubber to meet a compliance option in table 1D or 1E to this
subpart, you must establish your wet scrubber operating requirements
according to paragraphs (r)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) During the performance test, you must continuously monitor the
scrubber liquid flow rate during each of the required test runs. The
minimum liquid flow rate must then be established as the average of the
three minimum 15-minute liquid flow rate values monitored during the
three test runs demonstrating compliance with the compliance options in
table 1D or 1E to this subpart.
(2) For a wet PM scrubber, during the PM performance test, you must
continuously monitor pressure drop across the scrubber during each of
the required test runs. The minimum pressure drop must then be
established as the average of the three minimum 15-minute pressure drop
values monitored during the three test runs demonstrating compliance
with the PM limit.
(3) For wet acid gas scrubber, during the HCl performance test, you
must continuously monitor the scrubber effluent pH during each of the
required test runs. The minimum effluent pH must then be established as
the average of the three minimum 15-minute pH values monitored during
the three test runs demonstrating compliance with the HCl limit.
(4) You may establish different minimum liquid flow rate, pressure
drop, or pH values for your wet scrubber by submitting the notification
specified in Sec. 63.2280(g) and conducting a repeat performance test
as specified in paragraphs (r)(1) through (3) of this section that
demonstrates compliance with the applicable emission limits in this
subpart. Multiple three-run performance tests may be conducted to
establish a range of parameter values under different operating
conditions.
(s) Establishing electrified filter bed operating requirements. If
you use an electrified filter bed to meet a compliance option in table
1D or 1E to this subpart, you must establish your electrified filter
bed operating requirements according to paragraphs (s)(1) through (3)
of this section.
(1) During the PM or Hg performance test, you must continuously
monitor the bed voltage and ionizer voltage during each of the required
test runs. The minimum bed voltage limit and ionizer voltage limit must
then be established as the average of the three minimum 15-minute bed
voltage values and ionizer voltage values monitored during the three
test runs demonstrating compliance.
(2) During the PM or Hg performance test, you must continuously
monitor the pressure drop across the electrified filter bed during each
of the required test runs. The pressure drop range limits must then be
established as the average of the three minimum and three maximum 15-
minute pressure drop values monitored during the three test runs
demonstrating compliance with the applicable emission limits in this
subpart.
(3) You may establish different bed voltage and ionizer voltage
limits or pressure drop range limits for your electrified filter bed by
submitting the notification specified in Sec. 63.2280(g) and
conducting a repeat performance test as specified in paragraph (s)(1)
and (2) of this section that demonstrates compliance with the
applicable emission limits in this subpart. Multiple three-run
performance tests may be conducted to establish a range of parameter
values under different operating conditions.
(t) Establishing operating requirements using opacity measured with
a COMS. If you use a mechanical collector (or other dry control device
not listed elsewhere in table 2 to the subpart) or WESP followed by a
control device with a dry exhaust (for which you choose to use a COMS)
to meet a compliance option in table 1D or 1E to this subpart, you must
establish your operating requirements according to paragraphs (t)(1)
and (2) of this section.
(1) During the PM performance test, you must continuously monitor
opacity during each of the required test runs. The maximum opacity
limit must then be established as either 10 percent opacity, or the
highest hourly average computed from the 6-minute opacity values
monitored during the three test runs demonstrating compliance with the
PM limit.
(2) You may establish different opacity limits by submitting the
notification specified in Sec. 63.2280(g) and conducting a repeat
performance test as specified in paragraph (t)(1) of this section that
demonstrates compliance with the applicable emission limits in this
subpart. Multiple three-run performance tests may be conducted to
establish a range of opacity values under different operating
conditions.
(u) Establishing operating requirements based on pressure drop with
opacity observations. If you use a mechanical collector (or other dry
control device not listed elsewhere in table 2 to this subpart) to meet
a compliance option in table 1D or 1E to this subpart, and you choose
to use a combination of pressure drop and opacity observations instead
of a COMS to demonstrate continuous compliance, you must establish your
operating requirements according to paragraphs (u)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) During the PM performance test, you must continuously monitor
pressure drop across the mechanical collector (or other dry control
device) during each of the required test runs. The minimum pressure
drop limit must then be established as the average of the three minimum
15-minute pressure drop values monitored during the three test runs
demonstrating compliance with the PM limit.
(2) During the PM performance test, you must conduct opacity
observations of the control device outlet emissions to the atmosphere
using EPA Method 9 of appendix A-4 to part 60 of this chapter. You must
establish the maximum opacity operating limit as the average of
[[Page 41441]]
the 6-minute opacity observations during the three test runs
demonstrating compliance with the PM limit, or 10 percent opacity,
whichever is greater.
(3) You may establish a different pressure drop limit or opacity
observation limit by submitting the notification specified in Sec.
63.2280(g) and conducting a repeat performance test as specified in
paragraph (u)(1) or (2) of this section that demonstrates compliance
with the applicable emission limits in this subpart. Multiple three-run
performance tests may be conducted to establish a range of parameter
values under different operating conditions.
0
11. Revise Sec. 63.2268 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2268 Initial compliance demonstration for a wet control
device.
If you use a wet control device as the sole means of reducing HAP
emissions (including total HAP, methanol, or formaldehyde), you must
develop and implement a plan for review and approval to address how
organic HAP captured in the wastewater from the wet control device is
contained or destroyed to minimize re-release to the atmosphere such
that the desired emissions reductions are obtained. You must submit the
plan with your Notification of Compliance Status.
0
12. Amend Sec. 63.2269 by revising paragraph (c) introductory text and
adding paragraphs (e) through (o) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2269 What are my monitoring installation, operation, and
maintenance requirements?
* * * * *
(c) Wood moisture monitoring. For each furnish or veneer moisture
meter, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3)
and (c)(1) through (5) of this section. This paragraph (c) does not
apply for lumber moisture monitoring (covered in paragraphs (n) and (o)
of this section) to show compliance with the lumber kilns standards in
Sec. 63.2241(e).
* * * * *
(e) Continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS). You must install,
operate, certify and maintain each COMS according to the procedures in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (7) of this section by the compliance date
specified in Sec. 63.2233.
(1) Each COMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according
to Performance Specification 1 at appendix B to part 60 of this
chapter.
(2) You must conduct a performance evaluation of each COMS
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8(e) and according to
Performance Specification 1 at appendix B to part 60 of this chapter.
(3) As specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(4)(i), each COMS must complete a
minimum of one cycle of sampling and analyzing for each successive 10-
second period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6-
minute period.
(4) The COMS data must be reduced as specified in Sec. Sec.
63.8(g)(2) and 63.2270(e).
(5) You must document procedures and acceptance criteria for
operating and maintaining each COMS according to the requirements in
Sec. 63.8(d). At a minimum, the documentation must include a daily
calibration drift assessment, a quarterly performance audit, and an
annual zero alignment audit of each COMS.
(6) You must operate and maintain each COMS according to the
requirements of Sec. 63.8(e). You must identify periods the COMS is
out of control including any periods that the COMS fails to pass a
daily calibration drift assessment, a quarterly performance audit, or
an annual zero alignment audit. Any 6-minute period for which the
monitoring system is out of control and data are not available for a
required calculation constitutes a deviation from the monitoring
requirements.
(7) You must determine and record all the 6-minute averages (and
24-hour block averages as applicable) collected for periods during
which the COMS is not out of control.
(f) Pressure monitoring. If you have an operating requirement that
requires the use of a pressure monitoring system, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (f)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) Install the pressure sensor(s) in a position that provides a
representative measurement of the pressure (e.g., PM scrubber pressure
drop).
(2) Minimize or eliminate pulsating pressure, vibration, and
internal and external corrosion consistent with good engineering
practices.
(3) Use a pressure sensor with a minimum tolerance of 1.27
centimeters of water or a minimum tolerance of 1 percent of the
pressure monitoring system operating range, whichever is less.
(4) Perform checks at least once each process operating day to
ensure pressure measurements are not obstructed (e.g., check for
pressure tap pluggage daily).
(5) Conduct a performance evaluation of the pressure monitoring
system at the time of each performance test but no less frequently than
annually.
(6) If at any time the measured pressure exceeds the manufacturer's
specified maximum operating pressure range, conduct a performance
evaluation of the pressure monitoring system and confirm that the
pressure monitoring system continues to meet the performance
requirements. Alternatively, install and verify the operation of a new
pressure sensor.
(g) pH monitoring. If you have an operating limit that requires a
pH monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)
and (g)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Install the pH sensor in a position that provides a
representative measurement of scrubber effluent pH.
(2) Ensure the sample is properly mixed and representative of the
fluid to be measured.
(3) Calibrate the pH monitoring system according to the
manufacturer's instructions. Clean the pH probe at least once each
process operating day. Maintain on-site documentation that your
calibration frequency is sufficient to maintain the specified accuracy
of your device.
(4) Conduct a performance evaluation (including a two-point
calibration with one of the two buffer solutions having a pH within 1
of the pH of the operating limit) of the pH monitoring system at the
time of each performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(h) Liquid flow rate monitoring. If you have an operating limit
that requires the use of a flow measurement device, you must meet the
requirements in paragraphs (h)(1) through (4) of this section.
(1) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a
position that provides a representative flow.
(2) Use a flow sensor with a measurement sensitivity 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 annually.
(i) Secondary electric power input monitoring. If you have an
operating requirement that requires a secondary electric power
monitoring system, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and
(i)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Install sensors to measure (secondary) voltage and current to
the precipitator collection plates.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the electric power
monitoring at the time of each performance test but no less frequently
than annually.
(j) Electrified filter bed voltage monitoring. If you have an
operating
[[Page 41442]]
requirement that requires a voltage monitoring system, you must meet
the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (j)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Install sensors to measure voltage to the electrified filter
bed.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the voltage monitoring at
the time of each performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(k) Combustion unit bypass stack monitoring. If you have a bypass
stack in which combustion unit exhaust streams routinely used to
direct-fire a PCWP dryer or lumber kiln are temporarily vented to the
atmosphere without passing through the direct-fired PCWP dryer or
lumber kiln, you must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and
(k)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) Install a sensor to continuously monitor an indicator of bypass
stack usage such as flow damper position or temperature.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the bypass stack monitor at
the time of each performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(l) Process unit bypass stack monitoring. If you have a bypass
stack that allows a process unit exhaust stream to temporarily vent to
the atmosphere while bypassing a control device routinely used to meet
the compliance options in table 1B, 1C, 1D, or 1E to this subpart, you
must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (l)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Install a sensor to continuously monitor an indicator of bypass
stack usage such as flow damper position or temperature.
(2) Conduct a performance evaluation of the bypass stack monitor at
the time of each performance test but no less frequently than annually.
(m) Lumber kiln temperature monitoring. Temperature monitors used
in lumber kilns must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), and
(m)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) For purposes of complying with dry bulb temperature limits in
Sec. 63.2241(e)(3)(i) or (ii), dry bulb temperature monitor(s) must be
located in a position to determine the dry bulb temperature of the
heated air that exits the lumber.
(2) Facilities complying with the site-specific plan in Sec.
63.2241(e)(3)(iii) must describe the number and location of temperature
monitors in the site-specific plan.
(n) Lumber moisture monitoring under hybrid option. The
requirements in paragraphs (a), (b), and (n)(1) and (2) of this section
apply for lumber kilns using the hybrid temperature and lumber moisture
monitoring work practice option in Sec. 63.2241(e)(3)(ii). The lumber
moisture content (weight percent, dry basis) must be monitored either
within the kiln or at a location after the lumber exits the kiln.
(1) For lumber moisture content measured after the lumber exits the
kiln, you must obtain at least one lumber moisture content measurement
per either twenty thousand board feet (20 MBF or 20,000 BF) of board
lumber produced or per 2,000 cubic feet (2,000 CF) of round lumber
produced.
(2) For lumber moisture content measured in the kiln, lumber
moisture measurements must be obtained as follows for each kiln type:
(i) For batch kilns with in-kiln moisture monitoring, lumber
moisture measurements must be distributed in different areas of the
kiln. At least one lumber moisture reading per crib must be obtained.
(ii) For continuous kilns with in-kiln moisture monitoring, lumber
moisture measurements must be obtained for each crib of lumber dried.
(o) Lumber moisture monitoring under site-specific plan. The
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (o)(1) and (2) of this section apply
for lumber facilities monitoring lumber moisture under the site-
specific plan work practice option Sec. 63.2241(e)(3)(iii).
(1) The site-specific plan must include a method for monitoring
lumber moisture content (weight percent, dry basis) and specify the
location of such monitoring within the lumber manufacturing process
(for example, at the kiln unloading track, in lumber storage, or at the
planer).
(2) You must obtain at least one lumber moisture content
measurement per twenty thousand board feet (20 MBF or 20,000 BF) of
board lumber produced or per 2,000 cubic feet (2,000 CF) of round
lumber produced.
0
13. Amend Sec. 63.2270 by revising paragraph (e) and adding paragraphs
(g) through (k) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2270 How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate
continuous compliance?
* * * * *
(e) For dry rotary dryer and veneer predryer wood moisture
monitoring, dry rotary dryer temperature monitoring, biofilter bed
temperature monitoring, biofilter outlet THC monitoring, and continuous
opacity monitoring, determine the 24-hour block average of all recorded
readings, calculated after every 24 hours of operation as the average
of the evenly spaced recorded readings in the previous 24 operating
hours (excluding periods described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this
section).
* * * * *
(g) The requirements in paragraphs (c) through (f) of this section
do not apply for monitoring the usage of process unit bypass stacks or
combustion unit bypass stacks as such monitoring must be conducted
continuously at all times that the process unit or combustion unit
(that routinely direct-fires a PCWP dryer or lumber kiln) is operating.
You must record the dates and times when each bypass stack is used and
use the recording readings (excluding invalid data described in
paragraph (b) of this section) to calculate and report the total
duration of bypass stack usage during the semiannual reporting period.
(h) For lumber kilns, the following temperature data averaging
requirements apply:
(1) Temperature limit and hybrid options. You must continuously
monitor and record the dry bulb temperature during the kiln drying
cycle and record the dry bulb temperature at least once every 15
minutes as specified in Sec. 63.2269(m). The readings from multiple
dry bulb temperature monitors positioned to determine the temperature
of the heated air that exits the lumber may be averaged together to
determine the kiln-wide, dry bulb temperature.
