Table
10
to
Subpart
DDDDD
of
Part
63
 
Applicability
of
General
Provisions
to
Subpart
DDDDD
As
stated
in
§
63.7565,
you
must
comply
with
the
applicable
General
Provisions
according
to
the
following:

Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.1
Applicability
Initial
Applicability
Determination;
Applicability
After
Standard
Established;
Permit
Requirements;
Extensions,
Notifications
Yes.

§
63.2
Definitions
Definitions
for
part
63
standards
Yes.

§
63.3
Units
and
Abbreviations
Units
and
abbreviations
for
part
63
standards
Yes.

§
63.4
Prohibited
Activities
Prohibited
Activities;
Compliance
date;
Circumvention,
Severability
Yes.

§
63.5
Construction/
Rec
onstruction
Applicability;
applications;
approvals
Yes.

§
63.6(
a)
Applicability
GP
apply
unless
compliance
extension
AND
GP
apply
to
area
sources
that
become
major
Yes.

§
63.6(
b)(
1)­(
4)
Compliance
Dates
for
New
and
Reconstructed
sources
Standards
apply
at
effective
date;
3
years
after
effective
date;
upon
startup;
10
years
after
construction
or
reconstruction
commences
for
112(
f)
Yes.

§
63.6(
b)(
5)
Notification
Must
notify
if
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
after
proposal
Yes.

§
63.6(
b)(
6)
[
Reserved]
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.6(
b)(
7)
Compliance
Dates
for
New
and
Reconstructed
Area
Sources
That
Become
Major
Area
sources
that
become
major
must
comply
with
major
source
standards
immediately
upon
becoming
major,
regardless
of
whether
required
to
comply
when
they
were
an
area
source
Yes.

§
63.6(
c)(
1)­(
2)
Compliance
Dates
for
Existing
Sources
Comply
according
to
date
in
subpart,
which
must
be
no
later
than
3
years
after
effective
date
AND
For
112(
f)
standards,
comply
within
90
days
of
effective
date
unless
compliance
extension
Yes.

§
63.6(
c)(
3)­(
4)
[
Reserved]

§
63.6(
c)(
5)
Compliance
Dates
for
Existing
Area
Sources
That
Become
Major
Area
sources
that
become
major
must
comply
with
major
source
standards
by
date
indicated
in
subpart
or
by
equivalent
time
period
(
for
example,
3
years)
Yes.

§
63.6(
d)
[
Reserved]

§
63.6(
e)(
1)­(
2)
Operation
&
Maintenance
Operate
to
minimize
emissions
at
all
times
AND
Correct
malfunctions
as
soon
as
practicable
AND
Operation
and
maintenance
requirements
independently
enforceable
information
Administrator
will
use
to
determine
if
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
were
met
Yes.

§
63.6(
e)(
3)
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction
Plan
(
SSMP)
Requirement
for
SSM
and
startup,
shutdown,
malfunction
plan
Content
of
SSMP
Yes.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.6(
f)(
1)
Compliance
Except
During
SSM
Comply
with
emission
standards
at
all
times
except
during
SSM
Yes.

§
63.6(
f)(
2)­(
3)
Methods
for
Determining
Compliance
Compliance
based
on
performance
test,
operation
and
maintenance
plans,
records,
inspection
Yes.

§
63.6(
g)(
1)­(
3)
Alternative
Standard
Procedures
for
getting
an
alternative
standard
Yes.

§
63.6(
h)(
1)
Compliance
with
Opacity/
VE
Standards
Comply
with
opacity/
VE
emission
limitations
at
all
times
except
during
SSM
Yes.

§
63.6(
h)(
2)(
i)
Determining
Compliance
with
Opacity/
Visible
Emission
(
VE)
Standards
If
standard
does
not
state
test
method,
use
Method
9
for
opacity
and
Method
22
for
VE
No.

§
63.6(
h)(
2)(
ii)
[
Reserved]

§
63.6(
h)(
2)(
iii)
Using
Previous
Tests
to
Demonstrate
Compliance
with
Opacity/
VE
Standards
Criteria
for
when
previous
opacity/
VE
testing
can
be
used
to
show
compliance
with
this
rule
Yes.

§
63.6(
h)(
3)
[
Reserved]

§
63.6(
h)(
4)
Notification
of
Opacity/
VE
Observation
Date
Notify
Administrator
of
anticipated
date
of
observation
No.

§
63.6(
h)(
5)(
i),
(
iii)­(
v)
Conducting
Opacity/
VE
Observations
Dates
and
Schedule
for
conducting
opacity/
VE
observations
No.

§
63.6(
h)(
5)(
ii)
Opacity
Test
Duration
and
Averaging
Times
Must
have
at
least
3
hours
of
observation
with
thirty,
6­
minute
averages
No.

§
63.6(
h)(
6)
Records
of
Conditions
During
Opacity/
VE
observations
Keep
records
available
and
allow
Administrator
to
inspect
No.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.6(
h)(
7)(
i)
Report
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
Monitoring
Data
from
Performance
Test
Submit
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
data
with
other
performance
test
data
Yes.

§
63.6(
h)(
7)(
ii)
Using
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
instead
of
Method
9
Can
submit
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
data
instead
of
Method
9
results
even
if
rule
requires
Method
9,
but
must
notify
Administrator
before
performance
test
No.

§
63.6(
h)(
7)
(
iii)
Averaging
time
for
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
during
performance
test
To
determine
compliance,
must
reduce
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
data
to
6­
minute
averages
Yes.

§
63.6(
h)(
7)(
iv)
Continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
requirements
Demonstrate
that
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
performance
evaluations
are
conducted
according
to
§
§
63.8(
e),
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
are
properly
maintained
and
operated
according
to
63.8(
c)
and
data
quality
as
§
63.8(
d)
Yes.

§
63.6(
h)(
7)(
v)
Determining
Compliance
with
Opacity/
VE
Standards
Continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
is
probative
but
not
conclusive
evidence
of
compliance
with
opacity
standard,
even
if
Method
9
observation
shows
otherwise.
Requirements
for
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
to
be
probative
evidence
 
proper
maintenance,
meeting
PS
1,
and
data
have
not
been
altered
Yes.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.6(
h)(
8)
Determining
Compliance
with
Opacity/
VE
Standards
Administrator
will
use
all
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system,
Method
9,
and
Method
22
results,
as
well
as
information
about
operation
and
maintenance
to
determine
compliance
Yes.

§
63.6(
h)(
9)
Adjusted
Opacity
Standard
Procedures
for
Administrator
to
adjust
an
opacity
standard
Yes.

§
63.6(
i)(
1)­(
14)
Compliance
Extension
Procedures
and
criteria
for
Administrator
to
grant
compliance
extension
Yes.

§
63.6(
j)
Presidential
Compliance
Exemption
President
may
exempt
source
category
from
requirement
to
comply
with
rule
Yes.

§
63.7(
a)(
1)
Performance
Test
Dates
Dates
for
Conducting
Initial
Performance
Testing
and
Other
Compliance
Demonstrations
Yes.

§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
i)
Performance
Test
Dates
New
source
with
initial
startup
date
before
effective
date
has
180
days
after
effective
date
to
demonstrate
compliance
Yes.

§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
ii)
Performance
Test
Dates
New
source
with
initial
startup
date
after
effective
date
has
180
days
after
initial
startup
date
to
demonstrate
compliance
Yes.

Existing
source
subject
to
standard
established
pursuant
to
112(
d)
has
180
days
after
compliance
date
to
demonstrate
compliance
AND
§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
iii)
Performance
Test
Dates
Existing
source
with
startup
date
after
effective
date
has
180
days
after
startup
to
demonstrate
compliance
No.

Yes.

§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
iv)
Performance
Test
Dates
Existing
source
subject
to
standard
established
pursuant
to
112(
f)
has
180
days
after
compliance
date
to
demonstrate
compliance
No.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
v)
Performance
Test
Dates
Existing
source
that
applied
for
extension
of
compliance
has
180
days
after
termination
date
of
extension
to
demonstrate
compliance
Yes.

§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
vi)
Performance
Test
Dates
New
source
subject
to
standard
established
pursuant
to
112(
f)
that
commenced
construction
after
proposal
date
of
112(
d)
standard
but
before
proposal
date
of
112(
f)
standard,
has
180
days
after
compliance
date
to
demonstrate
compliance
No.

§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
viiviii
[
Reserved]

§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
ix)
Performance
Test
Dates
New
source
that
commenced
construction
between
proposal
and
promulgation
dates,
when
promulgated
standard
is
more
stringent
than
proposed
standard,
has
180
days
after
effective
date
or
180
days
after
startup
of
source,
whichever
is
later,
to
demonstrate
compliance
AND
If
source
initially
demonstrates
compliance
with
less
stringent
proposed
standard,
it
has
3
years
and
180
days
after
the
effective
date
of
the
standard
or
180
days
after
startup
of
source,
whichever
is
later,
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
promulgated
standard
Yes.

No.

§
63.7(
a)(
3)
Section
114
Authority
Administrator
may
require
a
performance
test
under
CAA
Section
114
at
any
time
Yes.

§
63.7(
b)(
1)
Notification
of
Performance
Test
Must
notify
Administrator
60
days
before
the
test
Yes.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.7(
b)(
2)
Notification
of
Rescheduling
If
rescheduling
a
performance
test
is
necessary,
must
notify
Administrator
5
days
before
scheduled
date
of
rescheduled
date
Yes.

§
63.7(
c)
Quality
Assurance/
Test
Plan
Requirement
to
submit
sitespecific
test
plan
60
days
before
the
test
or
on
date
Administrator
agrees
with:

Test
plan
approval
procedures
AND
Performance
audit
requirements
AND
Internal
and
External
QA
procedures
for
testing
Yes.

§
63.7(
d)
Testing
Facilities
Requirements
for
testing
facilities
Yes.

Performance
tests
must
be
conducted
under
representative
conditions
No.

AND
Cannot
conduct
performance
tests
during
SSM.
Yes.

AND
Not
a
deviation
to
exceed
standard
during
SSM
Yes.

AND
§
63.7(
e)(
1)
Conditions
for
Conducting
Performance
Tests
Upon
request
of
Administrator,
make
available
records
necessary
to
determine
conditions
of
performance
tests
Yes.

§
63.7(
e)(
2)
Conditions
for
Conducting
Performance
Tests
Must
conduct
according
to
rule
and
EPA
test
methods
unless
Administrator
approves
alternative
Yes.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.7(
e)(
3)
Test
Run
Duration
Must
have
three
separate
test
runs
AND
Compliance
is
based
on
arithmetic
mean
of
three
runs
AND
Conditions
when
data
from
an
additional
test
run
can
be
used
Yes.

§
63.7(
f)
Alternative
Test
Method
Procedures
by
which
Administrator
can
grant
approval
to
use
an
alternative
test
method
Yes.

§
63.7(
g)
Performance
Test
Data
Analysis
Must
include
raw
data
in
performance
test
report
AND
Must
submit
performance
test
data
60
days
after
end
of
test
with
the
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
AND
Keep
data
for
5
years
Yes.

§
63.7(
h)
Waiver
of
Tests
Procedures
for
Administrator
to
waive
performance
test
Yes.

§
63.8(
a)(
1)
Applicability
of
Monitoring
Requirements
Subject
to
all
monitoring
requirements
in
standard
Yes.

§
63.8(
a)(
2)
Performance
Specifications
Performance
Specifications
in
appendix
B
of
part
60
apply
Yes.

§
63.8(
a)(
3)
[
Reserved]

§
63.8(
a)(
4)
Monitoring
with
Flares
Unless
your
rule
says
otherwise,
the
requirements
for
flares
in
§
63.11
apply
No.

§
63.8(
b)(
1)(
i)­
(
ii)
Monitoring
Must
conduct
monitoring
according
to
standard
unless
Administrator
approves
alternative
Yes.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.8(
b)(
1)(
iii)
Monitoring
Flares
not
subject
to
this
section
unless
otherwise
specified
in
relevant
standard
No.

§
63.8(
b)(
2)­(
3)
Multiple
Effluents
and
Multiple
Monitoring
Systems
Specific
requirements
for
installing
monitoring
systems
AND
Must
install
on
each
effluent
before
it
is
combined
and
before
it
is
released
to
the
atmosphere
unless
Administrator
approves
otherwise
AND
If
more
than
one
monitoring
system
on
an
emission
point,
must
report
all
monitoring
system
results,
unless
one
monitoring
system
is
a
backup
Yes.

§
63.8(
c)(
1)
Monitoring
System
Operation
and
Maintenance
Maintain
monitoring
system
in
a
manner
consistent
with
good
air
pollution
control
practices
Yes.

§
63.8(
c)(
1)(
i)
Routine
and
Predictable
SSM
Follow
the
SSM
plan
for
routine
repairs.
Keep
parts
for
routine
repairs
readily
available
Reporting
requirements
for
SSM
when
action
is
described
in
SSM
plan
Yes.

§
63.8(
c)(
1)(
ii)
SSM
not
in
SSMP
Reporting
requirements
for
SSM
when
action
is
not
described
in
SSM
plan
Yes.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.8(
c)(
1)(
iii)
Compliance
with
Operation
and
Maintenance
Requirements
How
Administrator
determines
if
source
complying
with
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
AND
Review
of
source
O&
M
procedures,
records,
Manufacturer's
instructions,
recommendations,
and
inspection
of
monitoring
system
Yes.

§
63.8(
c)(
2)­(
3)
Monitoring
System
Installation
Must
install
to
get
representative
emission
and
parameter
measurements
AND
Must
verify
operational
status
before
or
at
performance
test
Yes.

§
63.8(
c)(
4)
Continuous
Monitoring
System
(
CMS)
Requirements
Continuous
monitoring
systems
must
be
operating
except
during
breakdown,
out­
of­
control,
repair,
maintenance,
and
high­
level
calibration
drifts
No.

§
63.8(
c)(
4)(
i)
Continuous
Monitoring
System
(
CMS)
Requirements
Continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
must
have
a
minimum
of
one
cycle
of
sampling
and
analysis
for
each
successive
10­
second
period
and
one
cycle
of
data
recording
for
each
successive
6­
minute
period
Yes.

§
63.8(
c)(
4)(
ii)
Continuous
Monitoring
System
(
CMS)
Requirements
Continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
must
have
a
minimum
of
one
cycle
of
operation
for
each
successive
15­
minute
period
No.

§
63.8(
c)(
7)­(
8)
Continuous
monitoring
systems
Requirements
Out­
of­
control
periods,
including
reporting
Yes.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.8(
d)
Continuous
monitoring
systems
Quality
Control
Requirements
for
continuous
monitoring
systems
quality
control,
including
calibration,
etc.

AND
Must
keep
quality
control
plan
on
record
for
the
life
of
the
affected
source.
Keep
old
versions
for
5
years
after
revisions
Yes.

§
63.8(
e)
Continuous
monitoring
systems
Performance
Evaluation
Notification,
performance
evaluation
test
plan,
reports
Yes.

§
63.8(
f)(
1)­(
5)
Alternative
Monitoring
Method
Procedures
for
Administrator
to
approve
alternative
monitoring
Yes.

§
63.8(
f)(
6)
Alternative
to
Relative
Accuracy
Test
Procedures
for
Administrator
to
approve
alternative
relative
accuracy
tests
for
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
No.

§
63.8(
g)(
1)­(
4)
Data
Reduction
Continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
6­
minute
averages
calculated
over
at
least
36
evenly
spaced
data
points
AND
Continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
1­
hour
averages
computed
over
at
least
4
equally
spaced
data
points
Yes.

§
63.8(
g)(
5)
Data
Reduction
Data
that
cannot
be
used
in
computing
averages
for
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
and
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
No.

§
63.9(
a)
Notification
Requirements
Applicability
and
State
Delegation
Yes.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.9(
b)(
1)­(
5)
Initial
Notifications
Submit
notification
120
days
after
effective
date
AND
Notification
of
intent
to
construct/
reconstruct
AND
Notification
of
commencement
of
construct/
reconstruct;
Notification
of
startup
AND
Contents
of
each
Yes.

§
63.9(
c)
Request
for
Compliance
Extension
Can
request
if
cannot
comply
by
date
or
if
installed
BACT/
LAER
Yes.

§
63.9(
d)
Notification
of
Special
Compliance
Requirements
for
New
Source
For
sources
that
commence
construction
between
proposal
and
promulgation
and
want
to
comply
3
years
after
effective
date
Yes.

§
63.9(
e)
Notification
of
Performance
Test
Notify
Administrator
60
days
prior
Yes.

§
63.9(
f)
Notification
of
VE/
Opacity
Test
Notify
Administrator
30
days
prior
Yes.

§
63.9(
g)
Additional
Notifications
When
Using
Continuous
Monitoring
Systems
Notification
of
performance
evaluation
AND
Notification
using
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
data
AND
Notification
that
exceeded
criterion
for
relative
accuracy
Yes.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.9(
h)(
1)­(
6)
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
Contents
AND
Due
60
days
after
end
of
performance
test
or
other
compliance
demonstration,
except
for
opacity/
VE,
which
are
due
30
days
after
When
to
submit
to
Federal
vs.
State
authority
Yes.

§
63.9(
i)
Adjustment
of
Submittal
Deadlines
Procedures
for
Administrator
to
approve
change
in
when
notifications
must
be
submitted
Yes.

§
63.9(
j)
Change
in
Previous
Information
Must
submit
within
15
days
after
the
change
Yes.

§
63.10(
a)
Recordkeeping/
Re
porting
Applies
to
all,
unless
compliance
extension
AND
When
to
submit
to
Federal
vs.
State
authority
AND
Procedures
for
owners
of
more
than
1
source
Yes.

§
63.10(
b)(
1)
Recordkeeping/
Re
porting
General
Requirements
AND
Keep
all
records
readily
available
AND
Keep
for
5
years
Yes.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
i)­
(
v)
Records
related
to
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction
Occurrence
of
each
of
operation
(
process
equipment)

AND
Occurrence
of
each
malfunction
of
air
pollution
equipment
AND
Maintenance
on
air
pollution
control
equipment
AND
Actions
during
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
Yes.

§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
vi)
and
(
x­
xi)
Continuous
monitoring
systems
Records
Malfunctions,
inoperative,
out­
of­
control
AND
Calibration
checks
AND
Adjustments,
maintenance
Yes.

§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
vii
)­(
ix)
Records
Measurements
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
emission
limitations
AND
Performance
test,
performance
evaluation,
and
visible
emission
observation
results
AND
Measurements
to
determine
conditions
of
performance
tests
and
performance
evaluations.
Yes.

§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xii
)
Records
Records
when
under
waiver
Yes.

§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xii
i)
Records
Records
when
using
alternative
to
relative
accuracy
test
Yes.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.10(
b)(
2)(
xiv
)
Records
All
documentation
supporting
Initial
Notification
and
Notification
of
Compliance
Status
Yes.

§
63.10(
b)(
3)
Records
Applicability
Determinations
Yes.

§
63.10(
c)(
1)­
(
6),(
9)­(
15)
Records
Additional
Records
for
continuous
monitoring
systems
Yes.

§
63.10(
c)(
7)­(
8)
Records
Records
of
excess
emissions
and
parameter
monitoring
exceedances
for
continuous
monitoring
systems
No.

§
63.10(
d)(
1)
General
Reporting
Requirements
Requirement
to
report
Yes.

§
63.10(
d)(
2)
Report
of
Performance
Test
Results
When
to
submit
to
Federal
or
State
authority
Yes.

§
63.10(
d)(
3)
Reporting
Opacity
or
VE
Observations
What
to
report
and
when
Yes.

§
63.10(
d)(
4)
Progress
Reports
Must
submit
progress
reports
on
schedule
if
under
compliance
extension
Yes.

§
63.10(
d)(
5)
Startup,
Shutdown,
and
Malfunction
Reports
Contents
and
submission
Yes.

§
63.10(
e)(
1)­(
2)
Additional
continuous
monitoring
systems
Reports
Must
report
results
for
each
CEM
on
a
unit
AND
Written
copy
of
performance
evaluation
AND
3
copies
of
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
performance
evaluation
Yes.

§
63.10(
e)(
3)
Reports
Excess
Emission
Reports
No.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.10(
e)(
3)(
iiii
Reports
Schedule
for
reporting
excess
emissions
and
parameter
monitor
exceedance
(
now
defined
as
deviations)
No.

