[Federal Register: March 12, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 49)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13163-13167]
[DOCID:fr12mr08-43]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-2005-0036; FRL-8542-2]
RIN 2060-AO89

Control of Hazardous Air Pollutants From Mobile Sources: Early
Credit Technology Requirement Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to revise the February 26, 2007 mobile source
air toxics rule's requirements that specify the benzene control
technologies that qualify a refiner to generate early benzene credits.
We are proposing to allow another specific benzene control technology,
benzene alkylation, in addition to the four operational or
technological changes that the 2007 rule currently allows. We are also
proposing a general provision that would allow a refiner to submit a
request to EPA to approve other benzene-reducing operational changes or
technologies for the purpose of generating early credits. In the
``Rules and Regulations'' section of this Federal Register we are
revising the February 26, 2007 rule as discussed above via a direct
final rule without a prior proposed rule. If we receive no adverse
comment, we will not take further action on this proposed rule.

DATES: Written comments must be received by April 11, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
2005-0036, by mail to: EPA-HQ-2005-0036, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460. Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand
delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in the
ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules section
of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Brunner, Office of
Transportation and Air Quality, Assessment and Standards Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, MI 48105;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Alternative contact: Assessment and
Standards Division Hotline, telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Why is EPA Issuing This Proposed Rule?

    This document proposes to revise the early credit technology
requirement under the MSAT2 benzene rule. We have published a direct
final rule that takes this action in the ``Rules and Regulations''
section of this Federal Register because we view this as a
noncontroversial action and anticipate no adverse comment. We have
explained our reasons for this action in the preamble to the direct
final rule.
    If we receive no adverse comment, we will not take further action
on this proposed rule. If we receive adverse comment, we will withdraw
the direct final rule and it will not take effect. We would address all
public comments in any subsequent final rule based on this proposed
rule.
    We do not intend to institute a second comment period on this
action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
For further information, please see the information provided in the
ADDRESSES section of this document.

Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action may affect you if you produce gasoline. The following
table gives some examples of entities that may have to follow the
regulations.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Category                  NAICS \1\ codes    SIC \2\ codes                    Examples of potentially regulated entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..............................            324110              2911  Petroleum Refiners.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\2\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action.
This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could
potentially be affected by this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be affected. To decide whether your
organization might be affected by this action, you should carefully
examine today's proposed action and the existing regulations in 40 CFR
part 80. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a

particular entity, consult the persons listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Outline of This Preamble

I. Background
II. Today's Action
III. Environmental and Economic Impact
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions that Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority
List of Subjects

I. Background

    The Mobile Source Air Toxics rule (MSAT2), published on February
26, 2007 (72 FR 8428), requires that refiners and importers produce
gasoline that has an annual average benzene content of 0.62 volume
percent (vol%) or less, beginning in 2011. (See Sec.  80.1230(a).) The
rule also requires that no refiner or importer have an actual average
gasoline benzene level greater than 1.3 volume percent. After achieving
an actual annual average benzene level of 1.3 vol%, refiners and
importers may use benzene credits to reduce their average benzene level
to 0.62 vol%. Refiners may generate benzene credits for their own use
or to sell to others, in two ways. Once the program begins in 2011, a
refiner generates credits (known as standard credits) when its average
annual gasoline benzene level is less than 0.62 vol%. Importers can
also generate standard credits. Refiners may also generate credits
prior to 2011.\1\ These credits are called early credits. The final
rule allowed for the generation of early benzene credits in any annual
averaging period prior to 2011 (i.e., 2008, 2009, and 2010), as well as
for the partial year period June 1--December 31, 2007. Early credits
are generated on a refinery basis. In order to generate early credits,
a refinery must meet several requirements:
    (1) Establish a benzene baseline based on the average benzene level
of the gasoline produced at the refinery during the two-year period
2004-05. (See Sec.  80.1285.)
    (2) Make operational changes or improvements in benzene control
technology that will result in real benzene reductions. (See Sec.
80.1275(d).)
    (3) Achieve an annual average benzene level at least 10% lower than
its baseline level. (See Sec.  80.1275(a)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Importers are not allowed to generate early credits because
they do not have the ability to make the benzene reduction
technology changes that would lower benzene levels in the gasoline
pool.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Sec.  80.1275(d)(1) of the MSAT2 final rule, we specified four
types of operational changes and benzene control technology
improvements that would allow a refinery to qualify for generating
early credits if it implemented the changes after 2005 and if it also
met the other related requirements. These operational changes and
technology improvements are:
    (1) Treating the heavy straight run naphtha entering the reformer
using light naphtha splitting and/or isomerization.
    (2) Treating the reformate stream exiting the reformer using
benzene extraction or benzene saturation.
    (3) Directing additional refinery streams to the reformer for
treatment as described in (1) and (2) above.
    (4) Directing reformate streams to other refineries with treatment
capabilities as described in (2) above.
    We included in this list all the strategies we thought would reduce
benzene and be cost-effective. The provision was intended to not allow
early credit generation solely by benzene reductions achieved through
ethanol blending. A refinery needs to implement at least one of the
listed improvements.
    The final rule did not provide a way for EPA to consider
alternative means of reducing benzene, no matter how efficacious the
alternative might be. Soon after the rule was finalized, it came to our
attention that at least one refinery had plans to install benzene
alkylation technology. Benzene alkylation is not one of the four
operational or technological changes enumerated in the final rule.
Although EPA regards benzene alkylation as a legitimate benzene
reduction technology, we did not expect it to be used. (See the
Regulatory Impact Analysis (EPA 420-R-07-002, February 2007), Chapter
6, Page 36.)

II. Today's Action

    We published a Questions and Answers document related to the MSAT2
program on August 16, 2007. (http://epa.gov/otaq/regs/toxics/
420f07053.pdf) In that document, we specifically addressed benzene
alkylation and indicated that benzene alkylation meets the intent of
the technology requirement for early credits. As discussed in the
preamble of the final rule, early credits are generated based on
innovations in gasoline benzene control technology that result in real
benzene reductions prior to the start of the program in 2011. (See 72
FR 8486.) The use of benzene alkylation directly results in lower
gasoline benzene levels.
    We are proposing to revise Sec.  80.1275(d)(1) to include benzene
alkylation in the list of acceptable benzene reduction operational and
technological strategies. We are also proposing a general provision
that would allow a refiner to petition EPA to use an operational or
technological change that is not listed in the regulation for the
purpose of generating early credits. The refiner would have to
demonstrate that the benzene control technology improvement or
operational change results in a net reduction in the refinery's average
gasoline benzene level, exclusive of benzene reductions due simply to
blending practices. The petition would have to be submitted to EPA
prior to the start of the first averaging period in which the refinery
plans to generate early credits. EPA expects it would act on such a
petition before the end of that averaging period. The refiner would
also have to provide additional information requested by EPA.
    The other requirements for generating early credits are unchanged.
These include submitting a benzene baseline, reducing the refinery's
baseline benzene level by at least 10% in a given averaging period, and
not moving gasoline or blendstock streams between refineries for the
purpose of generating early credits (See 72 FR 8486.)

