Vol. 79 Friday, 

No. 65 April 4, 2014 

Part II 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 60 

Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review; Final Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

18952 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640; FRL–9907–37– 

OAR] 

RIN 2060–AR64 

Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This action finalizes revisions 

to the new source performance 

standards for kraft pulp mills. These 

revised standards include particulate 

matter emission limits for recovery 

furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks and 

lime kilns, and opacity limits for 

recovery furnaces and lime kilns 

equipped with electrostatic 

precipitators. These revised standards 

apply to emission units commencing 

construction, reconstruction or 

modification after May 23, 2013. This 

final rule removes the General 

Provisions exemption for periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction 

resulting in a standard that applies at all 

times. This final rule also includes 

additional testing requirements and 

updated monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for affected 

sources, including electronic reporting 

of performance test data. These 

revisions to the testing, monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements are expected to ensure that 

control systems are properly maintained 

over time, ensure continuous 

compliance with standards and improve 

data accessibility for the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), states, tribal 

governments and communities. 

DATES: This final action is effective on 

April 4, 2014. The incorporation by 

reference of certain publications listed 

in this rule is approved by the Director 

of the Federal Register as of April 4, 

2014. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available 

(e.g., confidential business information 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute). Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading 

Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC. The Public Reading Room is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, 

and the telephone number for the Air 

Docket is (202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

questions about this final rule for kraft 

pulp mills, contact Dr. Kelley Spence, 

Natural Resources Group, Sector 

Policies and Programs Division, Office 

of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

(E143–03), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, North 

Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 

541–3158; fax number (919) 541–3470; 

email address: spence.kelley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Acronyms and Abbreviations. The 

following acronyms and abbreviations 

are used in this document: 

ADTP Air dried ton of pulp 

Agency U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

ASME American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers 

BDT Best demonstrated technology 

BLO Black liquor oxidation 

BLS Black liquor solids 

BSER Best system of emissions reduction 

BSW Brown stock washer 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CBI Confidential business information 

CDX Central Data Exchange 

CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface 

CEMS Continuous emission monitoring 

system 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

Cir. Circuit Court 

COMS Continuous opacity monitoring 

system 

Court United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit 

CWA Clean Water Act 

D.C. Cir. United States Court of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit 

dscf Dry standard cubic foot 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

ESP Electrostatic precipitator 

FR Federal Register 

gr Grain(s) 

H2S Hydrogen sulfide 

HAP Hazardous air pollutant(s) 

HVLC High-volume, low-concentration 

IBR Incorporation by Reference 

ICR Information collection request 

lb Pound(s) 

LVHC Low-volume, high-concentration 

N/A Not applicable 

NAICS North American Industry 

Classification System 

NESHAP National emission standards for 

hazardous air pollutants 

NSPS New source performance standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

NW Northwest 

O&M Operating and maintenance 

O2 Oxygen 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PM Particulate matter 

ppm Parts per million 

ppmdv Part(s) per million by dry volume 

PTC Performance Test Code 

RTR Risk and technology review 

SDT Smelt dissolving tank 

SSM Startup, shutdown and malfunction 

TAPPI Technical Association of the Pulp 

and Paper Industry 

TRS Total reduced sulfur 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

U.S. United States 

U.S.C. United States Code 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

v. Versus 

VCS Voluntary consensus standard(s) 

VOC Volatile organic compound 

yr Year(s) 

Background Information Document. 

On May 23, 2013, the EPA proposed 

revisions to the Kraft Pulp Mills New 

Source Performance Standards (NSPS) 

based on evaluations performed by the 

EPA to conduct the NSPS review. In this 

action, we are finalizing revisions to the 

rule. A document summarizing the 

public comments on the proposal and 

presenting the EPA responses to those 

comments is available in Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640. 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this preamble. 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 

C. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

C. Judicial Review 

III. Background 

IV. Summary of the Final NSPS Review 

A. What are the final rule requirements for 

kraft pulp mills? 

B. What are the requirements during 

periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction? 

C. What are the effective and compliance 

dates of the standards? 

D. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

V. Summary of Significant Changes 

Following Proposal 

A. TRS Vent Gas Collection 

B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

C. Opacity Monitoring 

D. TRS and Oxygen Monitoring 

E. Temperature Monitoring 

F. ESP Parameter Monitoring 

G. Averaging Period for Determining 

Monitoring Allowances 

H. Other Miscellaneous Changes 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy 

and Economic Impacts 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 18953 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health Risks 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That Significantly 

Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

K. Congressional Review Act 

A red-line version of the regulatory 

language that incorporates the changes 

in this action is available in the docket 

for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2012–0640). 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) requires the EPA to review 

and, if appropriate, revise existing NSPS 

at least every 8 years. The NSPS for 

Kraft Pulp Mills (40 CFR part 60, 

subpart BB) were promulgated in 1978 

and last reviewed in 1986. In this 

review, the EPA considers what degree 

of emission limitation is achievable 

through the application of the best 

system of emission reductions (BSER), 

which (taking into account the cost of 

achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental 

impact and energy requirements) the 

Administrator determines has been 

adequately demonstrated. The EPA also 

considers the emission limitations and 

reductions that have been achieved in 

practice. 

In addition to conducting the NSPS 

review, the EPA evaluated the startup, 

shutdown and malfunction (SSM) 

provisions in this rule in light of the 

District of Columbia Circuit Court of 

Appeals (D.C. Cir.) decision in Sierra 

Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 

2008), which held that the SSM 

exemption in the General Provisions in 

40 CFR part 63 violated the CAA’s 

requirement that some standard apply 

continuously. In the Sierra Club case, 

the D.C. Circuit vacated the SSM 

exemption provisions in the General 

Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 for nonopacity and opacity standards. The 

Court explained that under section 

302(k) of the CAA, emission standards 

or limitations must be continuous in 

nature. The Court then held that the 

SSM exemption violates the CAA’s 

requirement that some section 112 

standard apply continuously. In light of 

the Court’s reasoning, all rule provisions 

must be carefully examined to 

determine whether they provide for 

periods when no emission standard 

applies. 

The EPA believes that even though 

the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA was 

considering a challenge to a section 112 

national emissions standard for 

hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), the 

Court’s reasoning applies equally to 

CAA section 111 (NSPS) and section 

129 rules. The EPA’s general approach 

to SSM periods has been used 

consistently in promulgating new NSPS 

standards under CAA section 111, and 

in section 112 and section 129 

rulemaking actions, since the DC 

Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club. See, 

e.g., New Source Performance 

Standards Review for Nitric Acid Plants, 

Final Rule, 77 FR 48433 (August 14, 

2012); New Source Performance 

Standards for New Stationary Sources 

and Emission Guidelines for Existing 

Sources; Commercial and Industrial 

Solid Waste Incineration Units, Final 

rule, 76 FR 15704, (March 21, 2011); Oil 

and Natural Gas Sector: New Source 

Performance Standards and National 

Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 

Pollutants Reviews; Final rules, 77 FR 

49490, (August 16, 2012). 

To address the NSPS review, SSM 

exemptions and other changes, the EPA 

is promulgating new standards which 

apply to affected sources at kraft pulp 

mills for which construction, 

modification or reconstruction 

commences after May 23, 2013. The 

affected sources under the NSPS are 

new, modified or reconstructed digester 

systems, brown stock washer (BSW) 

systems, evaporator systems, condensate 

stripper systems, recovery furnaces, 

smelt dissolving tanks (SDTs) and lime 

kilns at kraft pulp mills. The 

requirements for these new, modified or 

reconstructed sources are included in a 

new subpart—40 CFR part 60, subpart 

BBa. The EPA is also promulgating 

testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for subpart BBa 

that are in some ways different from 

what is required under 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart BB. Subpart BB continues to 

apply for affected sources that are 

constructed, modified or reconstructed 

after September 24, 1976, and on or 

before May 23, 2013, while subpart BBa 

applies for affected sources constructed, 

modified or reconstructed after May 23, 

2013. 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 

Based on the results of the NSPS 

review, and following consideration of 

public comments, the EPA is finalizing 

the proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

BBa standards for filterable particulate 

matter (PM), opacity and total reduced 

sulfur (TRS) compounds and is 

finalizing the associated proposed 

monitoring allowances. The final rule 

specifies that TRS emissions from 

digester systems, BSW systems, 

evaporator systems and condensate 

stripper systems that are controlled by 

incineration or other means must be 

collected in a low-volume highconcentration (LVHC) or a high-volume 

low-concentration (HVLC) closed-vent 

system meeting the requirements of the 

provisions of 40 CFR 63.450 of subpart 

S. Table 1 summarizes the final 

standards for filterable PM, opacity and 

TRS contained in subpart BBa. 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF SUBPART BBa STANDARDS FOR AFFECTED SOURCES AT KRAFT PULP MILLS CONSTRUCTED, 

MODIFIED OR RECONSTRUCTED AFTER MAY 23, 2013 

Affected sources 40 CFR 60.282a Filterable 

particulate matter (PM) 40 CFR 60.283a Total reduced sulfur (TRS) 

Digester system, brown stock washer system, evaporator system and 

condensate stripper system.

None .............................................. Meet a limit of 5 ppmdv & 10% oxygen (O2), unless one of the following conditions is met: 

1. Collect emissions from affected source in LVHC or HVLC 

closed-vent system meeting the requirements in 40 CFR part 

63, subpart S and combust in one of the following: 

(a) Lime kiln subject to subpart BB or BBa (8 ppmdv TRS & 

10% O2 limit); or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

18954 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF SUBPART BBa STANDARDS FOR AFFECTED SOURCES AT KRAFT PULP MILLS CONSTRUCTED, 

MODIFIED OR RECONSTRUCTED AFTER MAY 23, 2013—Continued 

Affected sources 40 CFR 60.282a Filterable 

particulate matter (PM) 40 CFR 60.283a Total reduced sulfur (TRS) 

(b) Recovery furnace subject to subpart BB or BBa (5 or 25 

ppmdv TRS @ 8% O2 limit); or 

(c) Incinerator, recovery furnace or lime kiln not subject to 

subpart BB or BBa, operated at a minimum temperature 

of 1,200 °F for 0.5 seconds (no ppmdv limit). 

2. Collect emissions from affected source in LVHC or HVLC 

closed-vent system meeting the requirements in subpart S 

and use non-combustion control device with a limit of 5 

ppmdv, uncorrected for O2. 

3. It is technologically or economically infeasible to incinerate 

BSW system gases. 

4. Uncontrolled digester gases contain <0.01 pounds of TRS per 

air dried ton of pulp (lb TRS/ADTP). 

Recovery furnace ............................. 1a. Modified: 0.044 grains per dry 

standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) @ 

8% O2; or 

1a. Straight recovery furnace 1 5 ppmdv @ 8% O 2; and 1% monitoring allowance for TRS (restricted to ≤30 ppmdv @ 8% O2 or 

1b. New/reconstructed: 0.015 gr/ 

dscf @ 8% O 2 and.

1b. Cross recovery furnance 2 25 ppmdv @ 8% O 2 and 1% monitoring allownace for TRS (restricted to ≤50 ppmdv @ 8% O 2). 

2. ESP only: 20% opacity; and 2% 

monitoring allowance for opacity 

(provided ESP secondary voltage/current or power exceed 

minimum operating limits).

Smelt dissolving tank ........................ 1a. Modified: 0.2 lb/ton black liquor solids (BLS) dry weight; or 0.033 lb/ton BLS as hydrogen sulfide (H2S). 

1b. New/reconstructed: 0.12 lb/ton 

BLS dry weight if associated 

with a new or reconstructed recovery furnace; or 

1c. New/reconstructed: 0.2 lb/ton 

BLS dry weight if not associated 

with a new or reconstructed recovery furnace.

Lime kiln ........................................... 1a. Modified: 0.064 gr/dscf @ 

10% O2; or 

8 ppmdv & 10% O2; and 1% monitoring allowance for TRS (restricted to ≤22 ppmdv & 10% O2). 

1b. New/reconstructed: 0.010 gr/ 

dscf @ 10% O2; and 

2.a ESP only: 20% opacity; and 

1% monitoring allowance for 

opacity (provided ESP secondary voltage/current or power 

exceed minimum operating limits).

1A straight recovery furnace is one that only burns kraft pulping liquors. 

2A cross recovery furnace is one that burns kraft and neutral sulfite semichemical pulping liquors. 

Continuous monitoring of opacity is 

required for recovery furnaces and lime 

kilns that are not using wet scrubbers or 

combined electrostatic precipitator 

(ESP)/scrubber systems. Continuous 

monitoring of TRS emissions is required 

for recovery furnaces, lime kilns and 

other affected sources that comply with 

the TRS concentration limits. Parameter 

monitoring is required for ESPs, wet 

scrubbers and combined ESP/scrubber 

systems. 

The emission standards are applicable 

at all times as specified in the 

monitoring and testing provisions in 

subpart BBa. The EPA is including in 

this final rule an affirmative defense to 

civil penalties for exceedances of 

emission limits caused by malfunctions 

that meet certain criteria (i.e., the 

exceedance must come from an 

‘‘unavoidable failure’’), along with 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. 

Initial and repeat performance testing 

is required once every 5 years for 

filterable PM and TRS for new, modified 

and reconstructed affected sources in 

subpart BBa. The EPA is also requiring 

initial and repeat performance testing 

for condensable PM to gather emissions 

data that will enable a broader 

understanding of condensable PM 

emissions from pulp and paper 

combustion sources. Mills must submit 

electronic copies of their performance 

test reports using the EPA’s Electronic 

Reporting Tool (ERT). The EPA is also 

making certain technical and editorial 

changes, clarifying the location of 

applicable test methods in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), 

incorporating by reference two non-EPA 

test methods, and adding definitions 

pertinent to the requirements in subpart 

BBa. 

C. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

Table 2 summarizes the total costs for 

all sources subject to this action and the 

total benefits of this action. See section 

VI of this preamble for further 

discussion. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 18955 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SUBPART BBA FOR NEW, MODIFIED AND RECONSTRUCTED

AFFECTED SOURCES AT KRAFT PULP MILLS. 

Requirement Capital cost 

($ thousand) 

Annual cost 

($ thousand) Net benefit 

Repeat emissions testing ................................................................................................ $186 $45 N/A 

Monitoring ........................................................................................................................ 341 129 N/A 

Incremental reporting/recordkeeping ............................................................................... 50 215 N/A 

Total nationwide ....................................................................................................... 577 390 N/A 

Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding. 

II. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

Categories and entities potentially 

regulated by this action include: 

Category NAICS1

Code 

Examples of 

regulated 

entities 

Industry .................................................................................................................................................................. 3221 Kraft pulp mills. 

Federal government ............................................................................................................................................... ................ Not affected. 

State/local/tribal government ................................................................................................................................. ................ Not affected. 

1 North American Industry Classification System. 

This table is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

regulated by this action. To determine 

whether your facility would be 

regulated by this action, you should 

examine the applicability criteria in 40 

CFR 60.280a. If you have any questions 

regarding the applicability of this action 

to a particular entity, contact the person 

in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of this final 

action is available on the World Wide 

Web through the Technology Transfer 

Network (TTN) Web site. Following 

signature, the EPA posted a copy of this 

final action on the TTN Web site’s 

policy and guidance page for newly 

proposed or promulgated rules at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN Web 

site provides information and 

technology exchange in various areas of 

air pollution control. 

C. Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

judicial review of this final action is 

available only by filing a petition for 

review in the United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit by June 3, 2014. Under section 

307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements 

established by these final rules may not 

be challenged separately in any civil or 

criminal proceedings brought by the 

EPA to enforce the requirements. 

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA 

further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an 

objection to a rule or procedure which 

was raised with reasonable specificity 

during the period for public comment 

(including any public hearing) may be 

raised during judicial review.’’ This 

section also provides a mechanism for 

us to convene a proceeding for 

reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising 

an objection can demonstrate to the EPA 

that it was impracticable to raise such 

objection within [the period for public 

comment] or if the grounds for such 

objection arose after the period for 

public comment (but within the time 

specified for judicial review) and if such 

objection is of central relevance to the 

outcome of the rule.’’ Any person 

seeking to make such a demonstration to 

us should submit a Petition for 

Reconsideration to the Office of the 

Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, 

William Jefferson Clinton Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to 

both the person(s) listed in the 

preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section and the Associate 

General Counsel for the Air and 

Radiation Law Office, Office of General 

Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. 

III. Background 

New source performance standards 

implement CAA section 111, which 

requires that each NSPS reflect the 

degree of emission limitation achievable 

through the application of the BSER 

which (taking into consideration the 

cost of achieving such emission 

reductions, any non-air quality health 

and environmental impact and energy 

requirements) the Administrator 

determines has been adequately 

demonstrated. This level of control is 

referred to as BSER and has been 

referred to in the past as ‘‘best 

demonstrated technology’’ or BDT. In 

assessing whether a standard is 

achievable, the EPA must account for 

routine operating variability associated 

with performance of the system on 

whose performance the standard is 

based. See National Lime Ass’n v. EPA, 

627 F. 2d 416, 431–33 (D.C. Cir. 1980). 

In addition to new sources, existing 

affected sources that are modified or 

reconstructed are also subject to this 

final rule. 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA 

requires the EPA to periodically review 

and revise the standards of performance, 

as necessary, to reflect improvements in 

methods for reducing emissions. The 

original NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40 

CFR part 60, subpart BB) were 

promulgated in the Federal Register on 

February 23, 1978 (43 FR 7572). The 

first review of the kraft pulp mills NSPS 

was completed on May 20, 1986 (51 FR 

18544). The latest review of the Kraft 

Pulp Mills NSPS was proposed on May 

23, 2013, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart 

BBa for emission units commencing 

construction, reconstruction or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

18956 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

modification after that date. This action 

finalizes this latest review, conducted 

pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). 

IV. Summary of the Final NSPS Review 

A. What are the final rule requirements 

for kraft pulp mills? 

1. Emission Limits 

The NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40 

CFR 60, subpart BB) applies for digester 

systems, BSW systems, multiple-effect 

evaporator systems, condensate stripper 

systems, recovery furnaces, SDTs and 

lime kilns for which construction, 

modification or reconstruction 

commenced after September 24, 1976, 

and on or before May 23, 2013. Through 

this final NSPS review, the EPA is 

promulgating a new 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart BBa containing emission limits 

for affected sources constructed, 

modified or reconstructed after May 23, 

2013. In this final rule (40 CFR 60, 

subpart BBa), the EPA is: 

• Reducing the NSPS filterable PM 

limit for new and reconstructed 

recovery furnaces from 0.044 gr/dscf (in 

subpart BB) to 0.015 gr/dscf. 

• Maintaining the current NSPS 

filterable PM limit of 0.044 gr/dscf for 

modified recovery furnaces. 

• Reducing the NSPS opacity limit for 

recovery furnaces from 35-percent (in 

subpart BB) to 20-percent opacity, 

clarifying that the opacity limit does not 

apply where an ESP is used in 

combination with a wet scrubber, and 

reducing the monitoring allowance from 

6 percent (in subpart BB) to 2 percent 

of the 6-minute opacity averages. 

• Reducing the NSPS filterable PM 

limit for lime kilns from 0.066 gr/dscf 

for gas-fired kilns and 0.13 gr/dscf for 

liquid-fired kilns (in subpart BB) to 

0.064 gr/dscf for modified lime kilns (all 

fuel types) and 0.010 gr/dscf for new or 

reconstructed lime kilns (all fuel types). 

• Adding a 20-percent opacity limit 

for lime kilns equipped with ESPs with 

a 1-percent monitoring allowance and 

clarifying that the limit does not apply 

where an ESP is used in combination 

with a wet scrubber. 

• Reducing the NSPS filterable PM 

limit for new and reconstructed SDTs 

associated with new or reconstructed 

recovery furnaces from 0.2 lb/ton BLS 

(in subpart BB) to 0.12 lb/ton BLS. 

• Maintaining the current NSPS 

filterable PM limit of 0.2 lb/ton BLS for 

modified and new and reconstructed 

SDTs not associated with a new or 

reconstructed recovery furnace. 

• Maintaining the current NSPS TRS 

limit for straight recovery furnaces at 5 

parts per million by dry volume 

(ppmdv) and restricting the 1-percent 

monitoring allowance for TRS emissions 

to 30 ppmdv or less. Previously, there 

was no maximum TRS limit for these 

periods in subpart BB. 

• Maintaining the current NSPS TRS 

limit for cross recovery furnaces at 25 

ppmdv and adding a 1-percent 

monitoring allowance for TRS emissions 

restricted to 50 ppmdv. Previously, 

there was no maximum TRS limit for 

these periods in subpart BB. 

• Maintaining the current NSPS TRS 

standards for digester systems, BSW 

systems, evaporator systems and 

condensate stripper systems. 

• Specifying that sources which 

comply with the subpart BBa TRS 

standards for digester systems, BSW 

systems, evaporator systems and 

condensate stripper systems by venting 

to a combustion device such as a lime 

kiln, recovery furnace, incinerator, or 

other device (e.g., a boiler) or a noncombustion device must collect gases in 

an LVHC or HVLC closed-vent system 

meeting the provisions of 40 CFR 63.450 

of subpart S. 

• Maintaining the current NSPS TRS 

limit for lime kilns at 8 ppmdv and 

adding a 1-percent monitoring 

allowance restricted to 22 ppmdv. 

• Maintaining the current NSPS TRS 

limit for SDTs at 0.033 lb/ton BLS. 

The PM concentration emission limits 

are in terms of filterable PM measured 

by EPA Method 5. The TRS emission 

limits are in terms of TRS (or TRS as 

H2S for SDTs) measured by EPA Method 

16, 16A, 16B or 16C. Continuous 

monitoring of opacity is required for 

recovery furnaces and lime kilns that 

are not using wet scrubbers. Continuous 

monitoring of TRS emissions is required 

for recovery furnaces, lime kilns and 

other affected sources that comply with 

TRS concentration limits. This final rule 

states that the filterable PM and TRS 

standards apply at all times as specified 

in the monitoring and testing provisions 

in subpart BBa. 

2. Parameter Monitoring Requirements 

The EPA reviewed the subpart BB 

parameter monitoring requirements and 

is making several changes within 

subpart BBa. First, the EPA is 

promulgating ESP parameter monitoring 

requirements for recovery furnaces and 

lime kilns equipped with ESPs to enable 

affected units to show continuous 

compliance with the filterable PM 

concentration standards at all times, 

including periods when the opacity 

monitoring allowance is used. The EPA 

is requiring that these sources monitor 

the secondary voltage and secondary 

current (or, alternatively, total 

secondary power) of each ESP collection 

field. These ESP parameter monitoring 

requirements are in addition to opacity 

monitoring for recovery furnaces and 

lime kilns equipped with ESPs alone. 

Second, the EPA is requiring wet 

scrubber parameter monitoring for 

recovery furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns 

equipped with wet scrubber systems 

(including combined ESP/scrubber 

systems). The parameter monitors will 

measure the wet scrubber pressure drop 

and scrubbing liquid flow rate (or 

scrubbing liquid supply pressure). 

Scrubber fan amperage monitoring is 

included in this final rule as an 

alternative to scrubber pressure drop 

monitoring for certain types of scrubbers 

used on SDTs (e.g., dynamic scrubbers 

that operate near atmospheric pressure). 

Third, for recovery furnaces and lime 

kilns equipped with an ESP in 

combination with a wet scrubber 

system, the EPA is requiring ESP and 

wet scrubber parameter monitoring in 

place of opacity monitoring. 

Also, subpart BBa specifies that 

parameters must be measured and 

recorded at least once every 15 minutes 

and reduced to 12-hour block averages, 

with two exceptions. When an opacity 

monitor is also used, the ESP 

parameters must be reduced to a 

semiannual average for use in the 

opacity monitoring allowance 

determination. The EPA is specifying a 

5-minute data recording frequency and 

3-hour block averaging time for 

incinerator temperature measurements 

required under subpart BBa. 

3. Testing Requirements 

As part of an ongoing effort to 

improve compliance with federal air 

emission regulations, the EPA reviewed 

the current filterable PM and TRS 

testing requirements of subpart BB and 

is including testing requirements for 

subpart BBa that are different from 

subpart BB in the following ways. First, 

although there is no emission limit for 

condensable PM in subpart BBa, the 

EPA is adding condensable PM to the 

list of pollutants to test to gather data to 

develop a broader understanding of 

condensable PM emissions from pulp 

and paper combustion sources. Second, 

the EPA is requiring repeat air 

emissions performance testing once 

every 5 years for facilities subject to 

NSPS subpart BBa. This final rule 

requires repeat air emissions testing for 

filterable PM, condensable PM and TRS 

once every 5 years for recovery furnaces, 

SDTs and lime kilns. Third, the EPA is 

including Method 16C as another 

alternative to Method 16 for measuring 

emissions of TRS from sources subject 

to the TRS standards in subpart BBa. 

Method 16C was not available at the 

time of the original NSPS and 1986 

NSPS review. The method was 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 18957 

promulgated on July 30, 2012 (77 FR 

44488). Fourth, the EPA is updating the 

method used to determine whether a 

kraft recovery furnace is a straight or 

cross recovery furnace to refer to the 

latest TAPPI Method T624 cm-11. 

As in subpart BB, emission testing for 

subpart BBa is to be performed under 

representative operating conditions. 

Section 60.8(c) of the NSPS General 

Provisions is replaced in 40 CFR 

60.285a(a) with a similar paragraph that 

states that testing is to be conducted 

under representative conditions and not 

during periods of startup, shutdown or 

malfunction. 

4. Reporting and Recordkeeping 

Requirements 

The existing subpart BB requires mills 

to keep records of TRS and opacity 

monitoring data along with scrubber 

and incinerator operating parameter 

data. The reporting requirements in the 

existing subpart BB include semiannual 

reports of performance tests and excess 

emissions as specified in 40 CFR 

60.7(c). 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements are being included as 

separate sections within subpart BBa. 

Under this final rule, owners/operators 

subject to subpart BBa are required to 

keep records of all TRS and opacity 

monitoring data; all scrubber, 

incinerator and ESP operating parameter 

data; excess emissions; and 

malfunctions. A facility is required to 

report all exceedances of the standard, 

including exceedances that are the 

result of a malfunction. The malfunction 

recordkeeping requirements will 

provide pulp and paper companies with 

some of the information required to 

support the assertion of an affirmative 

defense in the event of a violation due 

to malfunction. In addition to the 

recordkeeping requirements specified in 

subpart BBa, 40 CFR 60.7(b) of the 

General Provisions requires records of 

the occurrence and duration of SSM 

events. 

Under this final rule, owners/

operators are required to report all 

performance test results (including 

electronic copies, as specified in section 

IV.D below) and excess emissions. 

Sections 60.7(c)(2) and 60.7(d) of the 

General Provisions require 

identification of periods of excess 

emissions that occur during SSM 

events. The frequency of reporting 

under subpart BBa is semiannually, the 

same as for subpart BB, and consistent 

with NESHAP requirements. Further, 

we are including a malfunction report to 

provide information on each type of 

malfunction which occurred during the 

reporting period and which caused or 

may have caused an exceedance of an 

emission limit. 

5. Other Miscellaneous Differences 

Between Subpart BBa and Subpart BB 

The following lists additional, minor 

differences between the current subpart 

BB NSPS and the subpart BBa final rule. 

This list includes rule differences that 

address editorial and other corrections. 

The EPA: 

• Revised 40 CFR 60.17 to 

incorporate by reference ANSI/ASME 

PTC 19.10–1981 and TAPPI T624 cm-11 

for subpart BBa. 

• Revised the definitions section in 

40 CFR 60.281a to alphabetize 

definitions; remove paragraph numbers; 

remove the definition for black liquor 

oxidation (BLO) system; add definitions 

for affirmative defense, closed-vent 

system, condensable PM, filterable PM, 

HVLC closed-vent system, LVHC closedvent system and monitoring system 

malfunction; and revise the definition 

for digester system to include chip bins 

using live steam. 

• Revised the wording of the PM 

standard in 40 CFR 60.282a and 40 CFR 

60.285a to clarify that the PM emission 

limits in 40 CFR 60.282a and the 

Method 5 PM emission test in 40 CFR 

60.285a refer to filterable PM, to avoid 

confusion with the inclusion of Method 

202 condensable PM testing. 

• Revised the wording of the TRS 

standard in 40 CFR 60.283a(a)(1) to 

clarify that only ‘‘one of’’ the conditions 

in 40 CFR 60.283a(a)(1)(i) through (vi) 

needs to be met in lieu of the 5 ppmdv 

TRS limit for digester systems, BSW 

systems, evaporator systems and 

condensate stripper systems. 

• Revised the monitoring provisions 

in 40 CFR 60.284a(a)(1) and (2) to cite 

Performance Specifications 1, 3 and 5 

for opacity, O2 and TRS continuous 

monitoring systems, respectively, to 

conform with 40 CFR 60.284a(f). 

• Revised the TRS monitoring 

provisions in 40 CFR 60.284a(a)(2) to 

clarify that the range of the continuous 

monitoring system must encompass all 

expected concentration values, 

including the zero and span values used 

for calibration. 

• Revised the monitoring provisions 

in 40 CFR 60.284a(a)(2)(ii) to specify 

that the span of O2 monitoring systems 

is 21 percent instead of 25 percent, so 

that air can be used instead of a 

calibration gas in span checks. 

• Revised the monitoring and 

recordkeeping provisions in 40 CFR 

60.284a(b)(1) and 40 CFR 60.287a(b)(3) 

to remove reference to BLO systems 

which were excluded from NSPS 

applicability during the 1986 NSPS 

review. 

• Revised the O2 correction equation 

in 40 CFR 60.284a(c)(1)(iii) for TRS 

continuous emission monitoring system 

(CEMS) data to clarify that the 

concentration to be corrected is a ‘‘12- 

hour average of the measured 

concentrations.’’ 

• Revised the excess emissions and 

recordkeeping provisions in 40 CFR 

60.284a(d)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR 

60.287a(b)(3) relating to combustion 

temperature measurements to clarify 

that the provisions apply when an 

incinerator is used as the combustion 

device. 

• Added provisions to 40 CFR 

60.284a(d)(3)(iii) specifying that periods 

of excess emissions include all times 

when gases from digester systems, BSW 

systems, evaporator systems and 

condensate stripper systems are not 

routed through the closed-vent system. 