§
63.10(
e)(
3)(
ivv
Excess
Emissions
Reports
Requirement
to
revert
to
quarterly
submission
if
there
is
an
excess
emissions
and
parameter
monitor
exceedance
(
now
defined
as
deviations)

AND
Provision
to
request
semiannual
reporting
after
compliance
for
one
year
AND
Submit
report
by
30th
day
following
end
of
quarter
or
calendar
half
AND
If
there
has
not
been
an
exceedance
or
excess
emission
(
now
defined
as
deviations),
report
contents
is
a
statement
that
there
have
been
no
deviations
No.

§
63.10(
e)(
3)(
ivv
Excess
Emissions
Reports
Must
submit
report
containing
all
of
the
information
in
§
63.10(
c)(
5­
13),
§
63.8(
c)(
7­
8)
No.

§
63.10(
e)(
3)(
viviii
Excess
Emissions
Report
and
Summary
Report
Requirements
for
reporting
excess
emissions
for
continuous
monitoring
systems
(
now
called
deviations)

Requires
all
of
the
information
in
§
63.10(
c)(
5­
13),
§
63.8(
c)(
7­
8)
No.

§
63.10(
e)(
4)
Reporting
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
data
Must
submit
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
data
with
performance
test
data
Yes.
Citation
Subject
Brief
Description
Comments
§
63.10(
f)
Waiver
for
Recordkeeping/
Re
porting
Procedures
for
Administrator
to
waive
Yes.

§
63.11
Flares
Requirements
for
flares
No.

§
63.12
Delegation
State
authority
to
enforce
standards
Yes.

§
63.13
Addresses
Addresses
where
reports,
notifications,
and
requests
are
sent
Yes.

§
63.14
Incorporation
by
Reference
Test
methods
incorporated
by
reference
Yes.

§
63.15
Availability
of
Information
Public
and
confidential
information
Yes.
Appendix
A
to
Subpart
DDDDD
 
Methodology
and
Criteria
for
Demonstrating
Eligibility
for
the
Risk­
Based
Compliance
Alternatives
Specified
for
the
Large
Solid
Fuel
Subcategory
1.
Purpose/
Introduction
This
appendix
provides
the
methodology
and
criteria
for
demonstrating
that
your
affected
source
is
eligible
for
the
alternative
compliance
option
for
the
HCl
emission
limit
and/
or
excluding
manganese
from
the
total
selected
metals
emission
limit.
This
appendix
specifies
emissions
testing
methods
that
you
must
use
to
determine
HCl,
chlorine,
manganese,
and
other
HAP
emissions
from
the
affected
sources
and
what
parts
of
the
affected
source
facility
must
be
included
in
the
eligibility
demonstration.
You
must
determine
if
your
facility
is
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
provisions
using
either
a
look­
up
table
analysis
(
based
on
the
look­
up
tables
included
in
this
appendix)

or
site­
specific
risk
assessment
performed
according
to
the
criteria
specified
in
this
appendix.
This
appendix
also
specifies
how
and
when
you
file
any
eligibility
demonstrations
for
your
affected
source
and
how
to
show
that
your
affected
source
remains
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
compliance
alternatives
in
the
future.

2.
Who
is
eligible
to
demonstrate
that
they
qualify
for
the
risk­
based
compliance
alternatives?

Each
new,
reconstructed,
or
existing
affected
source
may
demonstrate
that
they
are
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
provisions.
Section
63.7490
of
subpart
DDDDD
defines
the
affected
source
and
explains
which
affected
sources
are
new,

existing,
or
reconstructed.

3.
What
parts
of
my
facility
have
to
be
included
in
the
riskbased
eligibility
demonstration?

If
you
are
attempting
to
determine
your
eligibility
for
the
alternative
compliance
option
for
HCl,
you
must
include
every
appropriate
emission
point
within
the
affected
source
facility
that
emits
one
or
more
of
the
following
HAP,
which
are
referred
to
as
respiratory
toxicants,
in
the
eligibility
demonstration:

Respiratory
Toxicants
Pollutant
CAS
Number
Chlorine
7782­
50­
5
Propylene
oxide
75­
56­
9
Styrene
oxide
96­
09­
3
Acrolein
107­
02­
8
Titanium
tetrachloride
7550­
45­
0
Triethylamine
121­
44­
8
Bis(
2­
ethylhexyl)
phthalate
117­
81­
7
2,4­
Toluene
diisocyanate
26471­
62­
5
Acrylic
acid
79­
10­
7
Acrylonitrile
107­
13­
1
Vinyl
acetate
108­
05­
4
Toluene
108­
88­
3
Methyl
isocyanate
624­
83­
9
n­
Hexane
110­
54­
3
Nickel
compounds
Antimony
compounds
Beryllium
compounds
Hexavalent
Chromium
compounds
If
you
are
attempting
to
determine
your
eligibility
for
the
alternative
compliance
option
for
manganese,
you
must
include
every
appropriate
emission
point
within
the
affected
source
facility
that
emits
one
or
more
of
the
following
HAP,
which
are
referred
to
as
central
nervous
system
toxicants,
in
the
eligibility
demonstration.

Central
nervous
system
toxicants
Pollutant
CAS
Number
Dichlorvos
62­
73­
7
Cresols
(
mixed)
1319­
77­
3
Benzidine
92­
87­
5
Allyl
chloride
107­
05­
1
Acrylamide
79­
06­
1
Carbon
disulfide
75­
15­
0
1,1,1­
Trichloroethane
71­
55­
6
Ethylene
oxide
75­
21­
8
Styrene
100­
42­
5
Tetrachloroethene
127­
18­
4
Methyl
chloride
74­
87­
3
n­
Hexane
110­
54­
3
Xylenes
(
mixed)
1330­
20­
7
Toluene
108­
88­
3
Cyanide
compounds
Selenium
compounds
Mercury
compounds
Manganese
compounds
4.
How
do
I
determine
HAP
emissions
from
my
affected
source?

(
a)
You
must
conduct
HAP
emissions
tests
for
every
appropriate
emission
point
within
the
affected
source
facility
that
emits
HAP
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)

through
(
f)
of
this
section
and
the
methods
specified
in
Table
1
of
this
appendix.
You
must
test
the
units
at
your
facility
for
each
of
the
appropriate
pollutants
listed
in
section
3
above.
(
b)
Periods
when
emissions
tests
must
be
conducted.

(
1)
You
must
not
conduct
emissions
tests
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
as
specified
in
§
63.7(
e)(
1).

(
2)
You
must
test
under
worst­
case
operating
conditions
as
defined
in
this
appendix.
You
must
describe
your
worst­
case
operating
conditions
in
your
performance
test
report
for
the
process
and
control
systems
(
if
applicable)
and
explain
why
the
conditions
are
worst­
case.

(
c)
Number
of
test
runs.
You
must
conduct
three
separate
test
runs
for
each
test
required
in
this
section,
as
specified
in
§
63.7(
e)(
3).
Each
test
run
must
last
at
least
1
hour.

(
d)
Sampling
locations.
Sampling
sites
must
be
located
at
the
outlet
of
the
control
device
and
prior
to
any
releases
to
the
atmosphere.

(
e)
Collection
of
monitoring
data
for
HAP
control
devices.

During
the
emissions
test,
you
must
collect
operating
parameter
monitoring
system
or
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
(
CEMS)
data
at
least
every
15
minutes
during
the
entire
emissions
test
and
establish
the
site­
specific
operating
requirements
in
Table
2
of
subpart
DDDDD
using
data
from
the
monitoring
system
and
the
procedures
specified
in
§
63.7530
of
subpart
DDDDD.

(
f)
Nondetect
data.
You
may
treat
emissions
of
an
individual
HAP
as
zero
if
all
of
the
test
runs
result
in
a
nondetect
measurement
and
the
condition
in
paragraph
(
1)
is
met
for
the
manganese
test
method.
Otherwise
nondetect
data
for
individual
HAP
must
be
treated
as
one­
half
of
the
method
detection
limit.

(
1)
For
manganese
measured
using
Method
29
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60,
you
analyze
samples
using
atomic
absorption
spectroscopy
(
AAS).

(
g)
You
must
determine
the
maximum
hourly
emission
rate
for
each
appropriate
emission
point
according
to
equation
1.

Where:

MaxHourly
=
Maximum
hourly
emissions
for
Emissions
hydrogen
chloride,

chlorine,
manganese,
or
other
HAP,
in
units
of
pounds
per
hour.

Er
=
Emission
rate
(
as
calculated
according
to
Table
1
of
this
appendix)
for
hydrogen
chloride,

chlorine,
manganese,
or
other
HAP,
in
MaxHourlyEmissions
ER
Hm
=
×
units
of
pounds
per
million
Btu
of
heat
input.

Hm
=
Maximum
rated
heat
input
capacity
of
appropriate
emission
point,
in
units
of
million
Btu
per
hour.

5.
What
are
the
criteria
for
determining
if
my
facility
is
eligible
for
a
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
option?

(
a)
Determine
the
HAP
emissions
from
each
appropriate
emission
point
within
the
affected
source
facility
using
the
procedures
specified
in
section
4
of
this
appendix.

(
b)
Determine
if
your
facility
is
eligible
for
either
of
the
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
options
by
conducting
a
chronic
noncancer
risk
assessment
for
your
facility
using
one
of
the
methods
described
in
either
section
6
of
this
appendix
(
look­
up
table
analysis)
or
section
7
of
this
appendix
(

sitespecific
risk
assessment).

(
c)
Your
facility
is
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
option
for
HCl
if
1
of
the
following
2
statements
is
true:

(
1)
The
calculated
HCl­
equivalent
emissions
for
your
entire
facility
is
below
the
appropriate
value
in
the
look­
up
table;

(
2)
Your
site­
specific
risk
assessment
indicates
that
your
total
facility
maximum
respiratory
HI
is
less
than
1.0;

(
d)
Your
facility
is
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
option
for
manganese
if
1
of
the
following
2
statements
is
true:

(
1)
The
calculated
manganese­
equivalent
emissions
for
your
entire
facility
is
below
the
appropriate
value
in
the
lookup
table;

(
2)
Your
site­
specific
risk
assessment
indicates
that
your
total
facility
maximum
central
nervous
system
HI
is
less
than
1.0;

6.
How
do
I
conduct
a
look­
up
table
analysis?

You
may
use
look­
up
tables
to
determine
if
your
facility
is
eligible
for
either
the
alternative
compliance
option
for
the
HCl
emission
limit
or
the
alternative
compliance
option
for
manganese.

(
a)
HCl
risk­
based
compliance
alternative.
Determine
the
total
toxicity­
weighted
HCl­
equivalent
emission
rate
for
your
facility.
Develop
the
total­
facility
emission
rate
of
HCl
by
summing
the
maximum
hourly
HClL
emission
rates
from
all
sources
within
the
facility
boundary
line.
Similarly,
develop
the
total­
facility
emission
rate
for
Cl2.
Now,
develop
the
totalfacility
emission
rate
for
each
of
the
respiratory
toxicants
emitted
by
your
facility
by
summing
the
emissions
across
all
emission
points
within
the
facility
boundary
line
except
those
covered
by
subpart
DDDDD.
A
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rate
expressed
in
HCl
equivalents
is
then
calculated
according
to
equation
1
of
this
appendix.

ERtw
=

(
ERi
x
(
RfCHCl/
RfCi))

Eq.
1
where:
ERtw
is
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rate
ER
i
is
the
emission
rate
of
HAP
i
in
lbs/
hr
RfCi
is
the
reference
concentration
of
HAP
i
RfCHCl
is
the
reference
concentration
of
HCl
(
RfCs
and
other
appropriate
dose­
response
values
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw/
toxsource/
summary.
html)

Calculated
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rates
will
then
be
compared
to
the
appropriate
allowable
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rate
in
Table
2
of
this
appendix.
To
determine
the
correct
value
from
the
table,
a
facility­
wide
average
value
should
be
used
for
stack
height
and
the
minimum
distance
between
any
stack
at
the
facility
and
the
closest
boundary
of
the
nearest
residential
(
or
residentially
zoned)
area
should
be
used
for
fenceline
distance.
If
one
or
both
of
these
values
do
not
match
the
values
in
the
lookup
tables
then
use
the
next
lowest
table
value.
Your
facility
is
eligible
for
alternative
compliance
with
the
HCl
emission
limit
if
your
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rate,

determined
using
the
methods
specified
in
this
appendix,
does
not
exceed
the
appropriate
value
in
Table
2
of
this
appendix.

(
b)
Manganese
Exclusion.
Determine
the
total
toxicityweighted
manganese
equivalent
emission
rate
for
your
affected
source
by
summing
the
maximum
hourly
manganese
emission
rates
for
all
sources
within
the
facility
boundary
line
and
the
maximum
hourly
emission
rates
of
any
additional
central
nervous
system
toxicants
from
all
emission
points
within
the
facility
boundary
line
except
those
covered
by
subpart
DDDDD.
A
toxicityweighted
emission
rate
expressed
in
manganese
equivalents
is
then
calculated
according
to
equation
2
of
this
appendix.

ERtw
=

(
ERi
x
(
RfCMn/
RfCi))

Eq.
2
where:
ERtw
is
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rate
ER
i
is
the
emission
rate
of
HAP
i
in
lbs/
hr
RfCi
is
the
reference
concentration
of
HAP
i
RfCMn
is
the
reference
concentration
of
manganese
(
RfCs
and
other
appropriate
dose­
response
values
can
be
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw/
toxsource/
summary.
html)

Calculated
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rates
will
then
be
compared
to
the
appropriate
allowable
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rate
in
the
table.
To
determine
the
correct
value
from
the
table,
a
facility­
wide
average
value
should
be
used
for
stack
height
and
the
minimum
distance
between
any
stack
at
the
facility
and
the
closest
boundary
of
the
nearest
residential
(
or
residentially­
zoned)
area
should
be
used
for
fenceline
distance.
If
one
or
both
of
these
values
do
not
match
the
values
in
the
lookup
tables
then
use
the
next
lowest
table
value.
Your
facility
may
exclude
manganese
when
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
total
selected
metals
emission
limit
if
your
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rate,
determined
using
the
methods
specified
in
this
appendix,
does
not
exceed
the
values
specified
in
Table
3
of
this
appendix.
7.
How
do
I
conduct
a
site­
specific
risk
assessment?

If
you
fail
to
demonstrate
that
your
facility
is
low
risk
using
the
lookup
table
approach,
you
may
choose
to
perform
a
site­
specific
risk
assessment
for
your
entire
facility.
You
may
use
any
scientifically­
accepted
peer­
reviewed
assessment
methodology
for
your
site­
specific
risk
assessment.
An
example
approach
to
performing
a
site­
specific
assessment
for
air
toxics
is
provided
in
the
"
Air
Toxics
Risk
Assessment
Reference
Library",
which
may
be
obtained
through
the
EPA's
Air
Toxics
Website
at
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw.

(
1)
Your
facility
is
eligible
for
the
HCl
alternative
compliance
option
if
your
site­
specific
risk
assessment
demonstrates
that
the
HI
from
respiratory
HAP
is
less
than
1.0.

(
2)
Your
facility
is
eligible
for
the
manganese
alternative
compliance
option
if
your
site­
specific
risk
assessment
demonstrates
the
risk
from
manganese
emissions
is
less
than
1.0.

(
b)
Your
site­
specific
risk
assessment
should:

(
1)
focus
on
estimating
long­
term
inhalation
exposures
through
the
estimation
of
annual
or
multi­
year
average
ambient
concentrations;

(
2)
focus
on
estimating
the
inhalation
exposure
of
the
individual
most
exposed
to
the
facility's
emissions;

(
3)
not
assume
any
attenuation
of
exposure
concentrations
due
to
the
penetration
of
outdoor
pollutants
into
indoor
exposure
areas;

(
4)
not
assume
any
reaction
or
deposition
of
the
emitted
pollutants
during
transport
from
the
emission
point
to
the
point
of
exposure;

(
5)
use
site­
specific,
quality­
assured
data
wherever
possible;

(
6)
use
health­
protective
default
assumptions
wherever
site­
specific
data
are
not
available,
and;

(
7)
contain
adequate
documentation
of
the
data
and
methods
used
for
the
assessment
that
it
can
be
reproduced
by
an
experienced
risk
assessor.

8.
What
must
my
risk­
based
eligibility
demonstration
contain?

(
a)
Your
risk­
based
eligibility
demonstration
must
contain
the
information
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.

(
1)
Identification
of
each
appropriate
emission
point
at
the
affected
source.

(
2)
Stack
parameters
for
each
appropriate
emission
point
including,
but
not
limited
to,
the
parameters
listed
in
(
a)(
2)(
i)
through
(
iv)
below:

(
i)
Emission
release
type
(
ii)
Stack
height,
stack
area,
stack
gas
temperature,
and
stack
gas
exit
velocity
(
iii)
Plot
plan
showing
all
emission
points,
nearby
residences,
and
fenceline.

(
iv)
Identification
of
any
control
devices
used
to
reduce
emissions
from
each
appropriate
emission
point.

(
3)
Emission
test
reports
for
each
appropriate
emission
point
based
on
the
test
methods
specified
in
Table
1
of
this
appendix,
including
a
description
of
the
process
parameters
identified
as
being
worst
case.

(
4)
Identification
of
the
RfC
values
used
in
your
sitespecific
risk
assessment,
according
to
section
5(
b)
of
this
appendix.

(
5)
Calculations
used
to
determine
the
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rates
expressed
in
HCl
equivalents
according
to
section
6(
a)
of
this
appendix.

(
6)
Identification
of
the
controlling
process
factors
(
including,
but
not
limited
to,
fuel
type,
heat
input
rate,
type
of
control
devices,
process
parameters
documented
as
worst­
case
conditions
during
the
emissions
testing
used
for
your
eligibility
demonstration)
that
will
become
Federally
enforceable
permit
conditions
used
to
show
that
your
facility
remains
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
provisions.

(
b)
If
you
use
the
look­
up
table
analysis
in
section
5
of
this
appendix
to
demonstrate
that
your
facility
is
eligible
for
either
the
risk­
based
exemption
or
the
risk­
based
exclusion,

your
eligibility
demonstration
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.

(
1)
Calculations
used
to
determine
the
average
stack
height
of
the
appropriate
emission
points.

(
2)
Identification
of
the
appropriate
emission
point
with
the
nearest
distance
to
the
closest
boundary
of
the
nearest
residential
(
or
residentially­
zoned)
area
used
for
fenceline
distance.

(
3)
Comparison
of
the
values
in
the
look­
up
tables
(
Tables
2
and
3
of
this
appendix)
to
your
maximum
toxicity­
weighted
hourly
emission
rates.

(
c)
If
you
are
using
a
site­
specific
risk
assessment
as
described
in
section
7
of
this
appendix
to
demonstrate
that
your
facility
is
eligible,
your
eligibility
demonstration
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
c)(
1)
through
(
7)

of
this
section:

(
1)
Identification
of
the
risk
assessment
methodology
used.

(
2)
Documentation
of
the
fate
and
transport
model
used.

(
3)
Documentation
of
the
fate
and
transport
model
inputs,

including
the
information
described
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section
converted
to
the
dimensions
required
for
the
model
and
all
of
the
following
that
apply:
meteorological
data;

building,
land
use,
and
terrain
data;
receptor
locations
and
population
data;
and
other
facility­
specific
parameters
input
into
the
model.

(
4)
Documentation
of
the
fate
and
transport
model
outputs.

(
5)
Documentation
of
any
exposure
assessment
and
risk
characterization
calculations
(
6)
Comparison
of
the
maximum
chronic
HI
to
the
HI
limit
of
1.0.(
1
or
0.5,
.

9.
When
do
I
have
to
complete
and
submit
my
risk­
based
eligibility
demonstration?

(
a)
If
you
have
an
existing
affected
source,
you
must
complete
and
submit
your
low­
risk
demonstration
to
your
permitting
authority,
along
with
a
signed
certification
that
the
demonstration
is
an
accurate
depiction
of
your
facility,
no
later
than
the
date
one
year
after
the
effective
date
of
subpart
DDDDD.

(
b)
If
you
have
a
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
that
starts
up
before
the
effective
date
of
subpart
DDDDD,
or
an
affected
source
that
is
an
area
source
that
increases
its
emissions
or
its
potential
to
emit
such
that
it
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP
before
the
effective
date
of
subpart
DDDDD,
then
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
subpart
DDDDD
until
your
eligibility
demonstration
is
completed
and
submitted
to
your
permitting
authority.