(i) For batch kilns, calculate the average from the recorded
readings during each batch cycle, and maintain the batch cycle average
dry bulb temperature at or below the maximum temperature limits
specified in either Sec. 63.2241(e)(3)(i) or (ii), whichever applies.
(ii) For continuous dry kilns, calculate the daily block average
from the recorded readings and maintain the daily block average dry
bulb temperature at or below the maximum temperature limits specified
in either Sec. 63.2241(e)(3)(i) or (ii), whichever applies.
(2) Site specific plan option. You must continuously monitor the
temperature parameter (such as wet or dry bulb temperature, wet bulb
depression, or temperature drop across the load) specified in your
site-specific plan. You must record the temperature parameter at least
every 15 minutes and calculate the 3-hour block average for comparison
to the site-specific temperature limit.
(i) For lumber kilns using the hybrid option, the following lumber
moisture data averaging requirements must be followed:
(1) Using the lumber moisture content measurement data collected
according to Sec. 63.2269(n), calculate and record the semiannual
average kiln-dried lumber
[[Page 41443]]
moisture content for lumber with a given moisture specification
produced at the facility.
(2) Compare the semiannual average lumber moisture content for each
moisture specification produced at the facility to the applicable
minimum kiln-dried moisture content limits included in table 11 to this
subpart to determine compliance.
(j) For lumber kilns using the site-specific option, the following
lumber moisture data averaging requirements must be followed:
(1) Using the lumber moisture content measurement data collected,
calculate and record the monthly and semiannual average kiln-dried
lumber moisture content.
(2) Compare the monthly average lumber moisture content to the
minimum kiln-dried lumber moisture content limit included in the site-
specific plan based on Sec. 63.2241(e)(4) and table 11 to this
subpart. You must take corrective action if the monthly average lumber
moisture content determined in paragraph (j)(1) of this section is
below the minimum lumber moisture content limit in the site-specific
plan. You must maintain records of corrective actions taken and report
corrective actions in the semiannual report.
(3) Compare the semiannual average kiln-dried lumber moisture
content to the minimum lumber moisture content limit included in the
site-specific plan based on Sec. 63.2241(e)(4) of this section and
table 11 to this subpart to determine compliance.
(k) If you observe opacity using EPA Method 9 of appendix A-4 to
part 60 of this chapter (in conjunction with pressure drop monitoring)
instead of using a COMS for mechanical collectors (or other dry control
device not listed elsewhere in table 2 to this subpart) to meet a
compliance option in table 1D or 1E to this subpart, you must follow
the procedure for demonstrating continuous compliance with the opacity
observation limit in paragraphs (k)(1) and (2) of this section.
(1) A qualified observer must conduct two weekly 6-minute opacity
observations of the mechanical collector (or other dry control device)
exhaust to the atmosphere according to EPA Method 9 of appendix A-4 in
part 60 of this chapter and 40 CFR 60.11 to demonstrate the opacity
remains below the maximum limit established according to Sec.
63.2262(u).
(2) If the average of the two weekly 6-minute opacity observations
exceeds the maximum opacity limit established in paragraph (k)(1) of
this section, you must take appropriate corrective action to correct
the above normal emissions as soon as practicable and within the
monitoring period and record the action taken.
0
14. Amend Sec. 63.2271 by revising paragraph (b)(4) and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2271 How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the
compliance options, operating requirements, and work practice
requirements?
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(4) Instances of safety-related shutdown, pressurized refiner
startup and shutdown, and startup and shutdown of direct-fired softwood
veneer dryer gas-fired burners subject to the work practice
requirements in table 3 to this subpart (rows 6 through 8) must be
reported as required in Sec. 63.2281(c)(4). Instances when the work
practice requirements in table 3 to this subpart (rows 6 through 8) are
used are not considered to be deviations from (or violations of) the
otherwise applicable compliance options, operating requirements and
work practice requirements (in rows 1 through 5 of table 3 to this
subpart) as long as you do not exceed the minimum amount of time
necessary for these events and continuously monitor process unit bypass
stack usage during the events as required in Sec. 63.2240(e) and table
2 to this subpart.
(c) For direct-fired PCWP dryers (including direct wood-fired PCWP
dryers and direct natural gas-fired PCWP dryers) and direct-fired
lumber kilns, demonstrate compliance with the annual tune-up
requirement in Sec. 63.2241(d) and table 3 to this subpart as
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (8) of this section.
(1) You must conduct the tune-up while burning the type of fuel (or
fuels in case of units that routinely burn a mixture) that provided the
majority of the heat input to PCWP dryer or lumber kiln over the 12
months prior to the tune-up.
(2) Inspect the burner and (if applicable) grates. Clean, repair,
or replace any components of the burner and grates as necessary. This
work must be initiated within 30 days after the inspection and
completed within 180 days following the inspection identifying the need
for the corrective action. If the corrective action cannot be completed
within 180 days, a written request for an extension may be submitted to
the delegated authority, who may grant an extension if they determine
additional time is necessary.
(3) For direct-fired PCWP dryers with burners in the dryer or
separate combustion unit(s), inspect the flame pattern (as applicable)
and adjust the burner as necessary to optimize the flame pattern. The
adjustment should be consistent with the manufacturer's specifications,
if available.
(4) For each direct-fired PCWP dryer with a burner in the dryer,
cycle the burner through its firing range to ensure the burner
functions satisfactorily throughout the operating range.
(5) Inspect the combustion air system and system that controls the
air-to-fuel ratio to make sure it is functioning properly (according to
the manufacturer's guidelines, if available).
(6) Inspect the fuel delivery system and, if applicable, the ash
removal system to make sure each system is functioning properly
(according to the manufacturer's guidelines, if available).
(7) Record the results of each inspection and corrective action
taken, as required in Sec. 63.2282.
(8) The required inspections and any necessary maintenance must be
performed annually (no more than 13 months after previous inspection).
If inspections are performed more frequently than annually, required
equipment maintenance and replacement may be delayed until the next
scheduled shutdown of the combustion unit firing a PCWP dryer or lumber
kiln.
0
15. Amend Sec. 63.2280 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b) and paragraph (d) introductory text;
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (f);
0
c. Revising paragraph (g) introductory text; and
0
d. Removing and reserving paragraph (g)(2).
The revisions read as follows:
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) and (f)(4) and (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 September 28, 2004, 120 calendar days after initial
startup, or no later than 120 days after the source becomes subject to
this subpart, or after initial startup, whichever is later, as
specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2). Initial notifications required in Sec.
63.9(b) must be submitted in a user-specified format such as portable
document format (PDF) following the procedure specified in Sec.
63.9(k) except the Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be
submitted according to Sec. 63.2281(k).
* * * * *
[[Page 41444]]
(d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, design
evaluation, or other compliance demonstration as specified in tables 4
through 6 to this subpart, or a repeat performance test as specified in
table 7 to this subpart, you must submit a Notification of Compliance
Status as specified in Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii). Notifications of
Compliance Status must be submitted in a user-specified format such as
portable document format (PDF) following the procedure specified in
Sec. 63.9(k) except the CBI should be submitted according to Sec.
63.2281(k).
* * * * *
(g) You must notify the EPA Administrator within 30 days before you
take any of the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (3) of this
section.
* * * * *
0
16. Revise Sec. 63.2281 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2281 What reports must I submit and when?
(a) You must submit each report in table 9 to this subpart that
applies to you.
(b) Unless the EPA 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 to this subpart and as specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) 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.
(6) Submit all reports following the procedure specified in Sec.
63.9(k) except the CBI should be submitted according to paragraph (k)
of this section.
(c) The compliance report must contain the information in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (11) of this section.
(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) The compliance report must include the number of instances and
total amount of time during the reporting period in which each of the
work practice requirements in table 3 to this subpart (row 6, 7, or 8)
is used in place of the otherwise applicable compliance options,
operating requirements, and work practice requirements (in table 3 to
this subpart rows 1 through 5). If a work practice in table 3 to this
subpart (row 6, 7, or 8) is used for more than a total of 100 hours
during the semiannual reporting period, you must report the date, time
and duration of each instance when that one work practice exceeding 100
hours was used.
(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 shut down 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 the following
equation.
Equation 1 to Paragraph (c)(5)(iii)(C)
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR06JY26.006
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) [Reserved]
(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 to 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 (CMS), including CEMS, COMS, 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.
(9) For each combustion unit subject to tune-up requirements,
include the date of the most recent burner tune-up
[[Page 41445]]
and a summary of corrective actions taken.
(10) The total time (hours) during the semiannual reporting period
that each combustion unit bypass stack or each process unit bypass
stack was used.
(11) For each lumber kiln, the information specified in paragraphs
(c)(11)(i) though (v) of this section.
(i) A description of updates to the O&M plan made during the
reporting period, as required under Sec. 63.2253(a)(4).
(ii) If complying with the dry bulb temperature limit option in
Sec. 63.2241(e)(3)(i), note the applicable maximum dry bulb
temperature limit according to kiln type, and report deviations from
the dry bulb temperature limit batch cycle average (for batch kilns) or
daily block average (for continuous kilns) calculated according to
Sec. 63.2270(h)(1).
(iii) If complying with a site-specific temperature limit under a
site-specific plan in Sec. 63.2241(e)(3)(iii)(A), note the site-
specific temperature parameter limit, and report deviations from the 3-
hour block average temperature parameter limit included in the site-
specific plan calculated according to Sec. 63.2270(h)(2).
(iv) If complying with the hybrid option in Sec.
63.2241(e)(3)(ii), note the applicable maximum dry bulb temperature
limit according to kiln type, report deviations from the dry bulb
temperature limit batch cycle average (for batch kilns) or daily block
average (for continuous kilns) calculated according to Sec.
63.2270(h)(1), and report the semiannual average lumber moisture
content determined according to Sec. 63.2270(i).
(v) If complying with a site-specific approach for monitoring kiln-
dried lumber moisture content under a site-specific plan in Sec.
63.2241(e)(3)(iii)(B), describe the lumber moisture monitoring method
and location and note the site-specific minimum kiln-dried lumber
moisture content limit included in the site-specific plan. Report
corrective actions taken as a result of monthly lumber moisture content
averages (determined according to Sec. 63.2270(g)) that are below the
minimum lumber moisture content limit in the site-specific plan. Report
the semiannual average kiln-dried lumber moisture content value
determined according to Sec. 63.2270(g).
(d) For each deviation from a compliance option or operating
requirement and for each deviation from the work practice requirements
in table 8 to 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 (5) of this section and 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 date, time, 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, operating
requirement, or work practice requirement occurring at an affected
source where you are using a CMS to comply with the compliance options,
operating requirements, or work practice requirements in this subpart,
you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) and
(e)(2) through (13) of this section. This includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction and routine control device maintenance.
(1) [Reserved]
(2) The date, time, and duration 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.
(12) For any failure to meet a compliance option in Sec. 63.2240,
including the compliance options in table 1A through 1E to this
subpart, provide an estimate of the quantity of each regulated
pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a description of the
method used to estimate the emissions.
(13) The total operating time of each affected source during the
reporting period.
(f) [Reserved]
(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 table 9 to 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.
(h) If you are required to submit reports following the procedure
specified in this paragraph (h), you must submit reports to the EPA via
the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which
can be accessed through the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). For semiannual compliance reports required in this
section and table 9 (row 1) to this subpart, you must use the
appropriate electronic report template on the CEDRI website (https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/compliance-and-emissions-data-reporting-interface-cedri) for this subpart. The date
report templates become available will be listed on the CEDRI website.
If the reporting form for the semiannual compliance report specific to
this subpart is not available in CEDRI at the time that the report is
due, you must submit the report to the
[[Page 41446]]
Administrator at the appropriate addresses listed in Sec. 63.13. You
must begin submitting all subsequent reports via CEDRI in the first
full reporting period after the report template for this subpart has
been available in CEDRI for 1 year. The report must be submitted by the
deadline specified in this subpart, regardless of the method in which
the report is submitted.
(i) Within 60 days after the date of completing each performance
test required by this subpart, you must submit the results of the
performance test following the procedures specified in paragraphs
(i)(1) through (3) of this section.
(1) Data collected using test methods supported by the EPA's
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) as listed on the EPA's ERT website
(https://www.epa.gov/electronic-reporting-air-emissions/electronic-reporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test. Submit the results of the
performance test to the EPA via CEDRI, which can be accessed through
the EPA's CDX (https://cdx.epa.gov/). The data must be submitted in a
file format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively,
you may submit an electronic file consistent with the extensible markup
language (XML) schema listed on the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Data collected using test methods that are not supported by the
EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the test.
The results of the performance test must be included as an attachment
in the ERT or an alternate electronic file consistent with the XML
schema listed on the EPA's ERT website. Submit the ERT generated
package or alternative file to the EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential Business Information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under this paragraph (i) is CBI, you must
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website. Submit the file according to paragraph (k) of this
section except it should be sent to the attention of the Branch
Supervisor in the Measurement Strategy Branch.
(j) Within 60 days after the date of completing each continuous
monitoring system (CMS) performance evaluation (as defined in Sec.
63.2), you must submit the results of the performance evaluation
following the procedures specified in paragraphs (j)(1) through (3) of
this section.
(1) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) pollutants that are supported by the EPA's ERT as listed
on the EPA's ERT website at the time of the evaluation. Submit the
results of the performance evaluation to the EPA via CEDRI, which can
be accessed through the EPA's CDX. The data must be submitted in a file
format generated through the use of the EPA's ERT. Alternatively, you
may submit an electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on
the EPA's ERT website.
(2) Performance evaluations of CMS measuring RATA pollutants that
are not supported by the EPA's ERT as listed on the EPA's ERT website
at the time of the evaluation. The results of the performance
evaluation must be included as an attachment in the ERT or an alternate
electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the EPA's ERT
website. Submit the ERT generated package or alternative file to the
EPA via CEDRI.
(3) Confidential Business Information (CBI). If you claim some of
the information submitted under this paragraph (j) is CBI, you must
submit a complete file, including information claimed to be CBI, to the
EPA. The file must be generated through the use of the EPA's ERT or an
alternate electronic file consistent with the XML schema listed on the
EPA's ERT website. Submit the file according to paragraph (k) of this
section except it should be sent to the attention of the Branch
Supervisor in the Measurement Strategy Branch.
