Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0048-0108
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-02-25T05:00Z

2­
240
costs
of
the
rule,
since
it
is
certainly
more
than
one.
Also,
the
reduction
in
emissions
from
attrition
could
provide
a
basis
for
postponing
the
MACT
rule
until
the
economy
improves.

Commenter
IV­
D­
12
also
recommended
that
the
EPA
re­
evaluate
its
analysis
of
the
costs
to
the
industry
using
current
data.
The
economic
impact
analysis
(
EIA)
was
based
on
data
from
1997,
a
good
year
for
the
industry.
If
the
economic
impacts
were
revisited
now,
the
results
of
foreign
imports
and
a
down
market
would
show
more
clearly
why
companies
are
reluctant
to
invest
the
capital
that
would
be
needed
to
comply
with
this
rule.
In
addition,
EPA
should
include
the
costs
of
other
MACT
rules
that
have
recently
been
promulgated
and
those
that
will
be
soon.

Response:
We
acknowledge
that
there
have
been
some
plant
closures
and
new
plant
starts
in
the
PCWP
industry
since
we
conducted
our
economic
impact
analyses
for
the
proposed
PCWP
rule.
Change
to
the
population
of
facilities
is
ongoing
in
most
industries,
and
it
would
be
impossible
for
our
engineering
and
economic
analyses
to
account
for
these
ongoing
changes.
The
engineering
data
used
as
the
basis
for
the
PCWP
rule
were
gathered
through
an
extensive
survey
of
the
PCWP
industry
conducted
in
1998,
and
were
adjusted
to
account
for
plant
closures,
new
plant
starts,
and
ownership
changes
through
April
2000.
The
cost
analysis
and
economic
impact
analysis
are
based
on
mid­
to
late­
1990'
s
data
because
this
reflects
the
engineering
data
used
for
the
MACT
floor
development
process,
and
much
of
this
engineering
data
is
input
to
the
cost
and
economic
impact
analyses.
The
analyses
for
this
rule,
or
any
alternatives
associated
with
this
rule,

should
be
consistent
with
the
engineering
data
in
order
to
allow
for
consistency
in
the
basis
for
all
analyses
associated
with
this
rule.
Any
updating
of
the
economic
data
used
in
this
analysis
without
similar
updating
of
the
engineering
data
would
lead
to
an
"
apples­
to­
oranges"

presentation
of
results,
and
one
that
would
be
inappropriate.
Hence,
the
Agency
will
not
update
its
economic
data
to
place
them
on
a
more
recent
basis.

It
should
be
noted
that
at
proposal,
we
noted
in
our
documentation
that
softwood
plywood
and
hardboard
were
declining
sectors.
Softwood
plywood
is
being
replaced
in
the
market
by
OSB.
Hardboard
has
competition
from
vinyl
siding,
brick,
and
fiber­
cement
siding
(
not
a
PCWP).
Also,
particleboard
has
competition
from
MDF.
Therefore,
it
is
not
surprising
that
there
has
been
a
decrease
in
the
number
of
softwood
plywood
(­
12
plants),
hardboard
(­
3
plants),

and
conventional
particleboard
plants
(­
3
plants
and
+
1
plant).
Hardwood
plywood,
MDF,
OSB,

agriboard
(
particleboard
made
from
agricultural
fiber),
and
engineered
wood
products
are
stable
2­
241
or
growing
sectors.
These
changes
are
not
a
result
of
this
rule;
rather,
these
changes
are
a
result
of
ongoing
trends
in
the
industry
and
are
an
issue
for
baseline
characterization.

2.10.1.4
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
48
argued
that
EPA's
EIA
for
add­
on
controls
is
too
low.
When
the
costs
of
total
press
enclosures
and
particulate
removal
units
are
added,
the
upfront
costs
are
increased
dramatically.
This
estimate
combined
with
the
current
economic
picture
may
have
a
greater
impact
on
small
businesses
than
expected
under
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Fairness
Act
(
SBREFA).

Response:
We
disagree
that
our
costs
estimated
for
add­
on
controls
are
too
low
and
do
not
account
for
press
enclosures
or
PM
controls.
Our
cost
estimates
were
based
on
the
worstcase
assumption
that
emissions
from
all
affected
PCWP
process
units
would
be
controlled
with
RTOs.
We
did
not
account
for
cost­
reduction
measures
such
as
emissions
averaging,
use
of
existing
onsite
combustion
units
for
incineration
of
process
exhaust,
or
compliance
with
the
PBCO.
Capital
costs
of
PTEs
were
included
in
the
costing
analyses.
Annualized
costs
associated
with
PTEs
should
be
minimal
and
were
not
included
in
the
cost
analyses.
We
also
included
WESP
costs
in
the
cost
analyses
for
those
process
units
that
require
a
WESP
upstream
of
an
RTO.
Based
on
our
MACT
survey
data,
it
appeared
that
exhaust
streams
from
rotary
particle
dryers,
tube
dryers,
veneer
dryers,
and
presses
generally
do
not
have
the
high
fine
particulate
or
salt
loadings
that
necessitate
use
of
a
WESP,
and
that
prefiltering
of
exhaust
from
particle
and
tube
dryers
can
be
accomplished
using
lower­
cost
PM
control
devices.
Prefiltering
of
exhaust
from
veneer
dryers
and
presses
is
usually
not
necessary.
Oriented
strandboard
plants
typically
install
WESPs
upstream
of
rotary
dryer
RTOs
to
protect
the
RTO
media
from
plugging.
Thus,

the
capital
and
annualized
costs
associated
with
WESP
were
modeled
for
rotary
strand
dryers,
but
not
for
other
types
of
dryers
or
presses.

2.10.2
Cost­
benefits
analyses
2.10.2.1
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
23
stated
that
in
terms
of
the
health
benefit,
this
rule
is
very
cost­
inefficient.
On
average,
each
facility
will
pay
$
2.1
million
in
capital
costs
and
$
0.6
million
each
year
in
operating
costs
to
avoid
one
case
of
cancer
every
14
years.

Response:
We
are
unable
to
provide
a
comprehensive
quantification
and
monetization
of
the
HAP­
related
benefits
of
the
PCWP
rule
due
to
data
gaps,
limitations
in
model
capabilities
(
such
as
geographic
coverage),
and
uncertainties
in
the
underlying
scientific
and
economic
studies
used
to
configure
the
benefit
and
cost
models.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
PCWP
rule
reflects
the
2­
242
minimum
stringency
allowed
under
the
CAA
because
the
control
requirements
are
based
on
the
MACT
floor
control
level.
We
acknowledge
that
the
PCWP
rule
may
have
high
costs
to
some
affected
facilities,
and
therefore,
we
have
included
a
number
of
compliance
options
in
the
rule
(
i.
e.,
both
percent
reduction
and
outlet
concentration
options
in
terms
of
three
pollutants
for
addon
APCDs,
as
well
as
emissions
averaging
and
PBCO
limits)
to
maximize
flexibility.

2.10.2.2
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
23
noted
that
the
costs
of
this
rule
make
it
likely
that
some
plants
will
shut
down
rather
than
install
the
necessary
controls,
and
there
are
at
least
100
people
per
plant
who
will
lose
their
jobs.
The
commenter
asserted
that
the
health
impact
to
those
100+
people
from
lost
income
and
lost
health
insurance
will
be
far
greater
than
the
0.07
cancers
averted
each
year.

Commenter
IV­
D­
45
argued
that
the
cancer
incidence
calculation
did
not
include
two
key
factors.
First,
EPA
left
out
the
expected
increase
in
cancer
cases
from
the
additional
waste
generated
by
the
HAP
controls
(
e.
g.,
nitrogen
oxides
(
NO
x)),
mercury
in
solid
waste).
Second,

the
effect
of
lost
consumer
surplus
on
consumer
health
was
not
included.
There
is
an
economic
theory
that
$
15
million
can
be
associated
with
one
statistical
death.
In
other
words,
$
15
million
per
person
pays
for
better
medical
care,
better
education
about
health­
related
risks,
healthier
food,

safer
cars
and
neighborhoods,
more
exercise,
and
so
on.
Since
the
social
cost
to
consumers
is
estimated
to
be
$
135
million,
this
rule
could
be
said
to
"
cause"
nine
deaths
per
year
by
limiting
access
to
good
health.

Response:
The
commenter's
assertion
that
the
costs
of
this
rule
will
make
it
likely
that
some
plants
will
shut
down
rather
than
install
necessary
controls
is
not
supported
by
any
analysis
and
hence
it
is
not
possible
for
us
to
determine
if
this
is
an
accurate
estimate.
The
economic
impact
analysis
finds
a
small
overall
loss
in
employment
and
the
loss
of
output
at
a
single
process
line.
Estimates
of
these
impacts
are
based
on
an
incidence
of
costs
to
consumers
as
well
as
consideration
of
direct
costs
to
producers,
and
hence
consider
the
behavior
of
such
economic
agents
in
response
to
these
costs.
Based
on
the
low
price
and
output
changes
from
this
analysis,

we
believe
the
commenter's
assertion
is
not
a
reasonable
expectation
of
what
the
impacts
of
this
rule
will
be.

Regarding
the
commenter's
assertion
that
EPA
left
out
the
expected
increase
in
cancer
cases
from
addtional
NOx
emissions
and
mercury
we
note
that
NOx
is
not
considered
a
2­
243
carcinogen;
hence,
this
is
not
a
disbenefit.
The
economic
theory
of
$
15
million
in
regulatory
costs
is
associated
with
one
statistical
death
is
not
one
that
we
accept.

2.10.2.3
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
45
discussed
various
aspects
of
the
economic
impacts.
In
terms
of
NO
x
pollutants,
the
commenter
criticized
EPA
for
not
estimating
the
monetary
value
of
the
effects
associated
with
the
reduction
of
HAP
versus
the
monetary
value
of
the
effects
associated
with
the
increase
in
NO
x.
Apparently,
EPA
believes
that
the
health
and
environmental
benefits
of
reducing
HAP
would
outweigh
the
health
and
environmental
costs
of
increasing
NO
x,
but
no
decisive
statements
were
found
in
the
proposal.
By
looking
at
other
emission
standards
proposals,
the
commenter
estimates
that
the
total
cost
to
reduce
the
additional
NO
x
would
be
$
90
million/
year
based
on
the
average
cost
per
ton
of
NOx
reduction
for
highway
motorcycles
($
90
million
=
$
13,000/
year
to
reduce
NOx
from
motorcycles
x
6,980
ton/
year
PCWP
NOx
increase).
Commenter
IV­
D­
45
argued
that
EPA's
estimate
of
the
cost
per
ton
of
HAP
removed
is
not
complete.
If
the
cost
to
reduce
NO
x
emissions
from
the
incinerators
and
annual
compliance
costs
are
included,
the
cost
per
ton
of
HAP
increases
from
$
13,000
per
ton
to
$
21,500
per
ton.

