Vol. 78 Thursday, 

No. 100 May 23, 2013 

Part IV 

Environmental Protection Agency 

40 CFR Part 60 

Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review; Proposed Rule 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31316 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640; FRL–9815–9] 

RIN 2060–AR64 

Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing 

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, which apply to emission 

units commencing construction, 

reconstruction or modification after May 

23, 2013 that are different than those 

required under the existing standards 

for kraft pulp mills. The exemptions to 

opacity standards do not apply to the 

proposed standards for kraft pulp mills. 

The proposed rule also removes the 

exemption for periods of startup and 

shutdown resulting in a standard that 

applies at all times. The proposed rule 

includes additional testing requirements 

and updated monitoring, recordkeeping 

and reporting requirements for affected 

sources. These differences are expected 

to ensure that control systems are 

properly maintained over time, ensure 

continuous compliance with standards 

and improve data accessibility for the 

EPA, states, tribal governments and 

communities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 8, 2013. Under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on 

the information collection provisions 

are best assured of having full effect if 

the Office of Management and Budget 

receives a copy of your comments on or 

before June 24, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2012–0640, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Agency Web site: http:// 

www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html. Follow 

the instructions for submitting 

comments on the EPA Air and Radiation 

Docket Web site. 

• E-Mail: a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov. 

Include EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640 in 

the subject line of the message. 

• Fax: Fax your comments to: (202) 

566–9744, Attention: Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640. 

• Mail: Send your comments to: EPA 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, Attention: 

Docket ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2012–0640. Please include a total of two 

copies. In addition, please mail a copy 

of your comments on the information 

collection provisions to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 

17th St. NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: In person 

or by courier, deliver comments to EPA 

Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 

1301 Constitution Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Docket 

Center’s normal hours of operation, 

(8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding legal holidays), and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Please include a total of two copies. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number or Regulatory Identifier 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. All 

comments received will be posted 

without change to http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or email. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means that the EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to the EPA without 

going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

will be made available on the Internet. 

If you submit an electronic comment, 

the EPA recommends that you include 

your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If the EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

the EPA may not be able to consider 

your comment. Electronic files should 

avoid the use of special characters, any 

form of encryption and be free of any 

defects or viruses. For detailed 

instructions on submitting comments 

and additional information on the 

rulemaking process, see the ‘‘General 

Information’’ heading under the 

‘‘Organization of This Document’’ 

heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this document. 

Docket: 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., CBI 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 proposed rule for 

kraft pulp mills, contact Dr. Kelley 

Spence, Natural Resources Group, 

Sector Policies and Program 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: 

ANSI American National Standards 

Institute 

ASME American Society of Mechanical 

Engineers 

BACT Best achievable control technology 

BDT Best demonstrated technology 

BLO Black liquor oxidation 

BLS Black liquor solids 

BSER Best system of emissions reduction 

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 

CO Carbon monoxide 

COMS Continuous opacity monitoring 

system 

CWA Clean Water Act 

DCE Direct contact evaporator 

ERT Electronic Reporting Tool 

ESP Electrostatic precipitator 

g/dscm Grams per dry standard cubic meter 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31317 

gr/dscf Grains per dry standard cubic foot 

HAP Hazardous air pollutant 

H2S Hydrogen Sulfide 

HVLC High volume low concentration 

ICR Information collection request 

lb Pound 

LVHC Low volume high concentration 

MACT Maximum achievable control 

technology 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards 

NCG Non-condensable gas 

NDCE Non-direct contact evaporator 

NESHAP National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants 

NOX Nitrogen oxides 

NSPS New Source Performance Standards 

NTTAA National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 

OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

O&M Operating and maintenance 

O2 Oxygen 

PM Particulate Matter 

ppm Parts per million 

ppmv Parts per Million by Volume 

ppmdv Parts per Million of Dry Volume 

PRA Paperwork Reduction Act 

RIN Regulatory Identifier Number 

SD Smelt dissolving tank 

SISNOSE Significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

S/L/Ts State, local and tribal 

SO2 Sulfur dioxide 

SSM Startup, shutdown and malfunction 

TTN Technology Transfer Network 

TRS Total reduced sulfur 

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

VCS Voluntary consensus standards 

WWW Worldwide Web 

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. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments to the EPA? 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

III. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for this 

proposed rule? 

B. What are the current NSPS for kraft pulp 

mills? 

IV. Summary of Proposed Standards 

A. What source category is being regulated? 

B. What pollutants are emitted from these 

sources? 

C. What are the proposed standards? 

V. Rationale for the Proposed Standards 

A. What is the EPA’s rationale for the 

proposed emission limits and monitoring 

requirements for affected sources? 

B. What testing requirements is the EPA 

proposing? 

C. What notification, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements is the EPA 

proposing? 

D. Other Miscellaneous Differences 

Between the Proposed Subpart BBa and 

the Current Subpart BB 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy 

and Economic Impacts of These 

Proposed Standards 

A. What are the impacts for new, modified 

and reconstructed emission units at kraft 

pulp mills? 

B. What are the secondary impacts for new, 

modified and reconstructed emission 

units at kraft pulp mills? 

C. What are the economic impacts for new, 

modified and reconstructed emission 

units at kraft pulp mills? 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

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 

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 

I. Executive Summary 

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the 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. As part of the review, 

the EPA considers what degree of 

emission limitation is achievable 

through the application of the 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 is evaluating the SSM 

provisions in the rule in light of the D.C. 

