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.

<IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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.

<IP_ADDRESS> 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.

<IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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.

<IP_ADDRESS> 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. <IP_ADDRESS>.) 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. <IP_ADDRESS>), 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS>, 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.

<IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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 <IP_ADDRESS> 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.

<IP_ADDRESS> 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.


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 197 (Thursday, October 11, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51543-51544]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22197]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Public Notice for Waiver of Aeronautical Land-Use Assurance;
General Wayne A. Downing Peoria International Airport, Peoria, IL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is considering a proposal to change portions of 18
different parcels with a total of 2.778 acres of airport land from
aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the sale of
airport property located at General Wayne A. Downing Peoria
International Airport, Peoria, IL. The aforementioned land is not
needed for aeronautical use.
    The 2.778 acres of land is in the Northeast section of the airport
property and it covers the intersection of Dirksen Parkway and Middle
Road. This property does not currently serve an aeronautical purpose.
This area of property is currently Right of Way for the airport
entrance road, Dirksen Parkway. If the airport receives permission from
the FAA to release the property from aeronautical obligations, it
intends on transferring this property to the Peoria County for
continued use as Right of Way.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Documents are available for review by appointment at the FAA
Chicago Airports District Office, Robert Lee, Program Manager, 2300 E
Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, Illinois 60018, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>/
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Written comments on the Sponsor's request must be delivered or
mailed to: Robert Lee, Program Manager, Federal Aviation
Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 E Devon Avenue,
Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>/FAX Number:
(847) 294-7046.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Lee, Program Manager, Federal
Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 E Devon
Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, Telephone Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>/FAX
Number:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 47107(h) of Title
49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
Federal Register 30 days before modifying the land-use assurance that
requires the property to be used for an aeronautical purpose.
    The land consists of all or portions from eighteen (18) different
parcels. All but two of these parcels were purchased by the airport
with FAA participation. The parcels were acquired under grants 3-17-
0080-21 and 3-17-0080-10 or without federal participation. The future
use of the property is for roadway Right of Way.

    The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property
will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the
Use of Airport Revenue, published in the Federal Register on February
16, 1999 (64 FR 7696).
    This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of
the subject airport property at the Wayne A. Downing Peoria
International Airport, Peoria, IL from federal land covenants, subject
to a reservation for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions
on the released property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B section
22.16. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to
financially assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor
a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.

Legal Description

Parcel 17-15-401-047

    Part of the southeast quarter of section 15 in township 8 north,
range 7 east of the fourth principal meridian in Peoria County,
Illinois. Said part being further described as follows:
    Commencing at the northwest corner of the southeast quarter of said
section 15; thence north 88 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds east along
the north line of the said southeast quarter a distance of 1085.74
feet; thence south 01 degree 01 minute 22 seconds east a distance of
33.00 feet to the point of beginning, said point being on the south
right of way line of County Highway D49 (Middle Road); thence north 88
degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds east along the said south right of way
line a distance of 792.03 feet to a point on the east line of lot 28 of
McCarty Acres; thence south 00 degree 29 minutes 22 seconds east along
the said east line of lot 28 a distance of 60.24 feet to point on the
proposed south right of way line of County Highway D49 (Dirksen
Parkway); thence south 58 degrees 45 minutes 34 seconds west along the
proposed south right of way line a distance of 230.39 feet to a point
on the east line of lot 25 of said McCarty Acres; thence south 00
degree 29 minutes 22 seconds east along the said east line of lot 25
and proposed south right of way line a distance of 46.04 feet to a
point at the beginning of a curve to the left, said curve having a
radius of 1080.00 feet and an arc length of 78.14 feet thence on a
chord bearing of south 57 degrees 10 minutes 02 seconds west along the
said proposed south right of way line a chord distance of 78.12 feet;
thence south 85 degrees 10 minutes 24 seconds west along the said
proposed south right of way line a distance of 128.86 feet; thence
north 40 degrees 28 minutes 11 seconds west a distance of 108.19 feet
to a point on the east line of lot 21 of McCarty Acres; thence north 00
degree 29 minutes 22 seconds west along the said east line of lot 21 a
distance of 37.19 feet; thence north 55 degrees 21 minutes 36 seconds
west a distance of 80.70 feet to a point; thence north 65 degrees 37
minutes 45 seconds west a distance of 218.22 feet to a point on the
east line of lot 17 of McCarty Acres; thence north 81 degree 53 minutes
33 seconds west along the said proposed south right of way line a
distance of 66.75 feet to the point of beginning, containing 2.524
acres more or less.
    Basis of bearings are to the Illinois State Plane Coordinate
system, west zone being the north line of the southeast quarter of
section 15 at north 88 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds east.