The
commenter
noted
that
EPA
attempted
to
determine
the
"
social
cost"
of
the
rule,
but
the
analysis
is
incomplete.
Aside
from
the
non­
HAP
emissions
issue
noted
above,
EPA
neglected
to
consider
the
monetary
value
of
the
positive
and
negative
environmental
effects
on
third
parties,

mainly
citizens.
Consumers
will
shoulder
almost
all
of
the
cost
of
this
rule.
"
Unaffected
facilities"

will
benefit
from
the
supply
reduction
from
the
"
affected
facilities"
in
the
short
run,
but
they
will
have
to
pay
for
monitoring,
recording,
and
upgrades
if
they
are
necessary.
However,
EPA
focuses
very
little
on
the
long­
term
effects.

The
calculations
used
to
determine
the
social
cost
(
partial
equilibrium
analysis)
are
valid
for
the
first
few
years
after
implementation,
but
the
longer
they
are
used,
the
less
accurate
the
results.
There
are
many
economic
questions
about
the
future
of
the
PCWP
NESHAP
that
are
not
answered
satisfactorily
in
the
EIA.
In
addition,
EPA
assumes
that
the
large
companies
that
own
many
of
the
facilities
will
spend
the
capital
necessary
to
install
controls
simply
because
they
have
access
to
it.
The
commenter
argued
that
it
is
more
likely
that
the
companies
may
choose
to
shut
down
or
sell
certain
facilities
rather
than
spend
the
money
if
they
do
not
feel
that
there
would
be
any
return
on
the
investment.
2­
244
Long­
term
effects
on
plywood
consumers
and
producers
are
also
omitted.
For
example,
if
long­
term
investment
decreases,
then
the
supply
deceases
and
the
price
increases,
harming
both
producers
and
consumers.
The
number
of
"
unaffected
facilities"
will
decrease
over
time
as
repairs
become
necessary,
and
substitute
materials
will
eventually
be
available
to
consumers.
However,

very
little
information
regarding
a
useful
long­
term
scenario
is
available
in
the
EIA.

On
a
monetary
basis
alone,
in
order
for
this
rule
to
fairly
compensate
citizens,
the
dollar
benefits
would
have
to
total
$
225
million
annually
 
$
135
million
for
the
losses
as
plywood
consumers
and
$
90
million
for
the
increases
in
NO
x
emissions.

Response:
Since
the
PCWP
rule
is
a
HAP
standard,
not
a
standard
for
reducing
NO
x
emissions,
the
cost
of
reducing
any
NO
x
emissions
generated
as
a
result
of
operating
RTOs
was
not
estimated.
The
Agency
disagrees
with
the
commenter's
calculation
of
$
13,000
average
cost
for
reducing
a
ton
of
NO
x
as
applicable
to
major
sources
affected
by
this
rule.
The
controls
applicable
to
motorcycles,
which
are
the
basis
for
the
estimate
of
$
13,000
per
ton
of
NO
x
control
used
by
the
commenter,
are
quite
different
from
the
controls
applicable
to
sources
at
PCWP
plants.
RTOs
are
not
a
control
that
can
be
applied
to
motorcycles;
and
measures
used
to
reduce
motorcycle
NO
x
emissions
cannot
be
applied
to
PCWP
process
units.
Based
on
this,
the
commenter's
estimate
of
NO
x
control
costs
as
a
basis
for
estimating
other
costs
imposed
by
this
rule
beyond
the
direct
compliance
costs
is
not
valid.
We
also
note
that
not
all
of
the
control
strategies
that
can
be
used
to
comply
with
the
PCWP
rule
result
in
increased
NO
x
emissions
(
e.
g.,

biofilters,
compliance
with
the
PBCO
limits).

We
may
agree
with
the
commenter's
statement
that
our
estimate
of
consumer
surplus
(
to
obtain
the
social
cost
)
is
incomplete
but
this
may
mean
little.
Our
economic
impact
analyses
completed
for
rules
applying
to
specific
industries,
especially
HAP
standards,
often
show
minor
effects
on
those
that
are
not
directly
affected
by
the
rules'
compliance
provisions,
such
as
the
producers
and
their
consumers.
The
methodology
employed
by
EPA/
OAQPS
in
estimating
consumer
(
and
producer)
surplus
changes
has
been
used
in
many
HAP
and
other
standards
for
over
10
years,
and
is
described
in
detail
in
the
OAQPS
Economic
Resource
Manual
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
ecas/
econdata/
Rmanual2/
index.
html).
It
is
our
position
that
the
estimate
of
consumer
surplus
in
the
economic
impact
analysis
provides
an
excellent
approximation
of
the
social
cost
associated
with
this
rule.
2­
245
We
agree
that
the
accuracy
of
the
economic
impact
analysis
does
decline
with
time.
It
should
be
noted,
however,
that
the
economic
analyses
done
for
this
rule
and
HAP
standards
are
"
short­
run"
(
i.
e.,
capital
is
fixed)
because
the
period
for
promulgation
and
full
implementation
is
3
years.
This
differs
greatly
from
the
implementation
time
given
for
various
mobile
source
standards,
including
the
motorcycle
standard
referred
to
by
the
commenter.
Given
this
period
of
time
for
implementation,
a
short­
run
economic
impact
analysis
is
appropriate.
As
the
implementation
times
become
longer,
estimating
economic
impacts
in
the
long­
run
becomes
more
appropriate.
As
to
the
question
on
return
on
investment
from
installing
pollution
control
equipment,
the
economic
impact
analysis
reflects
inputs
such
as
the
costs
and
related
control
equipment
affected
facilities
are
expected
to
install
to
meet
the
HAP
standard.
While
it
is
possible
firms
may
choose
not
to
incur
the
cost
of
control
or
sell
affected
facilities,
it
is
expected
that
the
number
of
firms
that
choose
to
do
this
will
be
minimal
based
on
the
results
of
the
economic
impact
analysis.

While
the
commenter's
statements
about
the
size
of
the
benefits
needed
to
compensate
citizens
may
have
some
validity
(
outside
of
the
$
90
million
needed
to
compensate
for
NOx
emission
increases,
an
amount
we
disagree
with),
it
should
be
noted
that
the
gap
between
the
costs
and
benefits
from
this
rule
does
not
reflect
the
large
number
of
unmonetized
benefits
associated
with
emission
reductions
from
this
rule.
A
list
of
the
unmonetized
benefits
categories
is
found
in
the
Regulatory
Impact
Analysis
for
the
rule,
and
any
comparison
of
benefits
and
costs
should
not
ignore
these
types
of
benefits.

2.10.3
Air
impacts
2.10.3.1
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
27
noted
that
both
the
1996
National
Toxics
Inventory
(
NTI)
and
the
RIA
for
the
PCWP
rule
indicate
that
RTOs
will
only
reduce
HAP
levels
by
0.23
percent
nationwide.
Individually,
the
six
HAP
specifically
regulated
by
the
PCWP
rule
(
acetaldehyde,
acrolein,
formaldehyde,
methanol,
phenol,
and
propionaldehyde)
will
only
be
reduced
by
0.86,
0.58,
0.59,
3.9,
5.8,
and
1.2
percent,
respectively.
Acetaldehyde,
acrolein,
and
formaldehyde
pose
the
greatest
risk
to
human
health,
but
they
will
each
be
reduced
by
less
than
1
percent.
Since
many
factors
will
affect
the
implementation
of
the
PCWP
rule,
EPA
should
consider
environmental
and
economic
costs
of
the
proposal.

Response:
Section
112(
c)
of
the
CAA
required
us
to
list
categories
and
subcategories
of
major
and
area
sources
of
HAP
and
to
establish
NESHAP
for
the
listed
source
categories
and
2­
246
subcategories.
Plywood
and
composite
wood
products
manufacturing
is
one
of
174
source
categories
that
we
originally
listed
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576)
as
industries
requiring
development
of
emission
standards.
(
Note
that
the
source
category
list
has
been
updated
several
times
since
it
was
originally
published,
as
documented
on
February
12,
2002
(
67
FR
6521)).
The
CAA
explicitly
requires
us
to
establish
NESHAP
considering
each
listed
source
category
independently.
The
CAA
does
not
direct
us
to
consider
all
HAP
from
all
industries
when
establishing
NESHAP.
In
fact,
the
CAA
was
amended
in
1990
to
specify
that
standards
must
be
set
for
each
source
category
instead
of
for
each
HAP
across
all
source
categories.
Thus,
the
commenters'
statements
regarding
the
percent
of
HAP
reduced
nationwide
as
a
result
of
the
PCWP
NESHAP
are
not
relevant
to
the
required
factors
EPA
considers
when
setting
NESHAP
under
§
112(
d).
In
addition,
we
question
how
the
commenter
derived
their
estimates
of
the
percent
HAP
reduction
nationwide.
The
11,000
tpy
HAP
emission
reduction
stated
in
the
RIA
represents
an
8
percent
reduction
in
HAP
emissions
when
compared
to
the
sum
of
acetaldehyde,

acrolein,
formaldehyde,
methanol,
phenol,
and
propionaldehyde
emissions
in
the
1996
NTI
for
point
sources.

2.10.3.2
Comment:
Commenters
IV­
D­
02,
IV­
D­
17,
IV­
D­
36,
IV­
D­
38,
IV­
D­
40,
and
IV­
D­
44
questioned
the
idea
of
adding
pollution
controls
that
would
increase
NO
x
emissions,

contributing
to
acid
rain
and
smog;
burn
large
quantities
of
natural
gas;
and
require
more
coalgenerated
electricity,
which
would
in
turn
create
unwanted
air
pollution.
Commenter
IV­
D­
08
stated
that
the
consumption
of
electricity
and
natural
gas
needed
to
run
the
thermal
oxidizers
may
increase
health
risks
and
would
be
environmentally
counterproductive.

Commenters
IV­
D­
08,
IV­
D­
09,
IV­
D­
15,
IV­
D­
39,
IV­
D­
41,
IV­
D­
42,
IV­
D­
53,
and
IV­
D­
57
argued
that
thermal
oxidizers,
EPA's
control
device
of
choice,
emit
large
amounts
of
NO
x,
which
may
increase
health
risks.
Many
of
the
plants
are
located
in
rural
areas
where
ground­
level
ozone
is
not
a
threat.
However,
the
forested
lands
are
significant
sources
of
VOCs,

which
would
combine
with
the
large
amounts
of
NO
x
emitted
by
the
thermal
oxidizers
to
form
ozone.

Commenter
IV­
D­
23
noted
several
disadvantages
of
the
proposed
control
technologies,

including
the
consumption
of
large
amounts
of
natural
gas
and
electricity,
emissions
of
NO
x,
CO,

and
carbon
dioxide
(
CO
2),
and
the
fact
that
they
are
no
more
effective
at
removing
particulate
emissions
than
technologies
that
are
currently
in
place.
The
commenter
argued
that
these
control
2­
247
technologies
will
cause
more
problems
than
they
will
solve,
because
most
panel
plants
that
use
western
softwood
and
those
that
have
particulate
controls
have
low
HAP
emissions.
The
commenter
also
stated
that
NO
x
emissions
associated
with
the
proposed
control
technologies
will
combine
with
the
VOCs
from
the
plants
and
surrounding
forest,
creating
a
ground­
level
ozone
problem
where
one
was
not
previously
present.