Circuit Court of Appeals 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, emissions 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 the reasoning 

behind the D.C. Circuit’s decision in 

Sierra Club v. EPA applies equally to 

section 111 rules. The EPA’s general 

approach to SSM periods has been used 

consistently in CAA section 111, 112 

and section 129 rulemaking actions, 

since the D.C. 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 proposing new standards, which will 

apply to affected sources at kraft pulp 

mills for which construction, 

modification or reconstruction 

commences on or after May 23, 2013. 

The affected sources under the proposed 

NSPS are new, modified or 

reconstructed digester systems, brown 

stock washer systems, evaporator 

systems, condensate stripper systems, 

recovery furnaces, SDTs, and lime kilns 

at kraft pulp mills. The requirements for 

these new, modified or reconstructed 

sources will be included in a new 

subpart—40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa. 

The EPA is also proposing testing, 

monitoring, recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for subpart BBa 

that are in some ways different from 

what is required under subpart BB. 

B. Summary of Major Provisions 

Based on the results of the NSPS 

review, the EPA is proposing the 

following regarding the standards for 

filterable PM, opacity and TRS 

compounds: 

• Reducing the filterable PM emission 

limit for new and reconstructed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31318 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

recovery furnaces and lime kilns and 

new and reconstructed SDTs associated 

with new or reconstructed recovery 

furnaces to levels equivalent to the new 

source PM limits in the NESHAP for 

chemical recovery combustion sources 

at kraft, soda, sulfite and stand-alone 

semichemical pulp mills (40 CFR part 

63, subpart MM), to which these sources 

would already be subject; 

• Maintaining the filterable PM 

emission limit for modified recovery 

furnaces and lime kilns and for 

modified SDTs and new and 

reconstructed SDTs not associated with 

a new or reconstructed recovery furnace 

at their current NSPS levels; 

• Reducing the opacity limit for 

recovery furnaces to the 20 percent 

corrective action level in NESHAP 

subpart MM and reducing the opacity 

monitoring allowance from 6 percent to 

2 percent; 

• Adding an opacity limit of 20 

percent for lime kilns equipped with 

ESPs with an opacity monitoring 

allowance of 1 percent; and 

• Maintaining the TRS emission limit 

for digester systems, brown stock 

washer systems, evaporator systems, 

condensate stripper systems, recovery 

furnaces, SDTs, and lime kilns at their 

current levels, but restricting the TRS 

monitoring allowance of 1 percent for 

recovery furnaces to 30 ppmdv and 

adding a TRS monitoring allowance of 

1 percent for lime kilns, restricted to 22 

ppmdv. 

To ensure continuous compliance 

with the PM standards, including 

during periods when the opacity 

monitoring allowance is used, the EPA 

is proposing new ESP parameter 

monitoring requirements for recovery 

furnaces and lime kilns equipped with 

ESPs. The EPA is proposing wet 

scrubber parameter monitoring 

requirements for recovery furnaces, 

SDTs and lime kilns equipped with wet 

scrubbers that will be consistent with 

the wet scrubber parameter monitoring 

requirements under NESHAP subpart 

MM. The PM standards and parameter 

monitoring requirements are applicable 

at all times. The EPA is proposing to 

include in the 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. 

The EPA is proposing repeat 

performance testing for filterable PM 

and TRS once every 5 years for new, 

modified and reconstructed affected 

sources complying with the filterable 

PM and TRS standards in subpart BBa. 

The EPA is also proposing 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. The EPA is 

proposing that mills submit electronic 

copies of their performance test reports 

to the EPA using the EPA’s ERT. The 

EPA is also proposing text with certain 

technical and editorial differences, 

including clarifying the location of 

applicable test methods in the CFR, 

incorporating by reference one non-EPA 

test method, and including definitions 

to subpart BBa pertinent to the 

differences between the proposed 

subpart BBa and the current subpart BB. 

C. Summary of Costs and Benefits 

Table 1 summarizes the costs and 

benefits of this proposed action. See 

section VI of this preamble for further 

discussion. 

TABLE 1—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 proposed rule include: 

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of 

regulated entities 

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

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

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

1 North American Industrial 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 

proposed action to a particular entity, 

contact the person in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments to the EPA? 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI electronically 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

email. Send or deliver information 

identified as CBI only to the following 

address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31319 

Document Control Officer (C404–02), 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 

27711, Attention: Docket ID Number 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640. Clearly 

mark the part or all of the information 

that you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD–ROM that 

you mail to the EPA, mark the outside 

of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD–ROM the specific information that 

is claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information marked as 

CBI will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

C. Where can I get a copy of this 

document? 

In addition to being available in the 

docket, an electronic copy of the 

proposed action is available on the 

WWW through the TTN Web site. 

Following signature, the EPA posted a 

copy of the proposed 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. 

D. When would a public hearing occur? 

The EPA will hold a public hearing 

on this proposed rule if requested. 

Requests for a hearing must be made by 

June 3, 2013. Please contact Ms. Joan 

Rogers at Rogers.Joanc@epa.gov or 919– 

541–4487 by June 3, 2013 to request a 

public hearing. If a hearing is requested, 

the EPA will hold a hearing on June 7, 

2013 at the U.S. EPA, 109 T.W. 

Alexander Drive, Research Triangle 

Park, North Carolina 27711. Please 

contact Ms. Joan Rogers for details 

regarding the public hearing. 

III. Background Information 

A. What is the statutory authority for 

this proposed rule? 

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 nonair 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). 