(k) For Confidential Business Information (CBI):
(1) The preferred method to receive CBI is for it to be transmitted
electronically using email attachments, File Transfer Protocol, or
other online file sharing services. Electronic submissions must be
transmitted directly to the OCAP CBI Office at the email address
[email protected], and as described in the preceding sentence, should
include clear CBI markings and be flagged to the attention of the
Sector Lead, Plywood and Composite Wood Products. If assistance is
needed with submitting large electronic files that exceed the file size
limit for email attachments, and if you do not have your own file
sharing service, please email [email protected] to request a file
transfer link.
(2) If you cannot transmit the file electronically, you may send
CBI information through the postal service to the following address:
OCAP Document Control Officer (C404-02), OCAP, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, P.O. Box 12055, Research
Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Sector Lead--Plywood and
Composite Wood Products. The mailed CBI material should be double
wrapped and clearly marked. Any CBI markings should not show through
the outer envelope.
(3) All CBI claims must be asserted at the time of submission.
Anything submitted using CEDRI cannot later be claimed CBI.
Furthermore, under CAA section 114(c), emissions data is not entitled
to confidential treatment, and the EPA is required to make emissions
data available to the public. Thus, emissions data will not be
protected as CBI and will be made publicly available.
(4) You must submit the same file submitted to the CBI office with
the CBI omitted to the EPA via the EPA's CDX as described in Sec.
63.9(k).
(l) [Reserved]
0
17. Amend Sec. 63.2282 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2) introductory text, (a)(2)(iii)(A), and
(c) introductory text; and
0
b. Removing and reserving paragraph (d).
The revisions read as follows:
Sec. 63.2282 What records must I keep?
(a) * * *
(2) Records related to startup and shutdown, failures to meet the
standard, and actions taken to minimize emissions, specified in
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iv) of this section.
* * * * *
(iii) * * *
(A) For any failure to meet a compliance option in Sec. 63.2240,
including the compliance options in tables 1A through 1E to this
subpart, record an estimate of the quantity of each regulated pollutant
emitted over any emission limit and a description of the method used to
estimate the emissions.
* * * * *
(c) For each CMS, you must keep the following records:
* * * * *
Sec. 63.2283 [Amended]
0
18. Amend Sec. 63.2283 by removing and reserving paragraph (d).
0
19. Revise Sec. 63.2292 to read as follows:
Sec. 63.2292 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA),
in Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
1-hour period means a 60-minute period.
Affected source means the collection of dryers, refiners, blenders,
formers, presses, board coolers, and other process units associated
with the
[[Page 41447]]
manufacturing of plywood and composite wood products. The affected
source includes, but is not limited to, green end operations, refining,
drying operations (including any combustion unit exhaust stream
routinely used to direct fire process unit(s)), resin preparation,
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.
Agricultural fiber means the fiber of an annual agricultural crop.
Examples of agricultural fibers include, but are not limited to, wheat
straw, rice straw, and bagasse.
Atmospheric refiner means a piece of equipment operated under
atmospheric pressure for refining (rubbing, grinding, or milling) wood
material into fibers or particles for use in particleboard, MDF or dry-
process hardboard production. Atmospheric refiners are operated with
continuous infeed and outfeed of wood material and atmospheric
pressures throughout the refining process. An atmospheric refiner is a
process unit.
Biofilter means an enclosed control system such as a tank or series
of tanks with a fixed roof that contact emissions with a solid 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.
Blender means rotary drum or other vessel in which resin and other
additives are mixed with wood or agricultural fiber furnish prior to
forming into a composite wood product. Blenders do not include mix
chests in wet formed fiberboard or hardboard manufacturing. A blender
is a process unit.
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.
Combustion unit means a dryer burner, process heater, or boiler.
Combustion units may be used for combustion of organic HAP emissions.
Combustion unit bypass stack means a bypass or abort stack in which
a combustion unit exhaust stream routinely used to direct-fire a PCWP
dryer or lumber kiln is vented to the atmosphere without first passing
through the PCWP dryer or lumber kiln.
Control device means any equipment that reduces the quantity of HAP
emitted to the air. The device may destroy the HAP or secure the HAP
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 HAP emissions to the
atmosphere.
Conveyor strand dryer means a conveyor dryer used to reduce the
moisture of wood strands used in the manufacture of oriented
strandboard, laminated strand lumber, or other wood strand-based
products. A conveyor strand dryer is a process unit.
Conveyor strand dryer zone means each portion of a conveyor strand
dryer with a separate heat exchange system and exhaust vent(s).
Conveyor strand dryers contain multiple zones (e.g., three zones),
which may be divided into multiple sections.
Curing chamber means an oven or room surrounded by a wall or heavy
plastic flaps that uses heat, infrared, or radio-frequency techniques
to cure the resin used to bond the web and flange components of I-
joists. A curing chamber is a process unit.
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 of whether or not such failure is permitted by
this subpart. A deviation is not always a violation. The determination
of whether a deviation constitutes a violation of the standard is up to
the discretion of the entity responsible for enforcement of the
standards.
Direct-fired process unit means a process unit that is heated by
the passing of combustion exhaust through the process unit such that
the process material is contacted by the combustion exhaust.
Direct natural gas-fired PCWP dryer means a direct-fired PCWP dryer
(including each dry rotary dryer, green rotary dryer, tube dryer,
rotary strand dryer, hardboard oven, press predryer or heated zones
from a softwood or hardwood veneer dryer, conveyor strand dryer, or
fiberboard mat dryer) in which greater than 90 percent of the direct-
fired annual heat input results from natural gas (or propane)
combustion.
Direct wood-fired PCWP dryer means a direct-fired PCWP dryer in
which 10 percent or more of the direct-fired annual heat input results
from combustion of wood-derived fuel such as bark, wood residuals, or
wood-derived syngas or any other fuel except for natural gas (or
propane).
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, medium density fiberboard, or hardboard.
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.
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.
Engineered wood product means a structural wood product made with
lumber, veneers, strands of wood, or from other small wood elements
that are bound together with resin. Engineered wood products include,
but are not limited to, laminated strand lumber, laminated veneer
lumber, parallel
[[Page 41448]]
strand lumber, wood I-joists, and glue-laminated beams.
Engineered wood product press means a press that applies heat and/
or pressure to resinated veneer, wood strands, or lumber to bond the
resinated wood material into an engineered wood product. An engineered
wood product press is a process unit.
Fiber means the discrete elements of wood or similar cellulosic
material, which are separated by mechanical means, as in refining, that
can be formed into boards.
Fiber washer means a unit in which water-soluble components of wood
(hemicellulose and sugars) that have been produced during digesting are
removed from the wood fiber. Typically, wet fiber leaving a refiner is
further diluted with water and then passed over a filter, leaving the
cleaned fiber on the surface. A fiber washer is a process unit.
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 generally 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 used to produce fiberboard or hardboard by
applying heat. A fiberboard mat dryer is a process unit.
Finishing sander means a piece of equipment that uses an abrasive
drum, belt, or pad to impart smoothness to the surface of a plywood or
composite wood product panel and to reduce the panel to the prescribed
thickness. A finishing sander is a process unit.
Finishing saw means a piece of equipment used to trim or cut
finished plywood and composite wood products panels to a certain size.
A finishing saw is a process unit.
Flame zone means the portion of the combustion chamber in a
combustion unit that is occupied by the flame envelope.
Former or forming system means a series of bins (or forming
headers) that distribute resinated furnish into layers onto a conveyor
to form a loose mat to be compressed into a reconstituted wood product
such as particleboard, oriented strandboard, or medium density
fiberboard. Each forming bin (or forming header) adds a layer to the
mat beginning with a face furnish layer, then one or more core furnish
layers, and ending with a face furnish layer. The forming system
includes each of the forming bins (headers) in series, flying cutoff
saw (in facilities with batch presses), and pneumatic furnish pick-up
points up prior to the press loader or continuous press.
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.
Glue-laminated beam press means an engineered wood product press
that presses resinated stacks of lumber into a beam by application of
heat and/or pressure.
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.
Group 1 miscellaneous coating operations means application of edge
seals, nail lines, logo (or other information) paint, shelving edge
fillers, trademark/grade stamp inks, and wood putty patches to plywood
and composite wood products (except kiln-dried lumber) on the same site
where the plywood and composite wood products are manufactured. Group 1
miscellaneous coating operations also include application of synthetic
patches to plywood at new affected sources.
Hardboard means a composite panel composed of inter-felted
cellulosic fibers made by dry or wet forming and pressing of a
resinated fiber mat. Hardboard generally has a density of 0.50 grams
per cubic centimeter (31.5 pounds per cubic foot) or greater.
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, poplar, and oak.
Hardwood plywood press means a hot press which, through heat and
pressure, bonds assembled hardwood veneers (including multiple plies of
veneer and/or a substrate) and resin into a hardwood plywood panel. A
hardwood plywood press is a process unit.
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.
Humidifier or humidification chamber means a process unit used to
increase the moisture content of hardboard following pressing or baking
in a hardboard oven. Typically, water vapor saturated air is blown over
the hardboard surfaces in a cabinet. A humidifier 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 is also
known as parallel strand lumber (PSL).
Log vat means a process unit that raises the temperature of the
logs inside by applying a heated substance, usually hot water or steam,
to the outside of the logs by spraying or soaking. A log vat is a
process unit.
Lumber means boards or planks sawed or split from logs or timber,
including logs or timber processed for use as utility poles or other
wood components. Lumber can be either green (non-dried) or dried.
Lumber is typically either air-dried or kiln-dried.
Lumber kiln means an enclosed dryer operated by applying heat to
reduce the moisture content of lumber.
LVL or PSL press means an engineered wood product press that
presses resinated stacks of veneers into a solid billet by application
of heat and/or pressure. The billet is cut into laminated veneer lumber
or parallel strand lumber after exiting the press. An LVL or PSL press
is a process unit.
Maximum lumber moisture specification means (for purposes of this
subpart) the upper limit of lumber moisture content (weight percent on
a dry basis) that meets the relevant lumber grade standard for a lumber
product.
Maximum true vapor pressure means the equilibrium partial pressure
exerted by each HAP that is present in the stored resin in a
concentration above the
[[Page 41449]]
thresholds defining non-HAP resins at the temperature equal to the
highest calendar-month average of the liquid storage temperature for
liquids stored above or below the ambient temperature, or at the local
maximum monthly average temperature as reported by the National Weather
Service for liquids stored at the ambient temperature, as determined:
(1) From safety data sheets or other technical information provided
by the PCWP resin supplier; or
(2) Standard reference texts; or
(3) Any other method approved by the Administrator.
Medium density fiberboard (MDF) means a composite panel composed of
cellulosic fibers (usually wood or agricultural fiber) 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 oriented strandboard siding that occurs at the same site as oriented
strandboard manufacture and application of asphalt, clay slurry, or
titanium dioxide coatings to fiberboard at the same site of fiberboard
manufacture.
Mixed PCWP process stream means an emission stream from a process
unit subject to standards effective on July 6, 2026, that was co-
mingled with an emissions stream or streams from one or more process
units subject to the compliance options in table 1B to this subpart
before July 6, 2026, at an affected source that commenced construction
(or reconstruction) on or before May 18, 2023.
Molded particleboard means a shaped composite product (other than a
composite panel) composed primarily of cellulosic materials (usually
wood or agricultural fiber) generally in the form of discrete pieces or
particles, as distinguished from fibers, which are pressed together
with resin.
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 3 of Sec. 63.2262(j)
shows how to convert from one thickness basis to another.
Multipurpose atmospheric refiner means an atmospheric refiner that
processes wood for use in PCWP and is not a ``post-dryer atmospheric
refiner'' as defined in this section. A multipurpose atmospheric
refiner is a process unit.
Natural gas means:
(1) A naturally occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and nonhydrocarbon
gases found in geologic formations beneath the earth's surface, of
which the principal constituent is methane; or
(2) Liquefied petroleum gas, as defined in ASTM D1835-05
(incorporated by reference, see Sec. 63.14); or
(3) A mixture of hydrocarbons that maintains a gaseous state at ISO
conditions. Additionally, natural gas must either be composed of at
least 70 percent methane by volume or have a gross calorific value
between 35 and 41 megajoules (MJ) per dry standard cubic meter (950 and
1,100 Btu per dry standard cubic foot); or
(4) Propane or propane derived synthetic natural gas. Propane means
a colorless gas derived from petroleum and natural gas, with the
molecular structure C3H8.
Nondetect data means, for the purposes of this subpart, any value
that is below the method detection limit.
Non-HAP coating means a coating with HAP contents below 0.1 percent
by mass for Occupational Safety and Health Administration-defined
carcinogens as specified in section A.6.4 of appendix A to 29 CFR
1910.1200, and below 1.0 percent by mass for other HAP compounds.
Non-HAP resin means a resin that contains less than 0.1 percent by
mass of formaldehyde and less than 1.0 percent by mass each of phenol,
methanol, and MDI.
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.
Panel-trim chipper means a piece of equipment that accepts the
discarded pieces of veneer or pressed plywood and composite wood
products panels that are removed by finishing saws and reduces these
pieces to small elements. A panel-trim chipper is a process unit.
Parallel strand lumber (PSL) 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. Parallel strand lumber is also
known as laminated veneer lumber (LVL).
Partial wood products enclosure means an enclosure that does not
meet the design criteria for a wood products enclosure as defined in
this subpart.
Particle means a discrete, small piece of cellulosic material
(usually wood or agricultural fiber) produced mechanically and used as
the aggregate for a particleboard.
Particleboard means a composite panel composed primarily of
cellulosic materials (usually wood or agricultural fiber) generally in
the form of discrete pieces or particles, as distinguished from fibers,
which are pressed together with resin.
PCWP dryer means each dry rotary dryer, green rotary dryer, tube
dryer, rotary strand dryer, hardboard oven, or press predryer; or the
heated zones from a softwood or hardwood veneer dryer, conveyor strand
dryer, or fiberboard mat dryer.
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, medium density fiberboard, or lumber. Plywood products
may be flat or curved.
Plywood and composite wood products (PCWP) manufacturing facility
means a facility 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 panel, engineered wood product, or other product
defined in this section. 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, molded particleboard, oriented strandboard, hardboard,
fiberboard, medium density fiberboard, laminated strand lumber,
laminated veneer lumber, wood I-joists, kiln-dried lumber, and glue-
laminated beams.
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) means the sum of 2-
methylnaphthalene, acenaphthylene, acenaphthene, fluorene,
phenanthrene, anthracene, fluoranthene, pyrene, benz(a)anthracene,
chrysene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, benzo(e)pyrene,
[[Page 41450]]
benzo(a)pyrene, perylene, indeno(1,2,3-c,d)pyrene,
benzo(g,h,i)perylene, dibenz(a,h)anthracene.