Commenter
IV­
D­
19
provided
an
exhibit
entitled
"
Effects
of
Rural
Area
VOC
and
NO
x
emissions
on
Tropospheric
Ozone
Concentration."
The
document
outlines
the
problem
that
NO
x
emissions
from
incineration­
based
controls
cause
in
terms
of
ozone
and
provides
data
for
nine
cases
from
a
Reactive
Plume
Model.
The
authors
conclude
that
the
problem
is
too
complex
to
accurately
model
with
today's
technology
and
EPA
is
making
too
many
assumptions
in
using
these
models
to
determine
appropriate
control
technologies.
The
conflicts
between
wanting
to
reduce
NO
x
emissions
and
using
incineration­
based
controls
to
reduce
HAP
must
be
resolved
before
ground­
level
ozone
can
be
addressed.

Commenter
IV­
D­
27
pointed
out
that
although
the
PCWP
rule
will
reduce
HAP
emissions
by
9,000
tpy
and
THC
emissions
by
28,000
tpy,
it
will
increase
emissions
of
SO
2
by
35,200
tpy,

NO
x
by
9,300
tpy,
and
CO
2
by
3,241,000
tpy.
These
estimates
are
based
on
the
commenter's
life
cycle
inventory
(
included
as
Attachment
A
to
comment
IV­
D­
27),
with
an
adjustment
to
exclude
currently
controlled
units
and
an
assumption
that
RTOs
will
be
placed
on
all
industry
dryers
and
presses
proposed
for
control.

Commenter
IV­
D­
34
argued
there
is
little
justification
for
consuming
the
large
amount
of
natural
gas
that
would
be
required
to
run
the
incinerators
required
by
this
rule.
The
environmental
effects
of
destroying
the
HAP
are
minimal
according
to
EPA,
and
the
amount
of
NO
x
and
CO
2
produced
by
the
incinerators
will
be
significant,
contributing
to
ground­
level
ozone.

The
commenter
requested
that
EPA
look
at
the
green
house
gas
situation
as
part
of
the
big
picture
and
not
a
"
necessary
evil."

Commenter
IV­
D­
45
stated
that
using
HAP
removal
as
the
only
indicator
of
emission
control
performance
completely
ignores
the
effects
of
NO
x,
SO
2,
and
other
non­
HAP
emissions.

In
determining
the
"
best"
12
percent
of
the
control
technologies,
increases
and
decreases
in
all
pollutants
should
be
taken
into
account.
On
a
similar
note,
the
commenter
stated
that
the
"
law
of
increasing
costs"
says
that
removing
the
last
few
units
of
HAP
in
a
waste
stream
will
create
a
disproportionate
amount
of
non­
HAP
emissions
 
higher
temperatures
will
be
needed
to
2­
248
incinerate
the
last
bits
of
HAP,
creating
more
combustion
byproducts
 
so
EPA
should
not
be
so
concerned
with
those
last
units.

Commenter
IV­
D­
45
noted
that
EPA
plans
to
implement
emission
standards
for
highway
motorcycles
to
reduce
NO
x
beginning
in
2010.
However,
the
estimated
NO
x
emissions
from
the
PCWP
pollution
controls
will
exceed
the
reduction
from
motorcycles
by
seven
times
in
2010,
and
they
will
cancel
each
other
out
starting
in
2020.
These
actions
contradict
each
other
in
terms
of
EPA's
stance
on
the
effects
of
NO
x
emissions.
In
addition,
NO
x
increases
could
cause
ozone
increases
in
areas
that
are
already
having
trouble
complying
with
ozone
standards.

Response:
(
See
also
response
to
comment
No.
2.5.1.1.)
Table
2­
9
presents
our
estimates
of
the
onsite
criteria
pollutant
and
secondary
air
impacts
associated
with
the
PCWP
rule.
Our
estimates
of
the
nationwide
effects
of
the
PCWP
rule
on
criteria
pollutant
emissions
that
occur
onsite
at
PCWP
plants
included
the
NOx
increase,
change
in
CO,
and
PM
10
decrease
associated
with
installation
of
RTO's
on
process
units
without
MACT
controls.
The
offsite
secondary
air
impacts
presented
in
Table
2­
9
are
the
criteria
pollutant
impacts
associated
with
the
offsite
electricity
generation
needed
to
power
the
RTO's
assumed
to
be
installed
on
process
units
without
MACT
controls.
Our
air
impact
estimates
indicate
that
the
PCWP
rule
will
result
in
an
overall
increase
in
nationwide
NO
x
and
SO
2
emissions
and
a
decrease
in
nationwide
CO
and
PM
10
emissions
from
the
PCWP
processes
controlled
and
electricity
generated
to
power
the
control
devices.
31
Table
2­
9.
Summary
of
Non­
HAP
Air
Impacts
Pollutant
Criteria
pollutant
air
impacts
(
onsite),
ton/
yr
Secondary
air
impacts
(
associated
with
offsite
electricity
generation),
ton/
yr
Total
air
impacts,
ton/
yr
NO
x
2,400
500
­
2,200
2,900
­
6,600
CO
(
10,800)
70
­
300
(
10,700)
­
(
10,500)

PM
10
(
12,700)
30
­
110
(
12,700)
­
(
12,600)

SO
2
NA
2
­
4,500
2
­
4,500
Negative
numbers,
which
represent
emission
reductions,
are
in
parentheses.
Numbers
not
in
parentheses
represent
emissions
increases.
Range
in
secondary
air
impacts
reflects
values
calculated
assuming
utility
plants
burn
either
natural
gas
(
low
end
of
range
for
NOx,
PM10,
and
SO2;
high
end
of
range
for
CO)
or
coal.
2­
249
Our
non­
HAP
air
impact
estimates
were
based
on
the
worst­
case
assumption
that
all
facilities
with
process
units
requiring
MACT
controls
would
use
an
RTO
to
meet
the
MACT
standards.
We
did
not
account
for
controls
with
lesser
secondary
air
impacts
(
e.
g.,
biofilters,

RCO,
incineration
in
an
onsite
combustion
unit),
nor
did
we
account
for
the
lesser
air
impacts
associated
with
use
of
the
emissions
averaging
and
PBCO
compliance
options
in
the
PCWP
rule.

All
APCDs
require
electricity
to
operate.
However,
biofilters
do
not
require
fuel
combustion
and
do
not
generate
NO
x.
Burning
of
any
fuel,
including
natural
gas,
results
in
NO
x
emissions.

Regenerative
catalytic
oxidizers
operate
at
lower
temperatures
than
do
RTOs,
and
therefore
require
less
natural
gas
and
generate
less
NO
x.
Incineration
of
process
exhausts
in
an
onsite
combustion
unit
requires
even
less
fuel
and
generates
less
NO
x.
We
also
note
that
we
estimated
the
secondary
air
emissions
(
e.
g.,
NO
x,
CO,
PM
10,
SO
2)
associated
with
offsite
electricity
production
based
on
the
worst­
case
assumption
that
electricity
is
generated
by
coal­
fired
utility
plants.
2
Many
utilities
use
cleaner­
burning
fuels
such
as
natural
gas.
Therefore,
to
better
reflect
the
range
of
fuels
used
for
U.
S.
electricity
generation,
we
calculated
a
second
set
of
estimates
for
utilities
burning
natural
gas.
Thus,
the
secondary
air
impacts
shown
in
Table
2­
9
are
presented
as
a
range.

The
NO
x
increase
across
RTOs
that
we
estimated
prior
to
proposal
was
an
overestimate.

At
proposal,
we
based
our
estimate
of
RTO
NO
x
emissions
on
the
high­
end
of
the
NO
x
increases
across
RTOs
reported
in
APCD
vendor
literature
(
i.
e.,
a
10
ppm
NO
x
increase).
New,
more
fully
documented
emissions
test
data
recently
submitted
by
the
PCWP
industry
shows
that
the
NO
x
increase
across
RTOs
is

5
ppm,
one
half
of
the
NO
x
increase
predicted
at
proposal.
22
Therefore,

our
final
estimate
of
the
NO
x
increase
across
RTOs
is
reduced
from
about
4,800
tpy
(
estimated
at
proposal)
to
2,400
tpy.
We
estimate
that
this
increase
in
NO
x
emissions
associated
with
RTO
use
represents
no
more
than
a
10
percent
increase
in
baseline
NO
x
emissions
from
PCWP
major
sources.
31
By
combusting
process
exhaust,
RTOs
can
either
generate
or
destroy
emissions
of
CO
depending
on
the
amount
of
CO
entering
the
RTO
from
the
process
unit
controlled
(
i.
e.,
inlet
CO
varies
for
direct­
fired
versus
indirect­
fired
process
units).
The
nationwide
change
(
net
reduction)

in
onsite
CO
emissions
associated
with
the
PCWP
rule
was
calculated
as
the
total
of
the
CO
increases
and
reductions
for
all
process
units
needing
controls.
2
The
onsite
decrease
in
CO
2­
250
emissions
at
PCWP
facilities
far
outweighs
the
increase
in
CO
resulting
from
offsite
electricity
production.
Similarly,
the
decrease
in
PM
10
emissions
at
PCWP
facilities
more
than
offsets
the
increase
in
PM
10
emissions
associated
with
electricity
production.

Onsite
emissions
of
SO
2
are
not
prevalent
and
are
not
expected
to
change
greatly
as
a
result
of
the
PCWP
standards
because
RTOs
do
not
destroy
or
alter
SO
2
emitted
from
PCWP
process
units,
and
RTOs
are
not
suspected
of
generating
appreciable
amounts
of
SO
2
(
because
there
is
little,
if
any,
sulfur
in
the
process
exhaust
or
in
the
natural
gas
burned
by
the
RTO).
2
The
overall
nationwide
increase
in
SO
2
emissions
is
associated
with
electricity
generation.

Our
estimates
of
the
air
impacts
differ
substantially
from
those
provided
by
commenter
IV­
D­
27.
In
addition
to
the
criteria
pollutant
and
secondary
air
impact
estimates
presented
in
Table
2­
9
above,
we
estimated
that
the
proposed
standards
would
reduce
total
HAP
emissions
from
the
PCWP
source
category
by
about
11,000
tpy
from
a
baseline
of
19,000
tpy.
We
estimated
that
the
proposed
standards
would
reduce
VOC
emissions
(
approximated
as
THC)
by
about
27,000
tpy
from
a
baseline
level
of
50,000
tpy.
Our
estimates
differ
from
the
estimates
provided
by
commenter
IV­
D­
27
because
the
commenter
used
a
life
cycle
approach
to
arrive
at
their
estimates.
The
life
cycle
approach
used
by
the
commenter
included
air
impacts
associated
with
offsite
processes
such
as
extraction,
transport,
and
processing
of
fuels
and
ceramic
media
manufacturing.
As
discussed
later
in
section
2.10.6,
we
do
not
have
the
information
necessary
to
confirm
or
refute
the
commenter's
life
cycle
calculations.
The
EPA
generally
does
not
consider
offsite
impacts
other
than
emissions
associated
with
electricity
generation
when
developing
NESHAP
impact
estimates.
Furthermore,
our
air
impacts
analysis
focused
on
criteria
air
pollutants,
and
therefore,
CO
2
was
not
included
in
our
analyses.