• Revised the provisions in 40 CFR 

60.284a(e)(1) to change the period for 

calculating the monitoring allowance 

from quarterly to semiannual. 

• Revised the citations for the EPA 

test methods in 40 CFR 60.285a to cite 

the specific appendices in parts 51 and 

60 where the methods are located. 

• Used ‘‘must’’ instead of ‘‘shall’’ 

throughout subpart BBa, consistent with 

plain language guidance. 

B. What are the requirements during 

periods of startup, shutdown and 

malfunction? 

1. Periods of Startup or Shutdown 

In reviewing the standards in subpart 

BB, and in establishing the standards in 

the new subpart BBa, the EPA has taken 

into account startup and shutdown 

periods and, for the reasons explained 

below, has not established alternate 

standards for those periods. Instead, the 

EPA is promulgating standards that 

apply at all times, including startup and 

shutdown periods. We analyzed 

continuous monitoring data and 

parametric methods for demonstrating 

continuous compliance and developed 

rule provisions pertaining to continuous 

monitoring that encompass or address 

startup and shutdown periods. These 

provisions include: 

• Monitoring allowances that specify 

a certain number of exceedances that 

will not be considered as violations. 

These allowances were developed 

through review of TRS CEMS and 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

(COMS) datasets that included SSM 

periods, and are used in conjunction 

with ESP parameter monitoring (for 

opacity) and upper limits (for TRS) to 

ensure the emission standards are 

continuous. The PM standard is a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

18958 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

1Updated Review of the Continuous Emission 

Monitoring and Continuous Opacity Monitoring 

Data from the Pulp and Paper ICR Responses for 

NSPS Sources. 

2Review of Pulp and Paper Information 

Collection Request (ICR) Responses Pertaining to 

Startup and Shutdown of Subpart BB Equipment 

(March 22, 2013) (EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640–039 

thru 045). 

continuous standard that applies at all 

times. 

• A provision for enforcement 

authorities to consider the uncorrected 

TRS concentration during periods of 

startup and shutdown if O2 levels in the 

stack approach ambient conditions 

where the O2 correction equation could 

cause an otherwise-compliant TRS 

measurement to exceed the applicable 

emission limit. 

• For ESP parameter monitors, 

provisions that define excess emissions 

as ESP parameter measurements below 

the minimum requirements during 

times when BLS or lime mud is fired (as 

applicable). 

• For ESP parameter monitors used 

on combined ESP/scrubber systems, 

language that allows facilities to use 

only secondary voltage (and not 

secondary current or total secondary 

power) to demonstrate compliance 

during periods of startup and shutdown 

because secondary current or the total 

secondary power calculated using 

secondary current may not meet the 

operating limit established during the 

performance test as BLS or lime mud is 

fired initially. 

• For wet scrubber parameter 

monitors, language that allows facilities 

to use wet scrubber liquid flow rate (or 

liquid supply pressure) to demonstrate 

compliance during periods of startup 

and shutdown because pressure drop is 

difficult to achieve during these periods. 

• For temperature monitors, a 

lengthened 3-hour block averaging time, 

and provisions that acknowledge that 

the minimum temperature of 1,200 °F is 

not a requirement during periods when 

an incinerator is not burning TRS (e.g., 

during incinerator warm-up and cooldown or when an alternative control 

device is used). 

With the above monitoring provisions 

that address periods of startup and 

shutdown, the EPA concluded that 

alternative standards (e.g., work 

practices) during startup and shutdown 

are unnecessary. Two technical 

memoranda available in the docket for 

this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640) 

provide our analysis of monitoring 

systems during startup and shutdown 

for pulp and paper processes subject to 

subpart BBa.1 2 Additional clarifications 

relative to the final rule requirements 

during periods of startup and shutdown 

are provided in section V.C of this 

preamble. 

2. Periods of Malfunction 

Periods of startup, normal operations 

and shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operation. 

However, by contrast, malfunction is 

defined as ‘‘any sudden, infrequent, and 

not reasonably preventable failure of air 

pollution control equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner. Failures that 

are caused in part by poor maintenance 

or careless operation are not 

malfunctions.’’ (40 CFR 60.2) The EPA 

has determined that section 111 does 

not require that emissions occurring 

during periods of malfunction be 

factored into development of CAA 

section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA 

section 111 or in case law requires that 

the EPA anticipate and account for the 

innumerable types of potential 

malfunction events in setting emission 

standards. CAA section 111 provides 

that the EPA set standards of 

performance which reflect the degree of 

emission limitation achievable through 

‘‘the application of the best system of 

emission reduction’’ that the EPA 

determines is adequately demonstrated. 

Applying the concept of ‘‘the 

application of the best system of 

emission reduction’’ to periods during 

which a source is malfunctioning 

presents difficulties. The ‘‘application of 

the best system of emission reduction’’ 

is more appropriately understood to 

include operating units in such a way as 

to avoid malfunctions. 

Further, accounting for malfunctions 

would be difficult, if not impossible, 

given the myriad different types of 

malfunctions that can occur across all 

sources in the category and given the 

difficulties associated with predicting or 

accounting for the frequency, degree 

and duration of various malfunctions 

that might occur. As such, the 

performance of units that are 

malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’ 

foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. 

EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999) 

(the EPA typically has wide latitude in 

determining the extent of data-gathering 

necessary to solve a problem. We 

generally defer to an agency’s decision 

to proceed on the basis of imperfect 

scientific information, rather than to 

‘‘invest the resources to conduct the 

perfect study.’’). See also, Weyerhaeuser 

v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 

1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no 

general limit, individual permit, or even 

any upset provision can anticipate all 

upset situations. After a certain point, 

the transgression of regulatory limits 

caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third 

parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage, 

operator intoxication or insanity, and a 

variety of other eventualities, must be a 

matter for the administrative exercise of 

case-by-case enforcement discretion, not 

for specification in advance by 

regulation.’’). In addition, the goal of a 

‘‘source that uses the best system of 

emission reduction’’ is to operate in 

such a way as to avoid malfunctions of 

the source, and accounting for 

malfunctions could lead to standards 

that are significantly less stringent than 

levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source. 

The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is 

consistent with section 111 and is a 

reasonable interpretation of the statute. 

In the event that a source fails to 

comply with the applicable CAA section 

111 standards as a result of a 

malfunction event, the EPA would 

determine an appropriate response 

based on, among other things, the good 

faith efforts of the source to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to ascertain and rectify excess 

emissions. The EPA would also 

consider whether the source’s failure to 

comply with the CAA section 111 

standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’ 

and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by 

poor maintenance or careless 

operation.’’ See 40 CFR 60.2 (definition 

of malfunction). 

Finally, the EPA recognizes that even 

equipment that is properly designed and 

maintained can sometimes fail and that 

such failure can sometimes cause an 

exceedance of the relevant emission 

standard. See, e.g., State 

Implementation Plans: Response to 

Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of 

Excess Emissions During Periods of 

Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; 

Proposed rule, 78 FR 12460 (Feb. 22, 

2013); State Implementation Plans: 

Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions 

During Malfunctions, Startup, and 

Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on 

Excess Emissions During Startup, 

Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983). The EPA 

is, therefore, adding to the final rule an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

violations of emission standards in this 

rule that are caused by malfunctions. 

(See 40 CFR 60.281a defining 

‘‘affirmative defense’’ to mean, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding.) We also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 18959 

have added other regulatory provisions 

to specify the elements that are 

necessary to establish this affirmative 

defense; the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that it 

has met all of the elements set forth in 

40 CFR 60.285a. (See 40 CFR 22.24.) 

The added criteria are designed in part 

to ensure that the affirmative defense is 

available only where the event that 

causes a violation of the emission 

standard meets the narrow definition of 

malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden, 

infrequent, not reasonably preventable 

and not caused by poor maintenance or 

careless operation). For example, to 

successfully assert the added affirmative 

defense, the source must prove by a 

preponderance of the evidence that 

violation ‘‘[w]as caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner . . .’’ The 

added criteria also are designed to 

ensure that steps are taken to correct the 

malfunction, to minimize emissions in 

accordance with 40 CFR 60.11(d) and to 

prevent future malfunctions. For 

example, under the added criteria, the 

source must prove by a preponderance 

of the evidence that ‘‘[r]epairs were 

made as expeditiously as possible when 

a violation occurred . . .’’ and that 

‘‘[a]ll possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the violation on 

ambient air quality, the environment 

and human health . . . .’’ In any 

judicial or administrative proceeding, 

the Administrator may challenge the 

assertion of the affirmative defense and, 

if the respondent has not met its burden 

of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense, appropriate 

penalties may be assessed in accordance 

with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 

CFR 22.77). 

The EPA included in the final rule an 

affirmative defense in an attempt to 

balance a tension, inherent in many 

types of air regulation, to ensure 

adequate compliance while 

simultaneously recognizing that despite 

the most diligent of efforts, emission 

standards may be violated under 

circumstances beyond the control of the 

source. The EPA must establish 

emission standards that ‘‘limit the 

quantity, rate, or concentration of 

emissions of air pollutants on a 

continuous basis.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(k) 

(defining ‘‘emission limitation’’ and 

‘‘emission standard’’). See generally, 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021 

(D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is 

required to ensure that emission 

standards are continuous. The 

affirmative defense for malfunction 

events meets this requirement by 

ensuring that even where there is a 

malfunction, the emission standard is 

still enforceable through injunctive 

relief. The United States Court of 

Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently 

upheld the EPA’s view that an 

affirmative defense provision is 

consistent with section 113(e) of the 

CAA. Luminant Generation Co. LLC v. 

United States EPA, 714 F.3d 841 (5th 

Cir. Mar. 25, 2013) (upholding the EPA’s 

approval of affirmative defense 

provisions in a CAA State 

Implementation Plan). While 

‘‘continuous’’ standards are required, 

there is also case law indicating that in 

many situations it is appropriate for the 

EPA to account for the practical realities 

of technology. For example, in Essex 

Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 

433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the DC Circuit 

acknowledged that in setting standards 

under CAA section 111, ‘‘variant 

provisions’’ such as provisions allowing 

for upsets during startup, shutdown and 

equipment malfunction ‘‘appear 

necessary to preserve the reasonableness 

of the standards as a whole and that the 

record does not support the ‘never to be 

exceeded’ standard currently in force.’’ 

See also, Portland Cement Association 

v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 

1973). Though these earlier cases may 

no longer represent binding precedent 

in light of the CAA 1977 amendments 

and intervening case law such as Sierra 

Club v. EPA, they nevertheless support 

the EPA’s view that a system that 

incorporates some level of flexibility is 

reasonable and appropriate. The 

affirmative defense simply provides for 

a defense to civil penalties for violations 

that are proven to be beyond the control 

of the source. Through the incorporation 

of an affirmative defense, the EPA has 

formalized its approach to malfunctions. 

In a Clean Water Act (CWA) setting, the 

Ninth Circuit required this type of 

formalized approach when regulating 

‘‘upsets beyond the control of the permit 

holder.’’ Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 

F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 1977). See 

also, Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. 

United States EPA, 666 F.3d. 1174 (9th 

Cir. 2012) (rejecting industry argument 

that reliance on the affirmative defense 

was not adequate). But see, 

Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 

1011, 1057–58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding 

that an informal approach is adequate). 

The final affirmative defense provisions 

give the EPA the flexibility to both 

ensure that its emission standards are 

‘‘continuous’’ as required by 42 U.S.C. 

7602(k), and account for unplanned 

upsets and thus support the 

reasonableness of the standard as a 

whole. The EPA is promulgating the 

affirmative defense applicable to 

malfunctions under the delegation of 

general regulatory authority set out in 

section 301(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 

7601(a)(1), in order to balance this 

tension between provisions of the Act 

and the practical reality, as case law 

recognizes, that technology sometimes 

fails. See generally, Citizens to Save 

Spencer County v. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 600 F.2d 844, 873 

(D.C. Cir. 1979) (using section 301(a) 

authority to harmonize inconsistent 

guidelines related to the 

implementation of federal 

preconstruction review requirements). 

C. What are the effective and 

compliance dates of the standards? 

The provisions of subpart BBa being 

promulgated in this action are effective 

on April 4, 2014. Emission units that 

commence construction, reconstruction 

or modification after May 23, 2013, 

must comply with the provisions of 

subpart BBa by April 4, 2014 or upon 

startup, whichever is later. 

The initial performance test must be 

conducted within 60 days after 

achieving the maximum production rate 

at which the affected facility will be 

operated, but no later than 180 days 

after initial startup per 40 CFR 60.8(a). 

The first of the 5-year repeat tests must 

be conducted no later than 5 years 

following the initial performance test, 

and thereafter within 5 years from the 

date of the previous performance test. 

The date to submit performance test 

data through ERT is within 60 days after 

the date of completing each 

performance test. 

D. What are the requirements for 

submission of performance test data to 

the EPA? 

For the reasons provided in the 

proposed rule preamble, in subpart BBa 

the EPA is requiring owners and 

operators of kraft pulp mills to submit 

electronic copies of required 

performance test and performance 

evaluation reports to the EPA’s 

WebFIRE database. Data will be entered 

through an electronic emissions test 

report structure called the ERT. The 

ERT will generate an electronic report 

which will be submitted using the 

Compliance and Emissions Data 

Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The 

submitted report will be stored in both 

EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX) 

archive (the official copy of record) and 

in the WebFIRE database, making access 

to data very straightforward and easy. A 

description and instructions for use of 

the ERT can be found at http://

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

18960 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

3As of March 2014, Methods 5, 17 and 202 are 

the test methods referenced in subpart BBa that are 

included in ERT. Methods 16, 16A, 16B, and 16C 

for TRS measurement are not yet supported by ERT. 

However, Method 16 (and variant) testing 

conducted after Methods 16, 16A, 16B, 16C are 

programmed into the ERT will be required to be 

reported electronically. 

4See the memorandum in the docket titled, Kraft 

Pulp Mills New Source Performance Review (40 

CFR Part 60, Subpart BBa), Final Amendments: 

Response to Public Comments on May 23, 2013 

Proposal. 

5Letter from P. Noe, AF&PA, to Lisa Jackson. 

Petition for Reconsideration of National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the 

Pulp and Paper Industry; Final Rule, 77 FR 55698 

(Sept. 11, 2012). 

and CEDRI can be accessed through the 

CDX Web site (www.epa.gov/cdx). A 

description of the WebFIRE database is 

available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/

oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main. 

The requirement to submit 

performance test data electronically to 

the EPA applies only to those 

performance tests conducted using test 

methods that are supported by the ERT.3

The ERT supports most of the 

commonly used EPA reference methods. 

A listing of the pollutants and test 

methods supported by the ERT is 

available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/

chief/ert/index.html. 

As explained in the proposal 

preamble, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data will save industry, state, local, 

tribal agencies and the EPA significant 

time, money and effort while also 

improving the quality of emission 

inventories and air quality regulations. 