Post-dryer atmospheric refiner means an atmospheric refiner used to
process wood for use in PCWP in which 90 percent or more (by weight) of
the annual throughput has been previously dried onsite in a dryer at
the PCWP affected facility. A post-dryer atmospheric refiner is a
process unit.
Press predryer means a dryer used to reduce the moisture and
elevate the temperature by applying heat to 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.
Pressurized refiners include steaming vessels that operate under
pressure to continuously feed and vent through the pressurized refiner.
A pressurized refiner is a process unit.
Primary tube dryer means a single-stage tube dryer or the first
stage of a multi-stage tube dryer. Tube dryer stages are separated by
vents for removal of moist gases between stages (e.g., a product
cyclone at the end of a single-stage dryer or between the first and
second stages of a multi-stage tube dryer). The first stage of a multi-
stage tube dryer is used to remove the majority of the moisture from
the wood furnish (compared to the moisture reduction in subsequent
stages of the tube dryer). Blow-lines used to apply resin are
considered part of the primary tube dryer. A primary tube dryer is a
process unit.
Process unit means equipment classified according to its function
such as a blender, dryer, press, former, or board cooler.
Process unit bypass stack means a bypass or abort stack that allows
a process unit exhaust stream to temporarily vent to the atmosphere
while bypassing a control device routinely used to meet the compliance
options in table 1B, 1C, 1D, or 1E to this subpart.
Process unit(s) subject to standards effective on July 6, 2026,
means a softwood plywood press, hardwood plywood press, engineered wood
product press, humidifier, atmospheric refiner, stand-alone digester,
fiber washer, blender, former, finishing sander, finishing saw, panel
trim chipper, log vat, resin tank, onsite wastewater treatment
operation specifically associated with PCWP manufacturing, lumber kiln,
press predryer (at an existing affected source), fiberboard mat dryer
heated zones (at an existing affected source), or reconstituted wood
products board cooler (at an existing affected source).
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 medium density fiberboard 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. Representative operating
conditions exclude periods of startup and shutdown.
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.
Resin tank means a storage tank, container, or vessel connected to
plywood and composite wood product production that holds resin. A resin
tank is a process unit.
Resinated material handling (RMH) process unit means each resin
tank, softwood plywood press, hardwood plywood press, engineered wood
product press or curing chamber, blender, former, finishing saw,
finishing sander, panel trim chipper, hardboard humidifier, and onsite
wastewater treatment operations specifically associated with PCWP
manufacturing at a new or existing affected source; and each
reconstituted wood products board cooler at an existing affected
source.
Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 40
CFR 70.2 and 71.2.
Rotary strand dryer means a rotary dryer operated by applying heat
and used to reduce the moisture of wood strands used in the manufacture
of oriented strandboard, laminated strand lumber, or other wood strand-
based products. A rotary strand dryer is a process unit.
Safety-related shutdown means an unscheduled shutdown of a process
unit subject to a compliance option in table 1B to this subpart during
which time emissions from the process unit cannot be safely routed to
the control system in place to meet the compliance options or operating
requirements in this subpart without imminent danger to the process,
control system, or system operator.
Secondary tube dryer means the second stage and subsequent stages
following the primary stage of a multi-stage tube dryer. Secondary tube
dryers, also referred to as relay dryers, operate at lower temperatures
than the primary tube dryer they follow. Secondary tube dryers are used
to remove only a small amount of the furnish moisture compared to the
furnish moisture reduction across the primary tube dryer. A secondary
tube dryer is a process unit.
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 plywood press means a hot press which, through heat and
pressure, bonds assembled softwood veneer plies and resin into a
softwood plywood panel. A softwood plywood press is a process unit.
Softwood veneer dryer means a dryer that removes excess moisture
from veneer by conveying the veneer through a heated medium, generally
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
[[Page 41451]]
dryers. A softwood veneer dryer is a process unit.
Stand-alone digester means a pressure vessel used to heat and
soften wood chips (usually by steaming) before the chips are sent to a
separate process unit for refining into fiber. Stand-alone digesters
operate in batch cycles that include filling with wood chips,
pressurization, cooking of wood chips under pressure, pressure release
(purge) venting, and chip discharge (blow) from the pressure vessel.
Venting of emissions from stand-alone digesters is separate from any
downstream refining process. A stand-alone digester 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.
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.
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 EPA Method 204 of appendix M to part
51 of this chapter.
Thermal oxidizer means a control system that combusts or oxidizes
exhaust gas from a process unit. Thermal oxidizers include regenerative
thermal oxidizers and combustion units.
Total hazardous air pollutant emissions means, for purposes of this
subpart, the sum of the emissions of the following six compounds:
acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and
propionaldehyde.
Tube dryer means a single-stage or multi-stage dryer operated by
applying heat 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. Tube dryers do not include pneumatic fiber transport systems
that use temperature and humidity conditioned pneumatic system supply
air in order to prevent cooling of the wood fiber as it is moved
through the process. 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 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 control device means any equipment that uses water as a means
of collecting an air pollutant. Wet control devices include scrubbers,
wet electrostatic precipitators, and electrified filter beds. Wet
control devices do not include biofilters or other equipment that
destroys or degrades HAP.
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.
Wood products enclosure means a permanently installed containment
that was designed to meet the following physical design criteria:
(1) Any natural draft opening shall be at least four equivalent
opening diameters from each HAP-emitting point, except for where board
enters and exits the enclosure, unless otherwise specified by the EPA
Administrator.
(2) The total area of all natural draft openings shall not exceed 5
percent of the surface area of the enclosure's four walls, floor, and
ceiling.
(3) The average facial velocity of air through all natural draft
openings shall be at least 3,600 meters per hour (200 feet per minute).
The direction of airflow through all natural draft openings shall be
into the enclosure.
(4) All access doors and windows whose areas are not included in
item 2 of this definition and are not included in the calculation of
facial velocity in item 3 of this definition shall be closed during
routine operation of the process.
(5) The enclosure is designed and maintained to capture all
emissions for discharge through a control device.
Work practice requirement means any design, equipment, work
practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is
promulgated pursuant to CAA section 112(h).
0
20. Add tables 1C through 1E to subpart DDDD of part 63 to read as
follows:
Table 1C to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Compliance Options Applicable On
and After July 6, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For process units
at an affected
For process units source that
at an affected commenced
source that construction or
commenced reconstruction
construction or after May 18,
reconstruction on 2023, you must
If you operate a(n) . . . or before May 18, comply with the
2023, you must following
comply with the compliance options
following \1\ beginning on
compliance options July 6, 2026, or
\1\ on and after upon initial
July 6, 2029 . . . startup, whichever
is later . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiberboard mat dryer heated 4.9E-02 lb total See footnote
zones at an affected source HAP/MSF \1/8\'' ``2''.
that commenced construction or or 2.0E-01 lb
reconstruction on or before total HAP/MSF \1/
January 9, 2003 \2\. 2\''.
Press predryer at an affected 8.0E-02 lb total See footnote
source that commenced HAP/MSF \1/8\'' ``2''.
construction or reconstruction or 3.2E-01 lb
on or before January 9, 2003\2\. total HAP/MSF \1/
2\''.
Post-dryer atmospheric refiner.. 4.1E-03 lb total 3.3E-03 lb total
HAP/ODT or 8.5E- HAP/ODT or 6.5E-
01 ppmvd total 01 ppmvd total
HAP. HAP.
Multipurpose atmospheric refiner 1.2E-01 lb total 2.4E-03 lb total
HAP/ODT or 15 HAP/ODT or 3.3
ppmvd total HAP. ppmvd total HAP.
Reconstituted wood product press 2.5E-04 lb MDI/MSF 2.5E-04 lb MDI/MSF
producing OSB using MDI resin. \3/4\'' (1.3E-04 \3/4\'' (1.3E-04
lb/MSF \3/8\'') lb/MSF \3/8\'')
or 2.7E-02 mg MDI/ or 2.7E-02 mg MDI/
dscm. dscm.
Reconstituted wood product press 8.4E-04 lb MDI/MSF 2.3E-04 lb MDI/MSF
producing particleboard or MDF \3/4\'' or 2.0E- \3/4\'' or 2.7E-
using MDI resin. 01 mg MDI/dscm. 02 mg MDI/dscm.
[[Page 41452]]
Primary tube dryer blow-line 1.7E-02 lb MDI/ODT 1.7E-02 lb MDI/ODT
blending MDI resin, or primary or 6.8E-01 mg MDI/ or 6.8E-01 mg MDI/
tube dryer blow-line blending dscm. dscm.
MDI resin co-controlled with a
reconstituted wood products
press using MDI resin.
Miscellaneous coating operation 1.9E-03 lb MDI 1.9E-03 lb MDI
for applying MDI moisture emitted/lb emitted/lb
sealant to the surface of an sealant applied sealant applied
engineered wood product. or 1.4E-05 lb MDI or 1.4E-05 lb MDI
per square foot per square foot
of surface area of surface area
coated. coated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total HAP, as defined in Sec. 63.2292, includes acetaldehyde,
acrolein, formaldehyde, methanol, phenol, and propionaldehyde. MDI is
4,4'-Diphenylmethane Diisocyanate (CAS 101-68-8). ug = micrograms; mg
= milligrams; dscm = micrograms per dry standard meter; kPa =
kilopascals; psia = pounds per square inch absolute; 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.
\2\ Fiberboard mat dryer (heated zones) or press predryers at an
affected source that commenced construction or reconstruction after
January 9, 2003, must be in compliance with the compliance options in
table 1A or 1B to this subpart beginning on September 28, 2004, or
upon initial startup, whichever is later.
Table 1D to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Compliance Options Applicable On and After July 6, 2029, for Direct Wood-
Fired PCWP Dryers at Affected Sources That Commenced Construction or Reconstruction On or Before May 18, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following types of You must meet the
direct wood-fired PCWP dryers . PM (HAP metal) You must meet the You must meet the You must meet the
. . limit Hg limit HCl limit PAH limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rotary strand dryer............. 9.9E-02 lb/ODT or 1.7E-05 lb/ODT or 5.8E-03 lb/ODT or 1.1E-04 lb/ODT or
3.6E-03 gr/dscf. 8.4E-04 mg/dscm. 1.5E-01 mg/dscm. 9.9E-03 mg/dscm.
Green rotary dryer.............. 2.9E-01 lb/ODT or 1.5E-05 lb/ODT or 1.1E-02 lb/ODT or 3.2E-04 lb/ODT or
5.2E-03 gr/dscf. 1.3E-03 mg/dscm. 1.7 mg/dscm. 4.2E-02 mg/dscm.
Dry rotary dryer................ 6.5E-01 lb/ODT or 1.0E-05 lb/ODT or 1.1E-03 lb/ODT or 4.6E-05 lb/ODT or
9.8E-02 gr/dscf. 8.4E-04 mg/dscm. 9.0E-02 mg/dscm. 4.1E-03 mg/dscm.
Primary tube dryer or secondary 3.1E-01 lb/ODT or 3.9E-05 lb/ODT or 6.4E-03 lb/ODT or 3.0E-04 lb/ODT or
tube dryer. 3.1E-03 gr/dscf. 1.6E-03 mg/dscm. 7.4E-01 mg/dscm. 1.6E-03 mg/dscm.
Softwood veneer dryer heated 7.2E-02 lb/MSF 3/ 5.8E-05 lb/MSF 3/ NA................ NA.
zones. 8'' or 1.5E-02 gr/ 8'' or 4.1E-02 mg/
dscf. dscm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: lb/ODT = pounds per oven dried ton, gr/dscf = grains per dry standard cubic foot, mg/dscm = milligrams
per dry standard cubic meter. See Sec. 63.2240(d)(3) for dioxin and furan TEQ limit for direct wood-fired
green rotary dryers.
Table 1E to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Compliance Options Applicable On and After July 6, 2026, for Direct Wood-
Fired PCWP Dryers at Affected Sources That Commenced Construction or Reconstruction After May 18, 2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following types of You must meet the
direct wood-fired PCWP dryers . PM (HAP metal) You must meet the You must meet the You must meet the
. . limit Hg limit HCl limit PAH limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rotary strand dryer............. 5.6E-02lb/ODT or 1.7E-05 lb/ODT or 1.7E-03 lb/ODT or 1.8E-05 lb/ODT or
1.3E-03 gr/dscf. 8.4E-04 mg/dscm. 9.0E-02 mg/dscm. 1.5E-03 mg/dscm.
Green rotary dryer.............. 3.7E-02 lb/ODT or 1.1E-05 lb/ODT or 2.9E-03 lb/ODT or 6.2E-05 lb/ODT or
1.3E-03 gr/dscf. 8.4E-04 mg/dscm. 9.0E-02 mg/dscm. 2.9E-03 mg/dscm.
Dry rotary dryer................ 6.0E-01 lb/ODT or 1.0E-05 lb/ODT or 1.1E-03 lb/ODT or 2.2E-05 lb/ODT or
4.6E-02 gr/dscf. 8.4E-04 mg/dscm. 9.0E-02 mg/dscm. 2.1E-03 mg/dscm.
Primary tube dryer or secondary 9.1E-02 lb/ODT or 3.9E-05 lb/ODT or 4.3E-03 lb/ODT or 3.4E-06 lb/ODT or
tube dryer. 1.3E-03 gr/dscf. 8.4E-04 mg/dscm. 9.0E-02 mg/dscm. 1.8E-06 mg/dscm.
Softwood veneer dryer heated 7.2E-02 lb/MSF 3/ 5.8E-05 lb/MSF 3/ NA................ NA.
zones. 8'' or 1.5E-02 gr/ 8'' or 4.1E-02 mg/
dscf. dscm.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: lb/ODT = pounds per oven dried ton, gr/dscf = grains per dry standard cubic foot, mg/dscm = milligrams
per dry standard cubic meter. See Sec. 63.2240(d)(4) for dioxin and furan TEQ limit for direct wood-fired
green rotary dryers.
0
21. Revise tables 2 through 10 to subpart DDDD of part 63 to read as
follows:
Table 2 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Operating Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you operate a(n) . . . You must . . . Or you must . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Thermal oxidizer............ Maintain the 3- Maintain the 3-
hour block hour block
average firebox average THC
temperature above concentration \1\
the minimum in the thermal
temperature oxidizer exhaust
established below the maximum
during the concentration
performance test. established
during the
performance test.