(
c)
If
you
have
a
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
that
starts
up
after
the
effective
date
for
subpart
DDDDD,
or
an
affected
source
that
is
an
area
source
that
increases
its
emissions
or
its
potential
to
emit
such
that
it
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP
after
the
effective
date
for
subpart
DDDDD,
then
you
must
follow
the
schedule
in
paragraphs
(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.

(
1)
You
must
complete
and
submit
for
approval
a
preliminary
eligibility
demonstration
based
on
the
information
(
e.
g.,

equipment
types,
estimated
emission
rates,
etc.)
used
to
obtain
your
title
V
permit.
You
must
base
your
preliminary
eligibility
demonstration
on
the
maximum
emissions
allowed
under
your
title
V
permit.
If
EPA
concludes
that
your
affected
source
facility
appears
to
be
eligible
for
either
risk­
based
compliance
alternative
based
on
this
preliminary
eligibility
demonstration,

then
your
may
start
up
your
new
affected
source
without
either
complying
with
the
HCl
emission
limit
and
corresponding
compliance
requirements
in
subpart
DDDDD
or
including
manganese
in
your
total
selected
metals
calculations.

(
2)
You
must
conduct
the
emission
tests
specified
in
section
4
of
this
appendix
upon
initial
startup
and
use
the
results
of
these
emissions
tests
to
complete
and
submit
your
eligibility
demonstration
within
180
days
following
your
initial
startup
date.
To
be
eligible,
you
must
meet
the
criteria
in
section
11
of
this
appendix
within
18
months
following
initial
startup
of
your
affected
source.

10.
When
do
I
become
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
options?

To
be
eligible
for
either
the
risk­
based
alternative
compliance
option
for
HCl
or
manganese
,
you
must
meet
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
If
you
do
not
meet
these
criteria,
then
your
affected
source
is
subject
to
the
applicable
emission
limits,
operating
limits,
and
work
practice
standards
in
Subpart
DDDDD.

(
b)
The
parameters
that
defined
your
affected
source
as
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
provisions
(
including,
but
not
limited
to,
fuel
type,
type
of
control
devices,
process
parameters
documented
as
worst­
case
conditions
during
the
emissions
testing
used
for
your
eligibility
demonstration)
must
be
incorporated
as
Federally
enforceable
limits
into
your
title
V
permit.
11.
How
do
I
ensure
that
my
facility
remains
eligible
for
the
risk­
based
provisions?

(
a)
You
must
update
your
eligibility
demonstration
and
resubmit
it
to
EPA
for
re­
approval
each
time
you
have
a
process
change,
such
that
any
of
the
parameters
that
defined
your
affected
source
changes
in
a
way
that
could
result
in
increased
HAP
emissions
(
including,
but
not
limited
to,
fuel
type,
change
in
type
of
control
device,
changes
in
process
parameters
documented
as
worst­
case
conditions
during
the
emissions
testing
used
for
your
approved
eligibility
demonstration).

(
b)
If
you
are
updating
your
eligibility
demonstration
to
account
for
an
action
in
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section,
then
you
must
perform
emission
testing
according
to
section
4
of
this
appendix
for
the
appropriate
emission
points
that
may
have
increased
HAP
emissions
beyond
the
levels
reflected
in
your
previously
approved
eligibility
demonstration
due
to
the
process
change.
You
must
submit
your
revised
eligibility
demonstration
to
EPA
prior
to
revising
your
permit
to
incorporate
the
process
change.
If
your
updated
eligibility
demonstration
indicates
that
your
affected
source
is
no
longer
eligible
for
the
riskbased
provisions,
then
you
must
comply
with
the
applicable
emission
limits,
compliance
options,
and
operating
requirements
in
Subpart
DDDDD
prior
to
making
the
process
change
and
revising
your
permit.

12.
What
records
must
I
keep?

(
a)
You
must
keep
records
of
the
information
used
in
developing
the
eligibility
demonstration
for
your
affected
source,
including
all
of
the
information
specified
in
section
8
of
this
appendix.

13.
Definitions.

The
definitions
in
§
63.7575
of
subpart
DDDDD
apply
to
this
appendix.
Additional
definitions
applicable
for
this
appendix
are
as
follows:

Appropriate
emission
point
means
a
process
unit
that
is
reasonably
expected
to
emit
the
HAP
of
concern
(
HCl,
chlorine,

or
manganese).

Hazard
Index
(
HI)
means
the
sum
of
more
than
one
hazard
quotient
for
multiple
substances
and/
or
multiple
exposure
pathways.

Hazard
Quotient
(
HQ)
means
the
ratio
of
the
predicted
media
concentration
of
a
pollutant
to
the
media
concentratation
at
which
no
adverse
effects
are
expected.
adverse
effects
are
expected.
For
inhalation
exposures,
the
HQ
is
calculated
as
the
air
concentration
divided
by
the
RfC.

Look­
up
table
analysis
means
a
risk
screening
analysis
based
on
comparing
the
HAP
emission
rate
(
or
toxicity­
weighted
HAP
emission
rate)
from
the
affected
source
to
the
maximum
allowable
HAP
emission
rates
specified
in
Tables
3
and
4
of
this
appendix.

Reference
Concentration
(
RfC)
means
an
estimate
(
with
uncertainty
spanning
perhaps
an
order
of
magnitude)
of
a
continuous
inhalation
exposure
to
the
human
population
(
including
sensitive
subgroups
that
is
likely
to
be
without
an
appreciable
risk
of
deleterious
effects
during
a
lifetime.
It
can
be
derived
from
various
types
of
human
or
animal
data,
with
uncertainty
factors
generally
applied
to
reflect
limitations
of
the
data
used.

Worst­
case
operating
conditions
means
operation
of
a
process
unit
during
emissions
testing
under
the
conditions
that
result
in
the
highest
HAP
emissions
or
that
result
in
the
emissions
stream
composition
(
including
HAP
and
non­
HAP)
that
is
most
challenging
for
the
control
device
if
a
control
device
is
used.
For
example,
worst
case
conditions
could
include
operation
of
the
process
unit
at
maximum
throughput
with
the
wood
species
mix
likely
to
produce
the
most
HAP.
Table
1
to
Appendix
B
of
Subpart
DDDD.
Emission
Test
Methods.

For...
You
must...
Using...

(
1)
each
emission
point
select
sampling
ports'
location
and
the
number
of
traverse
points
Method
1
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.

(
2)
each
emission
point
determine
velocity
and
volumetric
flow
rate;
Method
2,
2F,
or
2G
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60.

(
3)
each
emission
point
conduct
gas
molecular
weight
analysis
Method
3A
or
3B
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60.

(
4)
each
emission
point
measure
moisture
content
of
the
stack
gas
Method
4
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60.

(
5)
each
emission
point
measure
the
hydrogen
chloride
and
chlorine
emission
concentrations
Method
26
or
26A
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60.

(
6)
each
emission
point
measure
the
manganese
emission
concentration
Method
29
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60.

(
7)
each
emission
point
convert
emissions
concentration
to
lb
per
MMBtu
emission
rates.
Method
19
F­
factor
methodology
in
appendix
A
to
part
60
of
this
chapter.
40
Table
2
to
Appendix
A
of
Subpart
DDDDD.
Allowable
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rate
expressed
in
HCl
equivalents
(
lbs/
hr)

fenceline
(
m)

Stack
ht.(
m)
50
100
150
200
250
500
1000
1500
2000
3000
5000
5
114.9
114.9
114.9
114.9
114.9
144.3
287.3
373.0
373.0
373.0
373.0
10
188.5
188.5
188.5
188.5
188.5
195.3
328.0
453.5
434.4
434.4
434.4
20
386.1
386.1
386.1
386.1
386.1
386.1
425.4
580.0
602.7
602.7
602.7
30
396.1
396.1
396.1
396.1
396.1
396.1
436.3
596.2
690.6
807.8
816.5
40
408.1
408.1
408.1
408.1
408.1
408.1
448.2
613.3
715.5
832.2
966.0
50
421.4
421.4
421.4
421.4
421.4
421.4
460.6
631.0
746.3
858.2
1002.8
60
435.5
435.5
435.5
435.5
435.5
435.5
473.4
649.0
778.6
885.0
1043.4
70
450.2
450.2
450.2
450.2
450.2
450.2
486.6
667.4
813.8
912.4
1087.4
80
465.5
465.5
465.5
465.5
465.5
465.5
500.0
685.9
849.8
940.9
1134.8
100
497.5
497.5
497.5
497.5
497.5
497.5
527.4
723.6
917.1
1001.2
1241.3
200
677.3
677.3
677.3
677.3
677.3
677.3
682.3
919.8
1167.1
1390.4
1924.6
Table
3
to
Appendix
A
of
Subpart
DDDDD.
Allowable
Manganese
Emission
Rates
(
lbs/
hr)
fenceline
(
m)

Stack
ht.(
m)
50
100
150
200
250
500
1000
1500
2000
3000
5000
5
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.36
0.72
0.93
0.93
0.93
0.93
10
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.47
0.49
0.82
1.13
1.09
1.09
1.09
20
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
0.97
1.06
1.45
1.51
1.51
1.51
30
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
0.99
1.09
1.49
1.73
2.02
2.04
40
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.02
1.12
1.53
1.79
2.08
2.42
50
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.05
1.15
1.58
1.87
2.15
2.51
60
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.09
1.18
1.62
1.95
2.21
2.61
70
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.13
1.22
1.67
2.03
2.28
2.72
41
80
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.16
1.25
1.71
2.12
2.35
2.84
100
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.24
1.32
1.81
2.29
2.50
3.10
200
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.69
1.71
2.30
2.92
3.48
4.81
42
02/
05/
04
revised
draft
§
63.2231
Does
this
subpart
apply
to
me?

This
subpart
applies
to
you
if
you
meet
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section,
except
for
facilities
that
are
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
of
PCWP
manufacturing
facilities
as
specified
in
appendix
B
to
this
subpart.

(
a)
You
own
or
operate
a
plywood
and
composite
wood
products
(
PCWP)
manufacturing
facility.
A
PCWP
manufacturing
facility
is
a
facility
that
manufactures
plywood
and/
or
composite
wood
products
by
bonding
wood
material
(
fibers,

particles,
strands,
veneers,
etc.)
or
agricultural
fiber,

generally
with
resin
under
heat
and
pressure,
to
form
a
structural
panel
or
engineered
wood
product.
Plywood
and
composite
wood
products
manufacturing
facilities
also
include
facilities
that
manufacture
dry
veneer
and
lumber
kilns
located
at
any
facility.
Plywood
and
composite
wood
products
include
(
but
are
not
limited
to)
plywood,
veneer,
particleboard,

oriented
strandboard,
hardboard,
fiberboard,
medium
density
fiberboard,
laminated
strand
lumber,
laminated
veneer
lumber,

wood
I­
joists,
kiln­
dried
lumber,
and
glue­
laminated
beams.

(
b)
The
PCWP
manufacturing
facility
is
located
at
a
major
43
source
of
HAP
emissions.
A
major
source
of
HAP
emissions
is
any
stationary
source
or
group
of
stationary
sources
within
a
contiguous
area
and
under
common
control
that
emits
or
has
the
potential
to
emit
any
single
HAP
at
a
rate
of
9.07
megagrams
(
10
tons)
or
more
per
year
or
any
combination
of
HAP
at
a
rate
of
22.68
megagrams
(
25
tons)
or
more
per
year.
44
Appendix
B
to
Subpart
DDDD
 
Methodology
and
Criteria
for
Demonstrating
That
An
Affected
Source
is
Part
of
the
Low­
risk
Subcategory
of
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
Manufacturing
Facilities
1.
Purpose
This
appendix
provides
the
methodology
and
criteria
for
demonstrating
that
your
affected
source
is
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
of
plywood
and
composite
wood
products
(
PCWP)

manufacturing
facilities.
You
must
determine
if
your
facility
is
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
using
either
a
look­
up
table
analysis
(
based
on
the
look­
up
tables
included
in
this
appendix)

or
using
a
site­
specific
risk
assessment
performed
according
to
the
criteria
specified
in
this
appendix.
This
appendix
also
specifies
how
and
when
you
must
obtain
approval
of
the
low­
risk
demonstrations
for
your
affected
source
and
how
to
ensure
that
your
affected
source
remains
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory
of
PCWP
facilities.

2.
Who
is
eligible
to
demonstrate
that
they
are
part
of
the
lowrisk
subcategory
of
PCWP
facilities?

Each
new,
reconstructed,
or
existing
affected
source
at
a
45
PCWP
manufacturing
facility
may
demonstrate
that
they
are
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
of
PCWP
facilities.
Section
§
63.2232
of
subpart
DDDD
defines
the
affected
source
and
explains
which
affected
sources
are
new,
existing,
or
reconstructed.

3.
What
parts
of
my
facility
have
to
be
included
in
the
low­
risk
demonstration?

Every
process
unit
that
is
part
of
the
PCWP
affected
source
(
as
defined
in
§
63.2292
of
subpart
DDDD)
and
that
emits
one
or
more
HAP
listed
in
Table
1
of
this
appendix
must
be
included
in
the
low­
risk
demonstration.
You
are
not
required
to
include
process
units
outside
of
the
affected
source
in
the
low­
risk
demonstration.

4.
What
are
the
criteria
for
determining
if
my
facility
is
low
risk?

(
a)
Determine
the
individual
HAP
emission
rates
from
each
process
unit
within
the
affected
source
using
the
procedures
specified
in
section
5
of
this
appendix.

(
b)
Perform
chronic
and
acute
risk
assessments
using
the
46
dose­
response
values
found
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw/
toxsource/
summary.
html,
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.

(
1)
For
a
look­
up
table
analysis
or
site­
specific
chronic
inhalation
risk
assessment,
you
should
use
the
cancer
and
noncancer
dose­
response
values
listed
on
the
EPA
Air
Toxics
website
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw/
toxsource/
summary.
html)
to
estimate
carcinogenic
and
non­
carcinogenic
chronic
inhalation
risk,
respectively.

(
2)
For
site­
specific
acute
inhalation
risk
assessment,
you
must
use
the
acute
exposure
guidance
level
(
AEGL­
1)
value
for
acrolein
and
the
California
EPA
(
CalEPA)
acute
reference
exposure
level
(
REL)
value
for
formaldehyde
for
estimating
acute
inhalation
risk.

(
c)
Determine
if
your
facility
is
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
by
estimating
the
maximum
chronic
and
acute
impacts
of
your
facility
using
one
of
the
methods
described
in
either
section
6
of
this
appendix
(
look­
up
table
analysis)
or
section
7
of
this
appendix
(
site­
specific
risk
assessment)
and
comparing
the
results
to
the
low­
risk
criteria.
Your
facility
is
low
risk
if
the
estimated
maximum
individual
lifetime
cancer
risk
is
less
47
than
1
in
a
million,
the
estimated
maximum
chronic
hazard
index
values
for
respiratory
effects
and
central
nervous
system
(
CNS)

effects
are
less
than
1,
and
the
estimated
maximum
acute
hazard
quotient
values
for
acrolein
and
formaldehyde
are
less
than
1.

5.
How
do
I
determine
HAP
emissions
from
my
affected
source?

(
a)
You
must
conduct
HAP
emissions
tests
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)
through
(
g)
of
this
section
and
the
methods
specified
in
Table
2
of
this
appendix
for
every
process
unit
within
the
affected
source
that
emits
one
or
more
of
the
HAP
listed
in
Table
1.
You
must
test
the
process
units
at
your
facility
to
obtain
the
emission
rates
in
pounds
per
hour
(
lb/
hr)
for
each
of
the
pollutants
listed
in
Table
1.

(
b)
Periods
when
emissions
tests
must
be
conducted.

(
1)
You
must
not
conduct
emissions
tests
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
as
specified
in
§
63.7(
e)(
1).

(
2)
You
must
test
under
worst­
case
operating
conditions
as
defined
in
this
appendix.
You
must
describe
your
worst­
case
operating
conditions
in
your
performance
test
report
for
the
process
and
control
systems
(
if
applicable)
and
explain
why
the
conditions
are
worst­
case.
48
(
c)
Number
of
test
runs.
You
must
conduct
three
separate
test
runs
for
each
test
required
in
this
section,
as
specified
in
§
63.7(
e)(
3).
Each
test
run
must
last
at
least
1
hour
except
for:
testing
of
a
temporary
total
enclosure
(
TTE)
conducted
using
Methods
204A
through
204F
which
require
three
separate
test
runs
of
at
least
3
hours
each;
and
testing
of
an
enclosure
conducted
using
the
alternative
tracer
gas
method
in
appendix
A
to
subpart
DDDD
which
requires
a
minimum
of
three
separate
runs
of
at
least
20
minutes
each.

(
d)
Sampling
locations.
Sampling
sites
must
be
located
at
the
outlet
of
the
control
device,
including
wet
control
devices,

and
prior
to
any
releases
to
the
atmosphere.

(
e)
Collection
of
monitoring
data
for
HAP
control
devices.

During
the
emissions
test,
you
must
collect
operating
parameter
monitoring
system
or
continuous
emissions
monitoring
system
(
CEMS)
data
at
least
every
15
minutes
during
the
entire
emissions
test
and
establish
the
site­
specific
operating
requirements
(
including
the
parameter
limits
or
total
hydrocarbon
(
THC)
concentration
limit)
in
Table
2
of
subpart
49
DDDD
using
data
from
the
monitoring
system
and
the
procedures
specified
in
paragraphs
(
k)
through
(
o)
of
§
63.2262
of
subpart
DDDD.

(
f)
Nondetect
data.
You
may
treat
emissions
of
an
individual
HAP
as
zero
if
all
of
the
test
runs
result
in
a
nondetect
measurement
and
the
conditions
in
paragraphs
(
1)
and
(
2)
are
met
for
the
relevant
test
method.
Otherwise
nondetect
data
(
as
defined
in
§
63.2292
of
subpart
DDDD)
for
individual
HAP
must
be
treated
as
one­
half
of
the
method
detection
limit.

(
1)
The
method
detection
limit
is
less
than
or
equal
to
1
part
per
million
by
volume,
dry
(
ppmvd)
for
pollutant
emissions
measured
using
Method
320
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
63;
or
the
NCASI
Method
IM/
CAN/
WP­
99.02;
or
ASTM
D6348­
03.

(
2)
For
pollutants
measured
using
Method
29
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60,
you
analyze
samples
using
atomic
absorption
spectroscopy
(
AAS).

(
g)
For
purposes
of
your
low­
risk
demonstration,
assume
that
17
percent
of
your
total
chromium
measured
using
EPA
Method
29
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60
is
chromium
(
VI).
For
purposes
of
your
low­
risk
demonstration,
assume
that
65
percent
50
of
your
total
nickel
measured
using
EPA
Method
29
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60
is
nickel
subsulfide.

6.
How
do
I
conduct
a
look­
up
table
analysis?

Use
the
look­
up
tables
to
determine
if
your
facility
is
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory,
following
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
d)
of
this
section.

(
a)
Using
the
emission
rate
of
each
HAP
required
to
be
included
in
your
low­
risk
demonstration,
determine
your
total
toxicity­
weighted
carcinogen
and
non­
carcinogen
emission
rates
for
each
of
your
process
units
using
Equations
1
and
2
of
this
appendix,
respectively.

TWCER
=

(
ERi
x
UREi)
Eqn.
1
TWCER
=
Toxicity­
weighted
carcinogenic
emission
rate,

(
lb/
hr)/(

g/
m3)

ERi
=
Emission
rate
of
pollutant
i,
pounds
per
hour
(
lb/
hr)

UREi
=
Unit
risk
estimate
for
pollutant
i,
1
per
microgram
per
cubic
meter
(

g/
m3)­
1
51
TWNER
=

(
ERi
/
RfCi)
Eqn.
2
TWNER
=
Toxicity­
weighted
non­
carcinogenic
emission
rate,

(
lb/
hr)

ERi
=
Emission
rate
of
pollutant
i,
pounds
per
hour
(
lb/
hr)

RfCi
=
Reference
concentration
for
pollutant
i,

milligrams
per
cubic
meter
(
mg/
m3)

REAG:
PLEASE
CONFIRM
UNITS
IN
TABLE
AND
EQUATION
(
b)
Cancer
risk.
Determine
the
total
toxicity­
weighted
carcinogen
emission
rate
for
your
affected
source
by
summing
the
toxicity­
weighted
carcinogen
emission
rates
for
each
of
your
process
units.
Select
the
maximum
allowable
toxicity­
weighted
carcinogen
emission
rate
from
Table
3
of
this
appendix
for
your
facility
using
the
average
stack
height
of
your
process
units
and
the
minimum
distance
between
any
HAP
emission
point
at
the
facility
and
the
closest
boundary
of
the
nearest
residential,
or
residentially
zoned,
area.
If
one
or
both
of
these
values
do
not
match
the
values
in
the
lookup
tables
then
use
the
next
lowest
table
value.
Your
facility
is
low­
risk
for
carcinogenic
52
effects
if
your
toxicity­
weighted
carcinogen
emission
rate,

determined
using
the
methods
specified
in
this
appendix,
does
not
exceed
the
values
specified
in
Table
3
of
this
appendix.