As
stated
previously
(
see
response
to
comment
No.
2.10.1.2),
the
CAA
does
not
give
us
the
discretion
to
consider
non­
HAP
air
impacts
or
energy
use
at
the
MACT
floor
control
level.

However,
§
112(
d)(
2)
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
consider
cost,
non­
air
quality
health
impacts,

environmental
impacts,
and
energy
requirements
when
reviewing
beyond­
the­
floor
control
options.
We
acknowledge
the
commenters'
concerns
regarding
the
non­
HAP
air
impacts
and
energy
use
associated
with
incineration­
based
controls
(
e.
g.,
RTOs),
although
we
believe
the
commenters'
assertions
regarding
non­
HAP
air
impacts
are
overstated.
We
share
the
commenters'
concerns
regarding
the
combination
of
NO
x
emissions
with
VOC
emissions
to
form
ozone.
We
determined
that
beyond­
the­
floor
control
measures
would
not
be
appropriate
for
most
2­
251
PCWP
process
units.
Although
our
impact
calculations
are
based
on
the
worst­
case
assumption
that
facilities
would
install
RTOs,
we
are
not
mandating
the
use
of
RTOs.
Other
MACT
floor
control
technologies
with
lesser
secondary
air
impacts
and
energy
needs
than
RTOs
have
the
ability
to
meet
the
PCWP
rule,
including
biofilters,
RCOs,
and
incineration
in
an
onsite
combustion
unit.
For
the
final
PCWP
rule,
we
have
attempted
to
make
control
options
such
as
biofiltration
and
incineration
of
process
exhaust
in
an
onsite
combustion
unit
more
attractive
options
by
reducing
the
monitoring
requirements
for
these
control
technologies
(
see
sections
2.7.12
and
2.7.13
for
details).
Furthermore,
the
PCWP
rule
contains
emissions
averaging
and
PBCO
compliance
options.
Through
emissions
averaging,
facilities
can
choose
to
treat
lower
volume,
higher
concentration
emission
streams
to
minimize
costs,
conserve
energy,
and
reduce
secondary
air
impacts.
Facilities
with
low­
HAP­
emitting
process
units
(
such
as
those
at
plants
processing
western
softwood
mentioned
by
commented
IV­
D­
23)
may
be
able
to
meet
the
PBCO
without
using
an
add­
on
APCD;
therefore,
there
are
no
add­
on
APCD
secondary
impacts
or
energy
requirements
associated
with
the
PBCO
compliance
option.

We
note
that
the
PCWP
rule
applies
to
major
sources
of
HAP
emissions
(
i.
e.,
facilities
with
annual
emissions
equaling
or
exceeding
10
tons
of
any
one
HAP
or
25
tons
of
a
combination
of
HAP),
and
therefore,
HAP
emissions
from
PCWP
facilities
affected
by
the
rule
are
significant.

We
recognize
the
point
by
commenter
IV­
D­
45
regarding
the
cost
associated
with
incinerating
the
last
bits
of
HAP.
We
elected
to
establish
the
MACT
floor
at
90
percent
emission
reduction
for
both
new
and
existing
sources
to
allow
for
inherent
variability
in
the
performance
of
APCDs
over
time.
Industry
data
recently
submitted
show
that
incremental
increases
in
thermal
oxidizer
temperature
above
the
normal
operating
range
had
little
effect
on
HAP
reduction.
22
We
are
not
requiring
exceptionally
high
thermal
oxidizer
operating
temperatures,
and
unlike
some
other
NESHAP,
we
are
not
requiring
98
or
99
percent
removal
efficiencies,
because
the
data
available
to
us
do
not
support
requiring
such
efficiencies.

2.10.4
Water
impacts
2.10.4.1
Comment:
Commenters
IV­
D­
02,
IV­
D­
17,
IV­
D­
27,
IV­
D­
36,
IV­
D­
38,

IVD
44,
and
IV­
D­
40
voiced
concerns
that
additional
wastewater
will
be
created
from
cleaning
the
oxidizer
beds
of
thermal
oxidizers.
Commenter
IV­
D­
27
provided
several
examples
of
how
existing
PCWP
facilities
are
handling
wastewater
and
charged
that
EPA
vastly
underestimated
the
implications
of
the
wastewater
issue.
The
commenter
noted
that
EPA
estimated
that
additional
2­
252
wastewater
generated
from
WESP
blowdown
and
RTO
washouts
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
NESHAP
would
be
about
11
million
gallons
per
year.
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
assumptions
that
RTOs
would
only
have
to
be
washed
down
once
or
twice
a
year
and
that
the
blowdown
from
a
WESP
is
only
1
gallon
per
minute
(
gpm)
are
inaccurate,
and
they
appear
to
reflect
vendor
optimism
rather
than
real­
world
experience.
The
commenter
attached
(
see
Attachment
K
to
IV­
D­
27)
data
from
10
OSB
mills
with
RTOs
and/
or
WESPs,
which
show
that
the
average
blowdown
from
those
WESPs
is
almost
12,000
gallons
per
day
(
over
8
gpm).
The
attachment
contains
a
table
showing
that
operation
of
these
RTOs
(
preceded
by
an
efficient
particulate
control
device)
generate
on
average
almost
30,000
gallons
per
year
of
wastewater.

NCASI
Technical
Bulletin
850
(
Attachment
O
to
IV­
D­
27)
shows
that
much
more
frequent
washouts
than
EPA
assumed
are
the
rule,
with
15
or
more
washouts
a
year
in
some
cases.

Commenter
IV­
D­
27
stated
that
their
examples
suggest
that
an
affected
facility
that
does
not
have
the
option
of
evaporating
blowdown
in
a
heated
log
conditioning
pond
or
disposing
of
it
in
a
spray
irrigation
system
could
be
forced
to
send
millions
of
gallons
a
year
of
additional
wastewater
offsite.
The
increased
costs
(
transportation
costs
plus
disposal
fee)
for
handling
these
large
volumes
of
new
wastewater
could
easily
run
into
the
hundreds
of
thousands
of
dollars
per
year
for
a
single
facility.

The
commenter
stated
that
EPA
should
not
ignore
the
substantial
air
quality
and
energy
implications
of
one
of
its
suggested
alternatives
for
managing
this
wastewater,
incineration
in
onsite
boilers
(
or
evaporating
wastewater
in
process
dryers).
Evaporating
tens
of
millions
of
gallons
of
wastewater
per
year
would
require
large
amounts
of
additional
fuel
combustion,

generating
additional
air
pollution
and
using
up
limited
energy
resources.

Response:
We
understand
that
RTOs
are
routinely
cleaned
to
remove
particulate
buildup
through
periodic
bakeouts
or
washing
out
of
the
RTO
beds.
Wastewater
is
generated
as
a
result
of
washing
out
RTOs.
Wastewater
is
also
generated
by
WESPs
which
often
precede
RTOs
to
protect
the
RTOs
from
plugging
with
particulate.
At
proposal,
we
estimated
the
wastewater
impacts
associated
with
RTO
washouts
and
WESP
use
for
those
facilities
that
would
likely
install
these
control
technologies.
2
We
based
our
wastewater
estimates
largely
on
information
provided
by
PCWP
facilities
in
their
MACT
survey
responses.
We
also
used
some
vendor
information
in
developing
the
wastewater
impact
estimates.
Responses
to
the
MACT
survey
regarding
frequency
of
RTO
washouts
indicated
that
RTO
washouts
are
performed
monthly
to
annually.
2­
253
The
MACT
survey
responses
also
included
facilities'
estimates
of
the
amount
of
wastewater
generated
per
year
(
gal/
yr)
as
a
result
of
RTO
washouts,
and
these
values
ranged
from
5,000
to
60,000
gal/
yr
(
for
all
washouts
that
occurred
during
the
year).
Our
estimates
of
the
wastewater
impacts
associated
with
washing
out
RTOs
were
based
on
the
average
annual
volume
of
wastewater
generated
(
as
reported
in
the
MACT
survey),
not
on
the
frequency
of
washouts.

Thus,
we
did
not
assume
that
RTOs
would
only
have
to
be
washed
down
once
or
twice
a
year
as
the
commenter
asserts.
We
agree
with
the
commenter
that
new
information
seems
to
show
more
frequent
washouts
than
our
MACT
survey
data
indicate;
in
fact,
the
MACT
survey
responses
for
some
of
the
same
facilities
discussed
in
Attachment
K
indicated
fewer
washouts
and
less
wastewater
generation
than
is
summarized
in
Attachment
K.
The
commenter
did
not
provide
any
explanation
for
this
difference.
Table
2­
10
presents
the
annual
wastewater
generation
rates
used
in
estimating
the
proposed
wastewater
impacts
associated
with
washing
out
RTOs.
Note
that
the
value
we
used
for
OSB
dryers
is
higher
than
the
30,000
gal/
yr
presented
in
Attachment
K
of
IV­
D­
27.

Table
2­
10.
Annual
Wastewater
Generation
Rates
for
RTO
Washouts2
Process
unit
Annual
RTO
washwater
generated,
gal/
yr
Rotary
dryers
(
particle
or
strand)
39,000
Particleboard
and
OSB
presses
15,000
Multiple
hardboard
process
units
21,000
Average
from
all
MACT
survey
responses
that
included
information
for
RTO
washwater
volume
32,000
To
approximate
the
annual
amount
of
wastewater
generated
during
washing
out
of
RTOs,
we
assumed
that
washouts
would
be
performed
on
all
RTOs
(
a
seemingly
conservative
estimate
given
that
survey
data
indicated
that
some
facilities
perform
bakeouts
instead
of
washouts).

Although
we
did
use
a
vendor
estimate
of
1
gpm
in
estimating
the
volume
of
WESP
blowdown
per
year,
we
note
that
this
value
is
not
outside
of
the
range
of
blowdown
rates
reported
in
the
MACT
survey
responses
(
which
had
a
median
of
4
gpm
and
many
values
in
the
1
to
2
gpm
range)
for
individual
WESPs.
We
reviewed
closely
the
data
in
Attachment
K
to
2­
254
comment
IV­
D­
27
in
determining
whether
to
revise
our
estimated
WESP
blowdown
rate.
We
noted
that
the
data
presented
in
Attachment
K
for
the
WESPs
at
the
ten
OSB
mills
are
for
multiple
WESPs
(
as
opposed
to
individual
WESPs),
and
therefore,
had
a
higher
blowdown
rate
averaging
8
gpm.
When
considered
on
an
individual
WESP
basis,
the
blowdown
rates
for
the
WESPs
ranged
from
1
to
8
gpm,
and
averaged
3
gpm.
Thus,
based
on
the
data
in
Attachment
K,

we
have
revised
our
WESP
wastewater
estimates
using
a
4
gpm
blowdown
rate
based
on
the
median
of
the
blowdown
rates
reported
in
the
MACT
survey
responses.