[[Page 41453]]
(2) Catalytic oxidizer.......... Maintain the 3- Maintain the 3-
hour block hour block
average catalytic average THC
oxidizer concentration \1\
temperature above in the catalytic
the minimum oxidizer exhaust
temperature below the maximum
established concentration
during the established
performance test; during the
and check the performance test.
activity level of
a representative
sample of the
catalyst annually
except as
specified in
footnote ``2'' to
this table.
(3) Biofilter................... Maintain the 24- Maintain the 24-
hour block hour block
biofilter bed average THC
temperature concentration \1\
within the range in the biofilter
established exhaust below the
according to Sec. maximum
63.2262(m). concentration
established
during the
performance test.
(4) Control device other than a Petition the EPA Maintain the 3-
thermal oxidizer, catalytic Administrator for hour block
oxidizer, or biofilter used to site-specific average THC
meet the compliance options in operating concentration \1\
table 1B or 1C to this subpart. parameter(s) to in the control
be established device exhaust
during the below the maximum
performance test concentration
and maintain the established
average operating during the
parameter(s) performance test.
within the
range(s)
established
during the
performance test.
(5) Process unit that meets a Maintain on a Maintain the 3-
compliance option in table 1A, daily basis the hour block
1C, 1D, or 1E to this subpart process unit average THC
without the use of a control controlling concentration \1\
device. operating in the process
parameter(s) unit exhaust
within the ranges below the maximum
established concentration
during the established
performance test during the
according to Sec. performance test.
63.2262(n).
(6) Wet electrostatic Maintain the 3- For a WESP
precipitator used to meet the hour block followed by a
compliance options in Sec. average total control device
63.2240(d)(2) and (3) and table secondary with a dry
1D or 1E to this subpart. electric power exhaust, maintain
input and liquid the 24-hour block
flow rate above average opacity
the minimum of no more than
limits 10 percent (or
established the highest
during the hourly average
performance test.. measured during
the performance
test).
(7) Dry electrostatic Maintain the 3- Maintain the 24-
precipitator used to meet the hour block hour block
compliance options in Sec. average total average opacity
63.2240(d)(2) and (3) and table secondary of no more than
1D or 1E to this subpart. electric power 10 percent (or
input above the the highest
minimum limit hourly average
established measured during
during the the performance
performance test. test).
(8) Wet PM scrubber used to meet Maintain the 3-
the compliance options in Sec. hour block
63.2240(d)(2) and (3) and average liquid
table 1D or 1E to this subpart. flow rate and
pressure drop
above the minimum
limits
established
during the
performance test.
(9) Wet acid gas scrubber used Maintain the 3-
to meet the compliance options hour block
in table 1D or 1E to this average liquid
subpart. flow rate and
effluent pH above
the minimum
limits
established
during the
performance test.
(10) Electrified filter bed used Maintain the 3-
to meet the compliance options hour block
in Sec. 63.2240(d)(2) and (3) average ionizer
and table 1D or 1E to this voltage and the
subpart. bed voltage above
the minimum
limits
established
during the
performance test;
AND maintain the
pressure drop
within the range
established
during the
performance test.
(11) Mechanical collector or Maintain the 24- Maintain the 3-
other dry control device (not hour block hour block
listed elsewhere in this table) average opacity average pressure
used to meet the compliance of no more than drop across the
options in Sec. 63.2240(d)(2) 10 percent (or control device
and (3) and table 1D or 1E to the highest above the minimum
this subpart. hourly average limit established
measured during during the
the performance performance test
test). AND maintain
average weekly 6-
minute opacity
readings below
the maximum limit
established
according to Sec.
63.2262(u).
(12) Process unit bypass stack Continuously
(defined in Sec. 63.2292) on monitor usage of
and after July 6, 2029, except the process unit
as noted in footnote ``3'' to bypass stack at
this table. all times while
the process units
are operating.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ You may choose to subtract methane from THC measurements.
\2\ You may forego the annual catalyst activity check during the
calendar year when a performance test is conducted according to table
4 to this subpart.
\3\ New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after May 18, 2023, must comply with this requirement
beginning on July 6, 2026, or upon initial startup, whichever is
later.
Table 3 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--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 (through proper
balancing of the heated zone
exhausts).
(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).
(5) Group 1 miscellaneous coating Use non-HAP coatings as defined
operations. in Sec. 63.2292.
(6) Process units and control systems Follow documented site-specific
undergoing safety-related shutdown on procedures such as use of
and after August 13, 2021, except as automated controls or other
noted in footnote ``1'' to this table. measures that you have
developed to protect workers
and equipment to ensure that
the flow of raw materials
(such as furnish or resin) and
fuel or process heat (as
applicable) ceases and that
material is removed from the
process unit(s) as
expeditiously as possible
given the system design to
reduce air emissions.
(7) Pressurized refiners undergoing Route exhaust gases from the
startup or shutdown on and after pressurized refiner to its
August 13, 2021, except as noted in dryer control system no later
footnote ``1'' to this table. than 15 minutes after wood is
fed to the pressurized refiner
during startup. Stop wood flow
into the pressurized refiner
no more than 15 minutes after
wood fiber and exhaust gases
from the pressurized refiner
stop being routed to the dryer
during shutdown.
(8) Direct-fired softwood veneer dryers Cease feeding green veneer into
undergoing startup or shutdown of gas- the softwood veneer dryer and
fired burners on and after August 13, minimize the amount of time
2021, except as noted in footnote direct gas-fired softwood
``1'' to this table. veneer dryers are vented to
the atmosphere due to the
conditions described in Sec.
63.2250(d).
[[Page 41454]]
(9) Direct wood-fired PCWP dryers, Conduct an annual tune-up of
direct natural gas-fired PCWP dryers, the combustion unit(s) used to
direct-fired lumber kilns, and directly fire each PCWP dryer
associated combustion unit bypass or lumber kiln as specified in
stacks on and after July 6, 2029, Sec. Sec. 63.2241(d) and
except as noted in footnote ``2'' to 63.2271(c); and continuously
this table. monitor an indicator of
combustion unit bypass stack
usage such as flow damper
position or temperature
according to Sec. 63.2269(l)
(10) Lumber kilns on and after July 6, Minimize lumber over-drying to
2029, except as noted in footnote reduce HAP emissions according
``2'' to this table. to Sec. 63.2241(e) by
developing and operating
according to the O&M plan in
Sec. 63.2241(e)(1) and
complying with one of the work
practice requirements in Sec.
63.2241(e)(3).
(11) Stand-alone digesters on and after Use clean steam for injection
July 6, 2029, except as noted in into digestion process; AND
footnote ``2'' to this table. process fiber without addition
of HAP-containing or wood
pulping chemicals.
(12) Fiber washers on and after July 6, Process fiber without addition
2029, except as noted in footnote of HAP-containing or wood
``2'' to this table. pulping chemicals.
(13) Log vats on and after July 6, Meet the work practice
2029, except as noted in footnote requirements specified in Sec.
``2'' to this table. 63.2241(f).
(14) Resinated material handling (RMH) Meet the work practice
process units on and after July 6, requirements specified in Sec.
2029, except as noted in footnote 63.2241(g).
``2'' to this table, as applicable.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 6, 2019, must comply with this
requirement beginning on August 13, 2020, or upon initial startup,
whichever is later.
\2\ New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after May 18, 2023, must comply with this requirement
beginning on July 6, 2026, or upon initial startup, whichever is
later.
Table 4 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Requirements for Performance Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For . . . You must . . . Using . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Each process unit subject select sampling EPA Method 1 or 1A of
to a compliance option in port's location appendix A-1 to part
tables 1A through 1E to this and the number 60 of this chapter
subpart. of traverse (as appropriate).
ports.
(2) Each process unit subject determine EPA Method 2 in
to a compliance option in velocity and addition to Methods
tables 1A through 1E to this volumetric flow 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or
subpart. rate. 2G of appendices A-1
and A-2 to part 60
of this chapter (as
appropriate).
(3) Each process unit subject conduct gas EPA Method 3, 3A, or
to a compliance option in molecular weight 3B of appendix A-2
tables 1A through 1E to this analysis. to part 60 of this
subpart. chapter (as
appropriate). As an
alternative to EPA
Method 3B for the
manual procedures
only and not the
instrumental
procedures, you may
use ANSI/ASME PTC 19-
10-1981 Part 10
(IBR, see Sec.
63.14).
(4) Each process unit subject measure moisture EPA Method 4 of
to a compliance option in content of the appendix A-3 to part
tables 1A through 1E to this stack gas. 60 of this chapter;
subpart. OR EPA Method 320 of
appendix A to this
part; OR ASTM D6348-
12e1 (IBR, see Sec.
63.14).
(5) Each process unit subject measure emissions EPA Method 25A in
to a compliance option in of total HAP as appendix A-7 to part
table 1B to this subpart for THC. 60 of this chapter.
which you choose to You may measure
demonstrate compliance using emissions of methane
a total HAP as THC compliance using EPA Method 18
option. in appendix A-6 to
part 60 of this
chapter and subtract
the methane
emissions from the
emissions of total
HAP as THC.
(6) Each process unit subject measure emissions EPA Method 320 of
to a compliance option in of total HAP (as appendix A to this
table 1A to this subpart. defined in Sec. part; OR the NCASI
63.2292). Method IM/CAN/WP-
99.02 (IBR, see Sec.
63.14); OR the
NCASI Method ISS/FP-
A105.01 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14); OR
ASTM D6348-12e1
(IBR, see Sec.
63.14) provided that
the conditions in
footnote ``1'' are
met.
(7) Each process unit subject measure emissions EPA Method 308 of
to a compliance option in of methanol. appendix A to this
table 1B to this subpart for part; OR EPA Method
which you choose to 320 of appendix A to
demonstrate compliance using this part; OR the
a methanol compliance option. NCASI Method CI/WP-
98.01 (IBR, see Sec.
63.14); OR the
NCASI Method IM/CAN/
WP-99.02 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14); OR
the NCASI Method ISS/
FP-A105.01 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14).
(8) Each process unit subject measure emissions EPA Method 316 of
to a compliance option in of formaldehyde. appendix A to this
table 1B to this subpart for part; OR EPA Method
which you choose to 320 of appendix A to
demonstrate compliance using this part; OR EPA
a formaldehyde compliance Method 0011 in
option. ``Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid
Waste, Physical/
Chemical Methods''
(EPA Publication No.
SW-846) for
formaldehyde (IBR,
see Sec. 63.14);
OR the NCASI Method
CI/WP-98.01 (IBR,
see Sec. 63.14);
OR the NCASI Method
IM/CAN/WP-99.02
(IBR, see Sec.
63.14); OR the NCASI
Method ISS/FP-
A105.01 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14).
(9) Each reconstituted wood meet the design EPA Methods 204 and
product press at a new or specifications 204A through 204F of
existing affected source or included in the appendix M to part
reconstituted wood product definition of 51 of this chapter,
board cooler at a new wood products to determine capture
affected source subject to a enclosure in efficiency (except
compliance option in table 1B Sec. 63.2292; for wood products
to this subpart. or. enclosures as
determine the defined in Sec.
percent capture 63.2292). Enclosures
efficiency of that meet the
the enclosure definition of wood
directing products enclosure
emissions to an or that meet Method
add-on control 204 requirements for
device. a permanent total
enclosure (PTE) are
assumed to have a
capture efficiency
of 100 percent.
Enclosures that do
not meet either the
PTE requirements or
design criteria for
a wood products
enclosure must
determine the
capture efficiency
by constructing a
TTE according to the
requirements of EPA
Method 204 and
applying EPA Methods
204A through 204F
(as appropriate). As
an alternative to
EPA Methods 204 and
204A through 204F,
you may use the
tracer gas method
contained in
appendix A to this
subpart.
(10) Each reconstituted wood determine the A TTE and EPA Methods
product press at a new or percent capture 204 and 204A through
existing affected source or efficiency. 204F (as
reconstituted wood product appropriate) of
board cooler at a new appendix M to part
affected source subject to a 51 of this chapter.
compliance option in table 1A As an alternative to
to this subpart. installing a TTE and
using EPA Methods
204 and 204A through
204F, you may use
the tracer gas
method contained in
appendix A to this
subpart. Enclosures
that meet the design
criteria (1) through
(4) in the
definition of wood
products enclosure,
or that meet EPA
Method 204
requirements for a
PTE (except for the
criteria specified
in section 6.2 of
EPA Method 204) are
assumed to have a
capture efficiency
of 100 percent.
Measured emissions
divided by the
capture efficiency
provides the
emission rate.
[[Page 41455]]
(11) Each process unit subject establish the Data from the
to a compliance option in site-specific parameter monitoring
tables 1A and 1B to this operating system or THC CEMS
subpart. requirements and the applicable
(including the performance test
parameter limits method(s).
or THC
concentration
limits) in table
2 to this
subpart.
(12) Each process unit subject measure emissions EPA Method 320 of
to total HAP limit in table of total HAP (as appendix A to this
1C to this subpart. defined in Sec. part; OR the NCASI
63.2292). Method IM/CAN/WP-
99.02 (IBR, see Sec.
63.14); OR the
NCASI Method ISS/FP-
A105.01 (IBR, see
Sec. 63.14); OR
ASTM D6348-12e1
(IBR, see Sec.
63.14) provided that
the conditions in
footnote ``1'' are
met. Nondetect data
must be treated
according to Sec.
63.2262(g)(3).
(13) Each process unit subject measure emissions EPA Method 326 of
to an MDI limit in table 1C of MDI. appendix A to this
to this subpart. part. Nondetect data
must be treated
according to Sec.
63.2262(g)(3). A
minimum sample
volume of 1 dscm
must be collected.
(14) Each process unit subject measure emissions EPA Method 5 in
to a PM HAP metals limit in of PM. appendix A-3 to part
table 1D or 1E to this 60 of this chapter;
subpart. or EPA Method 29 in
appendix A-8 to part
60 of this chapter.
Nondetect data must
be treated according
to Sec.
63.2262(g)(3). A
minimum sample
volume of 2 dscm
must be collected.
(15) Each process unit subject measure emissions EPA Method 29 or 30B
to a mercury limit in table of mercury. in appendix A-8 to
1D or 1E to this subpart. part 60 of this
chapter. Nondetect
data must be treated
according to Sec.
63.2262(g)(3). For
EPA Method 29 a
minimum sample
volume of 2 dscm
must be collected.
