MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Meeting
Minutes
for
the
December
12,
2003
Meeting
Between
the
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
and
the
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
FROM:
K.
C.
Hustvedt
U.
S.
EPA/
OAQPS/
ESD/
WCPG
TO:
Air
and
Radiation
Docket
E­
Docket
No.
OAR­
2003­
0048
(
Legacy
Docket
No.
A­
98­
44)

The
EPA
met
with
the
American
Forest
&
Paper
Association
(
AF&
PA)
and
other
plywood
and
composite
wood
products
(
PCWP)
industry
representatives
on
December
12,
2003
to
hear
their
concerns
regrading
the
final
PCWP
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP)
scheduled
to
be
promulgated
in
February
2004.
Attendees
at
the
meeting
are
as
follows:

Jeffrey
Holmstead,
EPA/
OAR
Chitra
Kumar,
EPA/
OAR
Greg
Green,
EPA/
OAR/
OAQPS
K.
C.
Hustvedt,
EPA/
OAR/
OAQPS
Teresa
Clemons,
EPA/
OAR/
OAQPS
Keith
Mason,
EPA/
OAR/
OPAR
Mike
Thrift,
EPA/
OGC
Tim
Hunt,
AF&
PA
Sharon
Kneiss,
AF&
PA
Claudia
O'Brien,
Latham
&
Watkins
(
outside
counsel
to
AF&
PA)
Keith
Bentley,
Georgia­
Pacific
Chris
Leffel,
Composite
Panel
Association
Harold
Stanton,
Louisiana­
Pacific
David
Harvey,
Louisiana­
Pacific
2
Attachment
1
is
a
handout
provided
by
AF&
PA
during
the
meeting
to
summarize
the
competitive
challenges
faced
by
the
PCWP
industry.
Ms.
Kneiss
explained
to
EPA
that
the
industry's
biggest
remaining
issues
with
the
PCWP
NESHAP
(
which
have
already
been
discussed
with
OAQPS
staff)
are
the
risk­
based
approaches
and
pollution
prevention.
The
industry
wants
a
workable
option
for
delisting
of
low
risk
sources
so
facilities
can
avoid
installing
regenerative
thermal
oxidizers
(
RTOs),
which
consume
large
amounts
natural
gas
(
at
high
cost)
and
result
in
environmental
disbenefits
(
i.
e.,
generation
of
nitrogen
oxides
(
NOx)
and
sulfur
oxides
(
SOx)).
For
those
facilities
that
would
not
be
low­
risk
sources,
the
industry
would
like
more
encouragement
of
pollution
prevention
(
P2)
from
EPA.
Mr.
Bentley
noted
that
there
have
been
lots
of
PCWP
plant
closures
in
recent
years,
and
that
there
are
some
segments
of
the
PCWP
industry
with
intense
foreign
competition
(
e.
g.,
particleboard
produced
in
China).
Mr.
Leffel
further
noted
that
the
particleboard
sector
is
suffering,
with
20
particleboard
plants
closing
in
recent
years.
If
PCWP
facilities
are
required
to
use
RTOs,
it
will
be
even
more
difficult
to
compete
with
foreign
competition.
Mr.
Holmstead
stated
that
he
was
aware
of
economic
situation
in
the
PCWP
industry,
and
asked
specifically
what
AF&
PA
would
like
to
discuss.

Mr.
Hunt
indicated
that
the
hazard
index
(
HI)
selected
for
inclusion
in
risk­
based
approaches
is
an
important
issue
for
AF&
PA.
Attachment
2
presents
a
handout
provided
by
the
industry
representatives
regarding
the
effect
of
various
HI.
Mr.
Hunt
indicated
that
the
industry
has
done
some
mid­
tier
dispersion
modeling,
but
has
not
conducted
a
refined
analysis.
Mr.
Holmstead
stated
that
his
preliminary
thought
was
to
favor
an
HI
of
1;
however,
there
is
some
disagreement
within
the
Agency
regarding
the
appropriate
HI.
He
indicated
that
a
screening
assessment
would
not
be
the
definitive
answer
regarding
a
facility's
low
risk
status,
and
that
EPA
would
allow
for
a
refined
analysis.
Mr.
Holmstead
also
noted
the
one
concern
with
the
risk­
based
approach
is
how
to
ensure
that
low­
risk
sources
remain
low­
risk
(
e.
g.,
a
federally
enforceable
limit
through
title
V
or
other
permitting
mechanism
that
limits
potential­
to­
emit).
Ms.
Kneiss
stated
that
industry
would
agree
to
a
federally
enforceable
permit
limit.