Existing affected facilities that are 

modified or reconstructed would also be 

subject to this proposed rule for affected 

sources. Under CAA section 111(a)(4), 

‘‘modification’’ means any physical 

change in, or change in the method of 

operation of, a stationary source which 

increases the amount of any air 

pollutant emitted by such source or 

which results in the emission of any air 

pollutant not previously emitted. 

Changes to an existing facility that do 

not result in an increase in emissions 

are not considered modifications. 

Rebuilt emission units would become 

subject to the proposed standards under 

the reconstruction provisions, regardless 

of changes in emission rate. 

Reconstruction means the replacement 

of components of an existing facility 

such that: (1) The fixed capital cost of 

the new components exceeds 50 percent 

of the fixed capital cost that would be 

required to construct a comparable 

entirely new facility; and (2) it is 

technologically and economically 

feasible to meet the applicable standards 

(40 CFR 60.15). 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 NSPS are directly enforceable 

federal regulations issued for categories 

of sources which cause, or contribute 

significantly to, air pollution which may 

reasonably be anticipated to endanger 

public health or welfare. Since 1970, the 

NSPS have been successful in achieving 

long-term emissions reductions in 

numerous industries by assuring that 

cost-effective controls are installed on 

new, reconstructed or modified sources. 

B. What are the current NSPS for kraft 

pulp mills? 

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 1986 review made changes 

to TRS emission limits and temperature 

monitoring requirements. Minor testing 

and monitoring changes and technical 

corrections were made to the kraft pulp 

mills NSPS after the 1986 review 

(February 14, 1989 (54 FR 6673); May 

17, 1989 (54 FR 21344); February 14, 

1990 (55 FR 5212); October 17, 2000 (65 

FR 61759); and September 21, 2006 (71 

FR 55127)). 

The current kraft pulp mills NSPS 

(subpart BB) apply to the following 

emission units constructed, 

reconstructed or modified after 

September 24, 1976, that are located at 

facilities engaged in kraft pulping: 

• Digester systems 

• Brown stock washer systems 

• Multiple-effect evaporator systems 

• Condensate stripper systems 

• Recovery furnaces 

• Smelt dissolving tanks 

• Lime kilns 

The current NSPS, as amended under 

the 1986 review and later actions, 

include the following emission limits 

and work practice standards: 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31320 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

Affected sources 40 CFR 60.282 Particulate matter (PM) 40 CFR 60.283 Total reduced sulfur (TRS) 

Digester system ............

Brown stock washer 

system. 

Evaporator system. 

Condensate stripper 

system. 

None ................................................................. One of the following conditions must be met: 

1. Combust emissions from affected source in one of the following: 

(a) lime kiln subject to subpart BB (8 ppmdv TRS limit); 

(b) recovery furnace subject to subpart BB (5 or 25 ppmdv 

TRS limit); or 

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

subpart BB, operated at a minimum temperature of 1200 

°F for 0.5 seconds (no ppmdv limit). 

2. Use non-combustion control device with a limit of 5 ppmdv. 

3. It is technologically or economically infeasible to incinerate 

brown stock washer systems gases. 

4. Uncontrolled digester gases contain less than 0.01 pound of 

TRS per ton of air-dried pulp. 

Recovery furnace .......... 1. 0.044 gr/dscf @ 8% O2; and .......................

2. 35% opacity; and 

3. 6% monitoring allowance for opacity. 

1a. Straight 1: 5 ppmdv @ 8% O2; or 

1b. Cross 2: 25 ppmdv @ 8% O2; and 

2. 1% monitoring allowance for TRS. 

Smelt dissolving tank .... 0.2 lb/ton BLS dry weight ................................ 0.033 lb/ton BLS as H2S. 

Lime kiln ........................ 1a. Gas-fired: 0.066 gr/dscf @ 10% O2; or .....

1b. Liquid fuel-fired: 0.13 gr/dscf @ 10% O2. 

8 ppmdv @ 10% O2. 

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. 

Initial compliance with the PM and 

TRS emission limits in the current 

NSPS (subpart BB) is demonstrated by 

conducting initial performance tests for 

these pollutants. To demonstrate 

continuous compliance, certain 

operating parameters must be monitored 

and maintained within a range of sitespecific values. Continuous opacity 

monitors are required for recovery 

furnaces and continuous TRS monitors 

are required for recovery furnaces and 

lime kilns. Parameter monitors for 

scrubber pressure loss and scrubbing 

liquid supply pressure are required for 

any lime kiln or SDT using a wet 

scrubber to comply with their respective 

PM emission limits in subpart BB. For 

digester systems, brown stock washers, 

evaporators and condensate stripper 

systems that use an incinerator to 

control emissions, incinerator 

temperature monitors are required. 

Subpart BB requires TRS monitors for 

those that do not use incinerators (e.g., 

the TRS monitor installed on a recovery 

furnace or lime kiln controlling 

emissions is used; or a TRS monitor is 

installed on a non-combustion control 

system). 

IV. Summary of Proposed Standards 

A. What source category is being 

regulated? 

Today’s proposed standards would 

apply to affected emission sources at 

kraft pulp mills for which construction, 

modification or reconstruction 

commences on or after May 23, 2013. 

The affected sources under the proposed 

NSPS are new, modified or 

reconstructed digester systems, brown 

stock washer systems, evaporator 

systems, condensate stripper systems, 

recovery furnaces, smelt dissolving 

tanks and lime kilns located at a kraft 

pulp mill. 

B. What pollutants are emitted from 

these sources? 

The pollutants regulated under 

section 111(b) for new, modified or 

reconstructed emission units at kraft 

pulp mills are filterable PM and TRS. 

Opacity is regulated to ensure proper 

operation and maintenance of the ESP 

used to control PM emissions. 