V. Summary of Significant Changes 

Following Proposal 

The following sections summarize the 

significant changes made to subpart BBa 

for this final rule to respond to public 

comments and to correct technical 

inconsistencies or editorial errors in the 

proposal. A detailed discussion of these 

and other public comments can be 

found in the response-to-comments 

document, available in Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640.4

A. TRS Vent Gas Collection 

The final subpart BBa rule, as 

proposed, allows sources to comply 

with the TRS standards for digester 

systems, BSW systems, evaporator 

systems and condensate stripper 

systems by venting emissions to a 

combustion device such as a lime kiln, 

recovery furnace, incinerator or other 

device (e.g., a boiler) or a noncombustion device. Industry 

commenters expressed concern that the 

proposed provisions were not consistent 

with the corresponding hazardous air 

pollutant (HAP) reduction provisions in 

subpart S which specify requirements 

for closed-vent collection systems. 

Separately, another commenter 

expressed concern that the use of 

contaminated flash steam during chip 

steaming can lead to the release of TRS 

compounds, volatile organic 

compounds (VOC) and HAPs and urged 

the EPA to ensure standards are in place 

to prevent release of emissions. 

In response to these concerns and to 

promote consistency with the subpart S 

requirements for closed-vent collection 

systems, we added provisions to this 

final rule requiring that sources collect 

and transport the vent gases through 

HVLC or LVHC closed-vent systems to 

incineration or other control devices, to 

match what is required under subpart S. 

We added definitions for ‘‘closed-vent 

system,’’ ‘‘high-volume, lowconcentration (HVLC) closed-vent 

system,’’ and ‘‘low-volume, highconcentration (LVHC) closed-vent 

system’’ to this final rule to eliminate 

any conflicts with the subpart S excess 

emission allowances for closed-vent 

systems. We defined excess emissions 

as all times when gases are not routed 

through the closed-vent system. We also 

revised the definition for ‘‘digester 

system’’ to specifically include chip 

bins using live steam (flash steam) to 

clarify that these units are subject to 

regulation under subpart BBa as part of 

the digester system. 

Further, an industry commenter made 

the specific comment that, with the 

removal of the SSM exemption, there 

are no provisions in subpart BBa 

specifically addressing short periods of 

safety-related venting of gases from 

digester systems, brown stock washer 

systems, multiple-effect evaporator 

systems or condensate stripper systems. 

According to the commenter, best 

available technology includes 

unavoidable periods when vent gases 

cannot be routed to the control device 

for safety reasons or when the control 

device is inoperable or necessarily 

operating at a reduced rate due to a 

malfunction. The subpart S excess 

emission allowances (see 40 CFR 

63.443(e)(1)–(3)), currently address 

these types of excess emissions. The 

SSM exemption was previously 

removed from subpart S (77 FR 55698). 

The commenter noted that they 

provided more detail in previously 

submitted comments on subpart S 

which they attached for consideration. 

The commenter recommended that the 

EPA adopt the excess emission 

provisions in subpart S for digester, 

brown stock washer, evaporator and 

stripper systems covered by subpart 

BBa. We did not intend to propose a 

standard that removed the use of these 

allowances for NSPS units, creating a 

standard more stringent than the 

NESHAP. Therefore, we have added 

language in this final rule that 

recognizes the current subpart S excess 

emission provisions for closed-vent 

systems. (Further discussion of the 

EPA’s anticipated review of the subpart 

S excess emission provisions is 

provided below.) These provisions 

define excess emissions as all times 

when gases are not routed through the 

closed-vent system. (See 40 CFR 

60.284a(d).) We also addressed short 

periods of safety-related venting in 40 

CFR 60.284a(e), which provides limited 

allowances of 1 percent of semiannual 

operating time for LVHC systems, or 4 

percent of semiannual operating time 

for HVLC or combined LVHC/HVLC 

systems. As long as these time periods 

are not exceeded, excess emissions 

associated with short periods of safetyrelated venting will not be considered in 

violation of the closed-vent system 

requirements added to 40 CFR 

60.283a(a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v). 

Affected facilities are required to 

maintain and operate with good air 

pollution control practice for 

minimizing emissions during periods of 

excess emissions (including during 

safety-related venting), as specified in 

40 CFR 60.284a(e)(2) of subpart BBa. 

We acknowledge that representatives 

of the pulp and paper industry have 

submitted a petition for reconsideration 

of the final 40 CFR part 63, subpart S 

risk and technology (RTR) rule relating 

to safety-related venting of pulp mill 

vent gases.5 Additionally, in the subpart 

S RTR action (77 FR 55698) we deferred 

action on the review of the 40 CFR 

63.443(e) excess emission allowances. 

We have acted at this time to create 

consistency between subpart BBa and 

subpart S in how these episodes are 

handled. However, we note that, when 

the EPA reviews the subpart S excess 

emission allowances, we will consider 

whether actions that we take after 

conducting that subpart S review should 

result in revisions to the NSPS for kraft 

pulp mills. It should also be noted that 

the standards in subpart S apply to HAP 

emissions from a broad range of pulp 

mill sources and will be applicable to 

existing sources, while the subpart BBa 

TRS standards will apply only for the 

small subset of subpart S sources that 

are constructed, modified or 

reconstructed after May 23, 2013. 

Consequently, if the subpart S standards 

are amended to become more stringent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 18961 

6See the memorandum in the docket titled, Kraft 

Pulp Mills New Source Performance Review (40 

CFR Part 60, Subpart BBa), Final Amendments: 

Response to Public Comments on May 23, 2013 

Proposal. 

with respect to pulp mill safety-related 

venting, then those amended subpart S 

standards will apply equally to subpart 

BBa sources, because all subpart BBa 

sources (as well as all subpart BB 

sources and any sources subject to 

future revisions to the Kraft Pulp Mill 

NSPS) will also be subject to subpart S 

(including any revisions made to it in 

the future), regardless of when the next 

NSPS review to update subpart BBa is 

performed. 

B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction 

One commenter supported and 

multiple commenters objected to our 

proposal to remove the SSM exemption 

from the subpart BBa standards. The 

rationale for our removal of the SSM 

exemption was provided in the 

preamble to the proposed rule, is 

provided in section IV.B of this 

preamble, and is also discussed in the 

response-to-comments document 6 along 

with a description of the revisions to the 

NSPS monitoring requirements made to 

ensure that the NSPS provisions remain 

achievable following removal of the 

SSM exemption. 

Multiple commenters expressed 

confusion regarding the provisions in 

the proposed rule briefly stating that the 

PM and TRS standards apply at all 

times (40 CFR 60.282a(b) and 40 CFR 

60.283a(b), respectively). The comments 

revealed confusion regarding which 

paragraphs of the NSPS General 

Provisions relating to SSM are 

superseded by subpart BBa or remain 

applicable. In response to these 

comments, we revised 40 CFR 

60.282a(b) and 40 CFR 60.283a(b) to 

clarify that the standards apply at all 

times as specified in the monitoring and 

testing provisions of the rule (40 CFR 

60.284a and 40 CFR 60.285a) and to 

clarify the relationship between the 

continuous standards and provisions for 

testing, monitoring and the monitoring 

allowances in subpart BBa. We also 

offer the following clarifications relative 

to the relationship between the General 

Provisions and subpart BBa: 

• The definitions of SSM in 40 CFR 

60.2 apply to subpart BBa. 

• The requirement to maintain 

records of SSM periods and periods 

when continuous monitoring systems 

are inoperative under 40 CFR 60.7(b) 

applies to subpart BBa. 

• The requirements under 40 CFR 

60.7(c)(2) to identify in the excess 

emissions report each period of excess 

emissions that occurs during SSM and 

the nature of any malfunction apply to 

subpart BBa. 

• Inclusion of startup and shutdown 

in the summary report format provided 

in 40 CFR 60.7(d) applies for subpart 

BBa. 

• The 40 CFR 60.11(c) exemption 

from the opacity standards during SSM 

is superseded for subpart BBa by 40 CFR 

60.282a(c). 

• The 40 CFR 60.11(d) requirement to 

use good air pollution control practices 

at all times including SSM applies to 

subpart BBa. 

Furthermore, we added a clarifying 

statement to 40 CFR 60.285a(a) to repeat 

only the portion of 40 CFR 60.8(c) that 

applies under subpart BBa (i.e., the 

requirement that performance tests be 

conducted under representative 

conditions applies). The SSM 

exemption phrase ‘‘nor shall emissions 

in excess of the level of the applicable 

emission limit during periods of startup, 

shutdown and malfunction be 

considered a violation of the applicable 

emission limit unless otherwise 

specified in the applicable standard’’ 

was eliminated from the revised 

wording of 40 CFR 60.8(c) incorporated 

into subpart BBa in light of the DC 

Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club v. EPA 

vacating the 40 CFR part 63 SSM 

exemption provisions. The revised 

wording in 40 CFR 60.285a(a) of subpart 

BBa supersedes 40 CFR 60.8(c). 

C. Opacity Monitoring 

One commenter questioned whether a 

source controlled by an ESP/scrubber 

combination would be relieved from 

meeting the opacity requirements in this 

final rule. In response to this comment, 

we revised the opacity standards for 

recovery furnaces and lime kilns to 

clarify that units equipped with a 

combination ESP and wet scrubber 

system are not subject to the opacity 

standards, because opacity monitoring 

is not appropriate for these units. This 

does not create an exemption or a 

standard that does not apply at all times 

because continuous compliance with 

the filterable PM standards is 

demonstrated through ESP and wet 

scrubber parameter monitoring for 

combined ESP/scrubber systems. 

D. TRS and Oxygen Monitoring 

Measurements exceeding instrument 

span. Three commenters requested that 

the EPA clarify the procedure for 

reporting and treatment of uncorrected 

TRS concentrations that exceed the span 

value (30 ppmdv) for the TRS CEMS 

instrument. In response to these 

comments, we note that data above the 

instrument span have value and are 

required to be included in any CEMS 

hourly average or other long-term 

rolling average calculation; otherwise, 

facilities could inappropriately dismiss 

noncompliant values as invalid data. 

Consequently, we added language to the 

final rule to clarify that the range of the 

continuous monitoring system must 

encompass all expected concentration 

values, including the zero and span 

values used for calibration. 

Recovery furnace upper limit. One 

commenter argued that it was 

inappropriate for the EPA to use data 

from straight recovery furnaces to 

establish the TRS monitoring allowance 

upper limit for cross recovery furnaces. 

In response to this comment, we revised 

this final rule to clarify that the 1- 

percent allowance, restricted to 30 

ppmdv, applies to TRS emissions from 

straight recovery furnaces. The cross 

recovery furnace TRS emission limit is 

higher than the straight recovery TRS 

limit for three technical reasons. First, 

the sulfur content of the semichemical 

liquor is higher than traditional kraft 

liquor. Second, the heat content of the 

liquor is lower because it contains less 

organic material than kraft liquor due to 

higher pulping yields. Third, the 

heavier sulfur loading and the lower 

operating temperature puts a restriction 

on the amount of excess O2 available to 

oxidize the sulfur compounds. Because 

we do not have continuous monitoring 

data for cross recovery furnaces to 

analyze (with no known cross recovery 

furnaces subject to NSPS at this time), 

we are setting the upper TRS limit for 

cross recovery furnaces at the 

instrument span of 50 ppmdv for these 

units. This upper limit can be 

reevaluated during the next NSPS 

review should data become available for 

cross recovery furnaces subject to NSPS 

in the future. 

E. Temperature Monitoring 

One commenter recommended that 

the temperature monitoring requirement 

should only apply when TRS control is 

achieved in a stand-alone incinerator 

and requested that the EPA make this 

clarification in this final rule. The 

commenter noted that temperature 

monitoring is not required in subpart S 

for boilers, lime kilns and recovery 

furnaces that combust pulping vent 

gases because these units normally 

operate at temperatures higher than 

1,200 °F. We revised the relevant 

provisions of subpart BBa to clarify that 

combustion temperature monitoring is 

required only when an incinerator is 

used as the combustion device in 

response to this comment. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

18962 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

F. ESP Parameter Monitoring 

Two commenters requested that the 

EPA add total secondary power as an 

alternative to monitoring ESP secondary 

voltage and secondary current for 

recovery furnace ESPs to be consistent 

with the monitoring alternative 

provided in the proposed rule for lime 

kiln ESPs. We made the conforming 

edits requested to clarify our intent, as 

proposed, that monitoring of total 

secondary power is an alternative for 

recovery furnace ESPs. 

Another commenter requested that 

the EPA use only ESP secondary voltage 

monitoring to determine compliance 

during periods of startup and shutdown 

for combined ESP/scrubber control 

systems. The commenter explained that 

the first 12-hour block average ESP 

secondary current (or total secondary 

power) may not be within the range 

achieved during the last performance 

test, as firing of BLS or lime mud 

increases or decreases during startup or 

shutdown, but the ESP would still be 

operating optimally using its automated 

power management system. The 

commenter requested that the EPA 

exclude from the definition of excess 

emissions all 12-hour average 

measurements of secondary current (or 

total secondary power) during startup 

and shutdown that are less than the sitespecific operating parameter limits, as it 

has done for scrubber pressure drop. We 

agree with the commenter that 

secondary current (or total secondary 

power) can vary during startup and 

shutdown. We changed the definition of 

ESP-related excess emissions for 

combined ESP/scrubber controls in 40 

CFR 60.284a(d)(5) in response to this 

comment to include all 12-hour block 

averages of ESP secondary voltage 

below the minimum operating limit at 

all times (including startup and 

shutdown), and 12-hour block averages 

of secondary current (or total secondary 

power) below the minimum operating 

limit at all times except during startup 

and shutdown. The rule changes make 

the startup/shutdown accommodations 

for ESPs comparable to the parameter 

monitoring requirements for wet 

scrubbers during startup and shutdown. 

This definitional change does not apply 

for ESP systems that have longer 

averaging periods in conjunction with 

an opacity limit. For further discussion, 

see the response-to-comments document 

found in the docket. 

G. Averaging Period for Determining 

Monitoring Allowances 

In response to our request for 

comment on whether a quarterly or 

semiannual period would be more 

appropriate for calculation of the 

monitoring allowances in 40 CFR 

60.284a(e), multiple commenters 

supported a semiannual period. One 

state agency commenter specifically 

supported changing the ESP parameter 

averaging period from quarterly to 

semiannually when an opacity monitor 

is also used on the ESP. The commenter 

also supported using a semiannual 

instead of a quarterly basis for 

determining the TRS and opacity 

monitoring allowances. In response to 

these comments and consistent with the 

semiannual reporting frequency for 

subpart BBa, we revised the period for 

calculating the opacity and TRS 

monitoring allowances from quarterly to 

semiannually. We made a 

corresponding change to a semiannual 

basis for the ESP parameter averaging 

period for ESPs that also monitor 

opacity. 

H. Other Miscellaneous Changes 

A few additional changes were made 

to the proposed rule either as a result of 

public comments, to correct references 

or to ensure conformity among the 

various rule sections. These changes are 

described below. 

BLO systems. One commenter asked 

that the EPA remove outdated 

references to BLO systems from the rule 

because subpart BBa does not contain 

any specific requirements for these 

systems. We agree with this editorial 

change and removed the definition of 

‘‘black liquor oxidation system’’ and 

other inadvertently remaining 

references to BLO systems from this 

final rule. The 1986 review of the kraft 

pulp mills NSPS removed the BLO 

system from the list of regulated 

emission units. 

Testing frequency. One commenter 

requested that the EPA revise the repeat 

testing frequency from once every 60 

months to once every 5 years to provide 

maximum operational flexibility. In 

particular, the requested change would 

make clear that the repeat testing could 

be done at any point during the fifth 

calendar year (which is consistent with 

the requirements for CAA title V 

permitting) as opposed to requiring 

testing to be done during the 60th 

month. We agree with the commenter 

and revised the testing provisions of this 

final rule accordingly. 