(16) Each process unit subject measure emissions EPA Method 26A in
to an HCl limit in table 1D of HCl. appendix A-8 to part
or 1E to this subpart. 60 of this chapter.
Nondetect data must
be treated according
to Sec.
63.2262(g)(3). A
minimum sample
volume of 2 dscm
must be collected.
(17) Each process unit subject measure emissions EPA Method 23 of
to a PAH limit in table 1D or of PAH. appendix A-8 to part
1E to this subpart and each 60 of this chapter.
direct wood-fired softwood Nondetect data must
veneer dryer subject to this be treated according
subpart. to Sec.
63.2262(g)(3). A
minimum sample
volume of 3 dscm
must be collected.
(18) Each process unit subject observe opacity.. Method 9 of appendix
to a PM limit in table 1D or A-4 to part 60 of
table 1E to this subpart this chapter.
controlled by mechanical Opacity observations
collector or other dry must be conducted
control device for which during the duration
pressure drop and opacity of the PM
observations are used to performance test.
demonstrate compliance. For weekly
observations, two 6-
minute readings are
required.
(19) Each direct wood-fired Measure emissions EPA Method 23 of
green rotary dryer subject to of dioxins and appendix A-8 to part
a dioxin/furan TEQ limit in furans. 60 of this chapter.
Sec. 63.2240(d)(3) or (4). Nondetect and
estimated maximum
possible
concentration (EMPC)
data must be treated
according to Sec.
63.2262(g)(3) and
section 9.1.7.2 of
EPA Method 23
procedures for
standards
promulgated after
March 20, 2023. A
minimum sample
volume of 3 dscm
must be collected.
For each dioxin and
furan congener,
multiply the
congener
concentration by its
corresponding toxic
equivalency factor
specified in table
12 to this subpart
to determine the TEQ
concentration for
each congener. Sum
the TEQ
concentrations of
each congener to
obtain the total
concentration of
dioxins and furans
emitted in terms of
TEQ.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
dscm = dry standard cubic meters.
\1\ As an alternative to EPA Method 320 of appendix A to this part, you
may use ASTM Method D6348-12e1 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
63.14), with the caveats that the test plan preparation and
implementation in the Annexes to ASTM Method D6348-12el, Sections Al
through A8 are mandatory; and in ASTM Method D6348-12e1 Annex A5
(Analyte Spiking Technique), the percent (%) R must be determined for
each target analyte (Equation A5.5). In order for the test data to be
acceptable for a compound, %R must be 70% <= R <= 130%. If the %R
value does not meet this criterion for a target compound, the test
data is not acceptable for that compound and the test must be repeated
for that analyte (i.e., the sampling and/or analytical procedure
should be adjusted before a retest). The %R value for each compound
must be reported in the test report, and all field measurements must
be corrected with the calculated %R value for that compound by using
the following equation:
Reported Results = (Measured Concentration in the Stack x 100)/% R.
Table 5 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--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 to this subpart. production-based emissions measured
compliance using the methods in
options listed table 4 to this
in table 1A to subpart over the 3-
this subpart. hour performance
test are no greater
than the compliance
option in table 1A
to this subpart; AND
you have a record of
the operating
requirement(s)
listed in table 2 to
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 to this subpart. of total HAP, measured using the
measured as THC, methods in table 4
by 90 percent. to 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 to
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 to this subpart. of total HAP, emissions, measured
measured as THC, using the methods in
to 20 ppmvd. table 4 to this
subpart over the 3-
hour performance
test, do not exceed
20 ppmvd; and you
have a record of the
operating
requirement(s)
listed in table 2 to
this subpart for the
process unit over
the performance test
during which
emissions did not
exceed 20 ppmvd.
[[Page 41456]]
(4) Process unit listed in Reduce methanol The methanol or
table 1B to this subpart. or formaldehyde formaldehyde
emissions by 90 emissions measured
percent. using the methods in
table 4 to 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 to
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 to this subpart. formaldehyde or formaldehyde
emissions to emissions, measured
less than or using the methods in
equal to 1 ppmvd table 4 to this
(if uncontrolled subpart over the 3-
emissions are hour performance
greater than or test, do not exceed
equal to 10 1 ppmvd; AND you
ppmvd). have a record of the
operating
requirement(s)
listed in table 2 to
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 to this subpart. verification using
board cooler at a new the methods in table
affected source. 4 to this subpart
with your
Notification of
Compliance Status.
(7) Process unit listed in Compliance You submit with your
table 1B to this subpart options in table Notification of
controlled by routing exhaust 1B to this Compliance Status
to a combustion unit. subpart. documentation
showing that the
process exhausts
controlled enter
into the flame zone
of your combustion
unit.
(8) Process unit listed in Compliance You submit with your
table 1B to this subpart options in table Notification of
using a wet control device as 1B to this Compliance Status
the sole means of reducing subpart. your plan to address
HAP emissions. how organic HAP
captured in the
wastewater from the
wet control device
is contained or
destroyed to
minimize re-release
to the atmosphere.
(9) Process unit listed in Total HAP The average total HAP
table 1C to this subpart. compliance emissions measured
options in table using the methods in
1C to this table 4 to this
subpart. subpart over the 3-
hour performance
test are no greater
than the compliance
option in table 1C
to this subpart; AND
you have a record of
the operating
requirement(s)
listed in table 2 to
this subpart for the
process unit over
the performance test
during which
emissions did not
exceed the
compliance option
value.
(10) Process unit listed in MDI compliance The average total HAP
table 1C to this subpart. options in table emissions measured
1C to this using the methods in
subpart. table 4 to this
subpart over the 3-
hour performance
test are no greater
than the compliance
option in table 1C
to this subpart; AND
you have a record of
the operating
requirement(s)
listed in table 2 to
this subpart for the
process unit over
the performance test
during which
emissions did not
exceed the
compliance option
value.
(11) Direct wood-fired PCWP PM (HAP metal), The average emissions
dryer listed in table 1D or Hg, HCl, and PAH measured using the
1E to this subpart. compliance methods in table 4
options in table to this subpart over
1D or 1E to this the 3-hour
subpart and performance test are
dioxin/furan TEQ no greater than the
options in Sec. compliance option in
63.2240(d)(3) tables 1D and 1E to
and (4). this subpart; AND
you have a record of
the operating
requirement(s)
listed in table 2 to
this subpart for the
process unit over
the performance test
during which
emissions did not
exceed the
compliance option
value.
(12) Mixed PCWP process stream Compliance You identify the
as defined in Sec. 63.2292. options in table mixed PCWP process
1B to this stream in your
subpart. Notification of
Compliance Status
and submit
documentation
showing that the
mixed PCWP process
stream met a
compliance option in
table 1B to this
subpart on or before
the close of
business on the 30th
calendar day after
July 6, 2026.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 6 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Initial Compliance Demonstrations
for Work Practice Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following
work practice You have demonstrated
For each . . . requirements . . initial compliance if
. . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Dry rotary dryer.......... Process furnish You meet the work
with an inlet practice requirement
moisture content and you submit a
less than or signed statement
equal to 30 with the
percent (by Notification of
weight, dry Compliance Status
basis) and that the dryer meets
operate with an the criteria of a
inlet dryer ``dry rotary dryer''
temperature of and you have a
less than or record of the inlet
equal to 600 moisture content and
[deg]F. inlet dryer
temperature (as
required in Sec.
63.2263).
(2) Hardwood veneer dryer..... Process less than You meet the work
30 volume practice requirement
percent softwood and you submit a
species. 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 requirement
the dryer doors and you submit with
and the green the Notification of
end. Compliance Status a
copy of your plan
for minimizing
fugitive emissions
from the veneer
dryer heated zones
(as required in Sec.
63.2265).
[[Page 41457]]
(4) Veneer redryers........... Process veneer You meet the work
with an inlet practice requirement
moisture content and you submit a
of less than or signed statement
equal to 25 with the
percent (by Notification of
weight, dry Compliance Status
basis). 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).
(5) Group 1 miscellaneous Use non-HAP You meet the work
coating operations. coatings as practice requirement
defined in Sec. and you submit a
63.2292. signed statement
with the
Notification of
Compliance Status
that you are using
non-HAP coatings and
you have a record
showing that you are
using non-HAP
coatings.
(6) Process units and control Follow documented You meet the work
systems undergoing safety- site-specific practice requirement
related shutdown on and after procedures to and you have a
August 13, 2021, except as ensure the flow record of safety-
noted in footnote ``1'' to of raw materials related shutdown
this table. and fuel or procedures available
process heat for inspection by
ceases and that the delegated
material is authority upon
removed from the request.
process unit(s)
as expeditiously
as possible
given the system
design to reduce
air emissions.
(7) Pressurized refiners Route exhaust You meet the work
undergoing startup or gases from the practice requirement
shutdown on and after August pressurized and you have a
13, 2021, except as noted in refiner to its record of
footnote ``1'' to this table. dryer control pressurized refiner
system no later startup and shutdown
than 15 minutes procedures available
after wood is for inspection by
fed to the the delegated
pressurized authority upon
refiner during request.
startup. Stop
wood flow into
the pressurized
refiner no more
than 15 minutes
after wood fiber
and exhaust
gases from the
pressurized
refiner stop
being routed to
the dryer during
shutdown.
(8) Direct-fired softwood Cease feeding You meet the work
veneer dryers undergoing green veneer practice requirement
startup or shutdown of gas- into the and you have a
fired burners on and after softwood veneer record of the
August 13, 2021, except as dryer and procedures for
noted in footnote ``1'' to minimize the startup and shutdown
this table. amount of time of softwood veneer
direct gas-fired dryer gas-fired
softwood veneer burners available
dryers are for inspection by
vented to the the delegated
atmosphere due authority upon
to the request.
conditions
described in
Sec.
63.2250(d).
(9) Direct wood-fired PCWP Conduct an annual You submit with your
dryers, direct natural gas- tune-up of Notification of
fired PCWP dryers, direct- combustion Compliance Status
fired lumber kilns, and unit(s) used to documentation of the
associated bypass stacks for directly fire initial burner tune
combustion unit exhaust each PCWP dryer up conducted
streams routinely used to or lumber kiln according to Sec.
direct-fire a PCWP dryer or as specified in 63.2241(d); and you
lumber kiln on and after July Sec. identify in your
6, 2029, except as noted in 63.2241(d) AND Notification of
footnote ``2'' to this table. continuously Compliance Status
monitor an the method used to
indicator of continuously monitor
bypass stack and record the
usage. duration of bypass
stack usage.
(10) Lumber kilns on and after Minimize lumber You submit with your
July 6, 2029, except as noted over-drying to Notification of
in footnote ``2'' to this reduce HAP Compliance Status
table. emissions the O&M plan
according to the developed according
work practice to Sec. Sec.
requirements in 63.2241(e)(1) and
Sec. 63.2250(a) and a
63.2241(e). description of the
work practice option
you will comply with
according to Sec.
63.2241(e)(3); and
if using the site-
specific plan option
under Sec.
63.2241(e)(3)(iii)
you must submit your
site-specific plan
to the delegated
authority for
approval according
to Sec. 63.2253(b)
by the date
specified in Sec.
63.2253(b)(1).
(11) Stand-alone digesters on Use clean steam You meet the work
and after July 6, 2029, for injection practice requirement
except as noted in footnote into digestion and you submit a
``2'' to this table. process; and signed statement
process fiber with the
without addition Notification of
of HAP- Compliance Status
containing or that the stand-alone
wood pulping digester operates
chemicals. according to the
work practice.
(12) Fiber washers on and Process fiber You meet the work
after July 6, 2029, except as without addition practice requirement
noted in footnote ``2'' to of HAP- and you submit a
this table. containing or signed statement
wood pulping with the
chemicals. Notification of
Compliance Status
that the fiber
washer operates
according to the
work practice.
(13) Log vats on and after Operate the log You meet the work
July 6, 2029, except as noted vat with a practice
in footnote ``2'' to this target log requirements and you
table. temperature at submit a signed
or below 212 statement with the
[deg]F as Notification of
specified in Compliance Status
Sec. with a record
63.2241(f). showing that the
target log
temperature is at or
below 212 [deg]F.
(14) Resinated material Work practice You meet the work
handling (RMH) process units requirements practice
on and after July 6, 2029, specified in requirements and you
except as noted in footnote Sec. submit a signed
``2'' to this table. 63.2241(g). statement with the
Notification of
Compliance Status
that resin(s) used
are non-HAP resin(s)
or have maximum true
vapor pressure of
less than or equal
to the applicable
limit in Sec.
63.2241(g)(1)(ii)
and that wood
material processes
meets the
requirements in
63.2241(g)(2).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 6, 2019, must comply with this
requirement beginning on August 13, 2020, or upon initial startup,
whichever is later.
\2\ New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after May 18, 2023, must comply with this requirement
beginning on July 6, 2026, or upon initial startup, whichever is
later.
[[Page 41458]]
Table 7 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With the
Compliance Options and Operating Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following
compliance
options and You must demonstrate
For . . . operating continuous compliance
requirements . . by . . .
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Each process unit listed Compliance Collecting and
in table 1B to this subpart options in table recording the
or mixed PCWP process unit 1B to this operating parameter
(defined in Sec. 63.2292). subpart and the monitoring system
operating data listed in table
requirements in 2 to this subpart
table 2 to this for the process unit
subpart based on according to Sec.
monitoring of Sec. 63.2269(a)
operating and (b) and 63.2270;
parameters. and reducing the
operating parameter
monitoring system
data to the
specified averages
in units of the
applicable
requirement
according to
calculations in Sec.
63.2270; and
maintaining the
average operating
parameter at or
above the minimum,
at or below the
maximum, or within
the range (whichever
applies) established
according to Sec.
63.2262.
(2) Each process unit listed Compliance Collecting and
in tables 1A and 1B to this options in recording the THC
subpart. tables 1A and 1B monitoring data
to this subpart listed in table 2 to
and the this subpart for the
operating process unit
requirements in according to Sec.
table 2 to this 63.2269(d); and
subpart based on reducing the CEMS
THC CEMS data. data to 3-hour block
averages according
to calculations in
Sec. 63.2269(d);
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.
(3) Each process unit using a Compliance Conducting a repeat
biofilter. options in performance test
tables 1B to using the applicable
this subpart. method(s) specified
in table 4 to this
subpart \1\ within 2
years following the
previous performance
test and within 180
days after each
replacement of any
portion of the
biofilter bed media
with a different
type of media or
each replacement of
more than 50 percent
(by volume) of the
biofilter bed media
with the same type
of media.