Particulate matter emissions and 

opacity are also regulated under a 

separate federal standard, the subpart 

MM NESHAP for chemical recovery 

combustion sources at kraft, soda, 

sulfite and stand-alone semichemical 

pulp mills (40 CFR part 63). These 

standards were promulgated on January 

12, 2001 (66 FR 3180) and were not 

challenged; therefore the standards are 

an appropriate baseline for analysis. 

Particulate matter is regulated as a 

surrogate for HAP metals in the subpart 

MM NESHAP pursuant to CAA section 

112. 

The most common technologies used 

to control PM and TRS emissions from 

kraft pulp mills are listed as follows: 

Affected sources Pollutant Control technology 

Digester, brown stock washer, evaporator 

and condensate stripper systems.

TRS ......... Incineration of the gases in the recovery furnace, lime kiln or separate incineration 

unit. 

Recovery furnace ........................................ PM ........... Use of an ESP. 

TRS ......... Use of a NDCE recovery furnace; or use of staged BLO for DCE recovery furnaces. 

Smelt dissolving tank .................................. PM ........... Use of a wet scrubber. 

TRS ......... Use of water not highly contaminated with dissolved sulfides for dissolving the smelt 

and for scrubbing. 

Lime kiln ...................................................... PM ........... Use of a venturi scrubber, ESP, or scrubber/ESP combination. 

TRS ......... More efficient process controls (e.g., mud washing) and use of caustic solution in the 

scrubber. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31321 

The PM concentration limits in the 

subpart BB NSPS and subpart MM 

NESHAP are based on filterable PM 

measured by EPA Method 5. Filterable 

PM consists of those particles directly 

emitted by a source as a solid or liquid 

at the stack (or similar release 

conditions) and captured on the filter of 

a stack test train. A fraction of the PM 

emitted from recovery furnaces, SDTs 

and lime kilns is PM with an 

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal 

to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). The EPA is 

not proposing separate standards for 

PM2.5 in this action because the 

available emissions test data for PM2.5

are limited and not adequate for setting 

standards (e.g., the measurement 

method for PM2.5 does not apply for 

scrubber wet stacks), and the same 

controls that remove filterable PM also 

reduce filterable PM2.5. 

Condensable PM is also emitted from 

recovery furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns. 

Condensable PM is material that is in 

vapor phase at stack conditions that 

condenses and/or reacts upon cooling 

and dilution in the ambient air to form 

solid or liquid PM after discharge from 

the stack. For purposes of implementing 

the NAAQS, Appendix A to subpart A 

of 40 CFR part 51 defines PM2.5 as 

including both filterable and 

condensable fractions of PM. 

The PM concentration limits in 

today’s proposed NSPS review are based 

on filterable PM measured by EPA 

Method 5 because the majority of PM 

emissions data available are Method 5 

data. Emissions of condensable PM are 

measured using EPA Method 202, 

which can be added as the ‘‘back half’’ 

to a Method 5 sampling train. Although 

today’s proposed NSPS review contains 

no emission limits for condensable PM, 

the EPA is proposing to require 

emissions testing for condensable PM in 

conjunction with filterable PM testing to 

gather condensable PM emissions data 

for future analyses. Additional data and 

research are needed to develop a 

broader understanding of condensable 

PM emissions from pulp and paper 

combustion sources and to determine 

mechanisms for reducing condensable 

PM. Work to date suggests that 

condensable PM emissions may not 

correlate with filterable PM emissions, 

and there is some indication that SO2

present in the stack gas from pulp and 

paper combustion sources may affect 

the accuracy of the condensable PM 

measurement. Additional data will aid 

in our understanding of condensable 

PM from pulp and paper sources and 

how it may be addressed. 

In addition to PM and TRS, kraft pulp 

mills are also sources of criteria 

pollutants such as NOX, SO2, and CO. 

Today’s proposed NSPS review focuses 

on the PM and TRS emission standards 

in subpart BB that are due for review 

under CAA section 111(b)(1)(B). No 

standards were established for SO2, 

NOX, and CO emissions from recovery 

furnaces and lime kilns in the original 

kraft pulping NSPS or in the 1986 NSPS 

review because no best demonstrated 

control techniques, considering costs, 

were identified for these pollutants and 

sources in the kraft pulping industry. 

Since that time, permitting authorities 

have implemented permit limits for 

these pollutants based on site-specific 

process measures that may or may not 

be transferrable from mill to mill. The 

pollutants NOX and SO2 are of 

particular interest because these 

pollutants can react in the atmosphere 

to form secondary emissions of PM2.5. 

Additional research will be done for a 

potential future rulemaking to 

determine if federal emission limits 

should be established for other criteria 

pollutants (such as NOX or SO2), 

including research into the 

technological basis for permit limits; 

analysis of emissions test data; and 

analysis of the benefits, trade-offs and 

costs of controls to achieve reductions 

in these pollutants. 

C. What are the proposed standards? 

The EPA is proposing the following 

actions regarding the NSPS emission 

limits for those affected sources for 

which construction, modification or 

reconstruction is commenced on or after 

May 23, 2013: 

• Reduce the NSPS PM limit for new and 

reconstructed recovery furnaces from 0.044 

gr/dscf to the new source PM limit of 0.015 

gr/dscf found in the subpart MM NESHAP. 

• Reduce the opacity limit for recovery 

furnaces from 35 percent to 20 percent 

opacity and reduce the monitoring allowance 

from 6 percent to 2 percent of the 6-minute 

opacity averages. 