Performance specifications. In the 

proposed rule, we specified that sources 

must install, certify and operate their 

opacity and TRS continuous monitoring 

systems in accordance with 

Performance Specifications 1 and 5, 

respectively, in Appendix B to 40 CFR 

part 60. To correct an oversight, we 

added a citation to this final rule for 

Performance Specification 3 for the O2

continuous monitoring system used to 

correct the TRS CEMS data for O2

concentration. 

Incorporation by reference. In 

reviewing the testing provisions in 

subpart BBa for the final rule, we noted 

that the test method for determining 

whether a kraft recovery furnace is a 

straight or cross recovery furnace, which 

is cited in this final rule and 

incorporated by reference in 40 CFR 

60.17 as TAPPI T624 os-68, is out-ofdate, as is the address for obtaining a 

copy of the method. We updated the 

testing provisions in this final rule and 

the IBR provisions in 40 CFR 60.17 to 

cite the latest version of the method— 

TAPPI T624 cm-11. We also updated 40 

CFR 60.17 to cite the current address for 

obtaining a copy of the method. 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

Energy and Economic Impacts 

In setting standards, the CAA requires 

us to consider alternative emission 

control approaches, taking into account 

the estimated costs as well as impacts 

on energy, solid waste and other effects. 

The EPA presented estimates of the 

impacts for subpart BBa, which revises 

the performance standards for new, 

modified or reconstructed emission 

units at kraft pulp mills, in the preamble 

to the proposed rule and in the docket 

for this rulemaking. (See 78 FR 31331– 

31332, and the memorandum, Emissions 

Inventory for Kraft Pulp Mills and Costs/ 

Impacts of the Section 111(b) Review of 

the Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS.) These 

impact estimates have not changed 

since proposal because we have not 

changed any rule requirements in a way 

that would alter the projected number of 

affected facilities or costs of compliance. 

While we added language to subpart 

BBa to clarify that TRS emissions from 

new, modified or reconstructed pulping 

emission sources must be delivered to 

incineration or other controls through a 

closed-vent collection system as 

required under 40 CFR 63.450 of 

subpart S, there is no incremental cost 

associated with this requirement in 

subpart BBa because the closed-vent 

collection system standards are already 

required for new and existing sources 

under subpart S. 

The EPA estimates that the total 

increase in nationwide annual cost 

associated with this final rule is 

$389,900 for all of the emission units 

projected to be constructed, modified or 

reconstructed between 2013 and 2018. 

Costs are based on the third quarter of 

2012. The impacts are expressed as 

incremental differences between the 

impacts of emission units complying 

with subpart BBa and the baseline (e.g., 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 18963 

NSPS subpart BB or NESHAP subpart 

MM) requirements for these sources. 

The impacts represent emission units at 

kraft pulp mills projected to commence 

construction, reconstruction or 

modification over the 5 years following 

May 23, 2013. No additional control 

devices or other equipment are expected 

to be needed to meet the NSPS 

requirements beyond those that would 

already be installed to meet the baseline 

requirements for these emission units. 

Thus, no emission reductions, energy 

impacts or secondary air emission 

impacts are expected to result from this 

final rule. 

This final action is not expected to 

induce measurable changes in the 

average national price and production of 

pulp and paper products. Hence, the 

overall economic impact of this NSPS 

should be minimal on the affected 

industries and their consumers. For 

more information, please refer to the 

memorandum, Economic Impact 

Analysis for the Section 111(b) Review 

of the Kraft Pulp Mills New Source 

Performance Standards Subpart BB, in 

the docket for this rulemaking. 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not 

subject to review under Executive 

Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, 

January 21, 2011). 

The EPA prepared an analysis of the 

potential costs and benefits associated 

with this action. This analysis is 

contained in the memorandum, 

Economic Impact Analysis for the 

Section 111(b) Review of the Kraft Pulp 

Mills New Source Performance 

Standards Subpart BB. A copy of the 

analysis is available in the docket for 

this action. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The information collection 

requirements in this final rule have been 

submitted for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501, et seq. The information collection 

requirements are not enforceable until 

OMB approves them. 

These revisions to the NSPS for Kraft 

Pulp Mills for future affected sources 

include different emission limits and 

continuous monitoring requirements 

and additional performance testing from 

what is in subpart BB. The additional 

performance testing requirements for 

recovery furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns 

include initial testing for condensable 

PM and 5-year repeat testing for 

filterable PM, condensable PM and TRS. 

The monitoring requirements include a 

different opacity limit and monitoring 

allowance for recovery furnaces, 

restriction of the monitoring allowances 

for TRS to an upper concentration limit, 

continuous opacity monitoring for lime 

kilns equipped with ESPs and 

continuous ESP parameter monitoring 

for recovery furnaces and lime kilns 

equipped with ESPs. These testing and 

monitoring requirements are in addition 

to the initial performance testing and 

continuous monitoring requirements 

described in section IV.A of this 

preamble, which are required under the 

current subpart BB. 

The recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements associated with these 

testing and monitoring provisions are 

specifically authorized by CAA section 

114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information 

submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements for which a claim of 

confidentiality is made is safeguarded 

according to the EPA policies set forth 

in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. 

When a malfunction occurs, sources 

must report it according to the 

applicable reporting requirements of 40 

CFR part 60, subpart BBa. An 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

violations of emission standards that are 

caused by malfunctions is available to a 

source if it can demonstrate that certain 

criteria and requirements are satisfied. 

In addition, the source must meet 

certain notification and reporting 

requirements. For example, the source 

must prepare a written root cause 

analysis and submit a written report to 

the Administrator documenting that it 

has met the conditions and 

requirements for assertion of the 

affirmative defense. 

For this final rule, the EPA is 

considering the affirmative defense in 

its estimate of burden in the information 

collection request (ICR). To provide the 

public with an estimate of the relative 

magnitude of the burden associated 

with an assertion of the affirmative 

defense position adopted by a source, 

the EPA has provided administrative 

adjustments to the ICR that shows what 

the notification, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements associated with 

the assertion of the affirmative defense 

might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the 

required notification, reports and 

records, including the root cause 

analysis associated with a single 

incident totals approximately $3,375, 

and is based on the time and effort 

required of a source to review relevant 

data, interview plant employees and 

document the events surrounding a 

malfunction that has caused a violation 

of an emission limit. The estimate also 

includes time to produce and retain the 

records and reports for submission to 

the EPA. 

The EPA provides this illustrative 

estimate of this burden because these 

costs are only incurred if there has been 

a violation and a source chooses to take 

advantage of the affirmative defense. 

Given the variety of circumstances 

under which malfunctions could occur, 

as well as differences among sources’ 

operation and maintenance practices, 

the EPA cannot reliably predict the 

severity and frequency of malfunctionrelated excess emission events for a 

particular source. It is important to note 

that the EPA has no basis currently for 

estimating the number of malfunctions 

that would qualify for an affirmative 

defense. Current historical records 

would be an inappropriate basis, as 

source owners or operators previously 

operated their facilities in recognition 

that they were exempt from the 

requirement to comply with emission 

standards during malfunctions. Of the 

number of violation events reported by 

source operators, only a small number 

would be expected to result from a 

malfunction (based on the definition of 

a malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2), and only 

a subset of violations caused by 

malfunctions would result in the source 

choosing to assert the affirmative 

defense. Thus, the EPA believes the 

number of instances in which source 

operators might be expected to avail 

themselves of the affirmative defense 

will be extremely small. 

For this reason, the EPA estimates no 

more than two such occurrences for all 

sources subject to 40 CFR part 60, 

subpart BBa over the 3-year period 

covered by the ICR. The EPA expects to 

gather information on such events in the 

future and will revise this estimate as 

better information becomes available. 

The annual burden for this 

information collection averaged over the 

first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to 

total 1,905 labor-hours per year at a cost 

of $186,324/yr. The annualized capital 

costs are estimated at $411,300/yr. The 

annual operating and maintenance 

(O&M) costs are $155,880/yr. The total 

annualized capital and O&M costs are 

$567,180/yr. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 

1320.3(b). 

An agency may not conduct or 

sponsor, and a person is not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. The OMB control 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

18964 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When 

this ICR is approved by OMB, the 

agency will publish a technical 

amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the 

Federal Register to display the OMB 

control number for the approved 

information collection requirements 

contained in this final rule. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice-and-comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that this rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this final rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR 

121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this final rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This certification is based on the 

economic impact of this action to all 

affected small entities. Only two small 

entities may be impacted by this final 

rule. The EPA estimates that all affected 

small entities will have annualized costs 

of less than 0.1 percent of their sales. 

Thus, the EPA concludes that this final 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

For more information on the small 

entity impacts associated with this rule, 

please refer to the memorandum, 

Economic Impact Analysis for the 

Section 111(b) Review of the Kraft Pulp 

Mills New Source Performance 

Standards Subpart BB, in the public 

docket. Although this final rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities, 

the EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the 

impact of this final rule on small 

entities. When developing these 

standards, the EPA took special steps to 

ensure that the burdens imposed on 

small entities were minimal. The EPA 

conducted several meetings with the 

industry trade association to discuss 

regulatory options and the 

corresponding burden on industry, such 

as recordkeeping and reporting and 

impacts on existing sources that are 

modified. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This final rule does not contain a 

federal mandate that may result in 

expenditures of $100 million or more 

for state, local and tribal governments, 

in the aggregate, or to the private sector 

in any one year. This final rule is not 

expected to impact state, local or tribal 

governments. The nationwide 

annualized cost of this final rule for 

affected industrial sources is estimated 

to be $389,900/yr. Thus, this final rule 

is not subject to the requirements of 

sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). 

This final rule is also not subject to 

the requirements of section 203 of 

UMRA because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

final rule will not apply to such 

governments and will not impose any 

obligations upon them. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will not have substantial 

direct effects on the states, on the 

relationship between the national 

government and the states or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132. None of the 

facilities subject to this action are 

owned or operated by state 

governments, and nothing in this final 

rule will supersede state regulations. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have tribal 

implications, as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on tribal governments, on the 

relationship between the federal 

government and Indian tribes or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the federal 

government and Indian tribes, as 

specified in Executive Order 13175. 

This final rule imposes requirements on 

owners and operators of kraft pulp mills 

and not tribal governments. The EPA 

does not know of any kraft pulp mills 

owned or operated by Indian tribal 

governments. However, if there are any, 

the effect of this rule on communities of 

tribal governments would not be unique 

or disproportionate to the effect on other 

communities. Thus, Executive Order 

13175 does not apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 22, 1997) as 

applying to those regulatory actions that 

concern health or safety risks, such that 

the analysis required under section 5– 

501 of the Executive Order has the 

potential to influence the regulation. 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13045 because it is based solely 

on an analysis of the degree of emission 

reduction that is achievable through the 

application of the best system of 

emissions reduction, as provided in 

CAA section 111. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 

2001), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104– 

113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS) in its regulatory 

activities unless to do so would be 

inconsistent with applicable law or 

otherwise impractical. Voluntary 

consensus standards are technical 

standards (e.g., materials specifications, 

test methods, sampling procedures, 

business practices) that are developed or 

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA 

directs the EPA to provide Congress, 

through OMB, explanations when the 

agency decides not to use available and 

applicable VCS. 

This rulemaking involves technical 

standards. The EPA has decided to use 

one VCS in this rulemaking. The VCS, 

ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and 

Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ is cited in this 

rule for its manual method of measuring 

the content of the exhaust gas as an 

acceptable alternative to EPA Method 

3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2. 

This standard is available at http://

www.asme.org or by mail at the 

American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers (ASME), Two Park Avenue, 

New York, NY 10016–5990. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 18965 

The EPA has identified two other VCS 

as being potentially applicable to this 

final rule. The first, ASTM D7520–09, is 

an alternative to Method 9 (see part 60, 

appendix A–4 for a description of 

Method 9). This final rule currently 

provides the use of COMS as an 

alternative to Method 9; therefore, the 

EPA has decided not to use ASTM 

D7520–09 in this rulemaking. The 

second, ANSI/ASME PTC 19–10–1981– 

Part 10, is an alternative to Method 16A 

(see part 60, appendix A–6 for a 

description of Method 16A). The EPA is 

incorporating this VCS as an alternative 

to Method 3B above, but is not 

incorporating it as an alternative to 

Method 16A because it is an alternative 

for only the manual portion and not the 

instrumental portion of Method 16A, 

and sources are already allowed four 

EPA methods for measuring TRS 

(Methods 16, 16A, 16B and 16C). See 

the docket for this rule for the reasons 

for these determinations. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) establishes federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

The EPA has concluded that it is not 

practicable to determine whether there 

would be disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental 

effects on minority, low income or 

indigenous populations from this final 

rule as it is unknown where new 

facilities will be located and the EPA 

does not expect new facilities to be 

built. However, the agency has reviewed 

the areas surrounding all existing kraft 

pulp mills to determine if there is an 

overrepresentation of minority, low 

income or indigenous populations near 

the sources, such that they may 

currently face disproportionate risks 

from pollutants. 

To gain a better understanding of the 

source category and near source 

populations, the EPA conducted a 

demographic analysis on the source 

category for this rulemaking. This 

analysis only gives some indication of 

the prevalence of subpopulations that 

may be exposed to air pollution from 

the sources and, therefore, would be 

those populations that may be expected 

to benefit most from this regulation; it 

does not identify the demographic 

characteristics of the most highly 

affected individuals or communities, 

nor does it quantify the level of risk 

faced by those individuals or 

communities. The data show that most 

demographic categories were below or 

within 20 percent of their corresponding 

national averages except for the African 

American population percentage within 

three miles of any source potentially 

affected by this rulemaking. This 

segment of the population exceeds the 

national average by 5 percentage points 

(18 percent v. 13 percent), or plus 38 

percent. There is no indication that this 

segment of the population faces an 

unacceptable risk from emissions from 

these sources. However, the additional 

information that will be collected from 

the increase in testing requirements 

with this rule is expected to better 

inform the agency of the emissions 

associated with this source category. 

This will ensure better compliance with 

this final rule and will result in this rule 

being more protective of human health. 

The demographic analysis results and 

the details concerning their 

development are presented in the 

September 18, 2012, memorandum 

titled, Environmental Justice Review: 

Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS, a copy of which 

is available in the docket for this action 

(EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640). 

K. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that, before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. The EPA will 

submit a report containing this final rule 

and other required information to the 

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 

Representatives and the Comptroller 

General of the United States prior to 

publication of this final rule in the 

Federal Register. A major rule cannot 

take effect until 60 days after it is 

published in the Federal Register. This 

action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined 

by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will 

be effective on April 4, 2014. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: March 14, 2014. 

Gina McCarthy, 

Administrator. 