(4) Each process unit using a Compliance Checking the activity
catalytic oxidizer. options in table level of a
1B to this representative
subpart. sample of the
catalyst at least
annually \2\ and
taking any necessary
corrective action to
ensure that the
catalyst is
performing within
its design range.
(5) Each process unit listed Compliance Collecting and
in table 1A to this subpart. options in table recording on a daily
1A to this basis process unit
subpart and the controlling
operating operating parameter
requirements in data; and
table 2 to this maintaining the
subpart based on operating parameter
monitoring of at or above the
process unit minimum, at or below
controlling the maximum, or
operating within the range
parameters. (whichever applies)
established
according to Sec.
63.2262.
(6) Each Process unit listed Compliance Implementing your
in table 1B to this subpart options in table plan to address how
using a wet control device as 1B to this organic HAP captured
the sole means of reducing subpart. in the wastewater
HAP emissions. from the wet control
device is contained
or destroyed to
minimize re-release
to the atmosphere.
(7) Each process unit listed Compliance Conducting a repeat
in table 1B to this subpart options in performance test
using a control device other tables 1B to using the applicable
than a biofilter. this subpart. method(s) specified
in table 4 to this
subpart \1\ by
August 13, 2023, or
within 60 months
following the
previous performance
test, whichever is
later, and
thereafter within 60
months following the
previous performance
test.
(8) Process unit listed in Total HAP The average total HAP
table 1C to this subpart. compliance emissions measured
options in table using the methods in
1C to this table 4 to this
subpart and the subpart over the 3-
operating hour performance
requirements in test are no greater
table 2 to this than the compliance
subpart based on option in table 1C
monitoring of to this subpart; and
operating you have a record of
parameters. the operating
requirement(s)
listed in table 2 to
this subpart for the
process unit over
the performance test
during which
emissions did not
exceed the
compliance option
value.
(9) Process unit listed in MDI compliance The average MDI
table 1C to this subpart. options in table emissions measured
1C to this using the methods in
subpart and the table 4 to this
operating subpart over the 3-
requirements in hour performance
table 2 to this test are no greater
subpart based on than the compliance
monitoring of option in table 1C
operating to this subpart; AND
parameters. you have a record of
the operating
requirement(s)
listed in table 2 to
this subpart for the
process unit over
the performance test
during which
emissions did not
exceed the
compliance option
value.
(10) Direct wood-fired PCWP Compliance Collecting and
dryer using a wet or dry options in Sec. recording the
electrostatic precipitator, 63.2240(d)(2) operating parameter
wet scrubber, electrified and (3) and monitoring system
filter bed, thermal oxidizer, table 1D or 1E data listed in table
catalytic oxidizer, or to this subpart 2 to this subpart
biofilter to meet the and the for the process unit
standards in table 1D or 1E operating according to Sec.
to this subpart. requirements in Sec. 63.2269(a)
table 2 to this and (b) and 63.2270;
subpart based on and reducing the
monitoring of operating parameter
operating monitoring system
parameters. data to the
specified averages
in units of the
applicable
requirement
according to
calculations in Sec.
63.2270; and
maintaining the
average operating
parameter at or
above the minimum,
at or below the
maximum, or within
the range (whichever
applies) established
according to Sec.
63.2262.
(11) Direct wood-fired PCWP Compliance Collecting and
dryer using a mechanical options in Sec. recording opacity
collector or other dry 63.2240(d)(2) data according to
control device (not elsewhere and (3) and Sec. Sec.
listed in this table) or a table 1D or 1E 63.2269(e) and
WESP followed by a control to this subpart 63.2270; and
device with a dry exhaust to and the reducing the opacity
meet the standards in table operating data to a 24-hour
1D or 1E to this subpart. requirements in block average
table 2 to this according to Sec.
subpart based on 63.2270; and
continuous maintaining the
opacity average opacity at
monitoring. or below the maximum
established
according to Sec.
63.2262.
(12) Process unit bypass stack Continuously Continuously
(defined in Sec. 63.2292). monitor usage of monitoring and
the process unit recording the
bypass stack at duration of bypass
all times while stack usage
the process according to Sec.
units are Sec. 63.2269(a)
operating, and (l) and 63.2270.
undergoing
startup or
shutdown, and
during the
operating
conditions
specified in
Sec.
63.2250(f)(2)
through (4).
[[Page 41459]]
(13) Each process unit listed Total HAP and MDI Conducting a repeat
in table 1C, 1D, or 1E to limits in table performance test
this subpart. 1C to this using the applicable
subpart (as method(s) specified
applicable), and in table 4 to this
the PM, Hg, HCl, subpart\1\ within 60
and PAH limits months following the
in table 1D or previous performance
1E to this test.
subpart (as
applicable), and
the dioxin/furan
TEQ limits in
Sec.
63.2240(d)(2)
and (3).
(14) Direct wood-fired PCWP Compliance Collecting and
dryer using a mechanical options in Sec. recording pressure
collector or other dry 63.2240(d)(2) drop and opacity
control device (not elsewhere and (3) and observations listed
listed in this table) to meet table 1D or 1E in table 2 to this
the standards in table 1D or to this subpart subpart according to
1E to this subpart. and the Sec. Sec.
operating 63.2269(a) and (f)
requirements in and 63.2270; and
table 2 to this reducing the
subpart based on pressure drop
pressure drop monitoring system
monitoring and data to the
opacity specified averages
observations. in units of the
applicable
requirement
according to
calculations in Sec.
63.2270; and
maintaining the
average pressure
drop above the
minimum established
according to Sec.
63.2262; and
maintaining the
weekly opacity
observations at or
below the maximum
established
according to Sec.
63.2262.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ When conducting a repeat performance test, the capture efficiency
demonstration required in table 4 to this subpart, row 9 is not
required to be repeated with the repeat emissions test if the capture
device is maintained and operated consistent with its design as well
as its operation during the previous capture efficiency demonstration
conducted according to table 4 to this subpart, row 9 as specified in
Sec. 63.2267.
\2\ You may forego the annual catalyst activity check during the
calendar year when a performance test is conducted according to table
4 to this subpart.
Table 8 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Continuous Compliance With the Work
Practice Requirements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the following
work practice You must demonstrate
For . . . requirements . . continuous compliance
. by . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Dry rotary dryer.......... Process furnish Maintaining the 24-
with an inlet hour block average
moisture content inlet furnish
less than or moisture content at
equal to 30 less than or equal
percent (by to 30 percent (by
weight, dry weight, dry basis)
basis) and and maintaining the
operate with an 24-hour block
inlet dryer average inlet dryer
temperature of temperature at less
less than or than or equal to 600
equal to 600 [deg]F; and keeping
[deg]F. records of the inlet
temperature of
furnish moisture
content and inlet
dryer temperature.
(2) Hardwood veneer dryer..... Process less than Maintaining the
30 volume volume percent
percent softwood softwood species
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 you
the dryer doors are following) your
and the green plan for minimizing
end. fugitive emissions.
(4) Veneer redryers........... Process veneer Maintaining the 24-
with an inlet hour block average
moisture content inlet moisture
of less than or content of the
equal to 25 veneer processed at
percent (by or below of less
weight, dry than or 25 percent
basis). and keeping records
of the inlet
moisture content of
the veneer
processed.
(5) Group 1 miscellaneous Use non-HAP Continuing to use non-
coating operations. coatings as HAP coatings and
defined in Sec. keeping records
63.2292. showing that you are
using non-HAP
coatings.
(6) Process units and control Follow documented Keeping records
systems undergoing safety- site-specific showing that you are
related shutdown on and after procedures to following the work
August 13, 2021, except as ensure the flow practice
noted in footnote ``1'' to of raw materials requirements during
this table. and fuel or safety-related
process heat shutdowns.
ceases and that
material is
removed from the
process unit(s)
as expeditiously
as possible
given the system
design to reduce
air emissions.
(7) Pressurized refiners Route exhaust Keeping records
undergoing startup or gases from the showing that you are
shutdown on and after August pressurized following the work
13, 2021, except as noted in refiner to its practice
footnote ``1'' to this table. dryer control requirements during
system no later pressurized refiner
than 15 minutes startup and shutdown
after wood is events.
fed to the
pressurized
refiner during
startup. Stop
wood flow into
the pressurized
refiner no more
than 15 minutes
after wood fiber
and exhaust
gases from the
pressurized
refiner stop
being routed to
the dryer during
shutdown.
(8) Direct-fired softwood Cease feeding Keeping records
veneer dryers undergoing green veneer showing that you are
startup or shutdown of gas- into the following the work
fired burners on and after softwood veneer practice
August 13, 2021, except as dryer and requirements while
noted in footnote ``1'' to minimize the undergoing startup
this table. amount of time or shutdown of
direct gas-fired softwood veneer
softwood veneer dryer direct gas-
dryers are fired burners.
vented to the
atmosphere due
to the
conditions
described in
Sec.
63.2250(d).
(9) Direct wood-fired PCWP Conduct an annual Conducting and
dryers, direct natural gas- tune-up of maintaining records
fired PCWP dryers, direct- combustion of annual burner
fired lumber kilns, and unit(s) used to inspections and
associated combustion unit directly fire corrective actions
bypass stacks on and after each PCWP dryer taken; and
July 6, 2029, except as noted or lumber kiln continuously
in footnote ``2'' to this as specified in monitoring and
table. Sec. recording the
63.2271(c); AND duration of
continuously combustion unit
monitor an bypass stack usage
indicator of according to Sec.
bypass stack Sec. 63.2269(a)
usage. and (k) and 63.2270.
(10) Lumber kilns on and after O&M plan Operating according
July 6, 2029, except as noted developed under to your O&M plan
in footnote ``2'' to this Sec. developed under Sec.
table. 63.2241(e)(1) 63.2241(e)(1); and
involving annual conducting annual
inspection of inspection of the
lumber kiln integrity of the
integrity and lumber kiln internal
review of charge air flow and heat
optimization distribution
practices and components,
corrective reviewing charge
actions. optimization
practices,
implementing
corrective actions,
and maintaining
records of
corrective actions
according to Sec.
63.2241(e)(1)(c).
(11) Lumber kilns on and after Temperature limit Operating the kiln
July 6, 2029, except as noted option under with a dry bulb
in footnote ``2'' to this Sec. temperature limit no
table. 63.2241(e)(3)(i). higher than the
maximum limit
specified in Sec.
63.2241(e)(3)(i);
and continuously
monitoring dry bulb
temperature; and
maintaining records
of the batch average
or daily block
average dry bulb
temperature.
[[Page 41460]]
(12) Lumber kilns on and after Hybrid option Operating the kiln
July 6, 2029, except as noted under Sec. with a dry bulb
in footnote ``2'' to this 63.2241(e)(3)(ii temperature limit no
table. ). higher than the
maximum limit
specified in Sec.
63.2241(e)(3)(ii)(A)
; and continuously
monitoring dry bulb
temperature; and
maintaining records
of the batch average
or daily block
average dry bulb
temperature and
continuously
monitoring lumber
moisture while
drying lumber; and
keeping records of
the kiln-dried
lumber moisture
content for
determination of the
semiannual average
according to Sec.
63.2241(e)(3)(ii)(B)
(13) Lumber kilns on and after Site-specific Operating the kiln
July 6, 2029, except as noted plan option for using the approved
in footnote ``2'' to this temperature and site specific
table. lumber moisture temperature limit
monitoring under and site-specific
Sec. method for lumber
63.2241(e)(3)(ii moisture monitoring
i). under Sec.
63.2241(e)(3)(iii);
continuously
monitoring,
recording, and
calculating the 3-
hour block average
temperature under
Sec.
63.2241(e)(3)(iii)(A
); continuously
monitoring,
recording, and
calculating the
monthly and
semiannual average
kiln-dried lumber
moisture content
under Sec.
63.2241(e)(3)(iii)(B
); and maintaining
records and
reporting corrective
action as required
in Sec.
63.2241(e)(3)(iii)(B
).
(14) Stand-alone digesters on Use clean steam Continuing to meet
and after July 6, 2029, for injection the work practice by
except as noted in footnote into digestion using clean steam
``2'' to this table. process; and and processing fiber
process fiber without addition of
without addition HAP-containing or
of HAP- wood pulping
containing or chemicals and
wood pulping keeping records
chemicals. showing that you
continue to meet the
work practice.
(15) Fiber washers on and Process fiber Continuing to meet
after July 6, 2029, except as without addition the work practice by
noted in footnote ``2'' to of HAP- processing fiber
this table. containing or without addition of
wood pulping HAP-containing or
chemicals. wood pulping
chemicals AND
keeping records
showing that you
continue to meet the
work practice.
(16) Log vats on and after Operate the log Continuing to meet
July 6, 2029, except as noted vat with a the work practice by
in footnote ``2'' to this target log operating the log
table. temperature at vat as specified in
or below 212 Sec. 63.2241(f)
[deg]F as and keeping records
specified in showing that you
Sec. continue to meet the
63.2241(f). work practice.
(17) Resinated material Work practice Continuing to meet
handling (RMH) process units requirements the work practice
on and after July 6, 2029, specified in requirements in Sec.
except as noted in footnote Sec. 63.2241(g) and
``2'' to this table. 63.2241(g). keeping records
showing that you
continue to meet the
work practice.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after September 6, 2019, must comply with this
requirement beginning on August 13, 2020, or upon initial startup,
whichever is later.
\2\ New or reconstructed affected sources that commenced construction or
reconstruction after May 18, 2023, must comply with this requirement
beginning on July 6, 2026, or upon initial startup, whichever is
later.
Table 9 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--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) [Reserved]..................
(3) Performance test report..... The information According to the
required in Sec. requirements of
63.7(g). Sec.
63.2281(i).
(4) CMS performance evaluation, The information According to the
as required for CEMS under Sec. required in Sec. requirements of
63.2269(d)(2) and COMS under 63.7(g). Sec.
Sec. 63.2269(e)(2). 63.2281(j).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 10 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Applicability of General Provisions to This Subpart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Brief description Applies to this subpart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1................. Applicability... Initial applicability Yes.
determination;
applicability after
standard
established; permit
requirements;
extensions,
notifications.
Sec. 63.2................. Definitions..... Definitions for Yes.
standards in this
part.
Sec. 63.3................. Units and Units and Yes.
Abbreviations. abbreviations for
standards in this
part.
Sec. 63.4................. Prohibited Prohibited Yes.