Parcel 17-15-401-030

Parcel 17-15-426-001

Parcel 17-15-426-002

Parcel 17-15-426-003

Parcel 17-15-426-004

Parcel 17-15-426-005

    Part of lot 29 and lot 30 of McCarty Acres being a part of the
southeast quarter of section 15 in township 8 north, range 7 east of
the fourth principal meridian in Peoria County, Illinois. Said part
being further described as follows:
    Commencing at the northwest corner of the southeast quarter of said
section 15; thence north 88 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds east along
the north line of the said southeast quarter a distance of 1877.77
feet; thence south 01 degree 01 minute 22 seconds east a distance of
33.00 feet to the point of beginning, said point being on the south
right of way line of County Highway D49 (Middle Road); thence north 88
degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds east along the said south right of way
line and parallel with the said north line of the southeast quarter of
section 15 a distance of 542.72 feet to a point at the beginning of a
curve to the right, said curve having a radius of 150.00 feet and an
arc length of 55.08 feet; thence on a chord bearing of south 80 degrees
30 minutes 11 seconds east a chord distance of 54.77 feet to a point on
the proposed south right of way line of County Highway D49 (Middle
Road); thence south 88 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds west along the
said proposed south right of way line and parallel with the north line
of the southeast quarter of section 15 a distance of 352.62 feet;
thence south 81 degrees 50 minutes 33 seconds west along the said
proposed south right of way line a distance of 90.69 feet; thence south
74 degrees 49 minutes 17 seconds west along the said proposed south
right of way line a distance of 159.37 feet to a point on the west line
of said lot 29; thence north 00 degrees 29 minutes 22 seconds west
along the said west line a distance of 60.24 feet to the point of
beginning, containing 0.254 acres more or less.
    Basis of bearings are to the Illinois State Plane Coordinate
System, west zone being the north line of the southeast quarter of
section 15 at north 88 degrees 58 minutes 38 seconds east.

    Issued in Des Plaines, IL on Sept. 27, 2018.
Deb Bartell,
Manager, Chicago Airports District Office, Great Lakes Region, FAA.
[FR Doc. 2018-22197 Filed 10-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Page 41612]
[FR Doc No: 2023-13604]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 15058-001]

BOST2 Hydroelectric LLC; Notice of Surrender of Preliminary
Permit

    Take notice that BOST2 Hydroelectric LLC, permittee for the
proposed Shawno County Pumped Storage Project No. 15058, has requested
that its preliminary permit be terminated. The permit was issued on May
5, 2021, and would have expired on April 30, 2025.\1\ The project would
have been located near the Embarrass River and the Village of Tigerton,
Shawano County, Wisconsin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 175 FERC ] 62,051 (2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The preliminary permit for Project No. 15058 will remain in effect
until the close of business, thirty days from the date of this notice.
But, if the Commission is closed on this day, then the permit remains
in effect until the close of business on the next day in which the
Commission is open.\2\ New applications for this site may not be
submitted until after the permit surrender is effective.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2022).

    Dated: June 21, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-13604 Filed 6-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 186 (Friday, September 25, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57806-57807]
[FR Doc No: 2015-24384]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF14-22-000]

Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Public Scoping
Meeting for the Northeast Energy Direct Project, and Extension of
Scoping Comment Period

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission)
will hold an additional public scoping meeting for the Northeast Energy
Direct

Pipeline Project (Project) proposed by Tennessee Gas Pipeline in the
above-referenced docket. This meeting was referenced in the previous
Notice issued on June 30, 2015. The scoping comment period has also
been extended until October 16, 2015. In addition to sending written
comments, the Commission invites you to attend the public scoping
meeting its staff will conduct in the project area to receive verbal
comments on the Project. Transcripts of the meetings will be available
for review in eLibrary (www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp) under
Docket No. PF14-22-000. The meeting time and location are provided
below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date and time                          Location
------------------------------------------------------------------------
September 29, 2015, 6:00 p.m..............  Franklin Pierce University,
                                             Field House, University
                                             Drive, Rindge, New
                                             Hampshire 03461, 603-899-
                                             4000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission's staff will begin the sign-up of speakers one hour
before the meeting begins. The scoping meeting will begin with a brief
description of our environmental review process by Commission staff,
after which speakers will be called. The meeting will end once all
speakers have provided their comments or 11:00 p.m., whichever comes
first. A time limit may be implemented (typically no less than 3
minutes) for each commenter, to ensure all those wishing to comment
have the opportunity to do so. Speakers should structure their oral
comments accordingly. Time limits will be strictly enforced to ensure
that as many individuals as possible are given an opportunity to
comment. It is important to note that written comments provided to
staff, or otherwise filed with FERC, hold the same weight as oral
comments.

    Dated: September 3, 2015.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-24384 Filed 9-24-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P