• Maintain the current NSPS TRS limits 

for recovery furnaces (5 ppmdv for straight, 

25 ppmdv for cross) and restrict the 1 percent 

monitoring allowance for TRS emissions to 

30 ppmdv or less. Previously, there was no 

maximum TRS limit for these periods. 

• Reduce the NSPS PM limit for new and 

reconstructed SDTs associated with new or 

reconstructed recovery furnaces from 0.2 lb/ 

ton BLS to the new source PM limit of 0.12 

lb/ton BLS in the subpart MM NESHAP. 

• Reduce the NSPS PM limit for modified 

lime kilns from 0.066 gr/dscf for gas-fired 

kilns and 0.13 gr/dscf for liquid-fired kilns to 

the existing source limit of 0.064 gr/dscf 

found in the subpart MM NESHAP (for all 

fuels) and reduce the NSPS PM limit for new 

and reconstructed lime kilns from 0.066 gr/ 

dscf for gas-fired kilns and 0.13 gr/dscf for 

liquid-fired kilns to the new source limit of 

0.010 gr/dscf found in the subpart MM 

NESHAP. 

• Maintain the current NSPS TRS limit for 

lime kilns at 8 ppmdv and add a 1 percent 

monitoring allowance restricted to 22 

ppmdv. 

• Add an opacity limit for lime kilns 

equipped with ESPs based on the subpart 

MM NESHAP limit of 20 percent opacity 

with a 1 percent monitoring allowance. 

The EPA is proposing the following 

emission limits for those affected 

sources for which construction, 

modification or reconstruction is 

commenced on or after May 23, 2013 to 

be the same as currently in subpart BB: 

• Maintain the current NSPS PM limit of 

0.044 gr/dscf for modified recovery furnaces. 

• Maintain the current NSPS TRS limit for 

SDTs at 0.033 lb/ton BLS. 

• Maintain the current NSPS PM limit of 

0.2 lb/ton BLS for modified and new and 

reconstructed SDTs not associated with a 

new or reconstructed recovery furnace. 

The emission limits for new, modified 

or reconstructed sources will be 

included in a new subpart—40 CFR part 

60, subpart BBa. 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. 

The EPA is proposing ESP parameter 

monitoring requirements for recovery 

furnaces and lime kilns equipped with 

ESPs to enable affected units to show 

continuous compliance with the PM 

concentration standards at all times, 

including periods when the opacity 

monitoring allowance is used. The EPA 

is proposing 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. 

For recovery furnaces or lime kilns 

equipped with an ESP in combination 

with a wet scrubber system, the EPA is 

proposing wet scrubber parameter 

monitoring and ESP parameter 

monitoring instead of opacity 

monitoring. The parameter monitors 

will measure the wet scrubber pressure 

drop and scrubber liquid flow rate (or 

liquor supply pressure). Scrubber fan 

amperage monitoring is proposed 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). 

All parameters would be measured and 

recorded at least once every 15 minutes 

and reduced to 12-hour block averages 

(except that ESP parameters would be 

reduced to a quarterly average when an 

opacity monitor is also used on the 

ESP). The EPA is proposing to specify 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31322 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

a 5-minute data recording frequency and 

3-hour block averaging time for 

incinerator temperature measurements 

required under the NSPS. 

The General Provisions in 40 CFR part 

60 provide that emissions in excess of 

the level of the applicable emission 

limit during periods of SSM shall not be 

considered a violation of the applicable 

emission limit unless otherwise 

specified in the applicable standard. See 

40 CFR 60.8(c). The General Provisions, 

however, may be amended for 

individual subparts. Here, the EPA is 

proposing standards in subpart BBa that 

apply at all times as specified in the 

proposed §§ 60.282a(b) and 60.283a(b). 

This is discussed further in section 

V.A.5, and with respect to specific 

standards in various sections below. 

The EPA recognizes that even 

equipment that is properly designed and 

maintained can sometimes fail and that 

such failure can sometimes cause a 

violation of the relevant emission 

standard; thus, the EPA is proposing to 

include an affirmative defense to civil 

penalties for violations of emission 

standards that are caused by 

malfunctions that meet certain criteria, 

as discussed in section V.A.5 below. 

As part of an ongoing effort to 

improve compliance with the standards, 

the EPA is proposing to require repeat 

air emissions testing for filterable PM, 

and TRS for recovery furnaces, SDTs 

and lime kilns once every 60 months (5 

years), as discussed in section V.B 

below. The EPA is also proposing initial 

and repeat condensable PM testing once 

every 60 months (5 years) for 

informational purposes. 

To increase the ease and efficiency of 

data submittal and improve data 

accessibility, the EPA is also proposing 

to require mills to submit electronic 

copies of performance test reports to the 

EPA’s WebFIRE database, as discussed 

in section V.C below. 

V. Rationale for the Proposed 

Standards 

Section 111(a)(1) requires that 

standards of performance for new 

sources reflect the— 

* * * degree of emission limitation 

achievable through the application of the best 

system of emission reduction 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. 

Section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to 

‘‘at least every 8 years review and, if 

appropriate, revise’’ performance 

standards unless the ‘‘Administrator 

determines that such review is not 

appropriate in light of readily available 

information on the efficacy’’ of the 

standard. 

A. What is the EPA’s rationale for the 

proposed emission limits and 

monitoring requirements for affected 

sources? 