As described in the preamble above, 

the EPA amends 40 CFR part 60 as 

follows: 

PART 60—STANDARDS OF 

PERFORMANCE FOR NEW 

STATIONARY SOURCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 60 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart A—[Amended] 

■ 2. Section 60.17 is amended by: 

■ a. Revising paragraph (f) introductory 

text, 

■ b. Revising paragraph (f)(14), 

■ c. Revising paragraph (o) introductory 

text, and 

■ d. Revising paragraph (o)(1). 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 60.17 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(f) The following material is available 

for purchase from the American Society 

of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Two 

Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016– 

5990, Telephone (800) 843–2763, and is 

also available at the following Web site: 

http://www.asme.org. * * * * * 

(14) ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10–1981, 

Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10, 

Instruments and Apparatus], (Issued 

August 31, 1981), IBR approved for 

§§ 60.56c(b), 60.63(f), 60.106(e), 

60.104a(d), (h), (i), and (j), 60.105a(d), 

(f), and (g), § 60.106a(a), § 60.107a(a), 

(c), and (d), tables 1 and 3 to subpart 

EEEE, tables 2 and 4 to subpart FFFF, 

table 2 to subpart JJJJ, § 60.285a(f), 

§§ 60.4415(a), 60.2145(s) and (t), 

60.2710(s) (t), and (w), 60.2730(q), 

60.4900(b), 60.5220(b), tables 1 and 2 to 

subpart LLLL, tables 2 and 3 to subpart 

MMMM, §§ 60.5406(c) and 60.5413(b). 

* * * * * 

(o) The following material is available 

for purchase from the Technical 

Association of the Pulp and Paper 

Industry (TAPPI), 15 Technology 

Parkway South, Suite 115, Peachtree 

Corners, GA 30092, Telephone (800) 

332–8686, and is also available at the 

following Web site: http://

www.tappi.org. 

(1) TAPPI Method T 624 cm-11, 

(Copyright 2011), IBR approved, for 

§§ 60.285(d) and 60.285a(d). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 60.280 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

18966 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 60.280 Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

* * * * * 

(b) Except as noted in 

§ 60.283(a)(1)(iv), any facility under 

paragraph (a) of this section that 

commences construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

September 24, 1976, and on or before 

May 23, 2013 is subject to the 

requirements of this subpart. Any 

facility under paragraph (a) of this 

section that commences construction, 

reconstruction, or modification after 

May 23, 2013 is subject to the 

requirements of subpart BBa of this part. 

■ 4. Add subpart BBa to read as follows: 

Subpart BBa—Standards of Performance 

for Kraft Pulp Mill Affected Sources for 

Which Construction, Reconstruction, or 

Modification Commenced After May 23, 

2013 

Sec. 

60.280a Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

60.281a Definitions. 

60.282a Standard for filterable particulate 

matter. 

60.283a Standard for total reduced sulfur 

(TRS). 

60.284a Monitoring of emissions and 

operations. 

60.285a Test methods and procedures. 

60.286a Affirmative defense for violations 

of emission standards during 

malfunction. 

60.287a Recordkeeping. 

60.288a Reporting. 

Subpart BBa—Standards of 

Performance for Kraft Pulp Mill 

Affected Sources for Which 

Construction, Reconstruction, or 

Modification Commenced After May 23, 

2013 

§ 60.280a Applicability and designation of 

affected facility. 

(a) The provisions of this subpart are 

applicable to the following affected 

facilities in kraft pulp mills: digester 

system, brown stock washer system, 

multiple-effect evaporator system, 

recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, 

lime kiln and condensate stripper 

system. In pulp mills where kraft 

pulping is combined with neutral sulfite 

semichemical pulping, the provisions of 

this subpart are applicable when any 

portion of the material charged to an 

affected facility is produced by the kraft 

pulping operation. 

(b) Except as noted in 

§ 60.283a(a)(1)(iv), any facility under 

paragraph (a) of this section that 

commences construction, reconstruction 

or modification after May 23, 2013, is 

subject to the requirements of this 

subpart. Any facility under paragraph 

(a) of this section that commenced 

construction, reconstruction, or 

modification after September 24, 1976, 

and on or before May 23, 2013 is subject 

to the requirements of subpart BB of this 

part. 

§ 60.281a Definitions. 

As used in this subpart, all terms not 

defined herein must have the same 

meaning given them in the Act and in 

subpart A. 

Affirmative defense means, in the 

context of an enforcement proceeding, a 

response or defense put forward by a 

defendant, regarding which the 

defendant has the burden of proof, and 

the merits of which are independently 

and objectively evaluated in a judicial 

or administrative proceeding. 

Black liquor solids (BLS) means the 

dry weight of the solids which enter the 

recovery furnace in the black liquor. 

Brown stock washer system means 

brown stock washers and associated 

knotters, vacuum pumps, and filtrate 

tanks used to wash the pulp following 

the digester system. Diffusion washers 

are excluded from this definition. 

Closed-vent system means a system 

that is not open to the atmosphere and 

is composed of piping, ductwork, 

connections, and, if necessary, flowinducing devices that transport gas or 

vapor from an emission point to a 

control device. 

Condensable particulate matter, for 

purposes of this subpart, means 

particulate matter (PM) measured by 

EPA Method 202 of Appendix M of 40 

CFR part 51 that is vapor phase at stack 

conditions, but condenses and/or reacts 

upon cooling and dilution in the 

ambient air to form solid or liquid PM 

immediately after discharge from the 

stack. 

Condensate stripper system means a 

column, and associated condensers, 

used to strip, with air or steam, total 

reduced sulfur (TRS) compounds from 

condensate streams from various 

processes within a kraft pulp mill. 

Cross recovery furnace means a 

furnace used to recover chemicals 

consisting primarily of sodium and 

sulfur compounds by burning black 

liquor which on a quarterly basis 

contains more than 7 weight percent of 

the total pulp solids from the neutral 

sulfite semichemical process and has a 

green liquor sulfidity of more than 28 

percent. 

Digester system means each 

continuous digester or each batch 

digester used for the cooking of wood in 

white liquor, and associated flash 

tank(s), blow tank(s), chip steamer(s) 

including chip bins using live steam, 

and condenser(s). 

Filterable particulate matter, for 

purposes of this subpart, means 

particulate matter measured by EPA 

Method 5 of Appendix A–3 of this part. 

Green liquor sulfidity means the 

sulfidity of the liquor which leaves the 

smelt dissolving tank. 

High volume, low concentration 

(HVLC) closed-vent system means the 

gas collection and transport system used 

to convey gases from the brown stock 

washer system to a control device. 

Kraft pulp mill means any stationary 

source which produces pulp from wood 

by cooking (digesting) wood chips in a 

water solution of sodium hydroxide and 

sodium sulfide (white liquor) at high 

temperature and pressure. Regeneration 

of the cooking chemicals through a 

recovery process is also considered part 

of the kraft pulp mill. 

Lime kiln means a unit used to calcine 

lime mud, which consists primarily of 

calcium carbonate, into quicklime, 

which is calcium oxide. 

Low volume, high concentration 

(LVHC) closed-vent system means the 

gas collection and transport system used 

to convey gases from the digester 

system, condensate stripper system, and 

multiple-effect evaporator system to a 

control device. 

Monitoring system malfunction means 

a sudden, infrequent, not reasonably 

preventable failure of the monitoring 

system to provide valid data. 

Monitoring system failures that are 

caused in part by poor maintenance or 

careless operation are not malfunctions. 

The owner or operator is required to 

implement monitoring system repairs in 

response to monitoring system 

malfunctions or out-of-control periods, 

and to return the monitoring system to 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable. 

Multiple-effect evaporator system 

means the multiple-effect evaporators 

and associated condenser(s) and 

hotwell(s) used to concentrate the spent 

cooking liquid that is separated from the 

pulp (black liquor). 

Neutral sulfite semichemical pulping 

operation means any operation in which 

pulp is produced from wood by cooking 

(digesting) wood chips in a solution of 

sodium sulfite and sodium bicarbonate, 

followed by mechanical defibrating 

(grinding). 

Recovery furnace means either a 

straight kraft recovery furnace or a cross 

recovery furnace, and includes the 

direct-contact evaporator for a directcontact furnace. 

Smelt dissolving tank means a vessel 

used for dissolving the smelt collected 

from the recovery furnace. 

Straight kraft recovery furnace means 

a furnace used to recover chemicals 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 18967 

consisting primarily of sodium and 

sulfur compounds by burning black 

liquor which on a quarterly basis 

contains 7 weight percent or less of the 

total pulp solids from the neutral sulfite 

semichemical process or has green 

liquor sulfidity of 28 percent or less. 

Total reduced sulfur (TRS) means the 

sum of the sulfur compounds hydrogen 

sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl 

sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide that are 

released during the kraft pulping 

operation and measured by Method 16 

of Appendix A–6 of this part. 

§ 60.282a Standard for filterable 

particulate matter. 

(a) On and after the date on which the 

performance test required to be 

conducted by § 60.8 is completed, no 

owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart shall cause to 

be discharged into the atmosphere: 

(1) From any modified recovery 

furnace any gases which: 

(i) Contain filterable particulate 

matter in excess of 0.10 gram per dry 

standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.044 

grain per dry standard cubic foot (gr/

dscf)) corrected to 8-percent oxygen. 

(ii) Exhibit 20-percent opacity or 

greater, where an electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) emission control 

device is used, except where it is used 

in combination with a wet scrubber. 

(2) From any new or reconstructed 

recovery furnace any gases which: 

(i) Contain filterable particulate 

matter in excess of 0.034 g/dscm (0.015 

gr/dscf) corrected to 8-percent oxygen. 

(ii) Exhibit 20-percent opacity or 

greater, where an ESP emission control 

device is used, except where it is used 

in combination with a wet scrubber. 

(3) From any modified or 

reconstructed smelt dissolving tank, or 

from any new smelt dissolving tank that 

is not associated with a new or 

reconstructed recovery furnace subject 

to the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section, any gases which contain 

filterable particulate matter in excess of 

0.1 gram per kilogram (g/kg) (0.2 pound 

per ton (lb/ton)) of black liquor solids 

(dry weight). 

(4) From any new smelt dissolving 

tank associated with a new or 

reconstructed recovery furnace subject 

to the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of 

this section, any gases which contain 

filterable particulate matter in excess of 

0.060 g/kg (0.12 lb/ton) black liquor 

solids (dry weight). 

(5) From any modified lime kiln any 

gases which: 

(i) Contain filterable particulate 

matter in excess of 0.15 g/dscm (0.064 

gr/dscf) corrected to 10-percent oxygen. 

(ii) Exhibit 20-percent opacity or 

greater, where an ESP emission control 

device is used, except where it is used 

in combination with a wet scrubber. 

(6) From any new or reconstructed 

lime kiln any gases which: 

(i) Contain filterable particulate 

matter in excess of 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 

gr/dscf) corrected to 10-percent oxygen. 

(ii) Exhibit 20-percent opacity or 

greater, where an ESP emission control 

device is used, except where it is used 

in combination with a wet scrubber. 

(b) These standards apply at all times 

as specified in §§ 60.284a and 60.285a. 

(c) The exemptions to opacity 

standards under 40 CFR 60.11(c) do not 

apply to subpart BBa. 

§ 60.283a Standard for total reduced sulfur 

(TRS). 

(a) On and after the date on which the 

performance test required to be 

conducted by § 60.8 is completed, no 

owner or operator subject to the 

provisions of this subpart must cause to 

be discharged into the atmosphere: 

(1) From any digester system, brown 

stock washer system, multiple-effect 

evaporator system, or condensate 

stripper system any gases which contain 

TRS in excess of 5 parts per million 

(ppm) by volume on a dry basis, 

corrected to 10-percent oxygen, unless 

one of the following conditions are met: 

(i) The gases are collected in an LVHC 

or HVLC closed-vent system meeting the 

requirements of § 63.450 and combusted 

in a lime kiln subject to the provisions 

of either paragraph (a)(5) of this section 

or § 60.283(a)(5); or 

(ii) The gases are collected in an 

LVHC or HVLC closed-vent system 

meeting the requirements of § 63.450 

and combusted in a recovery furnace 

subject to the provisions of either 

paragraphs (a)(2) or (3) of this section or 

§ 60.283(a)(2) or (3); or 

(iii) The gases are collected in an 

LVHC or HVLC closed-vent system 

meeting the requirements of § 63.450 

and combusted with other waste gases 

in an incinerator or other device, or 

combusted in a lime kiln or recovery 

furnace not subject to the provisions of 

this subpart (or subpart BB of this part), 

and are subjected to a minimum 

temperature of 650 °C (1200 °F) for at 

least 0.5 second; or 

(iv) It has been demonstrated to the 

Administrator’s satisfaction by the 

owner or operator that incinerating the 

exhaust gases from a new, modified, or 

reconstructed brown stock washer 

system is technologically or 

economically unfeasible. Any exempt 

system will become subject to the 

provisions of this subpart if the facility 

is changed so that the gases can be 

incinerated. 

(v) The gases from the digester 

system, brown stock washer system, or 

condensate stripper system are collected 

in an LVHC or HVLC closed-vent system 

meeting the requirements of § 63.450 

and controlled by a means other than 

combustion. In this case, this system 

must not discharge any gases to the 

atmosphere which contain TRS in 

excess of 5 ppm by volume on a dry 

basis, uncorrected for oxygen content. 

(vi) The uncontrolled exhaust gases 

from a new, modified, or reconstructed 

digester system contain TRS less than 

0.005 g/kg (0.01 lb/ton) air dried pulp 

(ADP). 

(2) From any straight kraft recovery 

furnace any gases which contain TRS in 

excess of 5 ppm by volume on a dry 

basis, corrected to 8-percent oxygen. 

(3) From any cross recovery furnace 

any gases which contain TRS in excess 

of 25 ppm by volume on a dry basis, 

corrected to 8-percent oxygen. 

(4) From any smelt dissolving tank 

any gases which contain TRS in excess 

of 0.016 g/kg (0.033 lb/ton) of black 

liquor solids as hydrogen sulfide (H2S). 

(5) From any lime kiln any gases 

which contain TRS in excess of 8 ppm 

by volume on a dry basis, corrected to 

10-percent oxygen. 

(b) These standards apply at all times 

as specified in §§ 60.284a and 60.285a. 

§ 60.284a Monitoring of emissions and 

operations. 

(a) Any owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart must 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

the continuous monitoring systems 

specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 

this section: 

(1) A continuous monitoring system 

to monitor and record the opacity of the 

gases discharged into the atmosphere 

from any recovery furnace or lime kiln 

using an ESP emission control device, 

except as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of 

this section. The span of this system 

must be set at 70-percent opacity. You 

must install, certify, and operate the 

continuous opacity monitoring system 

in accordance with Performance 

Specification (PS) 1 in Appendix B to 40 

CFR part 60. 

(2) Continuous monitoring systems to 

monitor and record the concentration of 

TRS emissions on a dry basis and the 

percent of oxygen by volume on a dry 

basis in the gases discharged into the 

atmosphere from any lime kiln, recovery 

furnace, digester system, brown stock 

washer system, multiple-effect 

evaporator system, or condensate 

stripper system, except where the 

provisions of § 60.283a(a)(1)(iii) or (iv) 

apply. You must install, certify, and 

operate the continuous TRS monitoring 

system in accordance with Performance 

Specification (PS) 5 in Appendix B to 40 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

18968 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

CFR part 60. You must install, certify, 

and operate the continuous oxygen 

monitoring system in accordance with 

Performance Specification (PS) 3 in 

Appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. These 

systems must be located downstream of 

the control device(s). The range of the 

continuous monitoring system must 

encompass all expected concentration 

values, including the zero and span 

values used for calibration. The spans of 

these continuous monitoring system(s) 

must be set: 

(i) At a TRS concentration of 30 ppm 

for the TRS continuous monitoring 

system, except that for any cross 

recovery furnace the span must be set at 

50 ppm. 