(
c)
Non­
cancer
risk.
Determine
the
total
CNS
and
respiratory
target
organ
specific
toxicity­
weighted
noncarcinogen
emission
rate
for
your
affected
source
by
summing
the
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rates
for
each
of
your
emission
points.
Select
the
maximum
allowable
toxicity­
weighted
noncarcinogen
emission
rate
from
Table
4
of
this
appendix
for
your
facility
using
the
average
stack
height
of
your
process
units
and
the
minimum
distance
between
any
HAP
emission
point
at
the
facility
and
the
closest
boundary
of
the
nearest
residential,
or
residentially
zoned,
area.
If
one
or
both
of
these
values
do
not
match
the
values
in
the
lookup
tables
then
use
the
next
lowest
table
value.
Your
facility
is
low­
risk
for
noncarcinogenic
effects
if
your
toxicity­
weighted
non­
carcinogen
emission
rate,
determined
using
the
methods
specified
in
this
appendix,
does
not
exceed
the
values
specified
in
Table
4
of
this
appendix.

(
d)
Low­
risk
demonstration.
Your
facility
is
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
of
PCWP
sources
if
your
affected
source
is
determined
to
be
low
risk
for
both
carcinogenic
and
non­
53
carcinogenic
effects
using
the
look­
up
table
analysis
described
in
this
section
and
you
meet
the
criteria
specified
in
Section
11
of
this
appendix.

7.
How
do
I
conduct
a
site­
specific
risk
assessment?

Perform
a
site­
specific
risk
assessment
following
the
procedures
specified
in
this
section.
You
may
use
any
scientifically­
accepted
peer­
reviewed
assessment
methodology
for
your
site­
specific
risk
assessment.
An
example
approach
to
performing
a
site­
specific
risk
assessment
for
air
toxics
is
provided
in
the
"
Air
Toxics
Risk
Assessment
Guidance
Reference
Library".
You
may
obtain
a
copy
of
the
"
Air
Toxics
Risk
Assessment
Reference
Library"
from
EPA's
air
toxics
website
[
need
to
specify
address].

(
a)
Your
facility
is
low­
risk
for
carcinogenic
chronic
inhalation
effects
if
your
site­
specific
risk
assessment
demonstrates
that
maximum
off­
site
individual
lifetime
cancer
risk
at
a
location
where
people
can
live
is
less
than
one
in
one
million.

(
b)
Your
facility
is
low­
risk
for
non­
carcinogenic
chronic
inhalation
effects
if
your
site­
specific
risk
assessment
54
demonstrates
that
every
maximum
off­
site
target­
organ
specific
hazard
index
(
TOSHI)
at
a
location
where
people
can
live
is
less
than
1.

(
c)
Your
facility
is
low­
risk
for
non­
carcinogenic
acute
inhalation
effects
if
your
site­
specific
risk
assessment
demonstrates
that
the
maximum
off­
site
acute
hazard
quotients
for
both
acrolein
and
formaldehyde
are
less
than
1.

(
d)
Your
facility
is
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
of
PCWP
facilities
if
the
affected
source
is
determined
to
be
low
risk
for
all
of
the
applicable
effects
listed
in
paragraphs
(
a)

through
(
c)
of
this
section
and
you
meet
the
criteria
specified
in
section
11
of
this
appendix.

8.
What
information
must
I
submit
for
the
low­
risk
demonstration?

(
a)
Your
low­
risk
demonstration
must
include
the
information
specified
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section
and
the
information
specified
in
either
paragraph
(
b)
or
(
c)
of
this
section.

(
1)
Identification
of
each
process
unit
at
the
affected
source.
55
(
2)
Stack
parameters
for
each
HAP
emission
point
including,

but
not
limited
to,
the
parameters
listed
in
(
a)(
2)(
i)
through
(
iv)
below:

(
i)
Emission
release
type.

(
ii)
Stack
height,
stack
area,
stack
gas
temperature,
and
stack
gas
exit
velocity.

(
iii)
Plot
plan
showing
all
HAP
emission
points,
nearby
residences,
and
fenceline.

(
iv)
Identification
of
any
HAP
control
devices
used
to
reduce
emissions
from
each
process
unit.

(
3)
Emission
test
reports
for
each
process
unit
based
on
the
test
methods
specified
in
Table
2
of
this
appendix,

including
a
description
of
the
process
parameters
identified
as
being
worst
case.

(
4)
Identification
of
the
dose­
response
values
used
in
your
risk
analysis
(
look­
up
table
analysis
or
site­
specific
risk
assessment),
according
to
section
5(
b)
of
this
appendix.

(
5)
Identification
of
the
controlling
process
factors
(
including,
but
not
limited
to,
production
rate,
annual
emission
rate,
type
of
control
devices,
process
parameters
documented
as
worst­
case
conditions
during
the
emissions
testing
used
for
your
low­
risk
demonstration)
that
will
become
Federally
enforceable
56
permit
conditions
used
to
show
that
your
facility
remains
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory.

(
b)
If
you
use
the
look­
up
table
analysis
in
section
6
of
this
appendix
to
demonstrate
that
your
facility
is
low
risk,

your
low­
risk
demonstration
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.

(
1)
Identification
of
the
process
unit
stack
heights
included
in
the
calculation
of
average
stack
height.

(
2)
Identification
of
the
process
unit
with
the
nearest
distance
to
a
residential,
or
residentially
zoned,
area.

(
3)
Calculations
used
to
determine
the
toxicity­
weighted
carcinogen
and
non­
carcinogen
emission
rates
according
to
section
6(
a)
of
this
appendix.

(
4)
Comparison
of
the
values
in
the
look­
up
tables
(
Tables
3
and
4
of
this
appendix)
to
your
toxicity­
weighted
emission
rates
for
carcinogenic
and
non­
carcinogenic
HAP.

(
c)
If
you
are
using
a
site­
specific
risk
assessment
as
described
in
section
7
of
this
appendix
to
demonstrate
that
your
facility
is
low
risk
(
for
carcinogenic
and
non­
carcinogenic
chronic
inhalation
and
acute
inhalation
risks),
your
low­
risk
57
demonstration
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
c)(
1)
through
(
8)
of
this
section:

(
1)
Identification
of
the
risk
assessment
methodology
used.

(
2)
Documentation
of
the
fate
and
transport
model
used.

(
3)
Documentation
of
the
fate
and
transport
model
inputs,

including
the
information
described
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section
converted
to
the
dimensions
required
for
the
model
and
all
of
the
following
that
apply:
meteorological
data;

building,
land
use,
and
terrain
data;
receptor
locations
and
population
data;
and
other
facility­
specific
parameters
input
into
the
model.

(
4)
Documentation
of
the
fate
and
transport
model
outputs.

(
5)
Documentation
of
exposure
assessment
and
risk
characterization
calculations.

(
6)
Comparison
of
the
carcinogenic
inhalation
risk
to
1
in
a
million,
as
required
in
section
7(
a)
of
this
appendix.

(
7)
Comparison
of
each
chronic
inhalation
TOSHI
(
for
respiratory
effects
and
CNS
effects)
to
the
limit
of
1,
as
required
in
section
7(
b)
of
this
appendix.

(
8)
Comparison
of
the
acute
inhalation
HQ
to
the
limit
of
1,
as
required
in
section
7(
c)
of
this
appendix.
58
9.
Where
do
I
send
my
low­
risk
demonstration?

You
must
submit
your
low­
risk
demonstration
to
EPA
for
review
and
approval.
Send
your
low­
risk
demonstration
to
U.
S.

EPA,
Risk
and
Exposure
Assessment
Group,
Emission
Standards
Division
(
C404­
01),
Attn:
Dr.
David
Guinnup,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711.
You
are
not
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
until
you
meet
the
requirements
of
section
11
of
this
appendix.

10.
When
do
I
submit
my
low­
risk
demonstration?

(
a)
If
you
have
an
existing
affected
source,
you
must
complete
and
submit
for
approval
your
low­
risk
demonstration
no
later
than
[
INSERT
14
MONTHS
AFTER
DATE
OF
PUBLICATION].

(
b)
If
you
have
a
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
that
starts
up
before
the
effective
date
of
subpart
DDDD,
or
an
affected
source
that
is
an
area
source
that
increases
its
emissions
or
its
potential
to
emit
such
that
it
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP
before
[
INSERT
2
MONTHS
AFTER
PUBLICATION],
then
you
must
comply
with
the
requirements
of
subpart
DDDD
until
you
meet
the
criteria
in
section
11
of
this
appendix.
59
(
c)
If
you
have
a
new
or
reconstructed
affected
source
that
starts
up
after
[
INSERT
2
MONTHS
AFTER
PUBLICATION],
or
an
affected
source
that
is
an
area
source
that
increases
its
emissions
or
its
potential
to
emit
such
that
it
becomes
a
major
source
of
HAP
after
[
INSERT
2
MONTHS
AFTER
PUBLICATION],
then
you
must
follow
the
schedule
in
paragraphs
(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.

(
1)
You
must
complete
and
submit
for
approval
a
preliminary
low­
risk
demonstration
based
on
the
information
(
e.
g.,
equipment
types,
estimated
emission
rates,
etc.)
used
to
obtain
your
title
V
permit.
You
must
base
your
preliminary
low­
risk
demonstration
on
the
maximum
emissions
allowed
under
your
title
V
permit.
If
EPA
concludes
that
your
affected
source
appears
to
be
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
based
on
this
preliminary
low­
risk
demonstration,
then
your
may
start
up
your
affected
source
without
complying
with
the
compliance
options,
operating
requirements,
and
work
practice
requirements
in
subpart
DDDD.

(
2)
You
must
conduct
the
emission
tests
specified
in
section
4
of
this
appendix
upon
initial
startup
and
use
the
results
of
these
emissions
tests
to
complete
and
submit
your
low­
risk
demonstration
within
180
days
following
your
initial
60
startup
date.
To
be
included
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory,
you
must
meet
the
criteria
in
section
11
of
this
appendix
within
18
months
following
initial
startup
of
your
affected
source.

11.
How
does
my
facility
become
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory?

To
be
included
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory,
you
must
meet
the
criteria
in
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
If
you
do
not
meet
these
criteria,
then
your
affected
source
is
subject
to
the
applicable
compliance
options,
operating
requirements,

and
work
practice
requirements
in
Subpart
DDDD.

(
a)
Your
demonstration
of
low­
risk
must
be
approved
by
EPA.

(
b)
The
parameters
that
defined
your
affected
source
as
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
(
including,
but
not
limited
to,

production
rate,
annual
emission
rate,
type
of
control
devices,

process
parameters
documented
as
worst­
case
conditions
during
the
emissions
testing
used
for
your
low­
risk
demonstration)
must
be
incorporated
as
Federally
enforceable
limits
into
your
title
V
permit.

12.
What
must
I
do
to
ensure
my
facility
remains
a
low­
risk
61
facility?

(
a)
You
must
meet
the
requirements
in
Table
2
of
subpart
DDDD
for
each
HAP
control
device
used
at
the
time
when
you
completed
your
low­
risk
demonstration.
You
must
monitor
and
collect
data
according
to
§
63.2270
of
subpart
DDDD
to
show
continuous
compliance
with
your
control
device
operating
requirements.
You
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
control
device
operating
requirements
that
apply
to
you
by
collecting
and
recording
the
monitoring
system
data
listed
in
Table
2
of
this
subpart
for
the
process
unit
according
to
§
§
63.2269(
a),
(
b),
and
(
d)
of
subpart
DDDD;
AND
reducing
the
monitoring
system
data
to
the
specified
averages
in
units
of
the
applicable
requirement
according
to
calculations
in
§
63.2270
of
subpart
DDDD;
AND
maintaining
the
average
operating
parameter
at
or
above
the
minimum,
at
or
below
the
maximum,
or
within
the
range
(
whichever
applies)
established
according
to
section
4(
e)

of
this
appendix.

13.
What
happens
if
the
critera
used
in
the
risk
determination
change?
62
(
a)
You
must
certify
with
each
Title
V
permit
renewal
that
the
basis
for
your
facility's
low­
risk
determination
has
not
changed.
You
must
submit
this
certification
to
the
permitting
authority.
You
must
consider
the
following:

(
1)
Process
changes
that
increases
HAP
emissions,

including,
but
not
limited
to,
production
rate
increase,
annual
emission
rate
increase,
change
in
type
of
control
device,

changes
in
process
parameters
documented
as
worst­
case
conditions
during
the
emissions
testing
used
for
your
approved
low­
risk
demonstration.

(
2)
Population
shifts.

(
3)
Unit
risk
estimate
increases.

(
4)
Reference
concentration
decreases.

(
5)
Dose
response
values
(
URE,
RfC,
CSF,
and
RfD)
on
the
EPA
website
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
atw/
toxsource/
summary.
html).

(
b)
At
any
time
a
change
occurs
that
was
not
a
permit
condition,
including
the
changes
listed
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)

through
(
5),
you
must
notify
the
permitting
authority
immediately.

(
1)
If
the
change
does
not
change
the
risk
designation
of
the
facility,
you
must
explain
the
change
and
why
the
facility
63
is
still
low
risk.
You
must
also
certify
that
the
facility
is
still
low
risk
and
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory.

(
2)
If
the
change
results
in
the
facility
no
longer
being
low
risk,
then
the
facility
is
no
longer
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
and
is
subject
to
all
the
applicable
requirements
of
subpart
DDDD.

(
3)
If
your
facility
is
no
longer
low
risk,
you
may
update
your
low­
risk
demonstration
and
resubmit
it
to
EPA.
You
must
submit
your
revised
low­
risk
demonstration
to
EPA
prior
to
revising
your
permit
to
incorporate
the
process
change.
If
you
use
the
same
approach/
risk
assessment
model,
you
may
.
.
.

[
text
needed
if
possible
to
expedite
reveiw
 
REAG]
time
14.
What
records
must
I
keep?

(
a)
You
must
keep
records
of
the
information
used
in
developing
the
low­
risk
demonstration
for
your
affected
source,

including
all
of
the
information
specified
in
section
8
of
this
appendix.

(
b)
You
must
keep
the
records
required
in
section
12(
d)
of
this
appendix
to
show
continuous
compliance
with
the
operating
requirements
for
control
devices.
64
(
c)
For
each
THC
CEMS,
you
must
keep
the
records
specified
in
§
63.2282(
c)
of
subpart
DDDD.

15.
Definitions.

The
definitions
in
§
63.2292
of
subpart
DDDD
apply
to
this
appendix.
Additional
definitions
applicable
for
this
appendix
are
as
follows:

Direct­
fired
process
unit
means
a
process
unit
that
is
heated
by
the
passing
of
combustion
exhaust
directly
through
the
process
unit
such
that
the
process
material
is
contacted
by
the
combustion
exhaust.

Hazard
Index
(
HI)
means
the
sum
of
more
than
one
hazard
quotient
for
multiple
substances
and/
or
multiple
exposure
pathways.

Hazard
Quotient
(
HQ)
means
the
ratio
of
the
predicted
media
concentration
of
a
pollutant
to
the
media
concentration
at
which
no
adverse
effects
are
expected.
For
inhalation
exposures,
the
HQ
is
calculated
as
the
air
concentration
divided
by
the
RfC.
65
Look­
up
table
analysis
means
a
risk
screening
analysis
based
on
comparing
the
toxicity­
weighted
HAP
emission
rate
from
the
affected
source
to
the
maximum
allowable
toxicity­
weighted
HAP
emission
rates
specified
in
Tables
3
and
4
of
this
appendix.

Reference
Concentration
(
RfC)
means
an
estimate
(
with
uncertainty
spanning
perhaps
an
order
of
magnitude)
of
a
continuous
inhalation
exposure
to
the
human
population
(
including
sensitive
subgroups)
that
is
likely
to
be
without
an
appreciable
risk
of
deleterious
effects
during
a
lifetime.
It
can
be
derived
from
various
types
of
human
or
animal
data,
with
uncertainty
factors
generally
applied
to
reflect
limitations
of
the
data
used.

Target
organ
specific
hazard
index
(
TOSHI)
means
the
sum
of
hazard
quotients
for
individual
chemicals
that
affect
the
same
organ
or
organ
system
(
e.
g.,
respiratory
system,
central
nervous
system).

Unit
Risk
Estimate
(
URE)
means
the
upper­
bound
excess
lifetime
cancer
risk
estimated
to
result
from
continuous
exposure
to
an
agent
at
a
concentration
of
1

g/
m3
in
air.
66
Worst­
case
operating
conditions
means
operation
of
a
process
unit
during
emissions
testing
under
the
conditions
that
result
in
the
highest
HAP
emissions
or
that
result
in
the
emissions
stream
composition
(
including
HAP
and
non­
HAP)
that
is
most
challenging
for
the
control
device
if
a
control
device
is
used.
For
example,
worst
case
conditions
could
include
operation
of
the
process
unit
at
maximum
throughput,
at
its
highest
temperature,
with
the
wood
species
mix
likely
to
produce
the
most
HAP,
and/
or
with
the
resin
formulation
containing
the
greatest
HAP.
67
Table
1
to
Appendix
B
of
Subpart
DDDD.
HAP
that
must
be
included
in
the
demonstration
of
eligibility
for
the
low­
risk
PCWP
subcategory.

For
your
analysis
of
the
following
effects...
You
must
include
the
following
HAP...

(
1)
Chronic
inhalation
cancer
acetaldehyde,
benzene,
arsenic,
beryllium,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
nickel,
formaldehyde.

(
2)
Chronic
inhalation
noncancer
respiratory
acetaldehyde,
acrolein,
formaldehyde,
MDI.

(
3)
Chronic
inhalation
noncancer
CNS
manganese,
phenol.

(
4)
Acute
inhalation
acrolein,
formaldehyde.
68
Table
2
to
Appendix
B
of
Subpart
DDDD.
Emission
Test
Methods.

For...
You
must...
Using...

(
1)
each
process
unit
select
sampling
ports'
location
and
the
number
of
traverse
points
Method
1
or
1A
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A
(
as
appropriate).

(
2)
each
process
unit
determine
velocity
and
volumetric
flow
rate;
Method
2
in
addition
to
Method
2A,
2C,
2D,
2F,
or
2G
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60
(
as
appropriate).

(
3)
each
process
unit
conduct
gas
molecular
weight
analysis
Method
3,
3A,
or
3B
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60
(
as
appropriate).

(
4)
each
process
unit
measure
moisture
content
of
the
stack
gas
Method
4
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60.

(
5)
each
process
unit
measure
emissions
of
the
following
HAP:
acetaldehyde,
acrolein,
formaldehyde,
and
phenol
NCASI
Method
IM/
CAN/
WP­
99.02;
OR
Method
320
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
63;
OR
ASTM
D6348­
03
provided
that
%
R
as
determined
in
Annex
A5
of
ASTM
D6348­
03
is
equal
or
greater
than
70%
and
less
than
or
equal
to
130%.

(
6)
each
process
unit
measure
emissions
of
benzene
Method
320
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
63;
OR
ASTM
D6348­
03
provided
that
%
R
as
determined
in
Annex
A5
of
ASTM
D6348­
03
is
equal
or
greater
than
70%
and
less
than
or
equal
to
130%.

(
7)
each
press
that
processes
board
containing
methylene
diphenyl
diisocyanate
(
MDI)
resin
measure
emissions
of
MDI
Method
320
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
63;
OR
Conditional
Test
Method
(
CTM)
031
which
is
posted
on
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttn/
emc/
ctm.
html
(
8)
each
direct­
fired
process
unit
measure
emissions
of
the
following
HAP
metals:
arsenic,
beryllium,
cadmium,
chromium,
lead,
manganese,
and
nickel.
Method
29
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60.
You
must
analyze
samples
using
atomic
absorption
spectroscopy
(
AAS).