III. Environmental and Economic Impact

    We believe there will be no negative environmental or economic
impacts resulting from the proposed changes. This action would allow
those companies that have alternative means or strategies for reducing
gasoline benzene to request EPA approval to use them for the purpose of
generating early benzene credits. Average gasoline benzene levels from
such refiners would decrease faster and earlier than if they had not
generated early credits, and such credits would help provide for a
robust credit pool when the program starts in 2011.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action would revise the February 26, 2007 mobile source air
toxics rule's requirements that specify the benzene control
technologies that qualify a refiner to generate early benzene credits.
It would allow another specific benzene control technology, benzene
alkylation, to be used for the purpose of generating early credits, and
would allow a refiner to submit a request to EPA to approve other
benzene-reducing operational changes or technologies for the purpose of
generating early credits. This action is not expected to have an annual
impact on the economy of more than $100 million, nor does it raise any
novel legal or policy issues. This action is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR
51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under
the Executive Order.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action would not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq because the proposed amendments do not change the
information collection requirements of the underlying rule.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR Part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    EPA has determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis in connection with this proposed rule because this
action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A petroleum refining company
with fewer than 1500 employees or a petroleum wholesaler or broker with
fewer than 100 employees, based on the North American Industrial
Classification System (NAICS); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the
regulatory provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. EPA has determined that this
proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
This proposed rule simply modifies the original rule in a limited
manner, and would not significantly change the original rule. Thus,
this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202
and 205 of the UMRA.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, because it applies only to parties that produce gasoline.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It would
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule would amend existing
regulatory provisions applicable only to producers of gasoline and
would not alter State authority to regulate these entities. The
amendments would impose no direct costs on State or local governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to

ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.''
``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive
Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified
in Executive Order 13175. It would not have substantial direct effects
on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175. The proposed rule would amend
existing regulatory provisions applicable only to producers of gasoline
and would impose no direct costs on tribal governments. Thus, Executive
Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed rule.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health & Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because
it is not an economically significant regulatory action as defined in
Executive Order 12866.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it
is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed action does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this proposed rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations. We believe there will be
no negative environmental or economic impacts resulting from the
proposed changes compared to the February 26, 2007 rule this action
proposes to modify.

Statutory Provisions and Legal Authority

    The statutory authority for the fuels controls in this proposed
rule can be found in sections 202 and 211(c) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), as amended. Support for any procedural and enforcement-related
aspects of the fuel controls in this proposal, including recordkeeping
requirements, comes from sections 114(a) and 301(a) of the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Confidential business information, Fuel
additives, Gasoline, Imports, Labeling, Motor vehicle fuel, Motor
vehicle pollution, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 6, 2008.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 80 is
amended as set forth below:

PART 80--REGULATION OF FUELS AND FUEL ADDITIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7542, 7545 and 7601(a).

    2. Section 80.1275 is amended as follows:
    a. By adding paragraph (d)(1)(v).
    b. By redesignating paragraph (d)(2) as paragraph (d)(3).
    c. By adding paragraph (d)(2).

Sec.  80.1275  How are early benzene credits generated?

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (v) Providing for benzene alkylation.
    (2)(i) A refiner may petition EPA to approve, for purposes of
paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the use of operational changes and/or
improvements in benzene control technology that are not listed in
paragraph (d)(1) of this section to reduce gasoline benzene levels at a
refinery.
    (ii) The petition specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section
must be sent to: U.S. EPA, NVFEL-ASD, Attn: MSAT2 Early Credit Benzene
Reduction Technology, 2000 Traverwood Dr., Ann Arbor, MI 48105.
    (iii) The petition specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section
must show how the benzene control technology improvement or operational
change results in a net reduction in the refinery's average gasoline
benzene level, exclusive of benzene reductions due simply to blending
practices.
    (iv) The petition specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section
must be submitted to EPA prior to the start of the first averaging
period in which the refinery plans to generate early credits.
    (v) The refiner must provide additional information as requested by
EPA.
    (3) Has not included gasoline blendstock streams transferred to,
from,

or between refineries, except as noted in paragraph (d)(1)(iv) of this
section.
* * * * *
 [FR Doc. E8-4915 Filed 3-11-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comments from the

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

Jennifer Sass, Ph.D.

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

October 9-12, 2007

The Potential for Atrazine to Affect Amphibian Gonadal Development

More information and relevant documents can be found on the EPA website
at:    HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.h
tm#amphibian"
www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/atrazine/atrazine_update.htm#amphi
bian

REFERENCES:

Birnbaum LS, Fenton SE. Cancer and developmental exposure to endocrine
disruptors. Environ Health Perspect. Apr 2003;111(4):389-394.

Chevre N, Loepfe C, Singer H, Stamm C, Fenner K, Escher BI. Including
mixtures in the determination of water quality criteria for herbicides
in surface water. Environ Sci Technol. Jan 15 2006;40(2):426-435.

Christin MS, Menard L, Gendron AD, et al. Effects of agricultural
pesticides on the immune system of Xenopus laevis and Rana pipiens.
Aquat Toxicol. Mar 30 2004;67(1):33-43.

Cooper RL, Stoker TE, Tyrey L, Goldman JM, McElroy WK. Atrazine disrupts
the hypothalamic control of pituitary-ovarian function. Toxicol Sci. Feb
2000;53(2):297-307.

Curwin BD, Hein MJ, Sanderson WT, et al. Urinary and hand wipe pesticide
levels among farmers and nonfarmers in Iowa. J Exp Anal Environ
Epidemiol. April 2005; Advance online publication, 20 April;
doi:10.1038/sj.jea.7500428.

De Roos AJ, Zahm SH, Cantor KP, et al. Integrative assessment of
multiple pesticides as risk factors for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma among
men. Occup Environ Med. Sep 2003;60(9):E11.

Friedmann AS. Atrazine inhibition of testosterone production in rat
males following peripubertal exposure. Reprod Toxicol. May-Jun
2002;16(3):275-279

Hayes TB, Case P, Chui S, et al. Pesticide mixtures, endocrine
disruption, and amphibian declines: Are we underestimating the impact?
Environ Health Perspect. 2006; doi:10.1289/ehp.8051.

IARC. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Monographs of the
evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans. Monograph. 1999;73:59-113.

Kiesecker JM. Synergism between trematode infectin and pesticide
exposure: A link to amphibian limb deformities in nature? PNAS July,
2002;99(15):9900-9904

Kniewald J, Jakominic M, Tomljenovic A, et al. Disorders of male rat
reproductive tract under the influence of atrazine. J Appl Toxicol.
Jan-Feb 2000;20(1):61-68.

Larson DL, McDonald S, Fivizzani AJ, Newton WE, Hamilton SJ. Effects of
the herbicide atrazine on Ambystoma tigrinum metamorphosis: duration,
larval growth, and hormonal response. Physiol Zool. 1998
Nov-Dec;71(6):671-9.

Laws SC, Ferrell JM, Stoker TE, Schmid J, Cooper RL. The effects of
atrazine on female wistar rats: an evaluation of the protocol for
assessing pubertal development and thyroid function. Toxicol Sci. Dec
2000;58(2):366-376.

Rohr JR, Sager T, Sesterhenn TM, Palmer BD. Exposure, postexposure, and
density-mediated effects of atrazine on amphibians: breaking down net
effects into their parts. Environ Health Perspect. 2006
Jan;114(1):46-50.

Rohr JR, Palmer BD. Aquatic herbicide exposure increases salamander
desiccation risk eight months later in a terrestrial environment.
Environ Toxicol Chem. 2005 May;24(5):1253-8.