1. Digesters, Brown Stock Washers, 

Evaporators and Condensate Strippers 

National emission standards for HAPs 

were promulgated for pulp and paper 

manufacturing emissions sources in 

1998. Under the pulp and paper 

manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 

63, subpart S), NCGs from digesters, 

evaporators and condensate strippers 

are collected as part of the LVHC system 

for incineration control. The NCGs from 

brown stock washers are either collected 

as part of the HVLC system under the 

subpart S NESHAP for incinerationbased control, or are subject to the 

subpart S NESHAP clean condensate 

alternative. (See 40 CFR 63.447.) The 

incineration control technology used for 

NESHAP subpart S compliance is the 

same as that needed to meet the TRS 

emission limit under the NSPS, and the 

incineration control technology has not 

changed since implementation of the 

NESHAP. In many respects, the 

NESHAP is more expansive in its 

coverage of NCG sources than the NSPS 

(e.g., the NESHAP targets HAP 

emissions while the NSPS targets the 

largest sources of TRS emissions), such 

that additional reductions in TRS 

emissions from kraft pulp mills have 

occurred as a result of the TRS cocontrol benefits of the NESHAP. 

Implementation of the NESHAP has 

expanded use of incineration-based 

controls, and mills are likely to have 

made process monitoring improvements 

to ensure the reliability and 

effectiveness of NCG collection systems 

and incineration-based controls as part 

of NESHAP implementation. While TRS 

control benefits from enhancements of 

NCG collection and control systems 

made for NESHAP implementation, the 

underlying technology that is the basis 

of the 5 ppmdv TRS limit and the level 

of control that is achieved in practice 

have not changed. The EPA received 

four datasets (TRS CEMS) for processes 

emitting NCGs. (See memo titled, 

Review of the Continuous Emission 

Monitoring and Continuous Opacity 

Monitoring Data from the Pulp and 

Paper Information Collection Request 

Responses Pertaining to Subpart BB 

Sources, in the docket.) The analysis of 

these datasets confirm that incineration 

remains the best demonstrated 

technology and show that 5 ppm 

remains the appropriate limit. 

Recognizing improvements to control 

system operations and monitoring, a 

maximum limit was added for TRS 

emissions from lime kilns and recovery 

furnaces. Alternatives to incineration, 

such as scrubbing, are less effective at 

the removal of TRS because only two of 

the four TRS compounds (H2S and 

methyl mercaptan) are acidic enough to 

be removed with alkaline scrubbing, 

resulting in a removal efficiency much 

lower than that achieved by 

incineration. Therefore, the EPA is 

proposing to maintain the TRS limit for 

NCG sources. 

Incinerator temperature monitoring. 

Subpart BB requires monitoring of 

incineration temperature in conjunction 

with the compliance option for TRS 

emissions from digesters, washers, 

evaporators and strippers to be 

combusted at a temperature of 1200 °F 

for 0.5 seconds. Subpart BB does not 

specify a data recording frequency or 

averaging time for the temperature 

measurements but does define excess 

emissions as temperature measurements 

below 1200 °F for a period of 5 minutes 

or more (excluding periods of startup 

and shutdown, per § 60.8(c)). In the 

subpart S NESHAP, incinerator 

temperature averaging time is not 

specified, but compliance testing is 

based on a 3-hour average (an average of 

three 1-hour test runs). For subpart BBa, 

the EPA is proposing to clarify the 

incineration temperature monitoring 

requirement by specifying a data 

recording frequency of at least every 5 

minutes, and to create consistency 

between subpart S and subpart BBa by 

proposing a 3-hour block averaging 

period. Because incineration devices 

must warm to 1200 °F during control 

startup prior to firing gases containing 

TRS emissions (and subsequently cool 

to below 1200 °F during control 

shutdown), the EPA is proposing to 

allow facilities to omit 5-minute 

recorded temperature measurements 

from the 3-hour block averages when no 

TRS emissions are fired. This means 

that when the incinerator is not burning 

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

and cool-down periods before TRS 

emissions are generated or when an 

alternative control device is used), the 

low temperature does not constitute a 

violation. The EPA requests comment 

on the 3-hour averaging time for 

incinerator temperature monitoring, 

especially as it relates to temperature 

data recording and averaging practices 

specified for individual mills under the 

subpart S NESHAP. 

2. Recovery Furnaces 

Recovery furnace PM. Under the 

current subpart BB, new, modified and 

reconstructed recovery furnaces are 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31323 

1Exceptions included a few stack tests that were 

repeated, or recovery furnaces that participate in 

the PM bubble compliance option under subpart 

MM. 

2See memorandum titled, ‘‘Review of the 

Continuous Emission Monitoring and Continuous 

Opacity Monitoring Data from the Pulp and Paper 

Information Collection Request Responses 

Pertaining to Subpart BB Sources’’ in the docket. 

required to meet a PM emission limit of 

0.044 gr/dscf at 8 percent O2. The PM 

emission limit in subpart BB is the same 

as the existing source emission limit for 

recovery furnaces under the NESHAP 

for chemical recovery combustion 

sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart MM). 

For the NSPS review, the EPA 

reviewed data from more than 200 

filterable PM stack tests, including some 

repeat tests, on nearly all of the recovery 

furnaces in the United States. Test data 

were reviewed for DCE and NDCE 

recovery furnaces using a variety of PM 

emission controls (ESP, ESP and wet 

scrubber combinations, and wet 

scrubbers). The PM stack test data 

revealed little or no distinction between 

DCE and NDCE recovery furnaces for 

PM emissions. Nearly all of the recovery 

furnaces tested met the current NSPS 

and existing source NESHAP (subpart 

MM) limit (0.044 gr/dscf),1 and many 

met the new source NESHAP (subpart 

MM) limit (0.015 gr/dscf). However, 

some recovery furnaces equipped with a 

wet scrubber alone or with a wet 

scrubber in combination with an ESP 

exhibited PM emissions above 0.015 gr/ 

dscf (but below the 0.044 gr/dscf 

existing source NESHAP limit subpart 

MM). This suggests that wet scrubbing 

of recovery furnace exhaust gases (either 

alone or in conjunction with an ESP) 

does not necessarily improve filterable 

PM removal. The review of the stack test 

data also shows that a limit lower than 

0.015 gr/dscf has not been adequately 

demonstrated. 