Mr.
Holmstead
also
noted
that
there
may
be
legal
concerns
associated
with
delisting
an
"
empty"
subcategory.
He
asked
if
AF&
PA
could
supply
any
information
and
supporting
data
(
e.
g.,
screening
or
refined
modeling
results)
that
could
be
used
to
populate
that
subcategory
(
at
least
partially).
Mr.
Bentley
pointed
out
that
the
industry
does
not
have
much
site­
specific
acrolein
data.
Mr.
Hunt
stated
that
prior
modeling
has
been
based
on
stack
height,
distance
to
the
receptor,
downwash,
etc.
and
has
been
submitted
to
EPA.
Mr.
Hustvedt
noted
that
only
summaries
of
the
modeling
results
were
submitted
to
EPA,
and
that
EPA
would
need
the
full
analyses.
Ms.
O'Brien
stated
that
AF&
PA
disagrees
that
there
are
legal
concerns
with
delisting
an
empty
subcategory.
She
stated
that
if
the
low­
risk
criteria
are
well
defined
for
the
category
then
subsequent
eligibility
determination
would
be
just
like
for
any
other
source
category
applicability
determination
(
e.
g.,
as
in
the
combustion
turbines
MACT).
She
also
noted
that
AF&
PA
would
be
willing
to
help
populate
a
low­
risk
subcategory
for
the
final
PCWP
rule,
as
long
as
rule
allowed
sources
to
join
the
subcategory
later
through
individualized
low­
risk
demonstrations.
Mr.
Holmstead
agreed
that
membership
in
a
subcategory
is
generally
determined
following
promulgation
of
a
rule;
however,
he
thought
that
sources
would
prefer
to
be
identified
3
as
low
risk
in
final
rule.

Mr.
Holmstead
also
noted
that
there
is
a
legal
concern
regarding
notice
and
comment
procedures
and
whether
including
risk­
based
approaches
in
final
rule
could
be
considered
a
logical
outgrowth
from
the
proposal.
Ms.
O'Brien
disagreed
that
this
was
a
legal
risk
for
EPA.
She
stated
that
the
industry
white
papers
were
in
the
PCWP
rulemaking
docket
and
have
been
the
subject
of
many
public
comments.
She
also
noted
that
the
notice
of
proposed
rulemaking
(
NPRM)
discussed
the
risk­
based
approaches
generally
and
referred
to
the
white
papers.
Ms.
O'Brien
further
asserted
that,
based
on
conversations
with
OAQPS
staff,
she
understands
that
OAQPS
believes
that
EPA
already
knows
what
any
additional
comments
would
say,
so
there
is
no
need
for
more
comment
process.
Mr.
Holmstead
noted
that
the
CAA
section
307(
d)
petition
for
reconsideration
process
could
be
used
to
resolve
any
logical
outgrowth
problems.