The
wastewater
disposal
options
mentioned
in
the
proposal
preamble
(
e.
g.,
municipal
treatment
facility,
evaporation,
reuse
in
process,
spray
irrigation)
were
based
on
responses
to
the
MACT
survey.
We
agree
that
each
facility
will
have
different
options
for
disposing
of
wastewater,
and
that
all
of
the
options
mentioned
in
the
preamble
may
not
be
available
or
practical
for
every
facility.
We
acknowledge
that
incineration
in
onsite
boilers
or
evaporation
in
dryers
are
not
preferred
wastewater
disposal
techniques.
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
commenter
that
considerably
more
data
and
information
will
be
necessary
to
adequately
characterize
for
those
facilities
covered
by
both
the
air
and
water
rules
the
quantity
and
quality
of
wastewater
that
would
be
generated
as
result
of
compliance
with
the
MACT
standards.
The
volume
and
pollutant
content
of
wastewater
generated
at
these
facilities
are
related
to
the
production
processes,
the
air
pollution
control
equipment,
the
extent
of
opportunities
for
internal
recycling
of
wastewater,
and
the
availability
of
other
process
uses
for
wastewater.
For
these
reasons,
we
are
amending
the
applicability
of
the
effluent
limitations
guidelines
at
part
429,
subparts
C,
D,
and
M,
such
that
individual
facilities
seeking
a
discharge
permit
will
have
the
opportunity,
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,

to
characterize
and
obtain
discharge
allowances
for
their
wastewaters
from
APCDs
installed
to
comply
with
the
PCWP
NESHAP.
The
permit
writer
would
be
expected
to
determine
based
upon
best
professional
judgment
(
BPJ)
the
appropriate
effluent
limitations
for
these
APCD
wastewaters
(
see
40
CFR
§
125.3).
The
permit
writer
can
take
into
account
facility­
specific
information
on
wastewater
volumes
and
pollutants,
available
wastewater
control
and
treatment
technologies,

costs
and
effluent
reduction
benefits,
receiving
water
quality,
and
any
applicable
state
water
quality
standards.
At
a
later
date,
as
a
part
of
our
planning
process
under
section
304(
m)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
we
will
consider
amending
the
existing
effluent
limitations
guidelines
for
the
Timber
Processing
Industry
to
establish
categorical
effluent
limitations
for
these
APCD
wastewaters.
2­
255
Disposal
practices
and
costs
vary
from
facility
to
facility,
and
each
facility
must
choose
the
wastewater
disposal
method
that
is
most
effective
for
their
needs.
Many
facilities
with
MACT
controls
have
found
methods
for
disposing
of
wastewater.
Facilities
must
also
make
careful
decisions
regarding
whether
to
install
a
wet
control
device
(
e.
g.,
WESP)
or
dry
control
device
(
e.
g.,
multiclone)
upstream
of
an
RTO,
and
regarding
whether
to
perform
bakeouts
or
washouts
of
RTOs
to
remove
particulate
buildup.
The
final
PCWP
rule
contains
multiple
compliance
options,
whereby
facilities
may
also
have
options
other
than
installation
of
an
RTO
on
process
units
that
would
cause
the
RTO
to
be
washed
out
frequently
(
e.
g.,
PBCOs,
emissions
averaging).

As
discussed
in
response
to
comment
2.3.2.2,
we
requested
information
on
potential
HAP
emissions
from
wastewater
operations
at
PCWP
plants
in
our
MACT
general
survey,
but
the
results
we
received
did
not
indicate
the
existence
of
a
MACT
floor
level
reflecting
emissions
reduction.
Therefore,
there
are
no
requirements
for
reduction
of
HAP
from
wastewater
operations
in
the
final
PCWP
rule.
To
the
extent
possible,
facilities
should
handle
and
treat
wastewater
to
minimize
air
emissions
(
e.
g.,
by
holding
the
wastewater
in
enclosed
systems).
We
have
also
added
a
requirement
to
the
rule
that
facilities
using
wet
control
devices
as
the
sole
means
of
reducing
HAP
emissions
must
develop
and
submit
a
plan
to
address
how
organic
HAP
captured
in
the
wastewater
from
the
wet
control
device
is
contained
or
destroyed
to
prevent
re­
release
to
the
atmosphere.
Any
air
emissions
from
wastewater
operations
at
PCWP
facilities
should
be
included
in
each
facility's
potential
to
emit
calculations.
We
will
revisit
our
MACT
determination
of
no
emissions
reduction
for
PCWP
wastewater
operations
when
we
review
residual
risk
for
the
PCWP
source
category
8
years
after
promulgation
of
the
final
PCWP
rule.

2.10.4.2
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
45
noted
that
the
proposed
incineration­
based
controls
will
increase
wastewater
by
11
million
gallons
per
year
and
solid
waste
by
about
5,000
tons
per
year,
including
84
pounds
of
mercury.
The
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
look
at
more
than
just
the
elimination
of
HAP
to
decide
on
the
best
pollution
controls.

Response:
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
us
to
base
the
MACT
floor
on
the
maximum
degree
of
reduction
of
HAP
emissions
that
is
achievable,
without
consideration
of
wastewater
generation
or
solid
waste
impacts.
We
have
the
discretion
to
consider
cost,
non­
air­
quality
health
impacts,
environmental
(
wastewater
and
solid
waste)
impacts,
and
energy
requirements
when
reviewing
beyond­
the­
floor
control
options.
We
elected
not
to
require
any
control
options
beyond
the
MACT
floor
in
the
final
PCWP
rule.
2­
256
We
estimated
at
proposal
that
wastewater
impacts
of
11
million
gal/
yr
and
solid
waste
impacts
of
5,000
tons/
yr
would
result
from
the
PCWP
rule.
The
estimate
of
84
pounds
of
mercury
to
which
the
commenter
refers
is
included
in
the
life
cycle
analysis
submitted
as
Attachment
A
to
comment
IV­
D­
27.
This
estimate
of
mercury
emissions
is
largely
influenced
by
offsite
power
plant
emissions,
which
are
being
regulated
separately
from
this
PCWP
rulemaking.

2.10.5
Energy
impacts
2.10.5.1
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
15
stated
that
the
consumption
of
electricity
and
natural
gas
needed
to
run
the
thermal
oxidizers
conflicts
with
national
energy
policy.

Commenter
IV­
D­
47
noted
that
natural
gas
becomes
more
rare
in
the
northwest
in
the
winter
months.
Even
now,
some
of
the
plants
that
rely
on
natural
gas
for
fuel
temporarily
shut
down
for
the
winter
months
because
they
cannot
afford
to
pay
for
the
gas.
There
is
not
likely
to
be
enough
natural
gas
to
power
pollution
control
devices
as
well
as
entire
plants.

Commenter
IV­
D­
27
stated
that
as
a
result
of
the
rule,
total
energy
consumption
is
expected
to
increase
by
approximately
50
trillion
Btu
per
year.
According
to
1997
data
published
by
the
U.
S.
Department
of
Energy,
that
is
the
amount
of
energy
used
by
500,000
homes
annually.

In
addition,
natural
gas
consumption
is
expected
to
increase
by
an
additional
22
billion
cubic
feet
per
year
and
total
electrical
consumption
is
expected
to
increase
by
approximately
1,470
million
kilowatt
hours
(
kWh)
of
purchased
power.
Commenter
IV­
D­
27
stated
that
facilities
would
have
to
enter
into
contracts
for
noncurtailable
gas
to
ensure
continuous
availability
of
natural
gas
supply
for
RTOs.
Such
contracts
typically
charge
a
significant
premium
for
firm
gas
of
$
0.75
 
$
1.75
per
MMBtu
over
curtailable
gas
at
today's
market
prices.
The
commenter
noted
that
use
of
natural
gas
at
an
RTO
requires
infrastructure
to
support
the
gas
transmission,
which
often
is
not
available
in
the
rural
areas
where
wood
products
facilities
are
primarily
located.

Facilities
that
do
not
have
nearby
natural
gas
pipelines
either
would
be
required
to
construct
miles
of
pipeline
or,
in
the
alternative,
construct
large,
onsite
propane
storage
tanks
to
hold
the
fuel
to
run
the
RTO.
One
existing
facility,
for
example,
is
located
100
miles
from
the
natural
gas
terminal
over
rocky,
mountainous
terrain,
and
the
main
high
pressure
line
from
that
facility
is
already
near
capacity.
When
the
facility
inquired
about
obtaining
additional
natural
gas
in
light
of
EPA's
proposed
rule,
the
natural
gas
company
refused
even
to
consider
the
possibility
of
serving
the
facility
for
fear
that
the
increased
gas
demands
necessitated
by
the
proposal
would
overwhelm
the
line's
existing
capacity
and
delay
smaller
projects
that
had
already
been
approved.
The
2­
257
commenter
stated
that
natural
gas
supplies
are
obviously
limited,
and
industrial
uses
are
given
lower
priority
than
residential
uses
during
times
of
supply
shortfalls.
The
commenter
noted
that
mandating
the
industry­
wide
use
of
gas­
powered
RTOs
would
oppose
the
U.
S.
energy
policy
of
maintaining
sufficient
supplies
of
natural
gas
for
the
stability
and
reliability
of
the
national
energy
supply.
It
would
also
create
undue
competition
with
more
important
uses
of
natural
gas,
such
as
the
heating
of
homes
and
as
a
component
of
basic
chemical
manufacturing,
which
likely
would
cause
the
price
of
natural
gas
to
increase
across
the
board.

Response:
Our
worst­
case
estimates
of
the
overall
energy
demand
(
i.
e.,
electricity
and
natural
gas)
expected
as
a
result
of
promulgation
of
the
PCWP
rule
are
much
lower
than
the
estimates
presented
by
commenter
IV­
D­
27.
We
estimated
that
the
overall
energy
demand
would
increase
by
about
4.1
trillion
Btu/
yr
nationwide
(
compared
to
50
trillion
BTU
estimated
by
the
commenter).
We
estimated
that
electricity
requirements
could
increase
by
about
718
million
kWh/
yr
(
roughly
one
half
of
the
commenter's
estimate
of
1,470
kWh/
yr).
We
estimated
that
natural
gas
requirements
could
increase
by
about
1.6
billion
ft3/
yr
(
less
than
one
tenth
of
the
commenter's
estimate
of
22
billion
ft3/
yr).
Using
1998
Department
of
Energy
statistics
we
estimate
that
the
increased
energy
consumption
associated
with
the
PCWP
rule
will
be
less
than
a
2
percent
increase
in
the
baseline
energy
use
by
the
PCWP
industry.
31
Our
energy
estimates
represent
a
worst­
case
because
we
based
our
estimates
on
the
assumption
that
all
plants
with
uncontrolled
process
units
subject
to
the
rule
would
install
an
RTO
to
meet
the
rule.
However,

other
control
measures
that
consume
less
energy
such
as
RCOs,
biofilters,
and
incineration
of
process
exhausts
in
an
onsite
combustion
unit
will
meet
the
add­
on
APCD
compliance
options
in
final
PCWP
rule.
In
addition
to
the
add­
on
APCD
compliance
options,
the
final
PCWP
rule
also
contains
emissions
averaging
and
PBEL
compliance
options;
implementation
of
those
compliance
options
will
reduce
the
volume
of
emissions
to
be
treated
nationwide,
which
will
reduce
energy
consumption.
Therefore,
we
believe
our
estimated
energy
impacts
are
overstated.
Each
plant
must
choose
the
emission
reduction
technique
that
will
work
best
for
their
site­
specific
conditions,

considering
factors
such
as
availability
and
price
of
natural
gas.
We
are
not
mandating
industrywide
use
of
gas­
powered
RTOs.