Rohr JR, Elskus AA, Shepherd BS, Crowley PH, McCarthy TM, Niedzwiecki
JH, Sager T, Sih A, Palmer BD. Lethal and sublethal effects of atrazine,
carbaryl, endosulfan, and octylphenol on the streamside salamander
(Ambystoma barbouri). Environ Toxicol Chem. 2003 Oct;22(10):2385-92.

Stevens J, Breckenridge C, Wetzel L, et al. Risk characterization for
atrazine: oncogenicity profile. J Toxicol Environ Health.
1998;55:101-141.

Stevens JT, Breckenridge CB, Wetzel L. A risk characterization for
atrazine: oncogenicity profile. J Toxicol Environ Health A. Jan 22
1999;56(2):69-109.

Stevens JT, Breckenridge CB, Wetzel LT, Gillis JH, Luempert LG, 3rd,
Eldridge JC. Hypothesis for mammary tumorigenesis in Sprague-Dawley rats
exposed to certain triazine herbicides. J Toxicol Environ Health. Oct
1994;43(2):139-153.

Stoker TE, Robinette CL, Cooper RL. Maternal exposure to atrazine during
lactation suppresses suckling-induced prolactin release and results in
prostatitis in the adult offspring. Toxicol Sci. Nov 1999;52(1):68-79.

Stoker TE, Laws SC, Guidici DL, Cooper RL. The effect of atrazine on
puberty in male wistar rats: an evaluation in the protocol for the
assessment of pubertal development and thyroid function. Toxicol Sci.
Nov 2000;58(1):50-59.

Storrs SI, Kiesecker JM. Survivorship patterns of larval amphibians
exposed to low concentrations of atrazine. Environ Health Perspect. 2004
Jul;112(10):1054-7.

Swan SH, Kruse RL, Liu F, et al. Semen quality in relation to biomarkers
of pesticide exposure. Environ Health Perspect. Sep
2003;111(12):1478-1484.

Swan SH. Semen quality in fertile US men in relation to geographical
area and pesticide exposure. Int J Androl. Feb 2006;29(1):62-68.

Tavera-Mendoza L, Ruby S, Brousseau P, Fournier M, Cyr D, Marcogliese D.
Response of the amphibian tadpole Xenopus laevis to atrazine during
sexual differentiation of the ovary. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002a
Jun;21(6):1264-7.

Tavera-Mendoza L, Ruby S, Brousseau P, Fournier M, Cyr D, Marcogliese D.
Response of the amphibian tadpole (Xenopus laevis) to atrazine during
sexual differentiation of the testis. Environ Toxicol Chem. 2002b
Mar;21(3):527-31.

USGS. National Water-Quality Assessment Program, U.S. Geological Survey
Circular 1291. Pesticides in the nation's streams and ground water
1992-2001. http://p


" Hunt, Tim" < Tim_ Hunt@ afandpa To: Mary Kissell/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Scott . org> Jenkins/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA cc: Ken Hustvedt/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA, Dave 06/ 03/ 2004 12: 40 PM Guinnup/ RTP/ USEPA/ US@ EPA Subject: PCWP process unit and Q& As Mary Tom and Scott,

As you know, we have been working on a way to focus process unit testing to a subset of units and rely on other means to quantify emissions from other units. We have put together the attached white paper to present our two options as well as other features of the rule relating to process units such as not testing units with no detectable HAPs and how to focus testing of acrolein and benzene to the right set of process units. I am also including an analysis ( spreadsheet) by NCASI that supports the groupings of process units in Option 2 of the white paper. In addition, I wanted to share another concept for focusing efforts ( both for the regulator and regulated) on those process unit HAP combinations that will drive any risk estimates ( titled " process unit focus paper"). Finally, in addition to the questions we asked during our April 1st call, we have put together several other questions and proposed answers on elements of the final rule that remain unclear. Some of the solutions may be simple technical changes to the rule before it is published while others could be handled through guidance or EPA Q& A.

We would like to schedule a call or even a meeting with you soon to determine next steps given that the whole testing issue is holding mills back from starting to explore in depth whether they qualify for the low risk subcategory. My Committee is meeting on June 16th here in DC which might be a good time to chat with many of the affected companies present. In addition, Scott and Dave have already agreed to call in to the meeting to discuss a template for risk assessment submittals. Maybe we can just extend the discussion to the HAP testing/ estimation and process unit issues, what do you think?.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Timothy Hunt Senior Director, Air Quality Programs American Forest & Paper Association 1111 19th St., NW Washington, DC 20036 phone: 202 463 2588 tim_ hunt@ afandpa. org ( See attached file: Process unit white paper final 6 3 04. doc)( See attached file: Process Unit NCASI supporting analysis 6 04. xls)( See attached file: QA Wood MACT final 6 04. doc)( See attached file: Process Unit Focus Paper final 6 3 04. doc) 1 Table 1 lists the following HAPs: acetaldehyde, acrolein, arsenic, benzene, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, formaldehyde, lead, manganese, methylene diphenyl diisocyanate, nickel and phenol.

DC\ 672333.1 AF& PA White Paper On Process Unit Testing and Alternatives To Demonstrate Eligibility For The Low Risk PCWP Subcategory June 3, 2004 A. Introduction:

In its final rule establishing National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from Plywood and Composite Wood Products ( PCWP), EPA created a subcategory of low risk PCWP sources. The final rule provides that sources have up to two years to demonstrate eligibility for the low risk subcategory. Criteria for demonstrating low risk eligibility are given in Appendix B to the rule.

Section 5 of Appendix B provides that a source wishing to demonstrate low risk eligibility " must conduct HAP emissions tests . . . for every process unit within the affected source that emits one or more of the HAP listed in Table 1 to this Appendix." 1 Section 5 goes on to mandate, in essence, " traditional" stack testing under worst case operating conditions.

B. Process units with no or very low HAP emissions:

Before turning to the question of what is a " process unit," it is important to have a clear understanding of which process units do not emit one or more of the listed HAPs and per the rule, are exempt from the testing requirement. Many sources emit listed HAPs at levels well below the method detection limits. AF& PA believes that sources that consistently have non detectable emissions of the listed HAPs are not significant contributors to the risk and need not be tested. EPA has already made a determination that since HAP metals can reasonably be anticipated only from direct fired dryers ( which are amenable to stack testing) and that methylene diphenyl diisocyanate ( MDI) can reasonably be anticipated only from processes with MDI resins, these compounds do not need to be tested for every source. EPA even anticipated the burdens of testing for acrolein and benzene from all process units and provided a mechanism in the rule to narrow the focus of testing ( see separate section below).

Based on data from EPA and the NCASI, the following process units do not emit any of the Table I HAPs or generally emit them at less than 1 ppm ( the limit of detection established in the rule):

° chippers ° sanders ° saws ° engineered wood products presses [ See analysis from NCASI]

In addition, HAPs emission data does not exist for several other unit operations at PCWP facilities. Many of these unit operations, such as debarkers, have not been tested because there is no reason to believe that they would have HAPs emissions. Also, many are very difficult or impossible 2 It is important to remember that process units that do not emit any of the listed HAPs also do not need to be tested. 2 to test by any means, let alone using the methods for determining gas flow specified in Appendix B. Therefore, these unit operations should not need to be tested.