Based on our review of the stack test 

data and technologies used to reduce 

PM emissions from kraft recovery 

furnaces, the EPA is proposing a limit 

equivalent to the subpart MM NESHAP 

PM limit for new and reconstructed 

recovery furnaces (0.015 gr/dscf at 8 

percent O2) for recovery furnaces 

constructed or reconstructed (excluding 

modified units) after May 23, 2013. 

Because a limit of 0.015 gr/dscf has been 

adequately demonstrated (and is already 

required under the subpart MM 

NESHAP) for new and reconstructed 

recovery furnaces, the EPA does not 

expect any incremental costs or 

emissions reductions associated with 

adopting a NSPS limit of 0.015 gr/dscf 

for new or reconstructed recovery 

furnaces. The proposed limits establish 

consistency between this NSPS and 

other regulatory requirements. 

The EPA also considered a 0.015 gr/ 

dscf limit for existing recovery furnaces 

that are modified. Unlike new or 

reconstructed sources which trigger 

both the new source MACT 

requirements and NSPS upon 

construction or reconstruction, recovery 

furnaces can trigger the applicable NSPS 

provisions as a result of modification 

but would not trigger the new source 

MACT requirements because there are 

no modification provisions under the 

NESHAP (subpart MM) or the subpart A 

General Provisions for part 63 

standards. Therefore, costs and 

emissions reductions associated with 

controlling PM emissions down to a 

level of 0.015 gr/dscf are different for 

modified units than for new or 

reconstructed units. The EPA evaluated 

the number of existing recovery 

furnaces with PM stack test data above 

0.015 gr/dscf but below 0.044 gr/dscf, 

and concluded that some existing 

recovery furnaces that are modified 

could have difficulty achieving a limit 

of 0.015 gr/dscf if they attempt to use 

their existing control device to meet this 

limit. The EPA estimated the cost 

effectiveness of incremental 

improvements in ESP performance 

needed for modified recovery furnaces 

to meet 0.015 gr/dscf to be $27,500/ton 

(in 2012 dollars). The EPA also 

evaluated other emission limits between 

0.015 gr/dscf and 0.044 gr/dscf, but 

because the costs associated with ESP 

upgrades remained the same with 

smaller emission reductions, the options 

were less cost effective. With the high 

costs (poor cost effectiveness) of further 

PM reductions and the potential for 

some modified recovery furnaces to 

have difficulty achieving 0.015 gr/dscf, 

the EPA is proposing to retain the 0.044 

gr/dscf PM limit for existing recovery 

furnaces that are modified. For more 

information, see the memorandum, 

Emissions Inventory for Kraft Pulp Mills 

and Costs/Impacts of the Section 111(b) 

Review of the Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS, in 

the docket. 

Recovery furnace opacity and 

parameter monitoring. Ongoing 

compliance with the subpart BB PM 

concentration limit is demonstrated by 

continuously monitoring opacity. The 

recovery furnace PM opacity limit under 

subpart BB is 35 percent opacity with a 

monitoring allowance that allows 6 

percent of the 6-minute opacity averages 

during a quarter (excluding periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction and 

periods when the facility is not 

operating) to exceed 35 percent without 

being considered a violation. 

The subpart MM NESHAP also 

requires continuous opacity monitoring, 

specifying a 20 percent opacity limit for 

new sources beyond which a violation 

occurs if more than 6 percent of the 6- 

minute averages exceed 20 percent 

opacity during the reporting period (i.e., 

a monitoring allowance) and a 35 

percent opacity limit for existing 

sources with a similar monitoring 

allowance. The subpart MM NESHAP 

also establishes a corrective action 

threshold of 10 consecutive 6-minute 

averages above 20 percent opacity for 

existing sources. 

The EPA reviewed COMS data for 138 

recovery furnaces to evaluate the 

opacity limits in the current NSPS 

subpart BB. The EPA also reviewed state 

permits and found many recovery 

furnaces with state permit limits of 20 

percent opacity. In addition, as noted 

above, 20 percent opacity also 

represents the corrective action level for 

existing recovery furnaces and the new 

source opacity limit under the subpart 

MM NESHAP. The COMS data analyzed 

for the NSPS review show that 20 

percent opacity has been adequately 

demonstrated and achieved in practice 

by both DCE and NDCE recovery 

furnaces using a variety of air pollution 

controls and including periods of 

startup and shutdown. Given numerous 

state limits of 20 percent opacity, and 

the fact that new and reconstructed 

sources must meet 20 percent under the 

subpart MM NESHAP, the EPA is 

proposing an opacity limit of 20 percent 

for new, modified and reconstructed 

units subject to subpart BBa. The EPA 

believes there are no incremental costs 

or emission reductions associated with 

adopting an opacity limit of 20 percent 

because the majority of units are already 

meeting this limit, without a federal 

requirement to do so. The EPA is 

unaware of any technological reason 

that would hinder modified units from 

meeting this limit but requests comment 

on the 20 percent opacity requirement 

for modified sources. 