(
9)
any
process
unit
that
is
known
to
emit
HAP
not
otherwise
listed
in
this
table
measure
emissions
of
the
HAP
emitted
the
methods
specified
in
this
table
(
as
appropriate)
or
petition
the
Administrator
for
approval
of
an
alternative
test
method.
69
(
11)
each
reconstituted
wood
product
press
or
reconstituted
wood
product
board
cooler
with
a
HAP
control
device
meet
the
design
specifications
included
in
the
definition
of
wood
products
enclosure
in
§
63.2292
of
subpart
DDDD
OR
determine
the
percent
capture
efficiency
of
the
enclosure
directing
emissions
to
an
add­
on
control
device
Methods
204
and
204A
through
204F
of
40
CFR
part
51,
appendix
M
to
determine
capture
efficiency
(
except
for
wood
products
enclosures
as
defined
in
§
63.2292).
Enclosures
that
meet
the
definition
of
wood
products
enclosure
or
that
meet
Method
204
requirements
for
a
PTE
are
assumed
to
have
a
capture
efficiency
of
100%.
Enclosures
that
do
not
meet
either
the
PTE
requirements
or
design
criteria
for
a
wood
products
enclosure
must
determine
the
capture
efficiency
by
constructing
a
TTE
according
to
the
requirements
of
Method
204
and
applying
Methods
204A
through
204F
(
as
appropriate).
As
an
alternative
to
Methods
204
and
204A
through
204F,
you
may
use
the
tracer
gas
method
contained
in
appendix
A
to
this
subpart.

(
12)
each
reconstituted
wood
product
press
or
reconstituted
wood
product
board
cooler
determine
the
percent
capture
efficiency
a
TTE
and
Methods
204
and
204A
through
204F
(
as
appropriate)
of
40
CFR
part
51,
appendix
M.
As
an
alternative
to
installing
a
TTE
and
using
Methods
204
and
204A
through
204F,
you
may
use
the
tracer
gas
method
contained
in
appendix
A
to
this
subpart.

(
13)
each
process
unit
with
a
HAP
control
device
establish
the
sitespecific
operating
requirements
(
including
the
parameter
limits
or
THC
concentration
limits)
in
Table
2
of
subpart
DDDD
data
from
the
parameter
monitoring
system
or
THC
CEMS
and
the
applicable
performance
test
method(
s).
70
Table
3
to
Appendix
B
of
Subpart
DDDD.
Maximum
allowable
toxicity­
weighted
carcinogen
emission
rate
(
lb/
hr)/(

g/
m3)

Fenceline
(
m)

Stack
height
(
m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
500
1000
1500
2000
3000
5000
5
8.72E­
07
8.72E­
07
8.72E­
07
9.63E­
07
1.25E­
06
1.52E­
06
1.25E­
06
4.25E­
06
4.39E­
06
4.39E­
06
4.39E­
06
5.00E­
06
10
2.47E­
06
2.47E­
06
2.47E­
06
2.47E­
06
2.47E­
06
2.61E­
06
3.58E­
06
5.03E­
06
5.89E­
06
5.89E­
06
5.89E­
06
6.16E­
06
20
5.81E­
06
5.81E­
06
5.81E­
06
5.81E­
06
5.81E­
06
5.81E­
06
5.90E­
06
7.39E­
06
8.90E­
06
9.97E­
06
9.97E­
06
1.12E­
05
30
7.74E­
06
7.74E­
06
7.74E­
06
7.74E­
06
7.74E­
06
7.74E­
06
8.28E­
06
9.49E­
06
1.17E­
05
1.35E­
05
1.55E­
05
1.61E­
05
40
9.20E­
06
9.20E­
06
9.20E­
06
9.20E­
06
9.20E­
06
9.20E­
06
9.24E­
06
1.17E­
05
1.34E­
05
1.51E­
05
1.98E­
05
2.22E­
05
50
1.02E­
05
1.02E­
05
1.02E­
05
1.02E­
05
1.02E­
05
1.02E­
05
1.02E­
05
1.36E­
05
1.53E­
05
1.66E­
05
2.37E­
05
2.95E­
05
60
1.13E­
05
1.13E­
05
1.13E­
05
1.13E­
05
1.13E­
05
1.13E­
05
1.13E­
05
1.53E­
05
1.76E­
05
1.85E­
05
2.51E­
05
3.45E­
05
70
1.23E­
05
1.23E­
05
1.23E­
05
1.23E­
05
1.23E­
05
1.23E­
05
1.23E­
05
1.72E­
05
2.04E­
05
2.06E­
05
2.66E­
05
4.07E­
05
80
1.34E­
05
1.34E­
05
1.34E­
05
1.34E­
05
1.34E­
05
1.34E­
05
1.34E­
05
1.92E­
05
2.15E­
05
2.31E­
05
2.82E­
05
4.34E­
05
100
1.52E­
05
1.52E­
05
1.52E­
05
1.52E­
05
1.52E­
05
1.52E­
05
1.52E­
05
1.97E­
05
2.40E­
05
2.79E­
05
3.17E­
05
4.49E­
05
200
1.76E­
05
1.76E­
05
1.76E­
05
1.76E­
05
1.76E­
05
1.76E­
05
1.76E­
05
2.06E­
05
2.94E­
05
3.24E­
05
4.03E­
05
5.04E­
05
MIR=
1E­
06
Emission
rates
in
table
expressed
as
equivalents
normalized
to
theoretical
HAP
with
URE
=
1(

g/
m
3)­
1
71
Table
4
to
Appendix
B
of
Subpart
DDDD.
Maximum
allowable
toxicity­
weighted
noncarcinogen
emission
rate
(
lb/
hr)

Fenceline
(
m)

Stack
height
(
m)
0
50
100
150
200
250
500
1000
1500
2000
3000
5000
5
2.51E­
01
2.51E­
01
3.16E­
01
3.16E­
01
3.16E­
01
3.16E­
01
3.16E­
01
3.46E­
01
4.66E­
01
6.21E­
01
9.82E­
01
1.80E+
00
10
5.62E­
01
5.62E­
01
5.62E­
01
5.62E­
01
5.62E­
01
5.62E­
01
5.62E­
01
5.70E­
01
6.33E­
01
7.71E­
01
1.13E+
00
1.97E+
00
20
1.43E+
00
1.43E+
00
1.43E+
00
1.43E+
00
1.43E+
00
1.43E+
00
1.43E+
00
1.43E+
00
1.68E+
00
1.83E+
00
2.26E+
00
3.51E+
00
30
2.36E+
00
2.36E+
00
2.36E+
00
2.36E+
00
2.36E+
00
2.36E+
00
2.53E+
00
3.04E+
00
3.04E+
00
3.33E+
00
4.45E+
00
5.81E+
00
40
3.11E+
00
3.11E+
00
3.11E+
00
3.11E+
00
3.11E+
00
3.11E+
00
3.42E+
00
4.04E+
00
5.07E+
00
5.51E+
00
6.39E+
00
9.63E+
00
50
3.93E+
00
3.93E+
00
3.93E+
00
3.93E+
00
3.93E+
00
3.93E+
00
4.49E+
00
4.92E+
00
6.95E+
00
7.35E+
00
8.99E+
00
1.25E+
01
60
4.83E+
00
4.83E+
00
4.83E+
00
4.83E+
00
4.83E+
00
4.83E+
00
5.56E+
00
6.13E+
00
7.80E+
00
1.01E+
01
1.10E+
01
1.63E+
01
70
5.77E+
00
5.77E+
00
5.77E+
00
5.77E+
00
5.77E+
00
5.77E+
00
6.45E+
00
7.71E+
00
8.83E+
00
1.18E+
01
1.36E+
01
1.86E+
01
80
6.74E+
00
6.74E+
00
6.74E+
00
6.74E+
00
6.74E+
00
6.74E+
00
7.12E+
00
9.50E+
00
1.01E+
01
1.29E+
01
1.72E+
01
2.13E+
01
100
8.87E+
00
8.87E+
00
8.87E+
00
8.87E+
00
8.87E+
00
8.87E+
00
8.88E+
00
1.19E+
01
1.37E+
01
1.55E+
01
2.38E+
01
2.89E+
01
200
1.70E+
01
1.70E+
01
1.70E+
01
1.70E+
01
1.70E+
01
1.70E+
01
1.70E+
01
2.05E+
01
2.93E+
01
3.06E+
01
4.02E+
01
4.93E+
01
HI=
1
Emission
rates
in
table
expressed
in
lbs/
hr
as
equivalents
normalized
to
theoretical
HAP
with
RfC
=
1.0

g/
m
3
[
Question:
RfC
=
ug/
m3
or
mg/
m3???]
72
IV.
Summary
of
Responses
to
Major
Comments
and
Changes
to
the
Plywood
and
Composite
Wood
Products
NESHAP
K.
Risk­
based
approaches
1.
General
comments
a.
Risk­
based
approaches
Comment:
Numerous
commenters
encouraged
EPA
to
exercise
all
of
the
flexibility
within
its
authority
and
offer
the
widest
possible
array
of
options
so
that
facilities
that
pose
no
significant
risk
to
public
health
or
the
environment
would
not
be
forced
to
add
expensive
and
unproductive
control
equipment
which
would
weaken
them
financially
or
cause
them
to
close.
Commenters
specifically
recommended
that
EPA
incorporate
risk­
based
options
similar
to
all
three
industry
"
white
papers,"

which
would
exclude
facilities
that
pose
no
significant
risk
to
public
health
or
the
environment.
(
As
an
alternative,
one
commenter
recommended
that
EPA
at
least
incorporate
the
concentration­
based
de
minimis
applicability
exemption.)

Commenters
stated
that
inclusion
of
risk
provisions
has
the
potential
to
achieve
overall
environmentally
superior
results
in
a
cost­
effective
manner,
particularly
in
cases
where
criteria
pollutants
from
control
devices
73
(
i.
e.,
incinerators)
may
result
in
greater
impacts
that
the
HAP
emissions
that
they
control.
According
to
a
life
cycle
analysis
conducted
by
one
commenter,
incinerators
used
to
limit
HAP
emissions
from
low­
risk
wood
products
facilities
would
create
more
harm
than
good
through
their
consumption
of
electricity
and
natural
gas.
The
commenter
noted
that
incinerators
emit
carbon
monoxide
(
CO2)
and
criteria
pollutants,
which
could
affect
a
State's
ability
to
meet
the
National
Ambient
Air
Quality
Standards
(
NAAQS)

attainment
requirements
under
the
CAA.
In
particular,
the
commenter
referred
to
EPA's
projection
that
adoption
of
MACT
floor
level
controls
would
result
in
increased
emissions
of
NOx,
a
precursor
to
ozone
and
PM.
According
to
the
commenter,
the
draft
rule
(
without
risk
provisions)

would
work
against
the
industry's
voluntary
commitment,
in
response
to
President
Bush's
initiative,
to
reduce
the
emissions
of
greenhouse
gases
by
12
percent
over
the
next
10
years.
The
commenter
noted
that
the
costly
mandatory
controls
proposed,
coupled
with
stiff
foreign
competition
and
regulatory
mandates
under
other
MACT
rules,
would
also
create
significant
financial
hardship
across
all
sectors
of
the
industry
and
jeopardize
the
commercial
viability
of
numerous
facilities,
many
of
which
are
the
principal
74
employer
in
the
small,
rural
towns
in
which
they
are
located.
The
projected
costs
for
the
proposed
rule
are
enormous
amounts
of
money
for
an
industry
already
operating
at
the
margin
in
a
depressed
economic
climate.

Noting
EPA's
prediction
that
the
draft
rule
would
avert
0.07
cases
of
cancer
per
year,
or
one
case
every
14
years,

the
commenter
stated
that
this
would
yield
a
costeffectiveness
of
$
2.4
billion
per
cancer
case
averted.

The
commenter
compared
the
cost
per
premature
death
averted
for
several
rules
and
found
the
PCWP
rule
to
be
one
of
the
more
costly.
The
commenter
concluded
that,
in
its
current
form,
the
draft
rule
would
impose
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
of
additional
cost
with
virtually
no
gain
to
either
the
environment
or
the
health.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
draft
rule
would
be
one
of
the
most
cost­
ineffective
rules
ever
promulgated
by
EPA.

According
to
the
commenter,
the
overwhelming
advantage
of
the
risk­
based
approach
is
that
it
avoids
imposing
high
costs
on
low­
risk
facilities,
where
there
is
little
or
no
benefit
to
be
gained
for
either
the
environment
or
the
public
interest.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
wood
products
industry
as
a
whole
poses
a
small­

toinsignificant
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
75
The
commenter
stated
that
the
final
rule
should
include
reasonable
risk­
based
mechanisms
to
allow
facilities
posing
no
significant
risk
to
limit
their
emissions
below
levels
of
concern
without
having
to
install
incinerator
controls.
The
commenter
stated
that
facilities
wishing
to
take
advantage
of
the
risk­
based
compliance
option
would
take
a
federally­
enforceable
permit
limit
that
would
guarantee
that
their
emissions
remain
below
the
risk­
based
emission
standard.
This
would
constitute
an
"
emission
limitation,"
within
the
statutory
definition
of
the
term,
and
it
would
allow
facilities
to
forego
the
installation
of
incinerators
where
they
are
not
warranted
by
public
health
and
environmental
considerations.

Commenters
argued
that
the
risk­
based
options
are
legally
justified,
protective
of
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
economically
sensible.
Commenters
stated
that
the
risk­
based
options
are
supported
under
the
CAA,

through
EPA's
authority
under
sections
112(
d)(
4)
and
112(
c)(
9)
to
set
emission
standards
other
than
MACT
for
certain
low­
risk
facilities
and
delist
technology­
defined
low­
risk
subcategories,
respectively,
and
through
EPA's
inherent
de
minimis
authority
to
avoid
undertaking
76
regulatory
action
in
the
absence
of
meaningful
risk.
One
commenter
pointed
out
that,
by
meeting
the
stringent
health
benchmarks
necessary
to
qualify
for
the
risk­
based
compliance
approaches,
facilities
already
would
have
satisfied
the
residual
risk
provisions
8
years
ahead
of
the
statutory
requirements
set
forth
in
section
112(
f)
of
the
CAA.

Two
commenters
believed
that
the
risk­
based
approach
would
particularly
benefit
small
mills
located
in
rural
areas
with
timber­
dependent
economies.
One
commenter
stated
that,
by
offering
manufacturers
an
opportunity
to
apply
for
subcategorization
on
a
sitespecific
basis,
facilities
that
are
remotely
located,
or
which
were
originally
planned
and
sited
with
thorough
consideration
of
airshed
impacts,
would
not
be
unduly
burdened
with
MACT
requirements
which
yield
little
or
no
public
health
benefits.

Commenters
argued
that
such
low­
risk
facilities
should
not
be
burdened
with
the
requirements
of
MACT.
One
commenter
noted
that
the
regulatory
framework
exists
within
their
State
to
implement
a
risk­
based
approach.

Another
commenter
agreed
with
the
concept
of
a
risk­
bsed
approach
but
stated
that
it
would
not
be
appropriate
for
77
State
and
local
programs
to
determine
which
facilities
should
be
exempted
from
MACT.
Another
commenter
suggested
that
exemptions
be
provided
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
to
individual
facilities
that
are
able
to
demonstrate
that
they
pose
no
significant
risk
to
public
health
or
the
environment.

Several
commenters
opposed
the
risk­
based
exemptions.

Two
commenters
stated
that
the
use
of
risk­
based
concepts
to
evade
MACT
applicability
is
contrary
to
the
intent
of
the
CAA
and
is
based
on
a
flawed
interpretation
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
written
by
an
industry
subject
to
regulation.

One
commenter
added
that
the
CAA
requires
a
technologybased
floor
level
of
control
and
does
not
provide
exclusions
for
risk
or
secondary
impacts
in
applying
the
MACT
floor.
The
other
commenter
was
particularly
concerned
about
industry's
unprecedented
proposal
to
include
"
de
minimis
exemptions"
and
"
cost"
in
the
MACT
standard
process.
The
commenter
stated
that
including
case­
by­
case
risk­
based
exemptions
would
jeopardize
the
effectiveness
of
the
national
air
toxics
program
to
adequately
protect
public
health
and
the
environment
and
to
establish
a
level
playing
field.
A
third
commenter
noted
that
subcategorization
and
source
category
deletions
78
under
section
112(
c)
have
been
implemented
several
times
since
the
MACT
program
began.

Commenters
pointed
out
that
they
have
not
been
able
to
comment
on
the
technical
merit
of
the
risk
analysis
employed
by
the
EPA.
They
argued
that,
until
the
residual
risk
analysis
procedures
have
been
implemented
via
the
section
112(
f)
process,
risk
analysis
should
not
be
used
in
making
MACT
determinations
pursuant
to
section
112(
d)(
4).
Also,
risk
analysis
could
never
be
used
to
establish
a
MACT
floor.

One
commenter
pointed
out
that,
in
separate
rulemakings
and
lawsuits,
EPA
adopted
legal
positions
and
policies
that
refute
and
contradict
the
very
risk­
based
and
cost­
based
approaches
contained
in
the
proposal.
In
these
other
arenas,
EPA
properly
rejected
risk
assessment
to
alter
the
establishment
of
MACT
standards.
The
EPA
also
properly
rejected
cost
in
determining
MACT
floors
and
in
denying
a
basis
for
avoiding
the
MACT
floor.
(
See
Brief
for
Respondent
Environmental
Protection
Agency,

Sierra
Club
v.
EPA;
Brief
for
Respondent
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Cement
Kiln
Recycling
Coalition
v.
EPA,

No.
99­
1457
and
consolidated
cases,
(
D.
C.
Cir.)
(
Jan.
18,

2001);
Brief
for
Respondent
Environmental
Protection
79
Agency,
National
Lime
Ass'n
v.
EPA,
233
F.
3D
625
(
D.
C.

Cir.
2000)
(
July
14,
2000).)

Response:
We
believe
that
the
assertions
by
one
commenter
about
the
negative
environmental
disbenefits
of
the
PCWP
rule
are
overstated.
We
disagree
that
the
PCWP
industry
as
a
whole
poses
a
small­
to­
insignificant
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
However,
we
acknowledge
that
there
are
some
PCWP
facilities
that
pose
little
risk
to
human
health
and
the
environment.
Consequently,
we
have
included
an
option
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule
that
would
allow
individual
facilities
to
be
delisted
(
as
part
of
a
low­
risk
subcategory)
if
they
demonstrate
that
they
do
not
pose
a
significant
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.
The
low­
risk
subcategory
delisting
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule
is
based
on
our
authority
under
CAA
sections
112(
c)(
1)
and
(
9).
This
statute
requires
that
categories
or
subcategories
meet
specific
risk
criteria,
and
to
determine
this,
risk
analyses
may
be
used.
We
disagree
with
the
commenter
that
we
must
wait
for
implementation
of
CAA
section
112(
f)
before
utilizing
risk
analysis
in
this
manner.
Section
112(
d)(
1)
of
the
CAA
gives
us
the
authority
to
distinguish
among
classes,

types,
and
sizes
of
sources
within
a
category.
We
believe
80
these
provisions
of
the
CAA
allow
us
to
define
a
subcategory
of
sources
in
terms
of
risk.
Thus,
the
lowrisk
subcategory
of
PCWP
facilities
is
defined
in
terms
of
risk,
not
cost.
We
are
not
subcategorizing
or
determining
MACT
floors
based
on
cost.
Furthermore,
as
discussed
elsewhere
in
this
section,
the
MACT
level
of
emissions
reduction
required
by
today's
final
rule
is
not
affected
by
facilities
becoming
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory.

For
many
of
the
reasons
provided
by
the
commenters,

we
are
not
pursuing
the
risk­
based
exemptions
based
on
section
112(
d)(
4).
We
do
not
believe
that
a
risk­
based
approach
based
on
section
112(
d)(
4)
is
appropriate
for
the
PCWP
industry
because
PCWP
facilities
emit
HAP
for
which
no
health
thresholds
have
been
established
and
because
the
legislative
history
of
the
1990
Amendments
to
the
CAA
indicates
that
Congress
considered
and
rejected
allowing
us
to
grant
such
source­
specific
exemptions
from
the
MACT
floor.
We
also
are
not
relying
on
de
minimis
authority.