In summary, AF& PA believes that the rule allows industry to eliminate sources from the emission testing requirements where the units do not emit significant quantities of the listed HAPs. Furthermore, AF& PA believes that sources emitting HAPs at non detectable levels should not be included in determining the average stack height for risk estimation purposes.

C. Testing process units:

The final rule defines process unit as " equipment classified according to its function such as blender, dryer, press, former or board cooler." 40 C. F. R. § 63.2292. The definition further specifies identified pieces of PCWP equipment as " process units." These identified " process units" represent the largest emissions sources at an affected source and tend to be amenable to stack testing ( e. g., various types of presses and dryers). AF& PA understands from discussions with EPA staff, however, that the Agency also expects sources to account for emissions from other types of process units when demonstrating eligibility for the low risk subcategory.

A significant problem arises if all process units are included. Emission testing is impractical for many sources and unnecessary for others, thereby severely discouraging many PCWP sources from attempting to qualify for the low risk subcategory. AF& PA believes that there are two basic options for addressing the process unit testing issue.

Option 1: Selected Emissions Testing The simplest approach   and one that requires no modification to the final rule   is for EPA to interpret the term " process unit" in Appendix B to refer to those " process units" that are specifically identified in 40 C. F. R. § 63.22922. As noted above, the most significant emission sources from PCWP units   and the ones amenable to stack testing   are specifically identified as " process units" in the definitions section of the final rule. For example, the definition of " secondary tube dryer" states, " A secondary tube dryer is a process unit." 40 C. F. R. § 63.2292. The named process units are: conveyor strand dryer; dry rotary dryers; fiberboard mat dryer; green rotary dryer; hardboard oven; hardwood veneer dryer; press predryer; pressurized refiner; primary tube dryer; reconstituted wood product board cooler; reconstituted wood product press; rotary strand dryer; secondary tube dryer; softwood veneer dryer; tube dryer; and veneer redryer. EPA did not identify Group 1 miscellaneous coating operations and lumber kilns as process units.

By interpreting Section 5 of Appendix B in this way, EPA will avoid placing sources in an impossible situation of being forced to conduct " stack testing" on minor emission points that are not amenable to stack testing, while still ensuring that the major emission points at the source are tested. In fact, this is very similar to what the Agency did when it conducted its risk assessments and identified a number of PCWP facilities as qualifying for the low risk subcategory, establishing a reasonable precedent for calculating risks from PCWP emissions sources. 3 This approach is reasonable because it is unlikely that minor emission sources   such as log vats, chippers and blenders   would be risk drivers, or even make a meaningful contribution to the risk from the source.

Option 2: A " Tiered" Approach To Quantifying Emissions Another approach, that would likely require rulemaking, is for EPA to establish a " tiered" process to identifying emissions from PCWP process units where they are likely to occur in significant quantities. AF& PA is especially concerned about the burden and practicality of across the board testing for emissions of acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and phenol. As noted in section B above, EPA has already made a determination that testing of HAP metals, MDI, acrolein and benzene need only be done at sources where they are expected to be found in relevant quantities. Unlike these HAPs where testing is focused to process units where emissions may occur, EPA has not provided comparable targeting for acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, and phenol.

As a preliminary matter, AF& PA believes that the universe of potential " process units" at a PCWP source should be limited to those identified in Table 1 of the preamble of the final rule as emitting one or more listed HAP. Notwithstanding those units whose definitions in 40 C. F. R. § 63.2292 self identify them as a process unit, as discussed under Option 1, there is no place in the final rule itself that explicitly identifies what the Agency considers to be process units. Table 1 of the preamble therefore provides the most complete and comprehensive listing. Thus, the following " process units" should be evaluated as potentially requiring emissions evaluation ( testing, emission estimation, or determination that no significant emissions emitted) as part of the low risk demonstration:

P softwood veneer dryers P primary tube dryers P secondary tube dryers P rotary strand dryers P conveyor stand dryers P green rotary dryers P hardboard ovens P dry rotary dryers P pressurized refiners P press predryers P fiberboard mat dryers P board coolers P reconstituted wood product presses P engineered wood products presses P softwood plywood presses P hardwood plywood presses P veneer redryers P sanders P humidifiers P atmospheric refiners P formers P blenders P stand alone digesters P wastewater operations P storage ( resin) tanks P lumber kilns P log vats P chippers P rotary agricultural fiber dryers P agricultural fiber board presses P hardwood veneer dryers miscellaneous coating operations P fiber washers P saws From this list of thirty four process units, AF& PA suggests four groupings to guide where testing is 3 See K. Hanks ( RTI), " Estimates of Ancillary Plywood and Composite Wood Products Process Emissions for use in Risk Modeling," ( Nov. 7, 2003). 4 needed, no testing is necessary, and emission estimation is sufficient.

Group I: Units that Should be Tested ( 16)

The following sixteen process units are amenable to stack testing, include the sources that EPA has found to be the " risk drivers" and should be required to test in accordance with Section 5 of Appendix B:

softwood veneer dryers primary tube dryers secondary tube dryers rotary strand dryers conveyor stand dryers green rotary dryers fiberboard mat dryers dry rotary dryers pressurized refiners press predryers hardwood veneer dryers rotary agricultural fiber dryers reconstituted wood product presses agricultural fiber board presses hardboard ovens atmospheric refiners Some facilities may have conducted HAP testing of these and other process units prior to the issuance of the final PCWP MACT. If the data meets the testing criteria of Section 5 then EPA should accept its use in the risk assessment. Repeating tests that have already been done is a waste of resources and unnecessary burden.

Group II: Use of Emission Factors in place of Testing HAP testing for the remaining process units is not straightforward given the diversity of process units at PCWP facilities. However, alternative approaches exist that allow emissions to be quantified for use in risk assessments without going through site by site testing of each unit. The following three groupings would provide the necessary quantification of HAP emissions from specific process units without the unnecessary burden and cost of testing.

Group II( A): Use of Existing Emission Factors ( 3)

There are three process units for which EPA has already developed conservative emission factors. 3 AF& PA believes that it would be appropriate for PCWP sources to use these emission factors to develop conservative estimates of the emissions from these process units:

storage ( resin) tanks miscellaneous coatings operations wastewater operations 5 Group II( b): Estimate Emissions ( 9)

AF& PA believes that it would be reasonable to allow PCWP sources to estimate emissions using published emission factors, information from NCASI Technical Bulletins, mass balance, best engineering judgment or other reasonable estimation techniques for the process units that contribute less than 10% of the Maximum Allowable Toxicity Weighted Carcinogen Emission Rate and Maximum Allowable Toxicity Weighted Noncarcinogen Emission Rate. PCWP sources should be required to provide the basis for their emissions estimates, with a brief rationale explaining why those estimates are reasonable. The process units for which emission factors were used would be included in determining the average stack height. Emissions from the following process units will be very difficult to test and should be estimated by the PCWP source:

humidifiers stand alone digesters formers blenders veneer redryers log vats fiber washers hardwood plywood presses board coolers Group II( c): Hard to measure sources ( 2)

AF& PA finds that lumber kilns and softwood plywood presses are particularly difficult to test given the fugitive nature of the emissions or the lack of an appropriate sampling point. Therefore, if a mill chooses, a conservative emission factor selected from those in AP 42 can be used to estimate emissions.

lumber kilns softwood plywood presses Multiple and similar process units:

In addition to the three groupings above, a facility should be able to use tests on one process unit to develop emission factors to estimate emissions from similar process units at the same facility or company if the units are similar in design, function, raw material, and end product process parameters. Most individual facilities have multiple affected units that are similar in design, function, raw material, and quality specifications with only slight variations due to configuration, size and brand.