(ii) At 21-percent oxygen for the 

continuous oxygen monitoring system. 

(b) Any owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart must 

install, calibrate, maintain, and operate 

the following continuous parameter 

monitoring devices specified in 

paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(1) For any incinerator, a monitoring 

device for the continuous measurement 

of the combustion temperature at the 

point of incineration of effluent gases 

which are emitted from any digester 

system, brown stock washer system, 

multiple effect evaporator system, or 

condensate stripper system where the 

provisions of § 60.283a(a)(1)(iii) apply. 

The monitoring device is to be certified 

by the manufacturer to be accurate 

within ±1 percent of the temperature 

being measured. 

(2) For any recovery furnace, lime 

kiln, or smelt dissolving tank using a 

wet scrubber emission control device: 

(i) A monitoring device for the 

continuous measurement of the pressure 

drop of the gas stream through the 

control equipment. The monitoring 

device is to be certified by the 

manufacturer to be accurate to within a 

gage pressure of ±500 Pascals (±2 inches 

water gage pressure). 

(ii) A monitoring device for the 

continuous measurement of the 

scrubbing liquid flow rate. The 

monitoring device used for continuous 

measurement of the scrubbing liquid 

flow rate must be certified by the 

manufacturer to be accurate within ±5 

percent of the design scrubbing liquid 

flow rate. 

(iii) As an alternative to pressure drop 

measurement under paragraph (b)(2)(i) 

of this section, a monitoring device for 

measurement of fan amperage may be 

used for smelt dissolving tank dynamic 

scrubbers that operate at ambient 

pressure or for low-energy entrainment 

scrubbers where the fan speed does not 

vary. 

(iv) As an alternative to scrubbing 

liquid flow rate measurement under 

paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, a 

monitoring device for measurement of 

scrubbing liquid supply pressure may 

be used. The monitoring device is to be 

certified by the manufacturer to be 

accurate within ±15 percent of design 

scrubbing liquid supply pressure. The 

pressure sensor or tap is to be located 

close to the scrubber liquid discharge 

point. The Administrator may be 

consulted for approval of alternative 

locations. 

(3) For any recovery furnace or lime 

kiln using an ESP emission control 

device, the owner or operator must use 

the continuous parameter monitoring 

devices specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) 

and (ii) of this section. 

(i) A monitoring device for the 

continuous measurement of the 

secondary voltage of each ESP 

collection field. 

(ii) A monitoring device for the 

continuous measurement of the 

secondary current of each ESP 

collection field. 

(iii) Total secondary power may be 

calculated as the product of the 

secondary voltage and secondary 

current measurements for each ESP 

collection field and used to demonstrate 

compliance as an alternative to the 

secondary voltage and secondary 

current measurements. 

(4) For any recovery furnace or lime 

kiln using an ESP followed by a wet 

scrubber, the owner or operator must 

use the continuous parameter 

monitoring devices specified in 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section. 

The opacity monitoring system 

specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this 

section is not required for combination 

ESP/wet scrubber control device 

systems. 

(c) Monitor operation and 

calculations. Any owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

must follow the procedures for 

collecting and reducing monitoring data 

and setting operating limits in 

paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this 

section. Subpart A of this part specifies 

methods for reducing continuous 

opacity monitoring system data. 

(1) Any owner or operator subject to 

the provisions of this subpart must, 

except where the provisions of 

§ 60.283a(a)(1)(iii) or (iv) apply, perform 

the following: 

(i) Calculate and record on a daily 

basis 12-hour average TRS 

concentrations for the two consecutive 

periods of each operating day. Each 12- 

hour average must be determined as the 

arithmetic mean of the appropriate 12 

contiguous 1-hour average TRS 

concentrations provided by each 

continuous monitoring system installed 

under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

(ii) Calculate and record on a daily 

basis 12-hour average oxygen 

concentrations for the two consecutive 

periods of each operating day for the 

recovery furnace and lime kiln. These 

12- hour averages must correspond to 

the 12-hour average TRS concentrations 

under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section 

and must be determined as an 

arithmetic mean of the appropriate 12 

contiguous 1-hour average oxygen 

concentrations provided by each 

continuous monitoring system installed 

under paragraph (a)(2) of this section. 

(iii) Using the following equation, 

correct all 12-hour average TRS 

concentrations to 10 volume percent 

oxygen, except that all 12-hour average 

TRS concentrations from a recovery 

furnace must be corrected to 8 volume 

percent oxygen instead of 10 percent, 

and all 12-hour average TRS 

concentrations from a facility to which 

the provisions of § 60.283a(a)(1)(v) 

apply must not be corrected for oxygen 

content: 

Ccorr = Cmeas × (21¥X/21¥Y) 

Where: 

Ccorr = the concentration corrected for 

oxygen. 

Cmeas = the 12-hour average of the measured 

concentrations uncorrected for oxygen. 

X = the volumetric oxygen concentration in 

percentage to be corrected to (8 percent 

for recovery furnaces and 10 percent for 

lime kilns, incinerators, or other 

devices). 

Y = the 12-hour average of the measured 

volumetric oxygen concentration. 

(2) Record at least once each 

successive 5-minute period all 

measurements obtained from the 

continuous monitoring devices installed 

under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. 

Calculate 3-hour block averages from 

the recorded measurements of 

incinerator temperature. Temperature 

measurements recorded when no TRS 

emissions are fired in the incinerator 

(e.g., during incinerator warm-up and 

cool-down periods when no TRS 

emissions are generated or an 

alternative control device is used) may 

be omitted from the block average 

calculation. 

(3) Record at least once each 

successive 15-minute period all 

measurements obtained from the 

continuous monitoring devices installed 

under paragraph (b)(2) through (4) of 

this section and reduce the data as 

follows: 

(i) Calculate 12-hour block averages 

from the recorded measurements of wet 

scrubber pressure drop (or smelt 

dissolving tank scrubber fan amperage) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 18969 

and liquid flow rate (or liquid supply 

pressure), as applicable. 

(ii) Calculate semiannual averages 

from the recorded measurements of ESP 

parameters (secondary voltage and 

secondary current, or total secondary 

power) for ESP-controlled recovery 

furnaces or lime kilns that measure 

opacity in addition to ESP parameters. 

(iii) Calculate 12-hour block averages 

from the recorded measurements of ESP 

parameters (secondary voltage and 

secondary current, or total secondary 

power) for recovery furnaces or lime 

kilns with combination ESP/wet 

scrubber controls. 

(4) During the initial performance test 

required in § 60.285a, the owner or 

operator must establish site-specific 

operating limits for the monitoring 

parameters in paragraphs (b)(2) through 

(4) of this section by continuously 

monitoring the parameters and 

determining the arithmetic average 

value of each parameter during the 

performance test. The arithmetic 

average of the measured values for the 

three test runs establishes your 

minimum site-specific operating limit 

for each wet scrubber or ESP parameter. 

Multiple performance tests may be 

conducted to establish a range of 

parameter values. The owner or operator 

may establish replacement operating 

limits for the monitoring parameters 

during subsequent performance tests 

using the test methods in § 60.285a. 

(5) You must operate the continuous 

monitoring systems required in 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to 

collect data at all required intervals at 

all times the affected facility is 

operating except for periods of 

monitoring system malfunctions or outof-control periods, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions or 

out-of-control periods, and required 

monitoring system quality assurance or 

quality control activities including, as 

applicable, calibration checks and 

required zero and span adjustments. 

(6) You may not use data recorded 

during monitoring system malfunctions 

or out-of-control periods, repairs 

associated with monitoring system 

malfunctions or out-of-control periods, 

or required monitoring system quality 

assurance or control activities in 

calculations used to report emissions or 

operating limits. You must use all the 

data collected during all other periods 

in assessing the operation of the control 

device and associated control system. 

(7) Except for periods of monitoring 

system malfunctions, repairs associated 

with monitoring system malfunctions, 

and required quality monitoring system 

quality assurance or quality control 

activities (including, as applicable, 

system accuracy audits and required 

zero and span adjustments), failure to 

collect required data is a deviation of 

the monitoring requirements. 

(d) Excess emissions are defined for 

this subpart as follows: 

(1) For emissions from any recovery 

furnace, periods of excess emissions are: 

(i) All 12-hour averages of TRS 

concentrations above 5 ppm by volume 

at 8-percent oxygen for straight kraft 

recovery furnaces and above 25 ppm by 

volume at 8-percent oxygen for cross 

recovery furnaces during times when 

BLS is fired. 

(ii) All 6-minute average opacities that 

exceed 20 percent during times when 

BLS is fired. 

(2) For emissions from any lime kiln, 

periods of excess emissions are: 

(i) All 12-hour average TRS 

concentrations above 8 ppm by volume 

at 10-percent oxygen during times when 

lime mud is fired. 

(ii) All 6-minute average opacities that 

exceed 20 percent during times when 

lime mud is fired. 

(3) For emissions from any digester 

system, brown stock washer system, 

multiple-effect evaporator system, or 

condensate stripper system, periods of 

excess emissions are: 

(i) All 12-hour average TRS 

concentrations above 5 ppm by volume 

at 10-percent oxygen unless the 

provisions of § 60.283a(a)(1)(i), (ii), or 

(iv) apply; or 

(ii) All 3-hour block averages during 

which the combustion temperature at 

the point of incineration is less than 

650 °C (1200 °F), where the provisions 

of § 60.283a(a)(1)(iii) apply and an 

incinerator is used as the combustion 

device. 

(iii) All times when gases are not 

routed through the closed-vent system 

to one of the control devices specified 

in § 60.283a(a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v). 

(4) For any recovery furnace, lime 

kiln, or smelt dissolving tank controlled 

with a wet scrubber emission control 

device that complies with the parameter 

monitoring requirements specified in 

§ 60.284a(b)(2), periods of excess 

emissions are: 

(i) All 12-hour block average 

scrubbing liquid flow rate (or scrubbing 

liquid supply pressure) measurements 

below the minimum site-specific limit 

established during performance testing 

during times when BLS or lime mud is 

fired (as applicable), and 

(ii) All 12-hour block average scrubber 

pressure drop (or fan amperage, if used 

as an alternative under paragraph 

(b)(2)(iii) of this section) measurements 

below the minimum site-specific limit 

established during performance testing 

during times when BLS or lime mud is 

fired (as applicable), except during 

startup and shutdown. 

(5) For any recovery furnace or lime 

kiln controlled with an ESP followed by 

a wet scrubber that complies with the 

parameter monitoring requirements 

specified in § 60.284a(b)(4), periods of 

excess emissions are: 

(i) All 12-hour block average 

scrubbing liquid flow rate (or scrubbing 

liquid supply pressure) measurements 

below the minimum site-specific limit 

established during performance testing 

during times when BLS or lime mud is 

fired (as applicable), and 

(ii) All 12-hour block average scrubber 

pressure drop measurements below the 

minimum site-specific limit established 

during performance testing during times 

when BLS or lime mud is fired (as 

applicable) except during startup and 

shutdown, 

(iii) All 12-hour block average ESP 

secondary voltage measurements below 

the minimum site-specific limit 

established during performance testing 

during times when BLS or lime mud is 

fired (as applicable) including startup 

and shutdown. 

(iv) All 12-hour block average ESP 

secondary current measurements (or 

total secondary power values) below the 

minimum site-specific limit established 

during performance testing during times 

when BLS or lime mud is fired (as 

applicable) except during startup and 

shutdown. 

(e) The Administrator will not 

consider periods of excess emissions 

reported under § 60.288a(a) to be 

indicative of a violation of the standards 

provided the criteria in paragraphs (e)(1) 

and (2) of this section are met. 

(1) The percent of the total number of 

possible contiguous periods of excess 

emissions in the semiannual reporting 

period does not exceed: 

(i) One percent for TRS emissions 

from straight recovery furnaces, 

provided that the 12-hour average TRS 

concentration does not exceed 30 ppm 

corrected to 8-percent oxygen. 

(ii) Two percent for average opacities 

from recovery furnaces, provided that 

the ESP secondary voltage and 

secondary current (or total secondary 

power) averaged over the semiannual 

period remained above the minimum 

operating limits established during the 

performance test. 

(iii) One percent for TRS emissions 

from lime kilns, provided that the 12- 

hour average TRS concentration does 

not exceed 22 ppm corrected to 10- 

percent oxygen. 

(iv) One percent for average opacities 

from lime kilns, provided that the ESP 

secondary voltage and secondary 

current (or total secondary power) 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

18970 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

averaged over the semiannual period 

remained above the minimum operating 

limits established during the 

performance test. 

(v) One percent for TRS emissions 

from cross recovery furnaces, provided 

that the 12-hour average TRS 

concentration does not exceed 50 ppm 

corrected to 8-percent oxygen. 

(vi) For closed-vent systems 

delivering gases to one of the control 

devices specified in § 60.283a(a)(1)(i) 

through (iii) and (v), the time of excess 

emissions divided by the total process 

operating time in the semiannual 

reporting period does not exceed: 

(A) One percent for LVHC closed-vent 

systems; or 

(B) Four percent for HVLC closed-vent 

systems or for HVLC and LVHC closedvent systems combined. 

(2) The Administrator determines that 

the affected facility, including air 

pollution control equipment, is 

maintained and operated in a manner 

which is consistent with good air 

pollution control practice for 

minimizing emissions during periods of 

excess emissions. 

(3) The 12-hour average TRS 

concentration uncorrected for oxygen 

may be considered when determining 

compliance with the excess emission 

provisions in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and 

(iii) of this section during periods of 

startup or shutdown when the 12-hour 

average stack oxygen percentage 

approaches ambient conditions. If the 

12-hour average TRS concentration 

uncorrected for oxygen is less than the 

applicable limit (5 ppm for recovery 

furnaces or 8 ppm for lime kilns) during 

periods of startup or shutdown when 

the 12-hour average stack oxygen 

concentration is 15 percent or greater, 

then the Administrator will consider the 

TRS average to be in compliance. This 

provision only applies during periods of 

affected facility startup and shutdown. 

(f) The procedures under § 60.13 must 

be followed for installation, evaluation, 

and operation of the continuous 

monitoring systems required under this 

section. All continuous monitoring 

systems must be operated in accordance 

with the applicable procedures under 

Performance Specifications 1, 3, and 5 

of appendix B of this part. 

§ 60.285a Test methods and procedures. 

(a) In conducting the performance 

tests required by this subpart and § 60.8, 

the owner or operator must use as 

reference methods and procedures the 

test methods in appendix A of this part 

or other methods and procedures in this 

section, except as provided in § 60.8(b). 

Acceptable alternative methods and 

procedures are given in paragraph (f) of 

this section. Section 60.8(c) must be 

read as follows for purposes of this 

subpart: Performance tests shall be 

conducted under such conditions as the 

Administrator shall specify to the plant 

operator based on representative 

performance of the affected facility. The 

owner or operator shall make available 

to the Administrator such records as 

may be necessary to determine the 

conditions of the performance tests. 