Legal
issues
associated
with
the
risk­
based
provisions
are
addressed
elsewhere
in
this
section.

In
today's
final
PCWP
rule,
we
are
identifying
the
criteria
we
will
use
to
identify
low­
risk
PCWP
facilities
and
requesting
that
any
candidate
facilities
submit
81
information
to
us
based
on
those
criteria
so
that
we
can
evaluate
whether
they
might
be
low­
risk.
Today's
final
PCWP
rule
also
establishes
a
low­
risk
PCWP
subcategory
based
on
the
criteria
and
delists
the
subcategory
based
on
our
finding
that
no
source
that
would
be
eligible
to
be
included
in
the
subcategory
based
on
our
adopted
criteria
emits
HAP
at
levels
that
exceed
the
thresholds
specified
in
section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)
of
the
CAA.
To
be
found
eligible
to
be
included
in
the
delisted
source
category,
facilities
will
have
to
demonstrate
to
us
that
they
meet
the
criteria
established
by
today's
final
PCWP
rule
and
assume
federally
enforceable
limitations
that
ensure
their
HAP
emissions
do
not
subsequently
increase
to
exceed
levels
reflected
in
their
eligibility
demonstrations.

The
criteria
defining
the
low­
risk
subcategory
of
PCWP
facilities
are
included
in
Appendix
B
to
Subpart
DDDD.
The
criteria
in
the
appendix
were
developed
for
and
apply
only
to
the
PCWP
industry
and
are
not
applicable
to
other
industries.
Today's
final
PCWP
rule
provides
two
ways
that
a
facility
may
demonstrate
that
they
are
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
of
PCWP
facilities.
First,

lookup
tables
allow
facilities
to
determine,
using
a
limited
number
of
site­
specific
input
parameters,
whether
82
emissions
from
their
sources
might
cause
an
HI
limit
for
non­
carcinogens
or
a
cancer
benchmark
of
one
in
a
million
to
be
exceeded.
Second,
a
tiered
modeling
approach
(
each
tier
less
conservative
and
more
complex
than
the
previous)

can
be
used
by
those
facilities
that
cannot
demonstrate
that
they
are
part
of
the
low­
risk
subcategory
using
the
look­
up
tables.

The
low­
risk
subcategory
delisting
that
is
included
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule
is
intended
to
avoid
imposing
unnecessary
controls
on
facilities
that
do
not
pose
a
significant
risk
to
human
health
or
the
environment.

Facilities
will
have
to
select
controls
or
other
methods
of
limiting
risk
and
then
demonstrate,
using
Appendix
B
to
Subpart
DDDD
and/
or
the
"
Air
Toxics
Risk
Assessment
Reference
Library,"
that
their
emissions
qualify
them
to
be
included
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory,
and,
therefore,

are
not
subject
to
the
compliance
options
included
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule.

Comment:
Several
commenters
objected
to
EPA
using
the
preambles
of
individual
rule
proposals
as
the
forum
for
introducing
significant
changes
in
the
way
that
MACT
standards
are
established.
One
commenter
stated
that,
for
many
years,
they
have
coordinated
with
EPA
on
development
83
of
MACT
standards
for
the
national
air
toxics
program,
and
there
has
been
no
indication
of
any
kind
regarding
inclusion
of
risk­
based
exemptions
in
the
first
phase
of
the
MACT
program.
The
commenter
thought
it
was
unprecedented
and
alarming
that
EPA
was
proposing
such
a
radical
change
at
the
end
of
Phase
1
of
the
MACT
standard
process.
The
commenter
believed
that
allowing
risk­
based
exemptions
requires
changes
to
existing
law
and
that
such
a
debate
should
take
place
within
the
democratic
legislative
process
and
not
in
the
MACT
standard
process.

Another
commenter
stated
that
precedent­
setting
change
of
the
magnitude
that
EPA
has
raised
should
be
discussed
openly
and
carefully
with
all
affected
parties
instead
of
being
buried
in
the
preambles
of
individual
standards.
A
third
commenter
expressed
concern
that
other
parties
may
miss
commenting
on
the
risk­
based
exemptions
because
they
are
contained
within
six
separate
proposals.
The
commenter
added
that
to
give
the
issue
full
consideration,

the
risk
provisions
should
not
be
adopted
within
any
of
the
final
rules
but
should
be
addressed
in
one
place,
such
as
in
revisions
to
the
General
Provisions
of
40
CFR
Part
63,
Subpart
A.

Response:
The
discussion
of
risk­
based
provisions
in
84
MACT
was
included
in
individual
proposals
for
several
reasons.
First,
we
recognize
that
such
provisions
are
only
appropriate
for
certain
source
categories,
and
our
decision­
making
process
required
source
category­
specific
input
from
stakeholders.
Second,
the
10­
year
MACT
standards,
which
are
now
being
completed,
are
the
last
group
of
MACT
standards
currently
planned
for
development,

and
for
any
risk
provisions
to
be
useful,
the
provisions
must
be
finalized
in
a
timely
manner
(
i.
e.,
not
later
than
the
promulgation
of
the
MACT
standards).
Third,
these
final
MACT
source
categories
were
included
in
the
"
10­
year
bin"
because
they
were
considered
to
be
the
lowest
risk
source
categories.
Finally,
the
risk­
based
provisions
are
not
available
for
standards
that
have
already
been
implemented,
and
any
decisions
regarding
risk
must,

therefore,
be
applied
on
a
source
category­
specific
basis.

We
do
not
agree
that
changes
to
existing
law
are
necessary
because
of
the
discretion
provided
to
the
Administrator
under
section
112(
d)(
1)
to
distinguish
among
classes,

types,
and
sizes
of
sources
within
a
category.
We
consider
low­
risk
facilities
to
be
a
class
of
sources
within
the
PCWP
source
category.

Comment:
Several
commenters
stated
that
the
risk­
85
based
exemption
proposal
removes
the
"
level
playing
field"

that
would
result
from
the
proper
implementation
of
technology­
based
MACT
standards.
According
to
the
commenters,
establishing
a
baseline
level
of
control
is
essential
to
prevent
industry
from
moving
to
areas
of
the
country
that
have
the
least
stringent
air
toxics
programs,

which
was
one
of
the
primary
goals
of
developing
a
uniform
national
air
toxics
program
under
section
112
of
the
1990
CAA
amendments.
The
commenters
argued
that
risk­
based
approaches
would
jeopardize
future
reductions
of
HAP
in
a
uniform
and
consistent
manner
across
the
nation.
One
commenter
stated
that
National
Air
Toxics
Assessment
(
NATA)
data
show
that
virtually
no
area
of
the
country
has
escaped
measurable
concentrations
of
toxic
air
pollution.

The
NATA
information
indicates
that
exposure
to
air
toxics
is
high
in
both
densely
populated
and
remote
rural
areas.

One
commenter
disagreed
with
the
assertion
that
the
level
playing
field
would
be
removed.
The
commenter
pointed
out
that
the
argument
that
EPA
should
impose
unnecessary
and
potentially
environmentally
damaging
controls
for
the
sole
purpose
of
equalizing
control
costs
across
facilities
would
be
at
odds
with
the
stated
purpose
of
the
CAA.
According
to
the
commenter,
the
claim
that
86
the
risk­
based
approach
would
favor
facilities
located
away
from
population
centers
is
incorrect.
As
contemplated,
the
risk­
based
approaches
to
the
NESHAP
would
be
keyed
to
the
comparison
of
health
benchmarks
with
potential
maximum
exposure,
regardless
of
whether
actual
receptors
are
present
at
the
exposure
location.
According
to
the
commenter,
the
presence
or
absence
of
human
populations
would
have
no
effect
on
whether
facilities
would
qualify.

Response:
We
agree
that
one
of
the
primary
goals
of
developing
a
uniform
national
air
toxics
program
under
section
112
of
the
1990
CAA
amendments
was
to
establish
a
level
playing
field.
We
do
not
believe
that
defining
a
low­
risk
subcategory
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule
does
anything
to
remove
the
level
playing
field
for
PCWP
facilities.
Today's
final
PCWP
rule
and
its
criteria
for
demonstrating
eligibility
for
the
delisted
low­
risk
subcategory
apply
uniformly
to
all
PCWP
facilities
across
the
nation.
Today's
final
PCWP
rule
establishes
a
baseline
level
of
emission
reduction
or
a
baseline
level
of
risk
(
for
the
low­
risk
subcategory).
All
PCWP
facilities
are
subject
to
these
same
baseline
levels,
and
all
facilities
have
the
same
opportunity
to
demonstrate
87
that
they
are
part
of
the
delisted
low­
risk
subcategory.

The
criteria
for
the
low­
risk
subcategory
are
not
dependent
on
local
air
toxics
programs.
Therefore,

concerns
regarding
facilities
moving
to
areas
of
the
country
with
less­
stringent
air
toxics
programs
should
be
alleviated.

Although
NATA
may
show
measurable
concentrations
of
toxic
air
pollution
across
the
country,
these
data
do
not
suggest
that
facilities
that
do
not
contribute
to
the
high
exposures
and
risk
should
be
included
in
regulations.
A
discussion
is
provided
elsewhere
in
this
section
regarding
how
background
concentrations
are
accounted
for
by
facilities
demonstrating
eligibility
for
the
delisted
lowrisk
subcategory.

Comment:
One
commenter
stated
that
the
dockets
for
the
MACT
proposals
that
contain
the
risk
approaches
make
it
clear
that
the
White
House
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
and
industry
were
the
driving
forces
behind
the
appearance
of
these
unlawful
approaches
in
EPA's
proposals.
The
commenter
cited
internal
e­
mails
between
the
White
House
OMB
and
EPA
that
reveal
OMB
officials
exerting
pressure
on
EPA
to
"
take
ownership"
of
the
deregulatory
approaches
developed
by
industry.
The
88
commenter
noted
that
comparison
of
the
proposal
language
for
the
Brick
and
Structural
Clay
Products
(
BSCP)
rule
and
PCWP
rule
makes
it
clear
that
EPA
capitulated
to
OMB
pressure
to
remove
references
to
the
risk­
based
exemptions
in
the
PCWP
proposal
preamble
as
being
"
industry's
suggested
approaches."
The
commenter
cited
preamble
edits
from
OMB
that
the
commenter
believes
reveals
an
OMB
agenda
to
dictate
EPA
adoption
of
industry's
risk­
based
approaches,
and
to
signal
these
plans
in
the
rulemaking
proposals,
even
before
public
comment
has
been
taken.
The
commenter
also
noted
that
OMB
urged
support
of
a
dangerous
and
technically
unfounded
HI
of
10.0.
The
commenter
condemned
the
industry­
driven
agenda
that
is
being
promoted
by
the
White
House
OMB.

A
second
commenter
stated
that
the
accusations
that
EPA
succumbed
to
industry
lobbying
and
internal
pressures
are
entirely
unfounded.
The
commenter
stated
that
riskbased
approaches
are
warranted
because
EPA's
NESHAP
program
has
now
turned
to
the
low­
risk
source
categories
that
Congress
instructed
EPA
to
address
last.
The
commenter
pointed
out
that
80
source
categories
have
already
been
addressed
with
MACT
standards.
According
to
the
commenter,
the
remaining
source
categories
are
lower
89
priority
and
include
a
large
number
of
facilities
that
pose
negligible
risk
to
public
health
and
environment.

The
commenter
stated
that
EPA
purposefully
saved
those
categories
for
last
in
accordance
with
Congress'
explicit,

risk­
based
priority­
setting
mandate
expressed
in
section
112(
e)(
2).
The
commenter
concluded
that
EPA
has
now
reached
the
point
where
regulation
by
MACT
would
result
in
more
environmental
harm
than
good.

Response:
The
first
commenter
is
correct
in
stating
that
industry
representatives
and
OMB
support
the
inclusion
of
risk­
based
approaches
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule
as
a
method
of
reducing
costs.
We
are
required
by
Executive
Order
12866
to
submit
to
OMB
for
review
all
proposed
and
final
rulemaking
packages
that
would
have
an
annual
effect
on
the
economy
of
$
100
million
or
more.
The
comments
we
received
from
OMB
reflect
their
position.

b.
Effects
on
MACT
program
Comment:
Several
commenters
expressed
concern
about
the
impact
of
a
risk­
based
approach
on
the
MACT
program.

Some
commenters
stated
that
the
proposal
to
include
riskbased
exemptions
is
contrary
to
the
1990
CAA
Amendments,

which
calls
for
MACT
standards
based
on
technology
rather
than
risk
as
a
first
step.
The
commenters
pointed
out
90
that
Congress
incorporated
the
residual
risk
program
under
section
112(
f)
to
follow
the
MACT
standards,
not
to
replace
them.
One
commenter
added
that
risk­
based
approaches
would
be
used
separately
to
augment
and
improve
technology­
based
standards
that
do
not
adequately
provide
protection
to
the
public.

Another
commenter
believed
that
section
112(
b)(
4)
and
the
regulatory
precedent
established
in
over
80
MACT
standards
reject
the
inclusion
of
risk
in
the
first
phase
of
the
MACT
standards
process.
The
commenter
argued
that
the
use
of
risk
assessment
at
this
stage
of
the
MACT
program
is,
in
fact,
directly
opposed
to
Title
III
of
the
CAA.

Response:
We
disagree
that
inclusion
of
a
low­
risk
subcategory
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule
is
contrary
to
the
1990
CAA
Amendments.
The
PCWP
rule
is
a
technology­
based
standard
developed
using
the
procedures
dictated
by
section
112
of
the
CAA.
The
only
difference
between
today's
final
PCWP
rule
and
other
MACT
rules
is
that
we
used
our
discretion
under
CAA
sections
112(
c)(
1)
and
(
9)

to
subcategorize
low­
risk
facilities.
The
CAA
requires
that
categories
or
subcategories
meet
specific
risk
criteria,
and
to
determine
this,
risk
analyses
may
be
91
used.
We
disagree
with
the
commenter
that
we
must
wait
for
implementation
of
CAA
section
112(
f)
before
utilizing
risk
analysis
in
this
manner.
We
believe
that
today's
final
PCWP
rule
is
particularly
well­
suited
for
a
riskbased
option
because
of
the
specific
pollutants
that
are
emitted.
For
many
facilities,
the
pollutants
are
emitted
in
amounts
that
do
not
pose
a
significant
risk
to
the
surrounding
population.
However,
the
cost
of
controlling
these
pollutants
is
high,
and
may
not
be
justified
by
environmental
benefits
for
these
low­
risk
facilities.

Only
those
PCWP
facilities
that
demonstrate
that
they
are
low­
risk
are
eligible
for
inclusion
in
the
delisted
lowrisk
subcategory.
The
criteria
included
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule
defining
the
delisted
low­
risk
subcategory
are
based
on
sufficient
information
to
develop
healthprotective
estimates
of
risk
and
will
provide
ample
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Inclusion
of
a
low­
risk
subcategory
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule
does
not
alter
the
MACT
program
or
affect
the
schedule
for
promulgation
of
the
remaining
MACT
standards.

We
recognize
that
such
provisions
are
only
appropriate
for
certain
source
categories,
and
our
decision­
making
process
required
source
category­
specific
input
from
stakeholders.
92
The
10­
year
MACT
standards,
which
are
now
being
completed,

are
the
last
group
of
MACT
standards
currently
planned
for
development,
and
for
any
risk
provisions
to
be
useful,
the
provisions
must
be
finalized
in
a
timely
manner
(
i.
e.,
not
later
than
the
promulgation
of
the
MACT
standards).
These
final
MACT
source
categories
were
included
in
the
"
10­
year
bin"
because
they
were
considered
to
be
the
lowest­
risk
source
categories.

Comment:
Several
commenters
stated
that
the
inclusion
of
a
risk­
based
approach
would
delay
the
MACT
program
and/
or
promulgation
of
the
PCWP
MACT
standard.

Commenters
stated
that
the
proposal
to
allow
risk­
based
exemptions
would
divert
back
to
the
time­
consuming
NESHAP
development
process
that
existed
prior
to
the
1990
CAA
Amendments.
Under
this
process,
which
began
with
a
risk
assessment
step,
only
eight
NESHAP
were
promulgated
during
a
20­
year
period.
If
the
proposed
approaches
are
inserted
into
upcoming
standards,
the
commenters
feared
the
MACT
program
(
which
is
already
far
behind
schedule)
would
be
further
delayed.

One
commenter
stated
that
they
were
strongly
opposed
to
returning
to
the
morass
of
risk­
based
analysis
in
an
attempt
to
preempt
the
application
of
technology­
based
93
MACT
standards
and
exempt
facilities.
The
commenter
stated
that
designing
a
risk­
based
analysis
procedure
would
also
take
significant
resources,
as
evidenced
by
the
fact
that
it
took
five
plus
pages
in
the
Federal
Register
to
discuss
just
the
basic
issues
to
be
considered
in
the
analysis.
The
commenter
indicated
that
the
demand
on
government
resources
could
cause
a
delay
in
the
application
of
MACT
nationwide.
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA
should
also
consider
the
issue
of
fairness
since
the
rest
of
the
industrial
sector
whose
NESHAP
have
already
been
promulgated
did
not
have
a
risk­
based
option.

Another
commenter
stated
that
it
is
evident
that
the
proposed
risk­
based
exemptions
would
require
extensive
debate
and
review
in
order
to
launch,
which
would
further
delay
promulgation
of
the
remaining
MACT
standards.
The
commenter
stated
that
delays
could
be
exacerbated
by
litigation
following
legal
challenges
to
the
rules,
and
such
delays
would
trigger
the
section
112(
j)
MACT
hammer
provision,
which
would
unnecessarily
burden
the
State
and
local
agencies
and
the
industries.
The
commenter
concluded
that,
obviously,
further
delay
is
unacceptable.

Another
commenter
agreed,
stating
that
it
is
imperative
that
EPA
meet
the
new
deadlines
for
promulgating
the
final
94
MACT
standards.

Two
commenters
stated
that
EPA's
proposal
to
improperly
incorporate
risk
assessment
into
the
technology­
based
standard
process
would
cripple
a
MACT
program
already
in
disarray.
The
commenters
argued
that
the
risk­
based
approach
could
exacerbate
the
delay
in
HAP
emissions
reductions
required
by
section
112.
One
commenter
noted
that
EPA's
Office
of
Inspector
General
recently
found
that
EPA
is
nearly
2
years
behind
in
fulfilling
its
statutory
responsibilities
for
implementing
Phase
1
MACT
standards.
According
to
the
commenter,
this
delay
potentially
harms
the
public
and
environment.
The
inclusion
of
risk­
based
exemptions
in
10­
year
MACT
standards
would
only
further
delay
this
process.
The
other
commenter
noted
that
EPA
lacks
adequate
emissions
and
exposure
data,
source
characterization
data,
and
health
and
ecological
effects
information
to
conduct
this
process
anyway.
This
commenter
believed
that
the
air
toxics
program
is
flawed
and
failing
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment
and
argued
that
it
was
irresponsible
for
EPA
to
pursue
a
deregulatory
agenda
that
would
further
weaken
the
effectiveness
of
the
air
toxics
program.
The
commenter
noted
that
EPA
acknowledged
the
95
complexity
and
delays
associated
with
the
proposed
riskbased
approaches
in
deciding
not
to
adopt
the
approaches
in
the
final
BSCP
rule.

Response:
We
disagree
that
identification
and
delisting
of
a
low­
risk
subcategory
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule
will
alter
the
MACT
program
or
affect
the
schedule
for
promulgation
of
the
remaining
MACT
standards.
We
do
not
anticipate
any
further
delays
in
completing
the
remaining
MACT
standards.
The
delisting
of
a
low­
risk
subcategory
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule
affects
only
the
PCWP
rule,
and
not
all
other
MACT
standards
that
have
yet
to
be
promulgated.

We
believe
that
the
PCWP
rule
is
particularly
wellsuited
for
a
risk­
based
option
because
of
the
specific
pollutants
that
are
emitted.
For
many
facilities,
the
pollutants
are
emitted
in
amounts
that
do
not
pose
a
significant
risk
to
the
surrounding
population.
However,

the
cost
of
controlling
these
pollutants
is
high
and
may
not
be
justified
by
environmental
benefits
for
these
lowrisk
facilities.
Only
those
PCWP
facilities
that
demonstrate
that
they
are
low­
risk
are
eligible
for
inclusion
in
the
delisted
low­
risk
subcategory.
The
criteria
defining
the
delisted
low­
risk
subcategory
are
96
based
on
sufficient
information
to
develop
healthprotective
estimates
of
risk
and
will
provide
ample
protection
of
human
health
and
the
environment.