For example, virtually all indirect fired ( steam heated) plywood veneer dryers are of nearly identical design. Modern steam heated veneer dryers utilize cross circulation with axial fans that blow the heated air across jet impingers onto the passing veneer. After the heated zone, additional fans blow ambient air across the veneer to cool it to ambient temperature. The only meaningful physical difference between two steam heated " jet dryers" will typically be their capacities; defined by the number of hot and cooling zone chambers and operating temperature. Similarly, all plywood presses use virtually the same physical process to cure the glue line forming a bond. Hot pressing to cure the glue line is controlled by platen temperature and press time. Therefore if similar thickness veneer is 4 " If EPA approves that your process unit will not emit detectable amounts of benzene or acrolein, that unit may be excluded from the testing requirement in this table" ( referring to Table 2) 6 used, the glue/ resin compound is the same, along with similar press time, HAP emissions should be equivalent. These independent variables can be accounted for across multiple intra facility units when facilities set up their worst case testing conditions and have these conditions placed in their Title V permits.

Taking the concept one step further, a different company could use the test data from a representative unit( s) at another company to estimate emissions from a similar unit ( design and function) in their company. A credible mechanism would need to be established to review and share test data between companies. For example, new test data could be added to AP 42 or incorporated in a NCASI Technical Bulletin. However, this process would need to be expedited since mills only have two years to complete emission quantification, conduct risk assessment, and submit reports to EPA.

D. Testing for Acrolein and Benzene:

Appendix B of the PCWP MACT provides a mechanism that limits testing for acrolein and benzene to a subset of process units ( see footnote on page 497 of 2/ 26/ 04 signed rule). 4 It provides, without further rulemaking, a way for EPA to identify which process units need not be tested. An analysis conducted by NCASI ( attached) shows that twelve process unit types were tested for these HAPs and HAPs were not found at detectable levels. Therefore, to help mills in developing there testing plans, AF& PA requests that EPA determine that the following process units be excluded from the testing requirements for acrolein and benzene:

blenders chippers engineered wood product presses fiber washers formers hardwood plywood presses hardwood veneer dryers log vats sanders saws softwood plywood presses veneer redryers In addition, the following process units are not expected to have acrolein or benzene emissions even though no testing data is available because no mechanism of formation of these compounds is known. Benzene and acrolein are typically a result of applying heat to a process, either direct fired or where high temperatures are present that can degrade organics.

storage ( resin) tanks miscellaneous coating operations wastewater operations E. Conclusion: 7 AF& PA believes that a modification to the rule may be necessary to implement the tiered testing approach described above, to the extent it is not already allowed. For this reason   as well as because of the generally minor nature of the emissions from these miscellaneous process units and the fact that EPA itself disregarded them when conducting its risk assessment   AF& PA urges EPA to adopt Option 1 instead, that is, requiring stack testing of the process units enumerated in 40 C. F. R. § 63.2292, . Should EPA decide to adopt an expanded tiered testing approach, however, AF& PA urges the Agency to act expeditiously so that facilities can determine whether or not they qualify for the low risk subcategory sufficiently in advance of the compliance deadline such that the requisite controls can be installed on sources that do not so qualify. Process Unit NCASI Supporting Analysis Data from the NCASI Wood Products MACT testing program, EPA's AP 42, and some industry generated data gathered since the MACT testing were evaluated in this spreadsheet.

The Analysis worksheet contains information on detects and non detects for acetaldehyde, acrolein, phenol, and formaldehyde for sources not subject to control This worksheet contains minimum and maximum concentration values. Some qualitative information is presented relative to the general type of source and the ability to test the source.

The Summary worksheet groups sources into various categories based on information in the Analysis worksheet.

The Acrolein worksheet segregates non affected sources based on acrolein emissions ( detects or nondetects

The AffectedSources worksheet provides information on acrolein and benzene detects and non detects for affected sources ( sources subject to control). Analysis AP 42 information Sources listed in Table 1 of the Summary of Final Rule which are not a new or existing affected source Source HAP Number of Runs Number of Non Detects % ND Minimum ND ( ppm) Max Detect ( ppm) Hard to Test? Fugitive? Heat Applied? Noncured resins? Comments humidifiers ( humidification kilns) acetaldehyde 6 0 0% 3.15 Yes/ No Unknown Yes No Humidifiers are not ' set up' for testing by EPA methods. They are unlikely to meet EPA flow measurement criteria. Also they are typically batch processes with irregular venting, creating further flow measurement problems. The vents on some of these units are little short 2 to 3 inch pipes with rain bonnets. They seem to be mostly for release of pressure.

acrolein 6 3 50% 15.3 formaldehyd e 6 1 17% 2.23 phenol 6 3 50% 0.39 atmospheric refiners ( particleboard) acetaldehyde 6 6 100% 0.37 No No No No acrolein 6 6 100% 0.26 formaldehyd e 19 16 84% 0.15 0.59 phenol 6 5 83% 0.32 0.41 atmospheric refiners ( fiberboard) acetaldehyde 3 0 0% 5.6 No No No No This refiner used recycled white water, thus substantially different than particleboard atmospheric refiners.

acrolein 3 0 0% 0.42 formaldehyd e 3 0 0% 1.75 phenol 3 3 100% 0.37 Source HAP Number of Runs Number of Non Detects % ND Minimum ND ( ppm) Max Detect ( ppm) Hard to Test? Fugitive? Heat Applied? Noncured resins? Comments 10 Source HAP Number of Runs Number of Non Detects % ND Minimum ND ( ppm) Max Detect ( ppm) Hard to Test? Fugitive? Heat Applied? Noncured resins? Comments 11 formers acetaldehyde 9 9 100% 0.35 Yes/ No Yes/ No No Yes Formers are vented primarily for dust control and reclaim of materials. These venting systems were not designed for measurement of organic gases or for capturing exhaust from the formers. Often the system ( baghouse or cyclone) that captures materials from the former also collects gas streams from other equipment,

such as conveyors. In most cases, only parts of the former are vented to a collection point  the entire former is not vented or captured.

acrolein 9 9 100% 0.25 formaldehyd e 26 3 12% 5.1 phenol 9 9 100% 0.29 blenders acetaldehyde 6 6 100% 0.4 Yes Yes/ No No Yes Most blenders are not vented through a testable vent. These sources are fugitive emissions sources in many or most cases.

Blenders are not a significant dust source nor is there any loss of materials from blenders, so mills do not generally collect gas streams from a blender. Also blenders do not really vent, but simply dump blended material into a conveyor. Some blenders are vented and some are configured such that a temporary test system can be constructed.

acrolein 6 6 100% 0.28 formaldehyd e 9 0 0% 4.5 phenol 6 6 100% 0.34 Source HAP Number of Runs Number of Non Detects % ND Minimum ND ( ppm) Max Detect ( ppm) Hard to Test? Fugitive? Heat Applied? Noncured resins? Comments sanders acetaldehyde 14 12 86% 0.89 Yes/ No Yes/ No No No Like formers, sanders are vented primarily for dust control and reclaim of materials.