We
disagree
that
the
PCWP
rule
is
in
conflict
with
national
energy
policy.
As
documented
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
we
performed
an
energy
analysis
in
response
to
Executive
Order
13211,
"
Actions
Concerning
Regulations
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
2­
258
Distribution,
or
Use"
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001).
Executive
Order
13211
provides
that
agencies
shall
prepare
and
submit
to
the
Administrator
of
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
a
Statement
of
Energy
Effects
for
certain
actions
identified
as
"
significant
energy
actions."
We
determined
that
the
PCWP
rule
is
not
a
"
significant
energy
action"
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
The
PCWP
industry
does
not
produce
crude
oil,
fuel,
or
coal,
and
therefore,
there
is
no
direct
effect
on
such
energy
production
related
to
implementation
of
the
PCWP
rule.
The
increase
in
energy
consumption
associated
with
the
PCWP
rule
is
equivalent
to
0.012
percent
of
1998
U.
S.
electricity
production
and
0.000001
percent
of
1998
U.
S.
natural
gas
production.
Therefore,
we
concluded
that
the
PCWP
rule
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.

2.10.6
Life
cycle
analysis
2.10.6.1
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
34
pointed
out
that
there
are
many
social
issues
to
be
considered,
including
economic
impacts,
and
that
EPA
should
realize
that
by
finalizing
this
rule,
it
is
stating
that
it
believes
this
is
one
of
the
best
uses
for
the
nonrenewable
resource
of
natural
gas.
The
commenter
argued
that
these
factors
are
part
of
the
life
cycle
analysis
(
LCA)

prepared
by
commenter
IV­
D­
27,
which
indicates
that
the
rule
is
not
the
best
choice.

Commenter
IV­
D­
27
argued
that
based
on
a
life
cycle
inventory
(
LCI)
assessment,

controlling
the
industry's
HAP
emissions
with
incinerators
would
result
in
significant
negative
environmental
and
energy
impacts.
The
LCI
was
conducted
in
1999
and
2000
by
Franklin
Associates,
with
assistance
from
NCASI,
to
assess
the
overall
environmental
impacts
associated
with
various
emission
control
technologies
currently
in
use
at
11
wood
products
plants.
The
LCI
examined
three
biofilters,
eight
RTOs,
three
RCOs,
and
one
onsite
boiler,
comparing
the
environmental
impacts
of
these
technologies
with
each
other
and
with
a
no­
control
baseline
scenario.
A
systems
approach
was
used
to
quantify
the
impacts
associated
with
materials
and
energy
use
for
each
control
technology,
including
energy
consumption,
atmospheric
emissions,

waterborne
wastes,
and
solid
wastes.
The
analysis
evaluated
the
entire
life
cycle
of
a
system,
from
raw
material
acquisition
to
final
disposition,
to
assess
all
significant
on­
and
offsite
environmental
burdens.
A
systems
approach
provides
a
more
comprehensive
picture
of
the
environmental
profile,
and
it
allows
the
burdens
to
be
put
in
perspective
with
the
benefits
of
using
the
emission
control
technology
to
manage
onsite
THC/
HAP
emissions
at
the
wood
product
plants.
2­
259
Overall,
the
LCI
found
that
onsite
reductions
of
HAP,
particulate,
and
THC
emissions
came
at
the
expense
of
higher
energy
consumption
and
associated
increases
in
life
cycle
emissions
of
various
HAP
and
other
pollutants.
Baseline
no­
control
scenario
HAP
consisted
of
source
emissions
of
methanol,
formaldehyde,
and
acetaldehyde,
while
the
predominant
HAP
by
weight
for
the
control
scenario
were
hydrochloric
acid,
hydrofluoric
acid,
combustion­
related
emissions
of
formaldehyde
and
other
aldehydes,
methanol,
formaldehyde,
and
acetaldehyde.
The
RTOs
examined
resulted
in
an
84.3
percent
reduction
in
life
cycle
emissions
of
total
HAP
and
a
61.7
percent
reduction
in
life
cycle
THC
emissions
compared
to
a
no­
control
baseline.
However,
in
two
cases,
life
cycle
THC
emissions
after
control
were
either
equal
to
or
greater
than
baseline
emissions.
For
all
other
parameters
examined
except
particulate
matter,
the
life
cycle
burdens
for
the
control
scenarios
were
greater
than
for
the
no­
control
baseline.
Life
cycle
energy
requirements
for
RTOs
ranged
from
0.69
to
3.15
million
Btu/
yr/
scfm
compared
to
a
baseline
nocontrol
option
requiring
no
additional
energy.
Using
Department
of
Energy
data
from
1994
for
comparison,
the
use
of
RTOs
would
increase
the
wood
panel
industry's
purchased
power
consumption
by
30
percent,
its
onsite
consumption
of
natural
gas
by
over
150
percent,
and
its
overall
direct
energy
consumption
by
22
percent.

The
LCI
examined
emissions
of
several
different
pollutants.
Emissions
of
greenhouse
gases
(
GHGs)
for
RTOs
ranged
from
92
to
410
pounds
GHG
(
carbon
dioxide
(
CO
2))

equivalents)/
yr/
scfm,
an
increase
of
55
percent
over
1994
baseline
data.
That
increase
will
make
it
difficult
for
the
industry
to
meet
its
commitment
to
try
to
reduce
greenhouse
gas
intensity
by
12
percent
by
2012,
relative
to
2000.
The
range
of
sulfur
oxides
(
SO
X)
emissions
for
RTOs
was
0.93
to
4.72
pounds/
yr/
scfm,
while
emissions
of
SO
X
from
the
baseline
no­
control
option
were
zero.

Life
cycle
emissions
of
NO
X
for
RTOs
ranged
from
1.14
to
3.52
pounds/
yr/
scfm,
compared
to
uncontrolled
source
emissions
of
NO
X
for
the
same
facilities
ranging
from
0.014
to
2.52
pounds/
yr/
scfm.
The
use
of
RTOs
reduced
particulate
emissions
from
the
range
of
1.49
to
1.98
pounds/
yr/
scfm
to
the
range
of
0.45
to
0.68
pounds/
yr/
scfm,
or
66
percent.
Atmospheric
mercury
emissions
increased
from
an
assumed
value
of
zero
to
the
range
of
1.3
to
5.6
pounds
mercury/
yr/
million
scfm.
The
life
cycle
biological
oxygen
demand
(
BOD)
releases
for
RTOs
ranged
from
0.00097
to
0.0061
pounds/
yr/
scfm,
while
the
baseline
no­
control
case
involved
no
additional
BOD.
Finally,
life
cycle
solid
waste
generation
attributable
to
RTOs
ranged
from
11
to
2­
260
47
pounds/
yr/
scfm,
and
the
results
can
be
compared
to
a
baseline
no­
control
option
involving
the
generation
of
no
additional
solid
waste.

In
comparing
the
three
primary
control
technologies
for
most
of
the
parameters
examined
in
this
study,
biofilters
usually
had
the
lowest
median
life
cycle
emissions,
followed
by
RCOs
and
then
RTOs,
although
the
differences
between
RCOs
and
RTOs
were
not
statistically
significant.

Although
the
use
of
this
technology
to
achieve
the
standards
of
the
PCWP
rule
will
result
in
reductions
of
onsite
HAP
and
THC
emissions,
these
reductions
will
be
obtained
at
the
price
of
higher
energy
consumption
and
increased
emissions
of
NO
x,
SO
x,
GHGs,
solid
waste,
and
BOD,

as
well
as
a
variety
of
fossil­
fuel­
combustion­
related
HAP,
including
hydrochloric
acid,

hydrofluoric
acid,
and
mercury.

Response:
The
CAA
does
not
allow
us
to
consider
costs
and
life
cycle
impacts
when
determining
the
minimum
stringency
(
MACT
floor)
for
NESHAP.
We
are
required
by
the
CAA
to
consider
costs,
environmental
impacts,
and
energy
impacts
when
we
examine
beyond­
the­
floor
control
options.
The
final
PCWP
rule
is
based
on
the
MACT
floor
control
levels
for
all
process
units
and
not
on
control
levels
more
stringent
than
the
MACT
floor.

The
LCA
submitted
by
the
industry
does
not
evaluate
the
PCWP
rule
specifically,
but
includes
impacts
associated
with
activities
outside
of
the
PCWP
source
category.
Even
if
we
could
consider
life
cycle
impacts,
we
cannot
confirm
or
refute
the
life
cycle
analysis
submitted
by
the
commenter
because
it
included
environmental
impacts
associated
with
offsite
processes
such
as
extraction,
transport,
and
processing
of
fuels
(
which
often
occur
outside
of
the
United
States);

electricity
generation;
natural
gas
production;
transportation
fuel
production;
ceramic
media
manufacturing;
landfilling
of
spent
media;
bark
and
polystyrene
media
manufacture;
and
sodium
hydroxide
manufacture.
The
consultant
that
prepared
the
LCA
for
commenter
IV­
D­
27
has
spent
years
developing
a
database
of
life
cycle
factors
for
use
in
estimating
energy
use
and
wastes
generated
during
various
stages
of
the
life
cycle.
We
do
not
have
access
to
this
database
nor
documentation
describing
how
the
life
cycle
factors
were
developed.
The
LCA
did
not
contain
a
flow
diagram
to
show
exactly
what
energy
resources
and
wastes
are
attributed
to
each
step
of
the
life
cycle.
Therefore,
we
are
unable
confirm
that
life
cycle
impacts
are
not
overstated
for
the
offsite
processes
for
which
we
have
no
data.
We
note
that
the
impacts
of
purchased
power
and
natural
gas
consumption
had
a
heavy
influence
on
the
life
cycle
profiles
generated
in
the
study.

