Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0048-0053
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-02-23T05:00Z

"
Hunt,
Tim
<
Tim_
Hunt@
afandpa
To:
Mary
Kissell/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
.
org>
cc:
Ken
Hustvedt/
RTP/
USEPA/
US@
EPA
Subject:
Wood
MACT
continuous
compliance
10/
28/
2003
10:
43
AM
Mary
Tom,

Based
on
our
earlier
comments
and
discussions
on
the
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Panel
MACT,
AF&
PA
is
providing
you
supplemental
information
concerning
the
issue
of
continuous
compliance.
We
believe
the
issue
can
be
resolved
by
providing
sufficient
averaging
times
and/
or
clearance
to
change
among
compliance
options.
We
hope
this
provides
clarity
to
the
issue
and
reiterates
the
importance
of
addressing
the
concerns
in
the
final
rule.

If
you
have
any
questions,
please
don't
hesitate
to
call.

<<
Continuous
Compliance
10­
28­
03.
doc>>

Timothy
Hunt
Senior
Director,
Air
Quality
Programs
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association
Suite
800
1111
19th
St.,
NW
Washington,
DC
20036
phone:
202­
463­
2588
fax:
202­
463­
2423
Tim_
Hunt@
afandpa.
org
(
See
attached
file:
Continuous
Compliance
10­
28­
03.
doc)
1
10/
28/
03
Importance
of
Providing
For
Continuous
Compliance
Obligations
In
the
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Panel
(
Wood)
MACT
It
is
important
that
EPA
consider
the
impact
of
the
PCWP
(
Wood)
MACT
rule
language
on
the
ability
of
facilities
to
meet
continuous
compliance
obligations
under
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
the
Act).
The
problems
can
be
addressed
by
providing
sufficient
averaging
times
and/
or
clearance
to
change
among
compliance
options.
AF&
PA
submitted
comments
to
EPA
requesting
longer
averaging
periods
and/
or
the
ability
to
switch
between
the
six
add­
on
control
compliance
options.
These
comments
provide
additional
detail
as
to
why
these
requested
changes
are
critical
to
the
industry.

Continuous
Compliance
Obligations
When
the
MACT
requirements
become
incorporated
into
a
Title
V
permit,
the
responsible
official
at
a
facility
must
certify
continuous
compliance
with
the
limitation
with
each
semiannual
compliance
report.
It
will
be
difficult
for
a
responsible
official
to
do
so
under
the
structure
of
the
proposed
rule.

Sections
504(
c)
and
114(
a)(
3)
of
the
Act
require
that
each
permit
contain
terms
and
conditions
that
require
a
responsible
official
to
identify
the
status
of
compliance
and
whether
compliance
for
the
covered
period
is
continuous
or
intermittent.
Furthermore,
40
CFR
70.6(
c)(
5)(
iii)
and
40
CFR
71.6(
c)(
5)(
iii),
spell
out
the
compliance
certification
requirements
for
emission
limitations,
standards,
or
work
practices
in
Title
V
permits.
These
provisions
require
the
semiannual
compliance
certification
by
the
responsible
official
include:

(
c)(
5)(
iii)(
C)
The
status
of
compliance
with
the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
permit
for
the
period
covered
by
the
certification,
including
whether
compliance
during
the
period
was
continuous
or
intermittent.
The
certification
shall
be
based
on
the
method
or
means
designated
in
paragraph
(
c)(
5)(
iii)(
B)
of
this
section.
The
certification
shall
identify
each
deviation
and
take
it
into
account
in
the
compliance
certification.
(
Emphasis
added.)

EPA
further
clarifies
intermittent
compliance
in
the
preamble
to
the
June
27,
2003
revisions
to
40
CFR
70
and
71:

Any
failure
to
meet
the
permit
terms
or
conditions
during
a
period
when
the
permit
required
compliance
would
mean
that
compliance
was
not
continuous,
and
the
responsible
official
must
identify
the
permit
deviation
(
or
possible
exception
to
compliance
in
the
context
of
part
64)
in
the
certification
and
certify
that
compliance
for
the
permit
term
or
condition
(
that
is
the
basis
of
the
certification)
was
intermittent.