Sanderdust is a valuable fuel and systems are designed for capturing this fuel. ( In a few mills, sanderdust is incorporated back into the product.) These venting systems were not designed for measurement of organic gases. Sometimes the baghouse used to capture sanderdust also collects gases from other mill processes. Sanders generally tend to be fairly well captured,

since the dust is so fine it would otherwise create a nuisance. Some mills have sanders that are set up for testing some do not. Newer mills are more likely to have a good test location for sanders.

acrolein 14 14 100% 0.26 formaldehyd e 20 8 40% 0.62 phenol 14 10 71% 1.16 saws acetaldehyde 8 7 88% 0.4 Yes Yes No No Saws present a significant challenge. Like formers and sanders, saws are vented primarily for dust control and reclaim of material. So saws have pneumatic capture systems in many cases but they are generally combined with other sources before they reach a baghouse or testable location. The exhaust ducts that handle an individual saw, prior to combining with other exhaust sources, are typically not suited for flow rate measurements. Thus it is very difficult to measure an individual saw.

Saws that cut green logs are generally not vented.

acrolein 8 8 100% 0.26 formaldehyd e 14 9 64% 0.55 Source HAP Number of Runs Number of Non Detects % ND Minimum ND ( ppm) Max Detect ( ppm) Hard to Test? Fugitive? Heat Applied? Noncured resins? Comments phenol 8 6 75% 0.41 fiber washers acetaldehyde 3 0 0% 2.2 Unknown Unknown No Yes acrolein 3 3 100% 0.26 formaldehyd e 3 0 0% 0.77 phenol 3 3 100% 0.31 chippers ( green log) acetaldehyde 2 2 100% 0.36 Unknown Unknown No No acrolein 2 2 100% 0.25 formaldehyd e 2 2 100% 0.1 phenol 2 2 100% 0.3 chipper ( dry panel and veneer) acetaldehyde 6 5 83% 0.47 Yes Yes/ No No No These chippers may have been influenced by the plywood press and layup line. " Mill air" pulled into the chippers and exhausted to baghouse. The green log chipper was outside the mill. Some mills call these hoggers. Like saws, they are typically not vented separately but are combined with other sources. They are vented for dust control and reclaim of materials. They will be difficult to test in many mills.

acrolein 3 3 100% 0.28 formaldehyd e 6 5 83% 0.38 phenol 6 4 67% 0.41 log vats acetaldehyde 3 0 0% 3.9 Yes Yes Yes No Most of these are open systems. Very few are expected to be testable.

acrolein 3 3 100% 0.33 formaldehyd e 3 3 100% 0.19 Source HAP Number of Runs Number of Non Detects % ND Minimum ND ( ppm) Max Detect ( ppm) Hard to Test? Fugitive? Heat Applied? Noncured resins? Comments 14 phenol 3 3 100% 0.41 Source HAP Number of Runs Number of Non Detects % ND Minimum ND ( ppm) Max Detect ( ppm) Hard to Test? Fugitive? Heat Applied? Noncured resins? Comments lumber kilns acetaldehyde 11 0 0% Yes Yes/ No Yes No Most kilns are very difficult to test accurately. They operate on an extended batch process  up to 3 days for western softwoods, generally one day for southern pine. The venting and emissions are both irregular throughout the batch, thus ' snapshot' samples, unless well times, are of marginal use. Fugitive emissions are difficult to quantify. NCASI Technical Bulletin 845 provides an overview of kiln testing  approaches and problems.

acrolein 3 0 0%

formaldehyd e 20 0 0%

phenol 3 3 100%

storage tanks acetaldehyde no data Yes Yes No Yes acrolein no data formaldehyd e no data phenol no data wastewater operations acetaldehyde no data Yes Yes No No acrolein no data formaldehyd e no data phenol no data miscellaneous coating operations acetaldehyde no data Yes Yes No No acrolein no data formaldehyd e no data phenol no data Source HAP Number of Runs Number of Non Detects % ND Minimum ND ( ppm) Max Detect ( ppm) Hard to Test? Fugitive? Heat Applied? Noncured resins? Comments 16 Source HAP Number of Runs Number of Non Detects % ND Minimum ND ( ppm) Max Detect ( ppm) Hard to Test? Fugitive? Heat Applied? Noncured resins? Comments stand alone digesters acetaldehyde no data Yes Unknown Yes No NCASI was unable to establish a flow rate for the one batch digester ' tested' in the MACT program. NCASI eventually decided to discard the data, even though there was some concentration information. This is a pressurized batch process with a ' blow' so that the exhaust flow is highly irregular.

Some creativity and special consideration will have to be used in testing these sources. EPA methods are not likely to be applicable.

acrolein no data formaldehyd e no data phenol no data rotary agricultural fiber dryers acetaldehyde no data Unknown Unknown Yes No acrolein no data formaldehyd e no data phenol no data agricultural fiber board presses acetaldehyde no data Unknown Unknown Yes Yes acrolein no data formaldehyd e no data phenol no data dry rotary dryers acetaldehyde 13 4 31% DND DND No No Yes No acrolein 18 8 44% DND DND formaldehyd e 42 2 5% DND DND phenol 12 10 83% DND DND Source HAP Number of Runs Number of Non Detects % ND Minimum ND ( ppm) Max Detect ( ppm) Hard to Test? Fugitive? Heat Applied? Noncured resins? Comments veneer redryers ( radio frequency) acetaldehyde 6 3 50% DND DND Unknown Unknown Yes No acrolein 6 6 100% DND DND formaldehyd e 6 3 50% DND DND phenol 6 6 100% DND DND softwood plywood press acetaldehyde 18 7 39% DND DND Yes/ No Yes/ No Yes Yes Presses with cupolas will be hard to test.

Some sort of capture system will need to be manufactured and even then EPA Method flow requirements will be difficult to meet.

NCASI Technical Bulletin 768 discusses the work done to test a cupola on one plywood press. Some plywood presses have powered fans that provide adequate test sites. Many of the powered fan units will need stack extentions or some modification for testing.

acrolein 18 18 100% DND DND formaldehyd e 32 8 25% DND DND phenol 15 14 93% DND DND hardwood plywood press acetaldehyde 12 12 100% DND DND Yes/ No Yes/ No Yes Yes Presses with cupolas will be hard to test.

Some sort of capture system will need to be manufactured and even then EPA Method flow requirements will be difficult to meet.