For
example,
the
life
cycle
impacts
are
based
on
electricity
generated
from
coal­
fired
utilities
(
a
2­
261
worst
case
assumption
with
respect
to
air
emissions,
since
only
55
percent
of
the
nation's
electricity
is
generated
by
coal­
fired
utilities).
32
It
is
not
clear
what
sulfur
content
was
assumed
for
the
coal
or
what
the
assumptions
were
regrading
the
APCDs
at
the
power
plants.
Whether
a
power
plant
has
an
ESP
or
wet
scrubber
affects
SO
2
emissions.
Furthermore,
illustrating
how
life
cycle
impacts
can
change
with
our
regulatory
programs,
upcoming
regulations
should
tighten
emissions
of
SO
x,
NO
x,
PM,
and
mercury
from
power
plants.
As
a
second
example,
we
are
not
aware
what
portion
of
the
life
cycle
impacts
were
associated
with
"
bark
production"
for
biofilter
media,
and
we
question
whether
the
onsite
by­
product
bark
production
that
occurs
at
OSB
and
plywood
plants
was
considered
(
i.
e.,
because
debarking
whole
logs
already
occurs
at
these
plants
and
should
not
be
attributed
to
the
PCWP
NESHAP).

We
were
better
able
to
review
the
life
cycle
analysis
with
respect
to
the
life
cycle
data
used
for
PCWP
production.
We
note
that
the
nationwide
life
cycle
impacts
were
developed
assuming
RTOs
for
all
existing
process
units
in
the
industry,
including
those
process
units
already
equipped
with
the
necessary
controls
and
existing
process
units
that
are
not
required
to
be
controlled.

Thus,
the
life
cycle
impacts
associated
with
onsite
PCWP
processes
appear
to
be
overstated.

To
the
extent
that
we
can
consider
the
LCA
submitted
by
the
commenter
(
given
our
limitations
under
the
CAA
at
the
MACT
floor
control
level
and
our
inability
to
confirm
or
refute
the
conclusions
of
the
LCA),
we
acknowledge
that
the
LCA
shows
that
certain
control
techniques
are
more
environmentally
and
energy
friendly
than
others.
Specifically,
the
LCA
shows
that
incineration
of
process
exhaust
in
an
onsite
combustion
unit
and
biofiltration
result
in
less
negative
life
cycle
impacts
than
do
RCOs
or
RTOs.
We
have
attempted
to
make
control
options
such
as
biofiltration
and
incineration
of
process
exhausts
in
an
onsite
combustion
unit
more
attractive
options
by
reducing
the
monitoring
requirements
for
these
control
technologies
(
see
sections
2.7.12
and
2.7.13
for
details).
Also,
we
have
included
emissions
averaging
provisions
in
the
rule
that
are
less
restrictive
than
those
included
in
other
rules
and
that
allow
sources
to
control
lesser
volumes
of
emissions
to
decrease
the
size
and
energy
requirements
of
APCDs
applied
to
those
sources.

2.10.6.2
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
27
stated
that
the
results
of
their
LCI
strongly
support
the
implementation
of
risk­
based
approaches
and
other
mechanisms
to
allow
facilities
to
pursue
innovative
approaches
to
compliance.
The
EPA
should
consider
the
potential
harms
of
the
imposition
of
incinerator
controls
both
because
it
is
sound
public
policy
and
because
EPA
is
2­
262
legally
bound
to
do
so.
A
requirement
for
EPA
to
consider
the
emissions
tradeoffs
inherent
in
the
selection
of
a
HAP
control
strategy
is
contained
in
both
the
CAA's
legislative
history
and
applicable
case
law.
The
Senate
Report
states
that
In
cases
where
a
single
control
technology
(
combustion
temperature,
for
instance)
may
be
calibrated
or
configured
in
a
variety
of
ways
depending
on
the
principal
pollutant
of
concern,
the
Administrator
shall
select
that
configuration
or
calibration
which
provides
the
greatest
protection
to
human
health
(
unless
the
incremental
health
protection
is
negligible
and
there
are
very
significant
environmental
values
that
would
be
afforded
protection
by
some
other
configuration).
In
cases
where
control
strategies
for
two
or
more
different
pollutants
are
in
actual
conflict,
the
Administrator
shall
apply
the
same
principle
 
maximum
protection
of
human
health
shall
be
the
objective
test.
S.
Rep.
No.
228,
101st
Cong.,
1st
Sess.
168
(
1990)
(
emphasis
added).

The
LCI
indicates
that
controls
such
as
RTOs
would
impose
greater
risk
to
health
and
the
environment
than
the
HAP
emissions
they
would
reduce.
The
Senate
Report
instructs
EPA
to
resolve
this
conflict
in
favor
of
health
protection;
therefore,
EPA
should
not
require
RTOs
for
low­
risk
sources.
The
judicially
imposed
requirement
for
EPA
to
balance
the
harms
imposed
by
regulation
with
the
harms
the
Agency
seeks
to
regulate
is
well
established.
Appellate
courts
have
invalidated
regulations
in
which
the
Agency
failed
to
do
so.
In
Corrosion
Proof
Fittings
v.
EPA,

947
F.
2d
1201
(
5th
Cir.
1991),
the
Court
vacated
a
final
rule
under
the
Toxic
Substances
Control
Act,
15
U.
S.
C.
§
§
2601­
2692,
banning
manufacture,
importation,
processing
and
distribution
of
asbestos
in
virtually
all
products
because
EPA
had
failed
to
account
for
the
demonstrated
offsetting
harms
that
would
have
resulted
from
the
Agency's
regulatory
approach.
The
Court
noted
that
Once
an
interested
party
brings
forth
credible
evidence
suggesting
the
toxicity
of
the
probable
or
only
alternatives
to
a
substance,
the
EPA
must
consider
the
comparative
toxicity
of
each.
Its
failure
to
do
so
in
this
case
thus
deprived
its
regulation
of
a
reasonable
basis[.]
947
F.
2d
at
1201­
2.

The
EPA
should
likewise
give
weight
to
the
offsetting
emissions
from
incinerator
controls
demonstrated
by
the
LCI.
Similarly,
the
D.
C.
Circuit
remanded
EPA's
revised
ozone
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standard
(
NAAQS)
in
part
because
the
Agency
declined
to
consider
the
offsetting
health
disbenefits
of
tightening
the
standard.
American
Trucking
Assoc.
v.
EPA,
175
F.
3d
1027,
1051
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1999),
reversed
on
other
grounds
Whitman
v.
American
Trucking
Assoc.,
531
U.
S.
457
(
2001).
Petitioners
challenging
the
revised
NAAQS
presented
evidence
on
2­
263
the
health
benefits
of
tropospheric
ozone
as
a
shield
from
the
harmful
effects
of
the
sun's
ultraviolet
rays.
In
estimating
the
effects
of
ozone
concentrations,
EPA
explicitly
disregarded
these
alleged
benefits.
In
remanding
the
standard,
the
Court
noted
that
[
I]
t
seems
bizarre
that
a
statute
intended
to
improve
human
health
would,
as
EPA
claimed
at
argument,
lock
the
agency
into
looking
at
only
one
half
of
a
substance's
health
effects
in
determining
the
maximum
level
for
that
substance
.
.
.
.
Legally,
then,
EPA
must
consider
positive
identifiable
effects
of
a
pollutant's
presence
in
the
ambient
air
in
formulating
air
quality
criteria
under
§
108
and
NAAQS
under
§
109.175
F.
3d
at
1052.

The
same
statute
should
not
lock
EPA
into
looking
at
only
one
half
of
a
control
strategy's
health
effects.
Where
HAP
emissions
from
a
facility
present
an
insignificant
degree
of
risk,
the
environmental
disbenefits
of
incinerators
clearly
should
be
taken
into
account
in
the
selection
of
a
control
requirement.

Response:
Inclusion
of
risk­
based
approaches
in
the
final
PCWP
rule
is
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
rule
(
see
section
2.11).
The
cases
cited
by
the
commenter
are
inapposite
to
EPA's
identification
of
the
MACT
floor
under
section
112
(
d)(
3)
of
the
CAA.
In
determining
the
minimum
stringency
level
of
HAP
emissions
under
section
112(
d)(
3),
EPA
must
select
floor
levels
which
apply
without
regard
to
either
cost
or
the
other
factors
and
methods
listed
in
section
112(
d)(
2).
CKRC
v.
EPA,
255
F.
3d
855,
857
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2001);
NLA
v.
EPA,
233
F.
3d
625,
629
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2000).
The
commenter's
interpretation
would
turn
the
section
112(
d)(
3)
determination
into
a
risk­
based
exercise,
a
result
Congress
sought
to
avoid.
Prior
to
the
1990
Amendments,
the
CAA
required
EPA
to
regulate
HAP
based
on
risk.
2
Legislative
History
at
3174­
75,
3346
(
House
Report).
Because
this
approach
proved
difficult
to
implement,
Congress
amended
section
112
to
require
EPA
to
promulgate
standards
based
on
technological
capabilities
instead
of
riskbased
factors.
See
1
Legislative
History
at
860.
Risk
assessments
cannot
be
used
to
modify
the
stringency
of
technology­
based
MACT
floors.
Id.
at
790,
866.
Congress
rejected
including
a
provision
in
section
112
that
would
have
allowed
for
variances
from
MACT
through
risk
assessments.
Id.
at
866.
Indeed,
the
technology­
based
provisions
of
section
112(
d)
are
modeled
on
those
of
the
Clean
Water
Act,
5
Legislative
History
at
8473­
74
(
Senate
Report),
and
the
courts
have
rejected
arguments
that
the
stringency
of
technology­
based
standards
under
the
Clean
Water
Act
should
turn
on
environmental
quality
factors.
Weyerhaeuser
v.
Castle,
590
F.
2d
1011,
2­
264
1041­
44
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1978);
Ass'n
of
Pacific
Fisheries
v.
EPA,
615
F.
2d
794,
805­
06
(
9th
Cir.

1980);
Appalachian
Power
Co.
v.
EPA,
671
F.
2d
801,
808­
09
(
4th
Cir.
1982).

2.11
RISK­
BASED
APPROACHES
The
preamble
to
the
proposed
PCWP
rule
requested
comment
on
whether
there
might
be
further
ways
to
structure
the
PCWP
final
rule
to
focus
on
the
facilities
which
pose
significant
risks
and
avoid
the
imposition
of
high
costs
resulting
from
compliance
with
the
MACT
floor
standards
on
facilities
that
pose
little
risk
to
public
health
and
the
environment.
Specifically,
in
addition
to
the
emission
concentration­
based
applicability
exemption
discussed
earlier
(
see
Section
2.6.5
of
this
document),
we
requested
comment
on
the
technical
and
legal
viability
of
two
risk­
based
approaches:
(
1)
an
applicability
cutoff
for
"
threshold"
pollutants
under
the
authority
of
section
112(
d)(
4);
and
(
2)
subcategorization
and
delisting
of
"
low­
risk"
sources
under
the
authority
of
sections
112(
c)(
1)
and
(
9).
See
68
FR
at
1296­
1302
(
January
9,
2003).
We
indicated
that
we
would
evaluate
all
comments
before
determining
whether
either
approach
would
be
included
in
the
final
PCWP
rule.
Numerous
commenters
submitted
detailed
comments
during
the
public
comment
period
on
these
risk­
based
approaches.
These
comments
and
our
responses
are
summarized
in
the
preamble
to
the
final
PCWP
rule.
2­
265
2.12
MISCELLANEOUS
2.12.1
Comment:
Numerous
commenters
(
IV­
D­
03,
IV­
D­
09,
IV­
D­
12,
IV­
D­
13,
IV­
D­

14,
IV­
D­
19,
IV­
D­
21,
IV­
D­
23,
IV­
D­
28,
IV­
D­
34,
IV­
D­
37,
IV­
D­
43,
and
IV­
D­
56)
stated
that
they
support
the
comments
submitted
by
AF&
PA
(
IV­
D­
27)
on
their
behalf.
Commenter
IVD
56
provided
the
AF&
PA
executive
summary
of
comments
on
the
risk­
based
approach
in
their
comment
letter.