The
certifications
are
to
be
based
on
the
results
of
the
compliance
monitoring
required
in
the
permit
and
any
other
evidence
available
to
the
responsible
official.
Monitoring
and
related
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
from
the
PCWP
MACT
rule
will
be
incorporated
into
the
Title
V
permits
and
thus
will
be
part
of
the
record
used
to
certify
that
compliance
was
continuous
or
intermittent.
2
EPA
also
set
an
expectation
of
minimum
requirements
to
determine
compliance
status:

(
c)(
5)(
iii)(
B)
The
identification
of
the
method(
s)
or
other
means
used
by
the
owner
or
operator
for
determining
the
compliance
status
with
each
term
and
condition
during
the
certification
period.
Such
methods
and
other
means
shall
include,
at
a
minimum,
the
methods
and
means
required
under
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
of
this
section,
(
Emphasis
added.)

Paragraph
(
a)(
3)
pertains
to
the
monitoring
and
related
record
keeping
and
reporting
requirements
from
the
MACT
rule
that
would
be
incorporated
into
the
permit.

The
preamble
to
the
June
27,
2003
revisions
to
the
compliance
certification
rule
makes
clear
that
EPA
intended
the
phrase,
"
at
a
minimum,"
in
Paragraph
(
c)(
5)(
iii)(
B)
to
include
consideration
of
evidence
beyond
what
is
specified
in
the
permit:

Responsible
officials
that
used
any
monitoring
method
not
specified
in
the
permit
(
regardless
of
whether
the
monitoring
was
performed
voluntarily,
to
comply
with
a
State
only
requirement,
or
to
track
compliance
with
an
applicable
requirement
that
is
not
yet
addressed
by
the
permit),
would
need
to
identify
the
method(
s),
and
take
the
monitoring
results
into
account
when
determining
the
compliance
status
of
the
term
or
condition
that
is
the
basis
of
the
certification
(
applicable
requirement).
(
Emphasis
added.)

Continuous
compliance
can
be
certified
only
when
there
is
no
evidence
to
the
contrary
and
permit­
required
conditions
are
met:

Absent
evidence
to
the
contrary,
the
responsible
official
for
a
source
that
is
in
compliance
according
to
the
monitoring
results
in
the
permit
may
certify
``
continuous''
compliance,
provided
that
the
responsible
official
did
not
fail
to
monitor,
or
report,
or
collect
the
minimum
data
required
by
the
permit...

We
presume
that
the
"
evidence
to
the
contrary"
would
include
knowledge
the
facility
has
of
any
engineering
or
design
analysis
identifying
that
under
certain
operating
conditions,
the
emission
control
equipment
would
not
be
able
to
meet
the
removal
efficiencies
specified
in
the
permit.
The
draft
rule
would
create
such
situations.

Continuous
compliance
with
destruction
efficiency
requirements
AF&
PA
commented
to
EPA
that
under
certain
production
process
operating
conditions
most
emission
control
equipment
would
not
be
able
to
meet
the
90
percent
control
efficiency
requirements.
For
example,
the
90%
destruction
will
be
difficult
to
maintain
when
VOC
or
HAP
concentrations
are
low
at
the
control
device
inlet
(
e.
g.
when
production
process
conditions
are
such
that
few
HAPs
or
VOCs
are
generated).
Production
process
conditions
that
generate
low
HAP
or
VOC
emissions
can
last
from
a
few
minutes
to
several
days.
Examples
of
these
types
of
conditions
are
given
below.
Despite
the
fact
that
some
operating
conditions
result
in
periods
of
relatively
low
HAP
generation
and
emissions,
the
structure
of
the
current
rule
unfortunately
would
create
a
necessity
to
certify
only
intermittent
compliance.
3
AF&
PA
also
submitted
comments
offering
two
different
approaches
that
would
allow
a
facility
to
maintain
continuous
compliance
with
the
destruction
efficiency
requirements
in
the
proposed
PWCP
MACT.
These
alternatives
are
to
provide
averaging
periods
sufficiently
long
to
accommodate
normal
production
variation,
or
to
allow
facilities
to
switch
among
the
six
VOC/
HAPs
compliance
options.
An
additional
alternative
not
previously
discussed
would
be
to
set
a
lb/
hr
VOC
or
HAP
permit
conditions
based
on
90%
destruction
of
the
maximum
VOC
or
HAP
loading
to
the
control
device
rather
than
include
the
90%
destruction
requirement
in
the
permit.