NCASI Technical Bulletin 768 discusses the work done to test a cupola on one plywood press. Some plywood presses have powered fans that provide adequate test sites. Many of the powered fan units will need stack extentions or some modification for testing.

acrolein 12 12 100% DND DND formaldehyd 12 3 25% DND DND Source HAP Number of Runs Number of Non Detects % ND Minimum ND ( ppm) Max Detect ( ppm) Hard to Test? Fugitive? Heat Applied? Noncured resins? Comments 19 e phenol 12 6 50% DND DND engineered wood products press acetaldehyde 9 8 89% 0.8 Yes Yes Yes Yes NCASI had a difficult time finding Engineered Wood Products presses that were testable. Some will be testable. Most will be fugitive or hard to test because general building vents convey the emissions from the press.

acrolein 9 9 100% 0.26 formaldehyd e 9 7 78% 0.82 phenol 9 9 100% 0.12 hardwood veneer dryers acetaldehyde 24 3 13% DND DND No No Yes No acrolein 21 21 100% DND DND formaldehyd e 24 4 17% DND DND phenol 24 22 92% DND DND DND  Did Not Determine file = SumMiscSourcesForPhenAcetAcrol Summary Sources listed in Table 1 of the Summary of Final Rule which are not a new or existing affected source Sources that do not emit detectable levels of acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, or phenol Green log chippers Sources that do not apply heat or utilize uncured resin, and at which detectable levels of acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, and phenol are less than 1 ppm ( 1)

Atmospheric refiners ( particleboard) Sanders ( 1)

Saws Dry panel and veneer chippers Sources that apply heat and resin but do not have levels of acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, and phenol greater than 1 ppm Engineered wood products presses Fugitive Sources for which NCASI does not have data Wastewater operations Miscellaneous coating operations Storage tanks Sources not listed above and for which NCASI does not have data Stand alone digesters Rotary agricultural dryers Agricultural fiber board presses Sources that will be difficult to test, but have greater than 1 ppm of acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde, or phenol ( see comments on ' Analysis' worksheet regarding testing difficulties)

Humidifiers Log vats Lumber kilns Softwood plywood presses Hardwood plywood presses Other sources Atmospheric refiners ( fiberboard) Formers Blenders Fiber washers Veneer re dryers ( radio frequency) Dry rotary dryers Hardwood veneer dryers 21 ( 1) At one sander 1.16 ppm of phenol was measured file = SumMiscSourcesForPhenAcetAcrol Acrolein AP 42 and NCASI information Sources listed in Table 1 of the preamble New or existing source subject to controls in Table 1A or Table 1B? Acrolein emission data available? All available acrolein samples below detection limits? Acrolein detected during sampling?

conveyor strand dryers Yes These sources are subject to fiberboard mat dryers Yes controls as either new or green rotary dryers Yes existing sources hardboard ovens Yes press predryers Yes pressurized refiners Yes primary tube dryers Yes reconstituted wood product board coolers Yes reconstituted wood product presses Yes rotary strand dryers Yes secondary tube dryers Yes softwood veneer dryers Yes atmospheric refiners No Yes These sources are not subject to dry rotary dryers No Yes controls, but have emissions of humidifiers No Yes acrolein lumber kilns No Yes blenders No Yes These sources are not subject chippers No Yes to controls, have been tested for engineered wood product presses No Yes acrolein and do not emit acrolein fiber washers No Yes at detectable levels formers No Yes hardwood plywood presses No Yes hardwood veneer dryers No Yes log vats No Yes sanders No Yes saws No Yes softwood plywood presses No Yes veneer redryers No Yes New or existing source subject to controls in Table 1A or Table 1B? Acrolein emission data available? All available acrolein samples below detection limits? Acrolein detected during sampling?

agricultural fiber board presses No No These sources have not miscellaneous coating operations No No been tested for acrolein rotary agricultural fiber dryers No No stand alone digesters No No storage tanks No No wastewater operations No No AffectedSources AP 42 and NCASI data were used for this analysis Acrolein Detectable? Benzene Detectable? conveyor strand dryers No Data fiberboard mat dryers Steam Heated Yes No Direct Fired Yes Yes green rotary dryers Yes Yes hardboard ovens Yes No press predryers Yes No pressurized refiners Yes No primary tube dryers Steam Heated No Yes ( 1) Direct Fired Yes Yes reconstituted wood product board coolers Yes No reconstituted wood product presses All except hardboard Yes ( 2) No Hardboard Yes No rotary strand dryers Yes Yes secondary tube dryers No Yes ( 3) softwood veneer dryers Yes ( 4) Yes ( 5)

( 1) one detectable sample run at one MDF dryer, see acrolein/ benzene white paper ( 2) outside of the hardboard industry, only 2 of 26 sample runs were detect for acrolein ( 3) one detectable sample run out of 6 ( 4) 2 or 3 detectable sample runs ( 5) 4 or 5 detectable sample runs 1 PCWP MACT Implementation Questions The following are priority questions that AF& PA and its member companies have identified that need to be addressed before PCWP MACT can be implemented in a reasonable manner.

1. § 63.2262( h) specifies how to determine the control efficiency across an emission control system during the initial performance test. The equation for determining percent reduction contains a term ( CE) for capture efficiency. The text says that the CE is to be " determined for reconstituted wood product presses and board coolers as required in Table 4 to this subpart." However, the rule is silent about how to determine the CE for control systems on processes other than wood product presses and board coolers. Are we to assume 100 % capture efficiency for dryers and use a CE of 1.0 in the equation, or attempt to measure the capture efficiency of dryers or other processes?

The capture efficiency for processes other than for reconstituted wood product presses and board coolers should be assumed to be 100% in equation 1 of § 63.2262( h). The control efficiency calculations used to determine the floor for the MACT rule assumed a capture efficiency of 100% for all dryers.

Here are the locations in the final rule where changes would be needed to make this clear.

From page 388, 63.2262 ( h)

CE = capture efficiency, percent ( applicable only to reconstituted wood product presses and board coolers as required in Table 4 to this subpart)

From page 389, 63.2262 ( i)

CE = capture efficiency, percent ( applicable only to reconstituted wood product presses and board coolers as required in Table 4 to this subpart).

From page 423, 63.2292 Capture device means a hood, enclosure, or other means of collecting emissions into a duct so that the emissions can be measured. This definition is applicable only to reconstituted wood product presses and board coolers as required in Table 4 to this subpart.

From page 423, 63.2292 Capture efficiency means the fraction ( expressed as a percentage) of the pollutants from an emission source that are collected by a capture device. This definition is applicable only to reconstituted wood product presses and board coolers as required in Table 4 to this subpart.

2. § 63.2250( a) states that " You must be in compliance with the compliance options, .... in this subpart at all times, except..." All processes exhibit variability, and 2 may not meet the compliance options for every moment. For example, when valves change on an RTO, there is a fraction of a second that the emissions bypass the RTO and are not treated. The units can meet the 90% control efficiency over an hour average, but not every second. Similarly, emissions from the press are cyclic, peaking every time the press opens, and vary with product thickness. The press may be able to meet the production based compliance option ( PBCO) over an hour long average, but not every second of operation. It may meet the PBCO for an average mix board thicknesses, but not for some individual products. The rule does not specify what the averaging period should be for either PBCO or Add on Control Systems Compliance Options. The rule does specify a 6 month averaging period for the Emissions Averaging Compliance Option. What averaging period should be used for the Add on Control Systems Compliance Options and Emissions Averaging Compliance Option?

To be consistent for all of the compliance options, a 6 month averaging period should be used for the Add on Control Systems Compliance Options and Emissions Averaging Compliance Option. Many mills may implement emission averaging to be able to take advantage of the longer averaging period.

3. Can plants with Green Rotary Dryers operate them as Dry Rotary Dryers?

Yes. As noted in the preamble, green rotary dryers and dry rotary dryers are essentially the same in terms of equipment design. Plants have the option to permit a unit that is nominally a green rotary dryer ( with controls) as a dry rotary dryer without control requirements under an alternative operating scenario. Wood supply changes may provide an opportunity for facilities to reduce HAP emissions through the use of dryer material than was either envisioned during the permitting process. Additionally, seasonal wood supply changes may periodically allow a unit to be operated within the work practice requirements of a dry rotary dryer.