Delisting
of
a
low­
risk
subcategory
of
PCWP
facilities
does
not
mean
that
we
will
provide
risk­
based
options
for
other
industries.
Furthermore,
we
have
no
intentions
of
reopening
previously
promulgated
NESHAP
in
light
of
decisions
made
specific
to
the
PCWP
source
category.
The
PCWP
NESHAP
is
being
promulgated
by
the
February
2004
court­
ordered
deadline.
Any
delays
in
implementation
of
the
PCWP
NESHAP
caused
by
legal
challenges
are
beyond
our
control.

2.
Legal
authority
a.
Section
112(
d)(
4)

Comment:
We
received
multiple
comments
stating
that
section
112(
d)(
4)
provides
EPA
with
authority
to
exclude
sources
that
emit
threshold
pollutants
from
regulation.

The
commenters
cited
the
language
in
section
112(
d)(
4)
and
CAA
legislative
history.
The
commenters
pointed
out
that
EPA
exercised
its
section
112(
d)(
4)
authority
previously
in
choosing
not
to
impose
control
requirements
on
hydrogen
chloride
(
HCl)
emissions
from
chemical
recovery
furnaces
at
pulp
mills
(
40
CFR
Part
63,
Subpart
MM,
See
63
FR
97
18754,
18765
(
April
15,
1998)).

We
also
received
multiple
comments
disagreeing
that
section
112(
d)(
4)
can
be
interpreted
to
allow
exemptions
for
individual
sources.
The
commenters
argued
that
section
112(
d)(
4)
applies
only
to
categories
or
subcategories
of
sources
and
not
to
individual
sources.

These
commenters
also
cited
the
language
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
and
CAA
legislative
history.
The
commenters
interpreted
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
state
that
health­
based
thresholds
can
be
considered
when
establishing
the
degree
of
the
MACT
floor
requirements,
but
they
should
not
be
used
in
lieu
of
the
requirements
established
pursuant
to
section
112(
d)(
3).
One
commenter
also
argued
that
the
third
scenario
suggested
by
EPA
 
application
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
exemption
to
emission
points
within
a
facility
 
is
unlawful
because
there
is
no
statutory
provision
within
the
CAA
to
authorize
emission
point­
by­
point
exemption.

Several
commenters
supported
the
use
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
applicability
cutoffs
for
both
threshold
and
non­
threshold
pollutants
and
believe
that
a
health
threshold
of
one
in
a
million
cancer
risk
is
appropriate
for
non­
threshold
pollutants.
The
commenters
interpreted
the
language
in
section
112(
d)(
4)
to
mean
EPA
may
issue
98
standards
for
any
pollutant
for
which
a
threshold
may
be
established.
The
commenters
believe
that
EPA
could
use
its
section
112(
d)(
4)
authority
to
establish
a
"
threshold"

risk
of
one
in
a
million
for
non­
threshold
carcinogens.

The
commenters
also
believe
that
section
112(
d)(
4)
may
be
properly
applied
to
carcinogenic
HAP
that
EPA
determines
have
a
threshold
of
safe
exposure.
The
commenters
noted
that
the
current
health
science
for
formaldehyde
and
aceteladehyde
shows
that
these
two
HAP
are
threshold
carcinogens
that
are
emitted
from
wood
products
facilities
at
levels
that
will
not
pose
a
significant
risk
to
human
health.

Multiple
other
commenters
stated
that
section
112(
d)(
4)
does
not
apply
for
source
categories
that
emit
carcinogens.
The
commenters
argued
that
EPA
may
only
use
the
section
112(
d)(
4)
authority
for
pollutants
with
a
well­
established
health
threshold.
The
commenters
stated
that
section
112(
d)(
4)
only
allows
EPA
to
substitute
a
health
threshold
for
a
MACT
standard
when
the
threshold
"
has
been
established."
The
commenters
contended
that
Congress
did
not
intend
for
EPA
to
spend
time
determining
if
a
threshold
exists
and
that
it
was
Congress'
intent
that
EPA
have
a
high
degree
of
scientific
certainty
before
99
using
its
section
112(
d)(
4)
authority.
The
commenters
cited
legislative
history.
(
See
S.
Rep.
101­
228
at
171.)

The
commenters
also
stated
that
Congress
specified
that
EPA
must
have
direct
evidence
of
no
effects,
i.
e.,
use
of
a
no
observable
effects
level
(
NOEL),
before
invoking
section
112(
d)(
4);
thus,
EPA
must
be
sure
that
there
are
no
effects
from
exposure
at
the
level
chosen
for
the
emission
standard.
The
commenters
further
argued
that
all
carcinogens
must
be
treated
as
non­
threshold
pollutants
and
noted
that
the
history
of
the
1990
CAA
Amendments
shows
that
Congress
legislated
with
an
understanding
that
carcinogens
do
not
have
a
safe
threshold.

Response:
We
acknowledge
the
commenters'
arguments
regarding
our
discussion
in
the
PCWP
proposal
preamble
regarding
potential
applicability
cutoffs
for
threshold
pollutants
under
the
authority
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
of
the
CAA.
We
believe
that
section
112(
d)(
4)
does
not
give
us
the
authority
to
exempt
facilities
or
emission
points
from
MACT
limitations
on
non­
threshold
pollutant
emissions.

All
PCWP
facilities
emit
carcinogens
(
e.
g.,
formaldehyde),

which
are
currently
considered
non­
threshold
pollutants.

Therefore,
we
are
not
using
section
112(
d)(
4)
authority
to
create
risk­
based
options
for
PCWP.
We
do
not
expect
to
100
further
explore
the
use
of
section
112(
d)(
4)
of
the
CAA
to
exempt
PCWP
facilities
from
the
MACT
floor
on
a
case­

bycase
basis
or
to
set
alternative
standards,
because
PCWP
facilities
emit
HAP
for
which
no
health
thresholds
have
been
established
and
because
the
legislative
history
to
the
1990
Amendments
to
the
CAA
indicates
that
Congress
considered
and
rejected
allowing
us
to
grant
such
sourcespecific
exemptions
from
the
MACT
floor.
(
See,
e.
g.,
1
Legis.
Hist.
at
866,
877;
2
Legis.
Hist.
at
2141­
42,

3939.)
As
discussed
below,
we
are
establishing
and
delisting
a
subcategory
of
low­
risk
PCWP
facilities
using
our
authority
under
CAA
sections
112(
c)(
1)
and
(
9).

We
are
establishing
criteria
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule
that
define
a
low­
risk
subcategory
of
PCWP
facilities,
which
requires
demonstration
that
a
facility
warrants
being
included
in
this
subcategory.
The
criteria
are
not
included
in
the
rule
as
"
emission
standards"
or
"
emission
limits"
but
are
included
in
an
appendix
to
the
rule
that
specifies
how
facilities
must
make
their
lowrisk
demonstrations
and
the
steps
that
facilities
must
take
to
ensure
that
they
remain
in
the
low­
risk
subcategory.
We
are
not
setting
a
risk­
based
emission
limit,
but,
rather,
we
are
using
our
section
112(
c)(
9)
101
authority
to
delist
facilities
that
demonstrate
they
meet
the
risk
and
hazard
criteria
for
being
included
in
this
low­
risk
subcategory.

b.
De
minimis
Comment:
Some
commenters
attempted
to
identify
a
source
of
authority
for
risk­
based
approaches
that
was
not
discussed
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule.
The
commenters
stated
that
a
risk­
based
compliance
option
for
both
threshold
and
non­
threshold
HAP
is
well
within
EPA's
authority
under
the
CAA
and
the
de
minimis
doctrine
articulated
by
appellate
courts.
The
commenters
cited
appellate
case
law
which
they
believe
makes
it
clear
that
EPA
may
lawfully
exempt
de
minimis
sources
of
risk
from
MACT­
level
controls
because
the
legislative
mandate
of
section
112
is
not
"
extraordinarily
rigid"
and
the
exemption
is
consistent
with
the
CAA's
health­
protective
purpose.
The
commenters
also
noted
that
sections
112(
c)(
9)
and
112(
f)(
2)
indicate
that
Congress
considered
a
cancer
risk
below
one
in
a
million
to
be
de
minimis
and
therefore
insufficient
to
justify
regulation
under
section
112.
The
commenters
stated
that
(
and
cited
examples
where)
EPA's
exercise
of
de
minimis
authority
has
withstood
judicial
challenge,
and
that
application
of
de
102
minimis
authority
(
as
well
as
its
treatment
by
reviewing
courts)
is
based
on
the
degree
of
risk
at
issue,
not
on
the
mass
of
emissions
to
be
regulated.
The
commenters
stated
that
the
D.
C.
Circuit
has
invalidated
EPA's
de
minimis
authority
only
where
it
was
applied
under
statutory
designs
that
are
"
extraordinarily
rigid."
The
commenters
stated
that
section
112
provides
clear
indication
of
Congressional
intent
as
to
the
degree
of
risk
that
properly
is
to
be
considered
de
minimis.
A
cancer
risk
of
one
in
a
million
triggers
further
review
under
the
"
residual"
risk
provision
of
section
112(
f),
and
a
one
in
a
million
cancer
risk
is
the
threshold
below
which
EPA
is
authorized
under
section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)
to
remove
source
categories
from
MACT
regulation.
One
commenter
attached
a
paper
they
developed
entitled
"
Legal
and
Policy
Basis
for
EPA's
Exercise
of
Its
De
minimis
Authority
Under
Section
112
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
in
the
Context
of
the
Wood
Products
MACT."

Other
commenters
argued
that
de
minimis
authority
does
not
exist
to
create
MACT
exemptions
on
a
facility­

byfacility
or
category­
wide
basis.
In
addition,
the
commenters
stated
that
EPA
lacks
de
minimis
authority
to
delist
subcategories
based
on
risk.
The
commenters
cited
103
case
law
and
stated
that
EPA
may
not
rely
on
its
narrow
de
minimis
exemption
authority
to
escape
the
highly
prescriptive
provisions
in
section
112.
The
commenters
further
noted
that
EPA
has
not
revealed
any
administrative
record
justifying
a
de
minimis
exemption,
to
demonstrate
in
any
way
that
compliance
with
MACT
would
"
yield
a
gain
of
trivial
or
no
value."

Response:
We
disagree
with
the
commenters
who
claimed
that
the
low­
risk
approaches,
especially
the
concentration­
based
exemption,
can
be
justified
by
de
minimis
principles.
Our
de
minimis
authority
exists
to
help
avoid
excessive
regulation
of
tiny
amounts
of
pollutants,
where
regulation
would
yield
a
result
contrary
to
a
primary
legislative
goal.
It
is
unavailable
"
where
the
regulatory
function
does
provide
benefits,
in
the
sense
of
furthering
the
regulatory
objectives,
but
the
agency
concludes
that
the
acknowledged
benefits
are
exceeded
by
the
costs."
EDF
v.
EPA,
82
F.
3d
451,
466
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1996);
Public
Citizen
v.
Young,
831
F.
2d
1108,

1112­
13
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1987);
Alabama
Power
v.
EPA,
636
F.
2d
323,
360­
61
&
n.
89
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1979).
Accordingly,
a
de
minimis
exemption
to
section
112(
d)(
3)
is
unavailable
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule
because
it
would
frustrate
a
104
primary
legislative
goal
by
preventing
application
of
the
MACT
floor
to
tons
of
PCWP
facilities'
HAP
emissions.

The
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
has
already
addressed
the
de
minimis
concept
in
the
MACT
context,
in
National
Lime
Ass'n
v.

EPA,
233
F.
3d
625,
640
(
D.
C.
Cir.
2000)
(
National
Lime),

in
which
the
court
rejected
the
industry
petitioner's
claim
that,
in
light
of
both
the
high
costs
and
low
quantities
of
HAP
at
issue
in
that
case,
we
should
read
a
de
minimis
exception
into
the
requirement
that
it
regulate
all
HAP
emitted
by
major
sources.
In
that
case,
the
Court
found
that
"
EPA
reasonably
rejected
this
argument
on
the
ground
that
the
statute
`
does
not
provide
for
exceptions
from
emissions
standards
based
on
de
minimis
principles
where
a
MACT
floor
exists.'"
(
See
National
Lime
at
640.)

We
recently
re­
affirmed
our
position
on
the
unavailability
of
de
minimis
exemptions
from
the
MACT
floor
in
the
final
rule
regulating
organic
liquids
distribution.
(
See
69
FR
5038
(
February
3,
2004).)

We
see
no
reason
to
revisit
this
fundamental
issue.

Section
112
of
the
CAA
is
replete
with
careful
definitions
of
volume­
or
effect­
based
limitation
on
regulation,

indicating
that
Congress
has
already
defined
what
amounts
105
of
HAP
emissions
are
too
small
to
warrant
MACT
standards
or
other
controls
under
section
112.
The
requirement
to
adopt
MACT
emission
limitations,
for
example,
applies
without
exception
to
"
each
category
or
subcategory
of
major
sources...
of
[
HAP]."
(
See
CAA
section
112(
d)(
1).)

For
sources
below
the
major
source
threshold,
however,
we
have
discretion
to
require
"
generally
available
control
technologies
or
management
practices."
(
See
CAA
section
112(
d)(
5).)
Congress
has,
thus,
itself
defined
volumetrically
which
sources'
emissions
are
small
enough
not
to
warrant
mandatory
MACT
standards.

Congress
likewise
defined
several
MACT
exceptions
applicable
where
emissions
have
de
minimis
health
effects.

Section
112(
d)(
4)
of
the
CAA
allows
us
to
establish
standards
less
stringent
than
MACT
for
HAP
with
an
established
health
threshold,
so
long
as
we
set
a
standard
below
the
health
threshold
with
"
an
ample
margin
of
safety."
Section
112(
b)(
3)(
C)
of
the
CAA
directs
us
to
delist
HAP
 
precluding
section
112(
d)
MACT
standards
 
if
we
determine
that
"
there
is
adequate
data
on
the
health
and
environmental
effects
of
the
substance
to
determine
that
emissions,
ambient
concentrations,
bioaccumulation
or
deposition
of
the
substance
may
not
reasonably
be
106
anticipated
to
cause
any
adverse
effects
to
the
[
sic]

human
health
or
adverse
environmental
effects."
Section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)(
i)
of
the
CAA
(
discussed
further
below)
lets
us
delete
source
categories
and
subcategories
from
the
category
list
 
the
consequence
again
being
no
MACT
control
 
if
we
determine
that,
for
emissions
of
carcinogenic
HAP,

"
no
source
in
the
category...
emits
such
[
HAP]
in
quantities
which
may
cause
a
lifetime
risk
of
cancer
greater
than
one
in
one
million
to
the
individual
in
the
population
who
is
most
exposed
to
emissions
of
such
pollutant
from
the
source."
For
noncarcinogens,
we
may
delete
source
categories
and
subcategories
if
we
determine
that
"
emissions
from
no
source
in
the
category
or
subcategory...
exceed
a
level
which
is
adequate
to
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety
and
no
adverse
environmental
effect
will
result
from
emissions
from
any
source."
(
See
CAA
section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)(
ii).)

Moreover,
in
defining
which
source
modifications
trigger
additional
regulatory
standards,
CAA
section
112(
g)(
1)(
A)

mentions
a
"
greater
than
de
minimis
increase
in
actual
emission
of
a
[
HAP]."
This
shows
that
Congress
knew
how
to
use
the
de
minimis
concept
when
it
considered
it
appropriate
in
section
112,
and
the
fact
that
Congress
did
107
not
use
it
in
section
112(
d)(
3)
supports
our
 
and
the
D.
C.
Circuit's
 
conclusion
that
it
is
unavailable
to
support
an
exception
to
a
MACT
floor
that
is
not
otherwise
authorized
under
section
112.

We
do
not
find
persuasive
the
proposition
that
the
overall
purpose
of
section
112
is
protecting
human
health
and
the
environment,
and
that,
therefore,
as
long
as
this
general
purpose
is
met,
we
may
fashion
de
minimis
exceptions
from
MACT
beyond
those
allowed
under
section
112.
First,
this
position
appears
to
assume
that
the
issue
is
to
be
drawn
on
a
clean
slate,
while
the
D.
C.

Circuit
has
affirmed
our
view
that
section
112(
d)(
3)

provides
no
discretion
to
use
a
de
minimis
rationale
to
avoid
MACT.
Second,
the
commenter
appears
to
give
prominence
to
an
over­
arching
statutory
goal
over
the
specific
language
of
the
statutory
provisions
themselves,

in
assessing
whether
those
provisions
are
"
extraordinarily
rigid"
regarding
EPA's
otherwise­
inherent
de
minimis
authority;
the
logical
extension
of
such
an
approach
would
be
to
find
that
no
single
provision
in
the
CAA
could
restrict
our
de
minimis
authority,
in
light
of
the
CAA's
over­
arching
purpose
"
to
promote
the
public
health
and
welfare."
(
See
CAA
section
101(
b)(
1).)
Third,
the
108
commenter
does
not
present
any
persuasive
statutory
arguments
to
overcome
those
that
we
presented
to
the
court
 
and
which
the
court
affirmed
 
in
National
Lime.

Fourth,
we
are
unable
to
discern
the
basis
for
the
commenter's
suggestion
that
we
have
in
fact
been
relying
on
de
minimis
authority
in
the
MACT
program
for
several
years
in
establishing
applicability
thresholds,
and
we
are
not
aware
of
any
instance
in
which
we
have
explicitly
justified
an
exception
from
an
applicable
MACT
floor
based
on
a
de
minimis
rationale
that
would
be,
like
the
commenter's
requested
exemption,
in
contravention
of
the
Court's
ruling
in
NLA.
Finally,
to
the
extent
the
commenters
believe
such
a
de
minimis
exemption
is
justified
by
the
wish
to
reduce
the
costs
of
the
PCWP
rule,
we
are
not
free
to
grant
a
de
minimis
exemption
to
account
for
costs.
Congress
already
took
cost
into
account
in
section
112(
d),
relying
on
prior
business
judgments
by
the
best
performing
sources
to
substitute
for
the
judgment
of
the
rest
of
the
PCWP
industry,
therefore,

denying
us
the
leeway
to
consider
costs
as
a
factor
to
modify
the
MACT
floor.
Only
in
considering
more
stringent
"
beyond
floor"
standards
may
we
consider
costs
in
the
MACT
context.
Therefore,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
109
or
necessary
to
revisit
our
and
the
D.
C.
Circuit's
prior
conclusions
regarding
the
availability
of
the
de
minimis
principle
in
today's
final
PCWP
rule.

c.
Section
112(
c)(
9)

Comment:
Two
commenters
opposed
using
subcategorization
as
a
mechanism
to
exempt
facilities.

One
of
the
commenters
stated
that
subcategorization
is
a
tool
that
should
be
used
in
the
standard
setting
process,

and
using
it
to
exempt
facilities
would
have
a
detrimental
effect
on
the
stringency
of
the
MACT
floor
and
would
generally
degrade
the
standard.
According
to
the
commenter,
the
two­
step
subcategorization
proposal
is
inconsistent
with
how
subcategorization
has
been
done
in
numerous
previous
NESHAP.

The
other
commenter
argued
that
EPA's
subcategorization
theories
are
unlawful.
According
to
the
commenter,
section
112(
c)(
9)
does
not
authorize
EPA
to
separate
identical
pollution
sources
into
subcategories
that
are
regulated
differently
to
weed
out
low­
risk
facilities
or
reduce
the
scope/
cost
of
the
standard.
The
commenter
stated
that
subcategories
based
solely
on
risk
do
not
bear
a
reasonable
relationship
to
Congress'

technology­
based
approach
or
the
statutory
structure
and
110
purposes
of
section
112,
and
are
not
authorized
by
the
CAA.
According
to
the
commenter,
categories
and
subcategories
are
required
to
be
consistent
with
the
categories
of
stationary
sources
in
section
111.
The
commenter
was
not
aware
of
any
instance
in
which
EPA
has
established
categories
or
subcategories
based
on
risk.