Although
not
readily
apparent,
AF&
PA
believes
that
the
above
options
for
accommodating
process
variability
are
included
in
the
floor.
The
data
used
to
establish
the
floor
are
based
on
operating
conditions
during
short
tests
that
did
not
include
process
variation.
The
performance
measured
usually
is
representative
of
maximum
operating
rates
that
are
expected
to
produce
the
highest
concentrations
of
VOCs
and
HAPs.
The
floor
data
lack
much
information
on
control
device
destruction
efficiency
for
other
operating
conditions.
Thus
the
control
device
performance
data
used
to
set
the
removal
requirement
are
primarily
indicative
of
short­
term
best
performance
rather
than
long
term
average
performance.

However,
there
is
some
data
in
the
database
that
do
indicate
the
reduction
in
performance
at
low
loading.
These
data
at
low
load
conditions
illustrate
the
reduced
level
of
removal
representative
of
performance
during
intermittent
operating
conditions.
These
conditions
should
be
provided
for
in
the
rule.

We
can
reiterate
our
concerns
with
a
few
examples:

A
facility
with
a
veneer
dryer
must
decide
under
the
draft
rule
which
of
the
six
control
options
it
will
use
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
regulation.
The
facility
knows
that
it
will
need
to
re­
dry
about
10%
of
its
veneer
to
achieve
dryness
specifications.
Redry
will
be
processed
in
the
same
veneer
dryer
used
for
the
initial
drying
for
about
2
hours/
day
in
a
single
run.
The
feed
rate
of
the
veneer
being
re­
dried
will
be
higher
than
green
veneer
and
the
drying
temperature
reduced.
HAPs
and
VOC
emissions
during
re­
drying
are
expected
to
be
very
low
because
of
reduced
time
exposure
to
heat
and
lower
drying
temperatures.
The
VOC
emission
concentration
during
drying
of
green
veneer
is
expected
to
be
500
ppm
as
C.
VOC
emissions
during
re­
drying
are
about
10%
of
green
veneer,
and
at
lower
concentrations,
and
thus
would
be
at
a
concentration
of
less
than
50
ppm
in
the
gas
stream.

The
six
control
device
options
available
to
the
mill
are:
>
90%
removal
of
VOCs,
HOCH,
or
MeOH,
<
1
ppm
HOCH
or
MeOH
when
inlet
concentrations
>
10ppm,
or
<
20
ppm
THC­
C.
According
to
the
draft
rule,
the
mill
can
use
only
one
of
these
options.

During
re­
drying,
the
concentrations
of
methanol
and
formaldehyde
are
expected
to
be
less
than
1
ppm,
so
low
that
the
control
device
removal
efficiency
will
be
close
to
zero
or
negative.
(
In
some
cases,
the
device
will
actually
add
HAPs
to
the
gas
stream.)
Thus,
neither
the
90%
removal
control
options
(
i.
e.,
>
90%
removal
of
VOCs,
HOCH,
or
MeOH),
nor
the
concentration
limit
options
(<
1
ppm
HOCH
or
MeOH
when
inlet
concentrations
>
10ppm)
are
viable
when
processing
re­
dry.
(
Also
note
the
AF&
PA
comments
already
identified
that
the
concentration
4
options
for
<
1
ppm
HOCH
or
MeOH
when
inlet
concentrations
>
10ppm
are
duplicative
of
the
options
for
>
90%
removal
of
HOCH
or
MeOH.)