Operations during periods of startup, 

shutdown and malfunction shall not 

constitute representative conditions for 

the purpose of a performance test. 

(b) The owner or operator must 

determine compliance with the 

filterable particulate matter standards in 

§ 60.282a(a)(1), (2), (5) and (6) as 

follows: 

(1) Method 5 of Appendix A–3 of this 

part must be used to determine the 

filterable particulate matter 

concentration. The sampling time and 

sample volume for each run must be at 

least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8 

dscf). Water must be used as the 

cleanup solvent instead of acetone in 

the sample recovery procedure. The 

particulate concentration must be 

corrected to the appropriate oxygen 

concentration according to 

§ 60.284a(c)(3). 

(2) The emission rate correction 

factor, integrated sampling and analysis 

procedure of Method 3B of Appendix 

A–2 of this part must be used to 

determine the oxygen concentration. 

The gas sample must be taken at the 

same time and at the same traverse 

points as the particulate sample. 

(3) Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of this 

part and the procedures in § 60.11 must 

be used to determine opacity. Opacity 

measurement is not required for 

recovery furnaces or lime kilns 

operating with a wet scrubber alone or 

a wet scrubber in combination with an 

ESP. 

(4) In addition to the initial 

performance test required by this 

subpart and § 60.8(a), you must conduct 

repeat performance tests for filterable 

particulate matter at intervals no longer 

than 5 years following the previous 

performance test using the procedures 

in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this 

section. 

(5) When the initial and repeat 

performance tests are conducted for 

filterable particulate matter, the owner 

or operator must also measure 

condensable particulate matter using 

Method 202 of Appendix M of 40 CFR 

part 51. 

(c) The owner or operator must 

determine compliance with the 

filterable particular matter standards in 

§ 60.282a(a)(3) and (4) as follows: 

(1) The emission rate (E) of filterable 

particulate matter must be computed for 

each run using the following equation: 

E = csQsd/BLS 

Where: 

E = emission rate of filterable particulate 

matter, g/kg (lb/ton) of BLS. 

cs = Concentration of filterable particulate 

matter, g/dscm (lb/dscf). 

Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dry 

standard cubic meter per hour (dscm/hr) 

(dry standard cubic feet per hour (dscf/ 

hr)). 

BLS = black liquor solids (dry weight) feed 

rate, kg/hr (ton/hr). 

(2) Method 5 of Appendix A–3 of this 

part must be used to determine the 

filterable particulate matter 

concentration (cs) and the volumetric 

flow rate (Qsd) of the effluent gas. The 

sampling time and sample volume must 

be at least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm 

(31.8 dscf). Water must be used instead 

of acetone in the sample recovery. 

(3) Process data must be used to 

determine the black liquor solids (BLS) 

feed rate on a dry weight basis. 

(4) In addition to the initial 

performance test required by this 

subpart and § 60.8(a), you must conduct 

repeat performance tests for filterable 

particulate matter at intervals no longer 

than 5 years following the previous 

performance test using the procedures 

in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 

section. 

(5) When the initial and repeat 

performance tests are conducted for 

filterable particulate matter, the owner 

or operator must also measure 

condensable particulate matter using 

Method 202 of Appendix M of 40 CFR 

part 51. 

(d) The owner or operator must 

determine compliance with the TRS 

standards in § 60.283a, except 

§ 60.283a(a)(1)(vi) and (4), as follows: 

(1) Method 16 of Appendix A–6 of 

this part must be used to determine the 

TRS concentration. The TRS 

concentration must be corrected to the 

appropriate oxygen concentration using 

the procedure in § 60.284a(c)(3). The 

sampling time must be at least 3 hours, 

but no longer than 6 hours. 

(2) The emission rate correction 

factor, integrated sampling and analysis 

procedure of Method 3B of Appendix 

A–2 of this part must be used to 

determine the oxygen concentration. 

The sample must be taken over the same 

time period as the TRS samples. 

(3) When determining whether a 

furnace is a straight kraft recovery 

furnace or a cross recovery furnace, 

TAPPI Method T 624 (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17) must be used to 

determine sodium sulfide, sodium 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 18971 

hydroxide, and sodium carbonate. 

These determinations must be made 3 

times daily from the green liquor, and 

the daily average values must be 

converted to sodium oxide (Na20) and 

substituted into the following equation 

to determine the green liquor sulfidity: 

GLS=100CNa2S/(CNa2SCNaOHCNa2CO3) 

Where: 

GLS = green liquor sulfidity, percent. 

CNa2S = concentration of Na2S as Na2O, 

milligrams per liter (mg/L) (grains per 

gallon (gr/gal)). 

CNaOH = concentration of NaOH as Na2O, mg/ 

L (gr/gal). 

CNa2CO3 = concentration of Na2CO3 as Na2O, 

mg/L (gr/gal). 

(4) For recovery furnaces and lime 

kilns, in addition to the initial 

performance test required in this 

subpart and § 60.8(a), you must conduct 

repeat TRS performance tests at 

intervals no longer than 5 years 

following the previous performance test 

using the procedures in paragraphs 

(d)(1) and (2) of this section. 

(e) The owner or operator must 

determine compliance with the TRS 

standards in § 60.283a(a)(1)(vi) and (4) 

as follows: 

(1) The emission rate (E) of TRS must 

be computed for each run using the 

following equation: 

E=CTRS F Qsd/P 

Where: 

E = emission rate of TRS, g/kg (lb/ton) of BLS 

or ADP. 

CTRS = average combined concentration of 

TRS, ppm. 

F = conversion factor, 0.001417 g H2S/cubic 

meter (m3)-ppm (8.846 × 10 8 lb H2S/ 

cubic foot (ft3)-ppm). 

Qsd = volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscm/ 

hr (dscf/hr). 

P = black liquor solids feed or pulp 

production rate, kg/hr (ton/hr). 

(2) Method 16 of Appendix A–6 of 

this part must be used to determine the 

TRS concentration (CTRS). 

(3) Method 2 of Appendix A–1 of this 

part must be used to determine the 

volumetric flow rate (Qsd) of the effluent 

gas. 

(4) Process data must be used to 

determine the black liquor feed rate or 

the pulp production rate (P). 

(5) For smelt dissolving tanks, in 

addition to the initial performance test 

required in this subpart and § 60.8(a), 

you must conduct repeat TRS 

performance tests at intervals no longer 

than 5 years following the previous 

performance test using the procedures 

in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this 

section. 

(f) The owner or operator may use the 

following as alternatives to the reference 

methods and procedures specified in 

this section: 

(1) In place of Method 5 of Appendix 

A–3 of this part, Method 17 of 

Appendix A–6 of this part may be used 

if a constant value of 0.009 g/dscm 

(0.004 gr/dscf) is added to the results of 

Method 17 and the stack temperature is 

no greater than 204°C (400 °F). 

(2) In place of Method 16 of Appendix 

A–6 of this part, Method 16A, 16B, or 

16C of Appendix A–6 of this part may 

be used. 

(3) In place of Method 3B of 

Appendix A–2 of this part, ASME PTC 

19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference— 

see § 60.17) may be used. 

§ 60.286a Affirmative Defense for 

Violations of Emission Standards During 

Malfunction. 

In response to an action to enforce the 

standards set forth in §§ 60.282a and 

60.283a, you may assert an affirmative 

defense to a claim for civil penalties for 

violations of such standards that are 

caused by malfunction, as defined at 

§ 60.2. Appropriate penalties may be 

assessed if you fail to meet your burden 

of proving all of the requirements in the 

affirmative defense. The affirmative 

defense must not be available for claims 

for injunctive relief. 

(a) Assertion of affirmative defense. 

To establish the affirmative defense in 

any action to enforce such a standard, 

you must timely meet the reporting 

requirements in paragraph (b) of this 

section, and must prove by a 

preponderance of evidence that: 

(1) The violation: 

(i) Was caused by a sudden, 

infrequent, and unavoidable failure of 

air pollution control equipment, process 

equipment, or a process to operate in a 

normal or usual manner; and 

(ii) Could not have been prevented 

through careful planning, proper design 

or better operation and maintenance 

practices; and 

(iii) Did not stem from any activity or 

event that could have been foreseen and 

avoided, or planned for; and 

(iv) Was not part of a recurring pattern 

indicative of inadequate design, 

operation, or maintenance; and 

(2) Repairs were made as 

expeditiously as possible when a 

violation occurred; and 

(3) The frequency, amount, and 

duration of the violation (including any 

bypass) were minimized to the 

maximum extent practicable; and 

(4) If the violation resulted from a 

bypass of control equipment or a 

process, then the bypass was 

unavoidable to prevent loss of life, 

personal injury, or severe property 

damage; and 

(5) All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the violation on 

ambient air quality, the environment, 

and human health; and 

(6) All emission monitoring and 

control systems were kept in operation 

if at all possible, consistent with safety 

and good air pollution control practices; 

and 

(7) All of the actions in response to 

the violation were documented by 

properly signed, contemporaneous 

operating logs; and 

(8) At all times, the affected source 

was operated in a manner consistent 

with good practices for minimizing 

emissions; and 

(9) A written root cause analysis has 

been prepared, the purpose of which is 

to determine, correct, and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the violation resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. The analysis 

must also specify, using best monitoring 

methods and engineering judgment, the 

amount of any emissions that were the 

result of the malfunction. 

(b) Report. The owner or operator 

seeking to assert an affirmative defense 

must submit a written report to the 

Administrator with all necessary 

supporting documentation that explains 

how it has met the requirements set 

forth in paragraph (a) of this section. 

This affirmative defense report must be 

included in the first periodic 

compliance, deviation report or excess 

emission report otherwise required after 

the initial occurrence of the violation of 

the relevant standard (which may be the 

end of any applicable averaging period). 

If such compliance, deviation report or 

excess emission report is due less than 

45 days after the initial occurrence of 

the violation, the affirmative defense 

report may be included in the second 

compliance, deviation report or excess 

emission report due after the initial 

occurrence of the violation of the 

relevant standard. 

§ 60.287a Recordkeeping. 

(a) The owner or operator must 

maintain records of the performance 

evaluations of the continuous 

monitoring systems. 

(b) For each continuous monitoring 

system, the owner or operator must 

maintain records of the following 

information, as applicable: 

(1) Records of the opacity of the gases 

discharged into the atmosphere from 

any recovery furnace or lime kiln using 

an ESP emission control device, except 

as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this 

section, and records of the ESP 

secondary voltage and secondary 

current (or total secondary power) 

averaged over the reporting period for 

the opacity allowances specified in 

§ 60.284a(e)(1)(ii) and (iv). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

18972 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations 

(2) Records of the concentration of 

TRS emissions on a dry basis and the 

percent of oxygen by volume on a dry 

basis in the gases discharged into the 

atmosphere from any lime kiln, recovery 

furnace, digester system, brown stock 

washer system, multiple-effect 

evaporator system, or condensate 

stripper system, except where the 

provisions of § 60.283a(a)(1)(iii) or (iv) 

apply. 

(3) Records of the incinerator 

combustion temperature at the point of 

incineration of effluent gases which are 

emitted from any digester system, 

brown stock washer system, multiple 

effect evaporator system, or condensate 

stripper system where the provisions of 

§ 60.283a(a)(1)(iii) apply and an 

incinerator is used as the combustion 

device. 

(4) For any recovery furnace, lime 

kiln, or smelt dissolving tank using a 

wet scrubber emission control device: 

(i) Records of the pressure drop of the 

gas stream through the control 

equipment (or smelt dissolving tank 

scrubber fan amperage), and 

(ii) Records of the scrubbing liquid 

flow rate (or scrubbing liquid supply 

pressure). 

(5) For any recovery furnace or lime 

kiln using an ESP control device: 

(i) Records of the secondary voltage of 

each ESP collection field, and 

(ii) Records of the secondary current 

of each ESP collection field, and 

(iii) If used as an alternative to 

secondary voltage and current, records 

of the total secondary power of each 

ESP collection field. 

(6) For any recovery furnace or lime 

kiln using an ESP followed by a wet 

scrubber, the records specified under 

paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this section. 

(7) Records of excess emissions as 

defined in § 60.284a(d). 

(c) For each malfunction, the owner or 

operator must maintain records of the 

following information: 

(1) Records of the occurrence and 

duration of each malfunction of 

operation (i.e., process equipment) or 

the air pollution control and monitoring 

equipment. 

(2) Records of actions taken during 

periods of malfunction to minimize 

emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d), 

including corrective actions to restore 

malfunctioning process and air 

pollution control and monitoring 

equipment to its normal or usual 

manner of operation. 

§ 60.288a Reporting. 

(a) For the purpose of reports required 

under § 60.7(c), any owner or operator 

subject to the provisions of this subpart 

must report semiannually periods of 

excess emissions defined in 

§ 60.284a(d). 

(b) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each performance test 

(defined in § 60.8) as required by this 

subpart you must submit the results of 

the performance tests, including any 

associated fuel analyses, required by 

this subpart to the EPA as follows. You 

must use the latest version of the EPA’s 

Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see 

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/

index.html) existing at the time of the 

performance test to generate a 

submission package file, which 

documents performance test data. You 

must then submit the file generated by 

the ERT through the EPA’s Compliance 

and Emissions Data Reporting Interface 

(CEDRI), which can be accessed by 

logging in to the EPA’s Central Data 

Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). 

Only data collected using test methods 

supported by the ERT as listed on the 

ERT Web site are subject to the 

requirement to submit the performance 

test data electronically. Owners or 

operators who claim that some of the 

information being submitted for 

performance tests is confidential 

business information (CBI) must submit 

a complete ERT file including 

information claimed to be CBI on a 

compact disk, flash drive, or other 

commonly used electronic storage 

media to the EPA. The electronic media 

must be clearly marked as CBI and 

mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI 

Office, Attention: WebFIRE 

Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old 

Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same 

ERT file with the CBI omitted must be 

submitted to the EPA via CDX as 

described earlier in this paragraph (b). 

At the discretion of the delegated 

authority, you must also submit these 

reports, including the CBI, to the 

delegated authority in the format 

specified by the delegated authority. For 

any performance test conducted using 

test methods that are not listed on the 

ERT Web site, the owner or operator 

must submit the results of the 

performance test to the Administrator at 

the appropriate address listed in § 60.4. 

(c) Within 60 days after the date of 

completing each CEMS performance 

evaluation test as defined in § 60.13, 

you must submit relative accuracy test 

audit (RATA) data to the EPA’s Central 

Data Exchange (CDX) by using CEDRI in 

accordance with paragraph (b) of this 

section. Only RATA pollutants that can 

be documented with the ERT (as listed 

on the ERT Web site) are subject to this 

requirement. For any performance 

evaluations with no corresponding 

RATA pollutants listed on the ERT Web 

site, the owner or operator must submit 

the results of the performance 

evaluation to the Administrator at the 

appropriate address listed in § 60.4. 

(d) If a malfunction occurred during 

the reporting period, you must submit a 

report that contains the following: 

(1) The number, duration, and a brief 

description for each type of malfunction 

which occurred during the reporting 

period and which caused or may have 

caused any applicable emission 

limitation to be exceeded. 

(2) A description of actions taken by 

an owner or operator during a 

malfunction of an affected facility to 

minimize emissions in accordance with 

§ 60.11(d), including actions taken to 

correct a malfunction. 

[FR Doc. 2014–06719 Filed 4–3–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2