The
commenter
stated
that
EPA
routinely
defines
subcategories
based
on
equipment
characteristics
(
e.
g.,

technical
differences
in
emissions
characteristics,

processes,
control
device
applicability,
or
opportunities
for
pollution
prevention).
According
to
the
commenter,

EPA
has
not
offered
any
explaination
for
why
reinterpreting
the
statute
to
ignore
nearly
12
years
of
settled
practices
and
expectations
under
the
MACT
program
is
reasonable,
nor
why
reducing
the
applicability
of
HAP
emission
standards
serves
Congress's
goals
in
enacting
the
1990
CAA
Amendments.

The
commenter
noted
that
EPA's
discussion
of
the
risk­
based
exemptions
was
contained
in
a
preamble
section
entitled,
"
Can
We
Achieve
the
Goals
of
the
Proposed
Rule
in
a
Less
Costly
Manner,"
which
strongly
suggests
that
EPA's
motivation
for
considering
these
risk­
based
approaches
is
consideration
of
cost.
The
commenter
cited
111
prior
EPA
documentation
and
stated
that
EPA
in
the
past
has
rejected
the
notion
that
cost
should
influence
MACT
determination,
and
this
prior,
consistently
applied
interpretation
better
serves
the
purposes
of
section
112.

The
commenter
argued
that
subcategorizing
to
set
a
nocontrol
MACT
floor
is
the
same
as
refusing
to
set
a
MACT
standard
because
the
benefits
would
be
negligible,
which
is
unlawful.

The
commenter
also
stated
that
section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)(
i)
does
not
authorize
EPA
to
delist
subcategories.
According
to
the
commenter,
section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)
contains
two
subsections:
subsection
(
i)

refers
only
to
categories,
and
subsection
(
ii)
refers
to
both
categories
and
subcategories.
The
commenter
argued
that
the
absence
of
the
term
"
subcategories"
in
section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)(
i)
indicates
a
Congressional
choice
not
to
permit
the
Administrator
to
delist
subcategories
of
sources
under
section
112(
c)(
9)(
B).
The
commenter
stated
that
this
is
consistent
with
Congress'
decision
to
require
a
higher
standard
to
delist
categories
that
emit
carcinogens.
According
to
the
commenter,
the
section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)(
ii)
requirement
of
less
than
one
in
a
million
lifetime
cancer
risk
for
the
most
exposed
individual
is
a
112
higher
and
more
specific
standard
than
the
standard
for
other
HAP.

To
the
contrary,
two
commenters
stated
that
EPA
has
ample
authority
under
sections
112(
c)(
1)
and
112(
c)(
9)
to
create
and
delist
low­
risk
categories
or
subcategories.

According
to
the
commenters,
section
112(
c)(
1)
provides
the
Administrator
with
significant
flexibility
to
create
categories
and
subcategories
as
needed
to
implement
section
112.
One
commenter
stated
that
there
is
nothing
in
the
statute
that
limits
the
criteria
the
Administrator
can
use
in
establishing
categories
and
subcategories.
The
commenter
added
that
there
is
also
nothing
in
the
history
of
EPA's
interpretation
of
section
112(
c)
that
precludes
subcategorization
based
on
risk.
In
addition,
EPA
has
stated
that
emission
characteristics
are
factors
to
be
considered
when
defining
categories.

The
commenter
stated
that
application
of
statutory
authority
to
exclude
sources
from
regulation
under
section
112(
d)(
3)
is
also
supported
by
relevant
case
law,
e.
g.,
in
the
Vinyl
Chloride
case.
(
NRDC
v.
EPA,
824
F.
2D
1126
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1987))
According
to
the
commenter,
the
court
in
that
case
established
a
range
of
acceptable
level
of
risk
in
establishing
limits
under
prior
language
in
113
section
112,
and
the
establishment
of
an
acceptable
level
of
risk
could
be
used
to
create
a
low­
risk
subcategory
that
could
be
delisted.
The
commenter
stated
that
technological
or
operational
differences
among
sources
may
also
help
discriminate
between
low­
risk
and
high­
risk
sources.
The
commenter
stated
that
effective
use
of
section
112(
c)(
1)
authority
to
create
risk­
based
subcategories
would
significantly
improve
the
costeffectiveness
of
the
section
112
program
without
undermining
its
role
in
protecting
public
health
and
the
environment.

Both
commenters
noted
that
section
112(
c)(
9)(
B)

provides
EPA
with
broad
authority
to
remove
from
MACT
applicability
those
categories
and
subcategories
of
facilities
whose
HAP
emissions
are
sufficiently
low
as
to
demonstrate
a
cancer
risk
less
than
one
in
a
million
to
the
most
exposed
individual
in
the
population
(
for
nonthreshold
carcinogens)
and
no
adverse
environmental
or
public
health
effect
(
for
threshold
HAP).
(
The
commenter
asserted
that
Congress
used
the
terms
category
and
subcategory
interchangeably,
indicating
that
either
one
can
be
delisted.)
One
commenter
suggested
that
sources
able
to
demonstrate
a
basis
for
inclusion
in
the
delisted
114
category
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
would
then
be
exempted
from
the
MACT,
subject
to
possible
federally­
enforceable
conditions
designed
by
EPA.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
new
category
could
include
the
following:
all
low­
risk
facilities,
facilities
producing
wood
products
found
to
pose
no
expected
risk
to
human
health
(
i.
e.,
fiberboard,

medium
density
fiberboard
and
plywood),
facilities
with
acrolein
emissions
below
a
certain
threshold,
or
facilities
selected
on
the
basis
of
some
other
risk
criterion.
The
commenter
suggested
that
the
low­
risk
category
be
included
in
the
final
rule
and
delisted
within
6
months
following
publication
of
the
final
rule.
The
delisting
notices
would
designate
health
benchmarks
and
facilities
would
be
required
to
submit
evidence
(
e.
g.,

tiered
dispersion
modeling)
demonstrating
that
their
emissions
result
in
exposures
that
fall
below
the
benchmarks.
Following
delisting
of
the
category,
an
affected
source
could
apply
to
EPA
for
a
determination
that
it
qualifies
for
inclusion
in
the
low­
risk
category.

After
evaluating
the
source's
petition,
EPA
would
issue
a
written
determination
of
applicability
based
on
the
petition
that
would
be
binding
on
the
permitting
authority
(
unless
the
petition
was
found
to
contain
significant
115
errors
or
omissions)
and
appealable
by
the
affected
source
or
interested
parties.
The
EPA
could
require
all
facilities
that
qualify
for
inclusion
in
the
delisted
category
to
comply
with
federally­
enforceable
conditions,

similar
to
the
conditions
established
in
permits
for
"
synthetic
minor"
sources
(
e.
g.,
limits
on
potential
to
emit,
production
limits).

The
commenter
also
responded
to
objections
regarding
the
subcategorization
and
delisting
of
low­
risk
facilities.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
contrasting
of
the
terms
"
category"
and
"
subcategory"
offered
a
distinction
that
in
no
way
limited
EPA's
authority
to
delist
low­
risk
facilities.
According
to
the
commenter,

the
argument
that
EPA
cannot
create
subcategories
based
on
risk
is
contradicted
by
the
statutory
language,
which
expressly
states
that
the
categories
and
subcategories
EPA
creates
under
section
112
need
not
match
those
created
under
section
111.
Furthermore,
prior
EPA
statements
do
nothing
to
detract
from
EPA's
broad
discretion
to
establish
categories
and
subcategories.
The
subcategorization
factors
previously
discussed
by
EPA
justify
subcategorization
based
on
risk.
The
authority
cited
by
one
commenter
does
not
establish
that
EPA's
116
discretion
to
alter
subcategorization
is
limited
in
any
way,
and
even
if
it
were,
EPA
is
not
bound
by
any
prior
position.
The
arguments
that
EPA
may
not
delist
subcategories
for
carcinogens
(
or
sources
emitting
carcinogens)
rest
on
a
formalistic
distinction
that
EPA
previously
has
rejected
as
meaningless,
and
that,
at
any
rate,
can
be
remedied
with
a
simple
recasting
of
a
subcategory
as
a
category.
The
commenter
stated
that
doing
so
is
undisputedly
within
EPA's
authority.

Three
commenters
addressed
the
issue
of
subcategorizing
PCWP
facilities
based
on
characteristics
other
than
risk.
One
commenter
stated
that
the
only
option
that
appears
consistent
with
the
CAA,
does
not
create
excessive
work
for
State
and
local
agencies,
and
may
be
able
to
be
based
on
science,
is
the
subcategorization
and
delisting
approach.
However,
the
commenter
added
that
the
subcategories
should
be
based
on
equipment
or
fuel
use,
not
risk.
The
commenter
stated
that
a
subcategory
based
on
site­
specific
risk
creates
a
circular
definition
and
does
not
make
sense.
The
commenter
also
stated
that
subcategory
delisting
should
occur
before
the
compliance
date
so
that
facilities
don't
put
off
compliance
in
the
hope
or
anticipation
of
117
delisting.

The
second
commenter
stated
that
EPA
requested
comment
on
the
establishment
of
PCWP
subcategories
ostensibly
based
on
physical
and
operational
characteristics,
but
in
reality
based
on
risk.
According
to
the
commenter,
this
indirect
approach
is
just
a
variation
on
the
approach
(
direct
reliance
on
risk)
that
EPA
itself
notes
would
disrupt
and
weaken
establishment
of
MACT
floors,
and
is
accordingly
unlawful.
The
commenter
stated
that,
even
if
these
approaches
were
lawful,
to
the
extent
that
EPA's
proposal
could
be
read
to
suggest
that
facilities
could
be
allowed
to
become
part
of
the
allegedly
low­
risk
subcategory
in
the
future
without
additional
EPA
rulemaking,
this
too
would
be
unlawful.

According
to
the
commenter,
section
112(
c)(
9)
provides
the
EPA
Administrator
alone
the
authority
to
make
delisting
determinations,
and
such
authority
may
not
be
delegated
to
other
government
authorities
or
private
parties.
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
proposal
suggests
an
approach
entirely
backward
from
the
statute
 
allowing
sources
to
demonstrate
after­
the­
fact
that
they
belong
in
a
subcategory
that
has
been
delisted
under
section
112(
c)(
9),
when
the
statute
requires
that
EPA
determine
118
that
no
source
in
the
category
emits
cancer­
causing
HAP
above
specified
levels,
or
that
no
source
in
the
category
or
subcategory
emit
non­
carcinogenic
HAP
above
specified
levels,
by
the
time
EPA
establishes
the
standard.
The
commenter
stated
that
EPA
has
provided
no
explanation
of
how
the
suggested
approaches
would
be
lawful
or
workable.

The
third
commenter
indicated
that
low
risk
is
an
adequate
and
appropriate
criterion
for
categorization.

The
commenter
disagreed
that
EPA
should
create
and
delist
categories
on
a
technology
basis
when
the
intent
is
delisting
of
low­
risk
facilities.
The
commenter
believed
that
seeking
a
technology­
based
surrogate
for
risk
is
unnecessary
within
the
statutory
framework.
The
commenter
noted
that
the
Congressional
intent
was
"
to
avoid
regulatory
costs
which
would
be
without
public
health
benefit."
(
S.
Rep.
No.
228,
101st
Cong.,
1st.
Sess.
175­
6
(
1990))
Nevertheless,
the
commenter
described
some
technology­
based
criteria
that
they
believed
could
be
used
to
develop
low­
risk
groups
of
PCWP
facilities.

Four
commenters
addressed
the
impact
that
creation
of
a
low­
risk
subcategory
under
CAA
section
112(
c)(
9)
could
have
on
the
establishment
of
MACT
floors
for
the
PCWP
category.
Two
commenters
argued
that
such
119
subcategorization
would
have
a
negative
effect.
One
commenter
stated
that
this
situation
provided
a
valid
reason
for
EPA
not
to
mix
risk­
based
and
technology­
based
standards
development.
The
commenter
added
that
EPA
also
did
not
address
how
the
"
once
in,
always
in"
policy
would
apply
in
such
a
situation.
The
other
commenter
stated
that
this
situation
was
another
compelling
reason
why
the
suggested
section
112(
c)(
9)
subcategorization
approach
was
unlawful
and
arbitrary.
The
commenter
stated
that
the
flaw
was
so
obvious,
inherent,
and
contrary
to
the
MACT
floor
provisions
of
section
112
and
its
legislative
history,
that
it
proves
the
undoing
of
the
suggested
section
112(
c)(
9)
exemption.
According
to
the
commenter,

EPA
cannot
simultaneously
exercise
its
source
category
delisting
authority
consistent
with
section
112(
c)(
9),

establish
appropriate
MACT
floors
under
section
112(
d),

and
establish
subcategory
exemptions
in
the
manner
suggested
by
EPA,
because
the
latter
approach
contravenes
both
section
112(
c)(
9)
and
the
section
112(
d)

floorsetting
process.
The
commenter
stated
that
section
112'
s
major
source
thresholds
and
statutory
deadlines
make
clear
that
sources
meeting
MACT
by
the
time
EPA
is
required
to
issue
MACT
standards
must
install
MACT
controls
and
may
120
not
subsequently
throw
them
off
or
be
relieved
from
meeting
the
MACT­
level
standards.
While
the
section
112(
f)
residual
risk
process
allows
EPA
to
establish
more
stringent
emissions
standards,
there
is
nothing
in
the
CAA
that
suggests
EPA
possesses
authority
to
relax
promulgated
MACT
standards.

The
third
commenter
indicated
that
dilution
of
the
MACT
floor
would
not
occur
if
low­
risk
category
delisting
occurred
as
follows:
(
1)
propose
low­
risk
category
with
final
PCWP
rule,
(
2)
promulgate
low­
risk
category
6
months
after
proposal,
and
(
3)
delist
facilities
prior
to
MACT
compliance
deadline.
If
EPA
issued
the
final
PCWP
rule
 
thereby
setting
the
MACT
floor
 
before
it
allowed
affected
sources
to
apply
for
inclusion
in
the
low­
risk
category
to
be
delisted,
then
every
affected
source
would
be
considered
in
the
establishment
of
the
MACT
floor.
Thus,

as
a
result
of
this
timing,
the
MACT
floor
could
not
be
diluted
because
no
sources
would
be
exempted
from
MACT
before
the
MACT
floor
is
set.

The
fourth
commenter
believed
that
a
MACT
floor
reevaluation
would
be
appropriate
and
would
further
ensure
that
only
facilities
posing
significant
risk
are
required
to
install
expensive
controls.
121
Response:
We
believe
that
establishing
a
"
low­
risk"

PCWP
subcategory
under
CAA
section
112(
c)(
1)
and
deleting
that
subcategory
under
CAA
section
112(
c)(
9)
best
balances
Congress'
dual
concerns
that
categories
and
subcategories
of
major
sources
of
HAP
be
subject
to
technology­
based
(
and
possible
future
risk­
based)
emission
standards,
but
that
undue
burdens
not
be
placed
on
groups
of
sources
within
the
PCWP
source
category
whose
HAP
emissions
are
demonstrated
to
present
little
risk
to
public
health
and
the
environment.
We
do
not
contend
that
the
CAA
specifically
directs
us
to
establish
categories
and
subcategories
of
HAP
sources
based
on
risk,
and
we
recognize
that,
at
the
time
of
the
1990
CAA
Amendments,

Congress
may
have
assumed
that
we
would
generally
base
categories
and
subcategories
on
the
traditional
technological,
process,
output,
and
product
factors
that
had
been
considered
under
CAA
section
111.
However,
when
properly
considered,
it
becomes
apparent
that
Congress
did
not
intend
the
unduly
restrictive
 
and
consequently
overregulatory
 
reading
of
the
CAA
that
some
commenters
urge
regarding
low­
risk
PCWP
facilities.

Numerous
CAA
section
112
provisions
evidence
Congress'
intent
that
we
be
able
to
find
that
sources,
122
such
as
those
in
the
PCWP
category
whose
HAP
emissions
are
below
identified
risk
levels,
should
not
necessarily
be
subject
to
MACT.
These
provisions,
together
with
other
indications
of
Congressional
intent
regarding
the
goals
of
section
112,
must
all
be
considered
in
determining
whether
we
may
base
a
PCWP
subcategory
on
risk
and
delist
that
group
of
sources,
without
requiring
additional
HAP
regulation
that
would
be
redundant
for
purposes
of
meeting
Congress'
risk­
based
goals.

While
it
is
true
that
CAA
section
112(
c)(
1)
provides
that
"[
t]
o
the
extent
practicable,
the
categories
and
subcategories
listed
under
this
subsection
shall
be
consistent
with
the
list
of
source
categories
established
pursuant
to
section
111
and
part
C[,]"
the
provision
also
states
that
"[
n]
othing
in
the
preceding
sentence
limits
the
Administrator's
authority
to
establish
subcategories
under
this
section,
as
appropriate."
Therefore,
by
its
plain
terms,
section
112(
c)(
1)
does
not
preclude
basing
subcategories
on
criteria
other
than
those
traditionally
used
under
section
111
before
1990,
or
those
used
after
1990
for
sections
111
and
112.
Moreover,
while
after
1990
we
have
principally
used
the
traditional
criteria
to
define
categories
and
subcategories,
such
use
in
general
123
does
not
restrict
how
we
may
define
a
subcategory
in
a
specific
case,
"
as
appropriate,"
since
each
HAP­
emitting
industry
presents
its
own
unique
situation
and
factors
to
be
considered.
(
See,
e.
g.,
Sierra
Club
v.
EPA,
D.
C.
Cir.

No.
02­
1253,
2004
U.
S.
App.
LEXIS
348
(
decided
Jan.
13,

2004).)
124
Even
assuming
for
argument
that
the
language
of
section
112(
c)(
1)
may
initially
appear
to
restrict
our
authority
to
define
subcategories,
section
112(
c)(
1)

cannot
be
read
in
isolation.
A
broad
review
of
the
entire
text,
structure,
and
purpose
of
the
statute,
as
well
as
Congressional
intent
shows
that,
applied
within
the
context
of
CAA
section
112(
c)(
9),
our
approach
of
defining
a
low­
risk
subcategory
of
PCWP
facilities
is
reasonable,

at
the
very
least
as
a
way
to
reconcile
the
possible
tension
between
the
arguably
restrictive
language
of
section
112(
c)(
1)
and
the
Congressional
intent
behind
section
112(
c)(
9).
(
See,
e.
g.,
Virginia
v.
Browner,
80
F.
3d
869,
879
(
4th
Cir.
1996).)
Alternatively,
even
if
the
language
is
clear
on
its
face
in
restricting
our
ability
to
define
subcategories,
we
believe
that,
as
a
matter
of
historical
fact,
Congress
could
not
have
meant
what
the
commenter
asserts
it
appears
to
have
said,
and
that
as
a
matter
of
logic
and
statutory
structure,
it
almost
surely
could
not
have
meant
it.
(
See,
e.
g.,
Engine
Mfrs.
Ass'n
v.
EPA,
88
F.
3d
1075,
1089
(
D.
C.
Cir.
1996).)
125
Our
interpretation
of
the
CAA
is
a
reasonable
accommodation
of
the
statutory
language
and
Congressional
intent
regarding
the
relationship
of
the
statutory
categorization
and
subcategorization,
delisting,
MACT
and
residual
risk
provisions
that
apply
to
the
PCWP
category.

This
becomes
clear
in
light
of
the
issue
addressed
by
commenters,
which
is
whether
we
may
delist
a
subcategory
of
low­
risk
PCWP
facilities
only
if
such
a
group
of
sources
is
defined
by
criteria
we
have
traditionally
used
to
define
categories
and
subcategories
for
regulatory,

rather
than
delisting
purposes.
Our
approach
implements
Congressional
intent
to
avoid
the
over­
regulatory
result
that
flows
from
an
overly
rigid
reading
of
the
CAA.
When
the
CAA
is
read
as
a
whole,
it
is
apparent
that
Congress
 
which
in
1990
likely
did
not
fully
anticipate
the
policy
considerations
that
come
into
play
in
regulating
HAP
emissions
from
PCWP
facilities
 
has
not
spoken
clearly
on
the
precise
issue.
Our
interpretation
is
necessary
to
fill
this
statutory
"
gap"
and
prevent
the
thwarting
of
Congressional
intent
not
to
unnecessarily
burden
low­
risk
PCWP
facilities
by
forcing
them
to
meet
stringent
MACT
controls
when
they
already
meet
the
risk­
based
goals
of
section
112.
Our
interpretation
thus
lends
symmetry
and