Regarding
P2
issues,
Mr.
Stanton
stated
that
RTO
use
is
about
5
to
7
percent
of
total
operating
costs
for
plants
that
operate
RTO.
Mr.
Holmstead
questioned
why
the
RTOs
were
installed.
Mr.
Harvey
stated
that
RTOs
were
installed
as
a
result
of
new
source
review
(
NSR)
enforcement,
and
that
before
these
enforcement
actions,
RTOs
would
not
have
been
best
available
control
technology
(
BACT)
for
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOCs).
Mr.
Stanton
stated
that
the
proposed
PCWP
rule
provides
no
incentive
for
facilities
to
use
P2
measures
in
cases
where
the
facility
cannot
reduce
emissions
below
the
production­
based
emission
limit
(
PBEL)
using
P2
alone.
Mr.
Stanton
stated
that
foreign
competition
increases
burden
of
this
approach.
Mr.
Holmstead
acknowledged
the
industry's
claims
that
RTOs
have
little
environmental
justification
for
some
processes.
However,
Mr.
Holmstead
stated
that
OAQPS
staff
are
concerned
that
loosening
the
PBEL
options
would
make
them
less
stringent
than
the
MACT
floor.
Ms.
O'Brien
noted
that
there
were
no
adverse
comments
on
PBELs,
and
no
comments
suggesting
that
they
were
not
equivalent
to
MACT.
Therefore,
EPA
could
edit
the
final
PCWP
rule
to
allow
air
pollution
control
devices
(
APCD)
to
be
used
to
achieve
the
final
increment
of
the
emissions
reduction
required
by
the
PBEL
if
P2
doesn't
get
all
the
way
down
to
that
level
(
e.
g.,
facilities
could
use
smaller
RTOs
with
fewer
environmental
disbenefits).
Ms.
O'Brien
noted
that
the
intent
of
intent
of
CAA
section
112(
d)
is
to
reduce
HAP
emissions,
not
to
impose
technology.
Section
112(
d)
does
not
actually
require
technology.
She
suggested
that
EPA
should
focus
on
the
level
of
emissions,
rather
than
percent
reduction
in
emissions.
Mr.
Holmstead
reiterated
that
OAQPS
is
concerned
that
this
approach
would
be
less
stringent
than
the
MACT
floor.
He
questioned
how
MACT
could
be
achieved
through
use
of
smaller
or
less
efficient
RTOs.
Mr.
Harvey
stated
that
other
MACT
rules
allow
use
of
APCD
and
P2
together
to
get
to
the
MACT
emission
level
without
environmental
disbenefits.

Mr.
Harvey
suggested
that
EPA
allow
limited
use
of
APCD,
plus
emissions
averaging
credits
to
get
to
the
PBEL
level.
He
indicated
that
the
final
PCWP
rule
would
need
an
equation
or
definition
that
could
be
used
to
balance
the
emission
reduction
achieved
through
P2,
the
lost
reduction
in
HAP
emissions,
and
the
reduction
in
environmental
disbenefits
associated
with
RTO
use.
Mr.
Holmstead
questioned
why
facilities
would
not
simply
determine
what
level
of
control
or
P2
is
needed
to
reduce
emissions
to
the
risk­
based
cutoff.
Mr.
Harvey
stated
that
all
facilities
4
will
not
be
able
to
show
that
they
are
low
risk
due
to
fugitive
emissions,
nearby
receptors,
etc.
Mr.
Holmstead
noted
that,
if
this
is
the
case,
then
PCWP
facilities
may
have
a
problem
with
residual
risk.
Mr.
Hunt
stated
that
sources
would
need
30
months
following
promulgation
of
the
PCWP
rule
to
determine
if
they
qualify
as
low
risk.
Facilities
that
could
not
demonstrate
that
they
are
low
risk
within
this
time
frame
must
otherwise
meet
MACT.
Mr.
Holmstead
stated
that
he
would
talk
with
OAQPS
again
regarding
the
PBEL
issue,
and
asked
if
AF&
PA
would
like
to
discuss
this
issue
with
OAQPS
further.
Mr.
Harvey
stated
that
industry
is
aware
of
the
OAQPS
position
of
the
PBEL
issue
and
that
further
discussion
between
OAQPS
staff
and
AF&
PA
was
unnecessary.
He
noted
that
it
was
AF&
PA's
understanding
that
Mr.
Holmstead
would
make
the
final
decision.

Mr.
Bentley
stated
that
the
industry
is
also
concerned
about
inclusion
of
risk­
based
approaches
for
hydrochloric
acid
(
HCl)
in
the
boiler
rule.
Mr.
Holmstead
stated
that
he
thought
that
the
only
remaining
issues
dealt
with
coal­
fired
boilers.
Mr.
Hunt
stated
that
some
PCWP
sources
have
coal­
fired
boilers
and
may
have
to
install
scrubbers
unless
HCl
risk­
based
approach
is
taken.
Attachment
1
AF&
PA
Handout:
Competitive
Challenges
in
a
Global
Marketplace
Attachment
2
AF&
PA
Handout:
The
Effect
of
Alternative
Hazard
Indices
for
Acrolein
on
Risk
Screening