Activities and activities;
Circumvention. compliance date;
circumvention,
fragmentation.
Sec. 63.5................. Preconstruction Preconstruction Yes.
Review and review requirements
Notification of section 112(i)(1).
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(a).............. Applicability... GP apply unless Yes.
compliance
extension; GP apply
to area sources that
become major.
Sec. 63.6(b)(1) through Compliance Dates Standards apply at Yes.
(4). for New and effective date; 3
Reconstructed years after
Sources. 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]......
Sec. 63.6(b)(7)........... Compliance Dates Area sources that Yes.
for New and become major must
Reconstructed comply with major
Area Sources source standards
that Become immediately upon
Major. becoming major,
regardless of
whether required to
comply when they
were an area source.
Sec. 63.6(c)(1) and (2)... Compliance Dates Comply according to Yes.
for Existing date in subpart,
Sources. 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) and (4)... [Reserved]......
[[Page 41461]]
Sec. 63.6(c)(5)........... Compliance Dates Area sources that Yes.
for Existing become major must
Area Sources comply with major
that Become source standards by
Major. date indicated in
subpart or by
equivalent time
period (e.g., 3
years).
Sec. 63.6(d).............. [Reserved]......
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i)........ General Duty to You must operate and No, see Sec. 63.2250 for general duty
Minimize maintain affected requirement.
Emissions. source in a manner
consistent with
safety and good air
pollution control
practices for
minimizing emissions.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(ii)....... Requirement to You must correct No.
Correct malfunctions as soon
Malfunctions as practicable after
ASAP. their occurrence.
Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(iii)...... Operation and Operation and Yes.
Maintenance maintenance
Requirements. requirements are
enforceable
independent of
emissions
limitations or other
requirements in
relevant standards.
Sec. 63.6(e)(2)........... [Reserved]......
Sec. 63.6(e)(3)........... Startup, Requirement for SSM No.
Shutdown, and and SSMP; content of
Malfunction SSMP.
Plan (SSMP).
Sec. 63.6(f)(1)........... SSM Exemption... You must comply with No.
emission standards
at all times except
during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(f)(2) and (3)... Methods for Compliance based on Yes.
Determining performance test,
Compliance/ operation and
Finding of maintenance plans,
Compliance. records, inspection.
Sec. 63.6(g)(1) through Alternative Procedures for Yes.
(3). Standard. getting an
alternative standard.
Sec. 63.6(h)(1)........... SSM Exemption... You must comply with No.
opacity and visible
emission standards
at all times except
during SSM.
Sec. 63.6(h)(2) through Opacity/Visible Requirements for No. This subpart specifies opacity as an
(9). Emission (VE) opacity and visible operating limit not an emission
Standards. emission standards. standard.
Sec. 63.6(i)(1)-(14)...... Compliance Procedures and Yes.
Extension. criteria for
Administrator to
grant compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.6(i)(15).......... [Reserved]......
Sec. 63.6(i)(16).......... Compliance Compliance extension Yes.
Extension. and Administrator's
authority.
Sec. 63.6(j).............. Presidential President may exempt Yes.
Compliance source category from
Exemption. requirement to
comply with rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(1) and (2)... Performance Test Dates for conducting Yes.
Dates. initial performance
testing and other
compliance
demonstrations; must
conduct within 180
days after first
subject to rule.
Sec. 63.7(a)(3)........... Section 114 Administrator may Yes.
Authority. require a
performance test
under CAA section
114 at any time.
Sec. 63.7(b)(1)........... Notification of Must notify Yes.
Performance Administrator 60
Test. days before the test.
Sec. 63.7(b)(2)........... Notification of If have to reschedule Yes.
Rescheduling. performance test,
must notify
Administrator as
soon as practicable.
Sec. 63.7(c).............. Quality Requirement to submit Yes.
Assurance/Test site-specific test
Plan. 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 Requirements for Yes.
Facilities. testing facilities.
Sec. 63.7(e)(1)........... Performance Performance tests No, see Sec. 63.2262(a) and (b).
Testing. must be conducted
under representative
conditions; cannot
conduct performance
tests during SSM;
not a violation to
exceed standard
during SSM.
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)........... Conditions for Must conduct Yes.
Conducting according to rule
Performance and EPA test methods
Tests. unless Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.7(e)(3)........... Test Run Must have three test Yes.
Duration. runs for at least
the time specified
in the relevant
standard; 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 Procedures by which Yes.
Method. Administrator can
grant approval to
use an alternative
test method.
Sec. 63.7(g).............. Performance Test Must include raw data Yes.
Data 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 of this chapter.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3)........... [Reserved]......
Sec. 63.8(a)(4)........... Monitoring with Requirements for NA.
Flares. flares in Sec.
63.11 apply.
Sec. 63.8(b)(1)........... Monitoring...... Must conduct Yes.
monitoring according
to standard unless
Administrator
approves alternative.
Sec. 63.8(b)(2) and (3)... Multiple Specific requirements Yes.
Effluents and for installing
Multiple monitoring systems;
Monitoring must install on each
Systems. 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 Maintain monitoring Yes.
System system in a manner
Operation and consistent with good
Maintenance. air pollution
control practices.
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(i)........ Operation and Must maintain and No.
Maintenance of operate CMS in
CMS. accordance with Sec.
63.6(e)(1).
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(ii)....... Spare Parts for Must maintain spare Yes.
CMS. parts for routine
CMS repairs.
[[Page 41462]]
Sec. 63.8(c)(1)(iii)...... Requirements to Must develop and No.
Develop SSMP implement SSMP for
for CMS. CMS.
Sec. 63.8(c)(2)-(3)....... Monitoring Must install to get Yes.
System representative
Installation. emission of
parameter
measurements; must
verify operational
status before or at
performance test.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4)........... CMS Requirements CMS must be operating Yes.
except during
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.
Sec. 63.8(c)(5)........... Continuous COMS minimum Yes.
Opacity procedures.
Monitoring
System (COMS)
Minimum
Procedures.
Sec. 63.8(c)(6) through CMS Requirements Zero and high-level Yes.
(8). calibration check
requirements; out-of-
control periods.
Sec. 63.8(d)(1) and (2)... CMS Quality Requirements for CMS Yes. Refer to Sec. 63.2269(a) through
Control. quality control, (c) and (f) through (o) for CPMS quality
including control procedures to be included in the
calibration, etc.. quality control program.
Sec. 63.8(d)(3)........... Written Must keep quality No, see Sec. 63.2282(f).
Procedures for control plan on
CMS. record for 5 years.
Keep old versions
for 5 years after
revisions. May
incorporate as part
of SSMP to avoid
duplication..
Sec. 63.8(e)(1)........... CMS Performance Performance Yes, for CEMS, COMS, and for the CMS in
Evaluation. evaluation. Sec. 63.2269(f) and (g) and (i)
through (l)
Sec. 63.8(e)(2) through CMS Performance Notification, Yes, for CEMS and COMS.
(5). Evaluation. performance
evaluation test
plan, reports.
Sec. 63.8(f)(1) through Alternative Procedures for Yes.
(5). Monitoring Administrator to
Method. approve alternative
monitoring.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6)........... Alternative to Procedures for Yes, for CEMS.
Relative Administrator to
Accuracy Test. approve alternative
relative accuracy
tests for CEMS.
Sec. 63.8(g).............. Data Reduction.. COMS 6-minute Yes.
averages 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; rounding of
data.
Sec. 63.9(a).............. Notification Applicability and Yes.
Requirements. State delegation.
Sec. 63.9(b)(1) and (2)... Initial Submit notification Yes.
Notifications. 120 days after
effective date;
contents of
notification.
Sec. 63.9(b)(3)........... [Reserved]......
Sec. 63.9(b)(4) and (5)... Initial Submit notification Yes.
Notifications. 120 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 Can request if cannot Yes.
Compliance comply by date or if
Extension. installed best
available control
technology/lowest
achievable emission
rate.
Sec. 63.9(d).............. Notification of For sources that Yes.
Special commence
Compliance construction between
Requirements proposal and
for New Source. promulgation and
want to comply 3
years after
effective date.
Sec. 63.9(e).............. Notification of Notify the EPA Yes.
Performance Administrator 60
Test. days prior.
Sec. 63.9(f).............. Notification of Notify the EPA Yes, except notifications are not
Visible Administrator 30 required for opacity observations in
Emissions/ days prior. Sec. 63.2270(k).
Opacity Test.
Sec. 63.9(g).............. Additional Notification of Yes.
Notifications performance
When Using CMS. evaluation;
notification using
COMS data;
notification that
exceeded criterion
for relative
accuracy.
Sec. 63.9(h)(1) through Notification of Contents; due 60 days Yes, except notifications are not
(6). Compliance after end of required for opacity observations in
Status. performance test or Sec. 63.2270(k).
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 Procedures for Yes.
Submittal Administrator to
Deadlines. approve change in
when notifications
must be submitted.
Sec. 63.9(j).............. Change in Must submit within 15 Yes.
Previous days after the
Information. change.
Sec. 63.9(k).............. Electronic Electronic reporting Yes.
reporting procedures.
procedures.
Sec. 63.10(a)............. Recordkeeping/ Applies to all, Yes.
Reporting. unless compliance
extension; when to
submit to Federal
vs. State authority;
procedures for
owners of more than
one source.
Sec. 63.10(b)(1).......... Recordkeeping/ General Requirements; Yes.
Reporting. keep all records
readily available;
keep for 5 years.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(i)....... Recordkeeping of Records of occurrence No, see Sec. 63.2282(a).
Occurrence and and duration of each
Duration of startup or shutdown
Startups and that causes source
Shutdowns. to exceed emission
limitation.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(ii)...... Recordkeeping of Records of occurrence No, see Sec. 63.2282(a) for
Failures to and duration of each recordkeeping of (1) date, time and
Meet a Standard. malfunction of duration; (2) listing of affected source
operation or air or equipment, and an estimate of the
pollution control quantity of each regulated pollutant
and monitoring emitted over the standard; and (3)
equipment. actions to minimize emissions and
correct the failure.
[[Page 41463]]
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iii)..... Maintenance Records of Yes.
Records. maintenance
performed on air
pollution control
and monitoring
equipment.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and Actions Taken to Records of actions No.
(v). Minimize taken during SSM to
Emissions minimize emissions.
During SSM.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi), (x), CMS Records..... Malfunctions, Yes.
and (xi). inoperative, out-of-
control.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vii) Records......... Measurements to Yes.
through (ix). 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) through Records......... Additional records Yes.
(6) and (9) through (14). for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(7) and (8).. Records......... Records of excess No.
emissions and
parameter monitoring
exceedances for CMS.
Sec. 63.10(c)(15)......... Use of SSMP..... Use SSMP to satisfy No.
recordkeeping
requirements for
identification of
malfunction,
correction action
taken, and nature of
repairs to CMS.
Sec. 63.10(d)(1).......... General Requirement to report Yes.
Reporting
Requirements.
Sec. 63.10(d)(2).......... Report of When to submit to Yes.
Performance Federal or State
Test Results. authority.
Sec. 63.10(d)(3).......... Reporting What to report and NA.
Opacity or VE when.
Observations.
Sec. 63.10(d)(4).......... Progress Reports Must submit progress Yes.
reports on schedule
if under compliance
extension.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i)....... Periodic SSM Contents and No, see Sec. 63.2281(d) and (e) for
Reports. submission of malfunction reporting requirements.
periodic SSM reports.
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii)...... Immediate SSM Contents and No.
Reports. submission of
immediate SSM
reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(1) and (2).. Additional CMS Must report results Yes.
Reports. for each CEM on a
unit; written copy
of performance
evaluation; 3 copies
of COMS performance
evaluation.
Sec. 63.10(e)(3).......... Reports......... Excess emission No.
reports.
Sec. 63.10(e)(4).......... Reporting COMS Must submit COMS data Yes.
Data. with performance
test data.
Sec. 63.10(f)............. Waiver for Procedures for the Yes.
Recordkeeping/ EPA Administrator to
Reporting. waive.
Sec. 63.11................ Control Device Requirements for NA.
and Work flares and
Practice alternative work
Requirements. practice for
equipment leaks.
Sec. 63.12................ State Authority State authority to Yes.
and Delegations. enforce standards.
Sec. 63.13................ Addresses....... Addresses where Yes.
reports,
notifications, and
requests are sent.
Sec. 63.14................ Incorporations Test methods Yes.
by Reference. incorporated by
reference.
Sec. 63.15................ Availability of Public and Yes.
Information and confidential
Confidentiality. information.
Sec. 63.16................ Performance Requirements for Yes.
Track Performance Track
Provisions. member facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0
22. Add tables 11 and 12 to subpart DDDD of part 63 to read as follows:
Table 11 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Lumber Minimum Moisture Content
Limits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the maximum lumber moisture The minimum kiln-dried lumber
specification (weight percent, dry moisture content (weight percent,
basis) is . . . dry basis) is . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
22 or more.......................... 15
19-21............................... 12
18.................................. 11
17.................................. 10
16.................................. 9
15.................................. 8
14.................................. 7
13.................................. 6
10-12............................... 5
9................................... 4.5
8................................... 4
7................................... 3.5
6................................... 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 41464]]
Table 12 to Subpart DDDD of Part 63--Toxic Equivalency Factors
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dioxin/furan congener Toxic equivalency factor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated dibenzo-p- 1
dioxin.............................
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated dibenzo-p- 1
dioxin.............................
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo- 0.1
p-dioxin...........................
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated dibenzo- 0.1
p-dioxin...........................
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated dibenzo- 0.1
p-dioxin...........................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated 0.01
dibenzo-p-dioxin...................
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin.... 0.0003
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorinated 0.1
dibenzofuran.......................
2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorinated 0.3
dibenzofuran.......................
1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorinated 0.03
dibenzofuran.......................
1,2,3,4,7,8-hexachlorinated 0.1
dibenzofuran.......................
1,2,3,6,7,8-hexachlorinated 0.1
dibenzofuran.......................
1,2,3,7,8,9-hexachlorinated 0.1
dibenzofuran.......................
2,3,4,6,7,8-hexachlorinated 0.1
dibenzofuran.......................
1,2,3,4,6,7,8-heptachlorinated 0.01
dibenzofuran.......................
1,2,3,4,7,8,9-heptachlorinated 0.01
dibenzofuran.......................
octachlorinated dibenzofuran........ 0.0003
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2026-13550 Filed 7-2-26; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P