4. Can the piping involved in pneumatic transfer of fiber following a single stage ( primary) tube dryer be considered a " secondary tube dryer"?

No. Supplemental heat, either indirect or direct, needs to be added to the air stream or applied to the pneumatic transfer tubing before a system can be classified as a secondary dryer.

5. Appendix B specifies FTIR methods to measure benzene emissions ( specifically EPA Method 320 and ASTM Method D6348 03). These methods are complicated and may require multiple test methods when method 320 is not appropriate for measuring other HAPs ( specifically acetaldehyde, acrolein, formaldehyde and phenol). NCASI has updated its Method IM/ CAN/ WP 99.02 for selected HAPs at wood products facilities to measure benzene. The updated method is designed as a self validating method. Updated QA/ QC procedures ( Section 6.10) require duplicate sample runs, spiked sample runs and field spike samples. Benzene can be included in the spike solutions as are the other compounds of interest. In Section 2 of the method ( Applicability), 3 benzene is listed in Table 2.1 as a compound that " the method is applicable to determining the concentration of...." Considering that EPA approved the method for the other HAPS, there is no reason EPA should exclude benzene. Can other methods such as the updated NCASI Method IM/ CAN/ WP 99.02 be used to sample for benzene?

Yes. The updated NCASI method is appropriate and was not intentionally excluded from the PCWP rule. This is a technical correction that will be made as the rule is published. Other appropriate methods can be used, subject to obtaining approval from EPA as provided in the MACT General Provisions at 63.7( e)( 2) ii.

Note: other implementation questions have already been discussed with EPA for their consideration. 1 AF& PA white paper offers alternatives to testing each process unit for each listed HAP. Focusing HAP Quantification for PCWP Sources to Process Units that Drive Risk Estimates Based on extensive risk analysis conducted by EPA and industry to date, it is expected that most of the risk will come from a small set of process units and a small set of HAPs. Current evidence shows that acrolein will be the driver for non cancer risk and acetaldehyde for cancer risk. The vast majority of these two HAPs come from direct fired dryers and a limited number of other sources. However, at least initially, EPA is requiring testing1 from a large number of process units at plywood and composite panel facilities. Based on existing information and engineering judgment AF& PA believes these analyses will show that many of these sources of the named HAPs will never be the " risk driver" and thus not affect the ultimate determination of whether the source qualifies for membership in the low risk subcategory. Even EPA's preliminary work under the residual risk program for various source categories confirms that a handful of HAPs from a handful of sources will make up most of the risk pool.

As a result, EPA should establish a simple listing mechanism, probably through rulemaking, that identifies each process unit HAP combination that would not appreciably contribute to the overall risk from the source category. AF& PA recommends that EPA use criteria similar to that used in the final rule to exclude the eight named facilities. If the process unit's emissions of named HAPs are less than 10% of the overall source category's risk, then it should be automatically added to the low risk unit list. Industry could support the listing process by providing sufficient data to EPA to meet the established criteria. For example, if 3 to 7 representative tests or estimates showed that HAP emissions from that process unit were less than 10% of the risk threshold ( contributes less than 0.1 to the HI of 1) at any of the mills tested, then it would be added to the list. From then on, other mills would not have to include that unit HAP combination in their risk assessment. Over time, the list would expand as more information comes into EPA demonstrating which additional process unit HAP combinations should be excluded from future risk assessments.

This option would be helpful to both the regulators as well as the regulated industry to focus limited resources on the key emissions. EPA ( or the state) will be reviewing risk assessments provided by the mills with documentation on the inputs and outputs to the models. These reports, and EPA's reviews, could be simplified if the presentation is focused on those emission units contributing the vast majority ( 95%) of the risk. From industry's perspective, substantial effort ( including the original testing) would go into documenting insignificant risks that ultimately will have no affect on the outcome. In addition, this option creates an incentive for the industry to do early testing to narrow the list of HAPs and process units before having to test or estimate emission at all their facilities.


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 234 (Thursday, December 7, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57760-57761]
[FR Doc No: 2017-26356]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1161]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Food Safety Survey

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is
announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by January
8, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or emailed to [email protected]. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-0345.
Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ila S. Mizrachi, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601
Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Food Safety Survey

OMB Control Number 0910-0345--Extension

    Under section 1003(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)), we are authorized

to conduct research relating to foods and to conduct educational and
public information programs relating to the safety of the nation's food
supply. The Food Safety Survey measures consumers' knowledge,
attitudes, and beliefs about food safety. Previous versions of the
survey were collected in 1988, 1993, 1998, 2001, 2006, 2010, and 2016.
Food Safety Survey data are used to measure trends in consumer food
safety habits including hand and cutting board washing, cooking
practices, and use of food thermometers. Data are also used to evaluate
educational messages and to inform policymakers about consumer
attitudes about technologies such as food irradiation and
biotechnology.
    The proposed Food Safety Survey will contain many of the same
questions and topics as previous Food Safety Surveys to facilitate
measuring trends in food safety knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors
over time. The proposed survey will also be updated to explore emerging
consumer food safety topics and expand understanding of previously
asked topics.
    The methods for the proposed Food Safety Survey will be largely the
same as those used with the previous Food Safety Surveys with the
exception of the inclusion of address based sampling (ABS) methods to
explore the method as a possible alternative for new survey questions.
ABS is sampling from address frames that are usually based, in part, on
residential addresses in the U.S. Postal Service Computerized Delivery
Sequence File. ABS is a cost effective method of sampling that provides
much coverage of U.S. households for in-person, mail, telephone, and
multimode surveys (including web-based surveys.) The Food Safety Survey
will continue to include cell phones in addition to landlines for the
telephone interviews. A nationally representative sample of 4,000
adults will be selected at random to complete the survey. The survey
will also include an oversample of Hispanics and Blacks to ensure a
minimum of 400 each. Additionally, methods will be employed to test for
the presence of response bias. Participation in the survey will be
voluntary. Cognitive interviews and a pre-test will be conducted prior
to fielding the survey.
    In the Federal Register of July 3, 2017 (82 FR 30871), FDA
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed
collection of information. We received two comments. One commenter
discussed the importance of food safety, for which FDA agrees, and one
commenter provided a comment which was unrelated to the information
collection. After evaluating these comments, FDA will not revise the
information collection.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Number of
                 Activity                      Number of     responses per   Total  annual          Average burden  per response            Total hours
                                              respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive interview screener..............              75               1              75  0.083 (5 minutes)...........................               6
Cognitive interview.......................               9               1               9  1...........................................               9
Pretest screener..........................              45               1              45  0.0167 (1 minute)...........................               1
Pretest...................................              18               1              18  0.33 (20 minutes)...........................               6
Survey screener...........................          10,000               1          10,000  0.0167 (1 minute)...........................             167
Survey....................................           4,000               1           4,000  0.33 (20 minutes)...........................           1,320
Non-response survey screener..............             125               1             125  0.0167 (1 minute)...........................               2
Non-response survey.......................              50               1              50  0.167 (10 minutes)..........................               8
                                           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.................................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ............................................           1,519
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    FDA's burden estimate is based on the Agency's prior experience
with the Food Safety Survey. FDA estimates that the burden hours for
this information collection will remain the same since the last OMB
approval.

    Dated: December 1, 2017.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2017-26356 Filed 12-6-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P