The
mill
will
be
able
to
meet
the
90%
VOC
reduction
criteria
when
processing
green
veneer
but
will
not
be
able
to
meet
the
destruction
requirement
when
processing
redry.
Control
device
VOC
efficiencies
drop
off
rapidly
at
low
VOC
concentrations.
When
processing
green
veneer,
even
at
a
90%
destruction
efficiency,
the
control
device
will
not
be
able
to
meet
the
<
20
ppm
VOC
option.
However,
it
would
be
able
to
meet
the
<
20
ppm
limit
when
processing
redry
because
the
inlet
VOC
concentrations
will
be
low.

The
only
solution
available
under
the
proposed
rule
is
to
develop
a
permit
with
different
operating
scenarios
for
drying
green
veneer
and
re­
drying
veneer.
Each
operating
scenario
would
use
a
different
control
device
option.
Use
of
these
alternate
operating
scenarios
would
unnecessarily
increase
the
record
keeping
burden
on
the
mill
and
the
agencies.

Other
situations
may
not
be
as
clear
cut.
For
example,
production
slow­
downs
could
have
the
same
impact
on
the
ability
to
meet
VOC
destruction
requirements.
It
would
be
difficult
to
permit
production
slowdowns
as
an
alternate
operating
scenario.
Permitting
multiple
dryers
using
the
same
control
device
would
difficult
to
analyze
and
track.

Another
example
would
be
an
OSB
dryer
that
processes
variable
mixtures
of
hardwoods
and
softwoods.
At
high
production
rates,
HAP
emission
concentrations
would
be
expected
to
be
high
as
a
result
of
higher
dryer
inlet
temperatures,
and
the
facility
could
meet
the
90%
destruction
requirements
for
methanol
or
formaldehyde.
However,
at
low
production
rates,
the
concentration
of
methanol
and
formaldehyde
would
be
reduced,
sometimes
to
very
low
levels,
and
the
facility
would
not
be
able
to
meet
the
90%
methanol
and
formaldehyde
removal
requirement.
When
running
a
high
proportion
of
softwood,
it
could
meet
the
90%
THC
removal
requirement
but
not
the
20
ppm
THC
as
C
limit.
When
drying
hardwoods
at
low
production
rates,
it
could
meet
the
20
ppm
THC
limit,
but
not
the
90%
THC
removal
requirement.
Delineating
boundaries
between
these
operating
conditions
to
derive
identifiable
operating
scenarios
would
be
very
difficult,
if
at
all
possible.
The
only
solution
available
to
this
facility
under
the
current
rule
would
be
either
to
restrict
the
use
of
softwood,
or
specify
a
minimum
softwood
content
to
create
emission
conditions
that
the
control
device
could
continuously
meet
one
or
the
other
THC
compliance
options.

AF&
PA
believes
that
these
problems
could
be
avoided
by
simply
using
long
averaging
periods
for
compliance
with
the
six
control
device
options,
or
allow
use
of
multiple
compliance
options
under
a
single
operating
scenario.

Continuous
compliance
with
production
based
limits.

For
a
mill
to
achieve
continuous
compliance,
averaging
periods
also
need
to
be
specified
for
the
production
based
emission
limits.
For
example,
press
emissions
are
cyclic,
with
a
high
release
each
time
the
press
opens.
If
no
averaging
period
is
specified,
then
the
rule
could
be
interpreted
to
apply
instantaneously
during
a
press
opening.
Although
not
generally
interpreted
this
way,
it
5
leaves
open
the
question
of
continuous
compliance
that
could
easily
be
resolved
if
the
rule
were
more
specific
in
this
instance.