Response:
We
acknowledge
the
commenters'
support
of
the
comments
submitted
by
the
AF&
PA.
Our
responses
to
the
specific
comments
submitted
by
the
AF&
PA
are
provided
elsewhere
in
this
document.

2.12.2
Comment:
Commenters
IV­
D­
03,
IV­
D­
28,
and
IV­
D­
48
stated
that
they
support
the
comments
submitted
by
the
Composite
Panel
Association
(
CPA)
(
IV­
D­
12)
on
their
behalf.

Response:
We
acknowledge
the
commenters'
support
of
the
comments
submitted
by
the
CPA.
Our
responses
to
the
specific
comments
submitted
by
the
CPA
are
provided
elsewhere
in
this
document.

2.12.3
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
10
stated
that
they
support
the
comments
submitted
by
Koppers
Industries
(
IV­
D­
22)
on
their
behalf.

Response:
We
acknowledge
the
commenter's
support
of
the
comments
submitted
by
Koppers
Industries.
Our
responses
to
the
specific
comments
submitted
by
Koppers
Industries
are
provided
in
section
2.1.3
of
this
document.

2.12.4
Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
33
endorsed
the
comments
submitted
by
STAPPA/
ALAPCO
(
IV­
D­
18).

Response:
We
acknowledge
the
commenters'
support
of
the
comments
submitted
by
the
STAPPA/
ALAPCO.
Our
responses
to
the
specific
comments
submitted
by
the
STAPPA/
ALAPCO
are
provided
is
section
2.11
of
this
document.

Comment:
Commenter
IV­
D­
33
included
multiple
attachments,
including
the
following:

Attachment
1­­
Congressional
Record,
E2383,
November
11,
1999
Attachment
2­­
EPA
Science
Policy
Council,
Policy
on
Evaluating
Health
Risks
to
Children
Attachment
3­­
EPA
Science
Policy
Council,
Memorandum
on
EPA
Risk
Characterization
Program,
March
21,
1995
2­
266
Attachment
4­­
EPA
Science
Policy
Council,
Elements
to
Consider
When
Drafting
EPA
Risk
Characterizations,
March
1995
Attachment
5­­
EPA
Science
Policy
Council,
Policy
for
Risk
Characterization,
February
1995
Attachment
6­­
EPA
Science
Policy
Council,
Policy
for
Risk
Characterization,
March
1995
Attachment
7­­
EPA
Science
Policy
Council,
Memorandum
on
New
EPA
Policy
on
Evaluating
Health
Risks
to
Children,
October
20,
1995
Attachment
8
 
Fact
Sheet,
Report
to
Congress
on
Residual
Risk
Attachment
9
 
Statement
of
John
D.
Graham,
Ph.
D.,
Director,
Center
for
Risk
Analysis,
Harvard
School
of
Public
Health,
October
14,
1999
Attachment
10
 
Statement
of
Lee
P.
Hughes,
Vice
President,
Corporate
Environmental
Control,
Bayer
Corporation,
on
behalf
of
the
American
Chemistry
Council,
before
the
Senate
Environment
and
Public
Works
Committee
on
Clean
Air
Act
Residual
Risk,
October
3,
2000.

Response:
We
acknowledge
submittal
of
the
attachments
referenced
by
commenter
IV­
D­
33.
2­
267
References
1.
National
Emissions
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
the
Miscellaneous
Organic
Chemical
Manufacturing
Industry:
Summary
of
Response
to
Comments,
Docket
OAR­
2003­
0121,
Docket
ID
0036.

2.
U.
S.
EPA.
Background
Information
Document
for
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
NESHAP.
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
EPA­
453/
R­
01­
004,
September,
2000.

3.
Memorandum
from
B.
Nicholson
and
K.
Hanks,
MRI
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
June
7,
2002.
Determination
of
MACT
floors
and
MACT
for
the
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
Industry.

4.
K.
Parrish
and
B.
Shrager,
RTI,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
WCPG.
Minutes
of
the
June
4,
2003,
Meeting
Between
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
and
the
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
(
AF&
PA),
the
Composite
Panel
Association
(
CPA),
the
National
Council
of
the
Paper
Industry
for
Air
and
Stream
Improvement
(
NCASI),
and
Industry
Representatives.

5.
National
Emissions
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Wood
Building
Products
(
Surface
Coating)
 
Background
Information
for
Final
Standards:
Summary
of
Public
Comments
and
Responses,
EPA­
453/
R­
03­
003,
January,
2003.
Docket
A­
97­
52,
Docket
Item
No.
V­
C­
01.

6.
Memorandum
from
K.
Hanks
and
D.
Bullock,
MRI,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
June
9,
2000.
Baseline
Emission
Estimates
for
the
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
Industry.

7.
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emissions
From
Wood
Products
Manufacturing
Facilities,
Part
I
­
Plywood,
Technical
Bulletin
No.
768,
National
Council
of
the
Paper
Industry
for
Air
and
Stream
Improvement,
Inc.,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC,
1999.

8.
B.
Shrager,
RTI,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
August
4,
2003.
Meeting
Minutes
for
the
July
28,
2003
Meeting
Between
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA)
and
Louisiana­
Pacific
(
L­
P).

9.
Memorandum
from
K.
Hanks,
MRI,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA.
June
26,
2002.
Development
of
Production­
Based
Emission
Limits
for
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
Process
Units.

10.
Memorandum
from
D.
Bullock,
K.
Hanks,
and
B.
Nicholson,
MRI
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
April
28,
1999.
Summary
of
Responses
to
the
1998
EPA
Information
Collection
Request
(
MACT
Survey)
­­
General
Survey.

11.
Volatile
Organic
Compound
Emissions
From
Wood
Products
Manufacturing
Facilities,
Part
V
 
Oriented
Strandboard,
Technical
Bulletin
No.
772,
National
Council
of
the
Paper
Industry
for
Air
and
Stream
Improvement,
Inc.,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC,
1999.
2­
268
12.
Telecon.
K.
Hanks,
RTI,
with
M.
Leu,
Plum
Creek
Manufacturing.
June
12,
2003.
Discussion
of
air
pollution
control
device
used
on
the
continuous
press
at
the
PlumCreek
Columbia
Falls,
MT
plant.

13.
Memorandum
from
K.
Hanks,
B.
Nicholson,
and
K.
Parrish,
RTI,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
December
15,
2003.
Determination
of
MACT
floors
and
MACT
for
the
Final
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
Industry
NESHAP.

14.
P.
Vasquez,
Georgia­
Pacific
Corporation,
to
K.
Hanks,
MRI.
April
5,
2001.
Capture
Efficiency
­
Conceptual
Alternative
Methods.

15.
K.
Hanks,
B.
Threatt,
and
B.
Nicholson,
MRI,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
January
20,
2000.
Summary
of
Responses
to
the
1998
EPA
Information
Collection
Request
(
MACT
Survey)
­­
Engineered
Wood
Products.

16.
Memorandum
from
K.
Hanks
and
K.
Parrish,
RTI,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
November
26,
2003.
Selection
of
HAPs
for
Compliance
Options
in
the
Final
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
Rule.

17.
Memorandum
from
K.
Hanks,
RTI,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
November
7,
2003.
Estimates
of
Ancillary
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
Process
Emissions
for
Use
in
Risk
Modeling.

18.
Memorandum
from
K.
Hanks,
MRI,
to
Project
Files.
April
18,
2000.
Changes
in
the
population
of
existing
plywood
and
composite
wood
products
plants
and
equipment
following
the
information
collection
request.

19.
Memorandum
from
K.
Hanks
and
K.
Parrish,
RTI,
to
Project
Files.
December
16,
2003.
Changes
in
the
population
of
existing
plywood
and
composite
wood
products
plants
and
equipment
between
April
2000
and
November
2003.

20.
Memorandum
from
R.
Nicholson,
MRI,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
May
26,
2000.
Control
Device
Efficiency
Data
for
Add­
on
Control
Devices
at
PCWP
Plants.

21.
Memorandum
from
K.
Parrish,
RTI,
to
Project
Files.
December
17,
2003.
Air
Pollution
Control
Device
Vendor
Information.

22.
An
Evaluation
of
Control
Efficiency
at
Different
Combustion
Chamber
Temperatures
for
Regenerative
Thermal
Oxidizers
Installed
on
Panel
Plant
Wood
Furnish
Dryers,
Technical
Bulletin
865,
National
Council
for
Air
and
Stream
Improvement,
Inc.,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC,
July
2003.

23.
Memorandum
from
K.
Hanks,
RTI,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
December
18,
2003.
Production­
Based
Compliance
Options
for
the
Final
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
NESHAP.
2­
269
24.
Telecon.
R.
Nicholson,
RTI,
with
P.
Ferguson,
International
Paper,
and
D.
Word,
National
Council
for
Air
and
Stream
Improvement
(
NCASI).
July
7,
2003.
Discussion
of
treatment
of
nondetect
measurements.

25.
Memorandum
B.
Nicholson
and
K.
Hanks,
RTI,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
August
27,
2003.
Evaluation
of
Concentration­
Based
Applicability
Cut­
Offs
for
the
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
Industry.

26.
Telecon.
R.
Marinshaw,
RTI,
with
D.
Devroy,
MEGTEC
Systems.
December
2,
2002.
Discussion
of
catalyst
activity
level
testing.

27.
K.
Hornbarger,
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
May
17,
2001.
Email
transmitting
white
paper
containing
the
wood
products
industry's
recommendations
regarding
control
device
parameter
monitoring.

28.
K.
Hornbarger,
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
March
26,
2001.
Email
transmitting
white
paper
outlining
control
device
downtime
allowance
needs,
industry­
sponsored
downtime
survey
forms,
downtime
data
base,
and
spreadsheets
used
in
developing
to
industry­
recommended
downtime
allowance.

29.
Memorandum
from
K.
Hanks,
MRI
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
June
4,
2001.
Review
of
Downtime
Allowance
Needs
for
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
Sources.

30.
K.
Hornbarger,
American
Forest
and
Paper
Association,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
June
28,
2001.
Email
transmitting
letter
discussing
additional
industry
suggestions
regarding
downtime
allowances.

31.
Memorandum
from
K.
Parrish,
RTI,
to
M.
Kissell,
EPA/
ESD.
January
21,
2004.
Environmental
and
Energy
Impacts
for
the
Final
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
NESHAP.

32.
Energy
Information
Administration,
Form
EIA­
860A.
Annual
Electric
Generator
Report
 
Utility.