The EPA also used the COMS data to 

evaluate the current 6 percent 

monitoring allowance for opacity. Our 

analysis of the COMS data is included 

in a memorandum in the docket.2 The 

COMS data show that over 90 percent 

of existing recovery furnaces, whether 

subject to the current NSPS or not, 

regardless of design (DCE or NDCE), and 

with most controls, are meeting a 20 

percent opacity limit based on a 6- 

minute average with fewer than 2 

percent of averaging periods exceeding 

20 percent opacity, including periods of 

startup and shutdown. Therefore, the 

EPA has determined in subpart BBa that 

a 2 percent monitoring allowance for 

recovery furnace opacity has been 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31324 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

3U.S. EPA. Review of New Source Performance 

Standards for Kraft Pulp Mills. EPA–450/3–83–017. 

September 1983. 

adequately demonstrated to be achieved 

in practice and is more representative of 

actual performance than the current 6 

percent monitoring allowance, and thus 

the EPA is proposing that the 

monitoring allowance be 2 percent for 

the new NSPS subpart BBa. 

The COMS data for recovery furnaces 

currently subject to NSPS (subpart BB) 

were reviewed closely to understand the 

impacts of startup and shutdown on 

opacity and to what extent a monitoring 

allowance should be refined to reflect 

opacity levels achieved in practice 

during startup and shutdown. High 

short-duration spikes in opacity were 

observed during some (but not all) 

instances of startup and shutdown at 

some recovery furnaces. Brief spikes 

were also observed during normal 

operation. The exact causes of these 

brief spikes were not documented in the 

COMS datasets but could have been 

monitor malfunctions, high level span 

checks, calibrations or some other 

cause. The COMs data showed that the 

maximum 6-minute opacity average at 

approximately half of the recovery 

furnaces for which COMS data are 

available exceeded 75 percent opacity, 

while the annual average of the 6- 

minute values for these units was no 

more than 16 percent opacity. The 

potential for brief high-level spikes in 

opacity can be accommodated with a 2 

percent monitoring allowance without 

an upper limit. To ensure continuous 

compliance with the PM limit, the EPA 

is also proposing to add an ESP 

parameter monitoring requirement to 

subpart BBa that would provide another 

indicator of ESP performance and 

ensure continuous compliance with the 

PM limit during the reporting period. 

The EPA is proposing that ESP 

secondary voltage and secondary 

current (or total secondary power) be 

monitored and averaged over the same 

calendar quarter as the opacity 

monitoring allowance. The 2 percent 

opacity monitoring allowance will only 

be available for recovery furnaces with 

ESP parameters that are above the 

minimum limits established during the 

PM performance test (i.e., above the 

minimum secondary current and 

secondary voltage or above minimum 

total secondary power). Subpart BB 

currently requires that the opacity 

allowance be calculated based on the 

percent of the total number of possible 

contiguous periods of excess emissions 

in a quarter. The EPA requests comment 

on this requirement, specifically 

whether a semiannual basis would be 

more appropriate based on the 

semiannual reporting requirement. 

Monitoring for recovery furnaces with 

combined ESP/scrubber controls. 

Because opacity is not a suitable 

monitoring requirement for recovery 

furnaces with wet scrubber stacks, the 

EPA is proposing to require ESP and 

wet scrubber parameter monitoring for 

recovery furnaces equipped with an ESP 

followed by a wet scrubber. The ESP 

parameters to be monitored are 

secondary voltage and secondary 

current (or, alternatively, total 

secondary power), and the wet scrubber 

parameters are pressure drop and 

scrubber liquid flow rate (or scrubber 

liquid supply pressure). The EPA is 

specifying that these parameters would 

be measured and recorded at least once 

every 15 minutes and these 15-minute 

measurements used to calculate 12-hour 

block averages. The EPA requests 

comment on the use of parameter 

monitoring instead of opacity 

monitoring in systems that utilize both 

an ESP and a wet scrubber. The EPA is 

also requesting comment on the 

parameter recording frequency and 

averaging time for ESP parameters and 

wet scrubber parameters. 

Cross recovery furnace TRS. Although 

the current NSPS limits TRS from cross 

recovery furnaces to 25 ppmdv at 8 

percent O2, there are currently no cross 

recovery furnaces subject to the NSPS, 

and, likewise, no TRS emissions data to 

analyze for cross recovery furnaces. 

Although there are currently no cross 

recovery furnaces subject to the NSPS, 

there are some kraft mills with colocated semichemical processes that 

may, in the future, have furnaces 

designated as NSPS cross recovery 

furnaces; therefore, a TRS limit for these 

sources should be maintained. 

The cross recovery furnace TRS 

emission limit is higher than the straight 

recovery furnace TRS emission limit of 

5 ppmdv at 8 percent O2 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.3 For these 

reasons, the EPA is proposing to retain 

the current cross recovery furnace TRS 

emission limit of 25 ppmdv at 8 percent 

O2 for the new NSPS subpart BBa. 

Straight recovery furnace TRS. The 

current kraft NSPS limits TRS emissions 

from straight recovery furnaces 

(including both DCE and NDCE recovery 

furnaces) to 5 ppmdv at 8 percent O2. 

The CAA 111(d) TRS emission 

guidelines (44 FR 29828) limit TRS to 5 

ppmdv for existing NDCE recovery 

furnaces and 20 ppmdv for existing DCE 

recovery furnaces. 

The EPA analyzed 1 year of TRS 

CEMS data for most recovery furnaces 

as part of the NSPS review. Our review 

focused on CEMS data as opposed to 

stack test data because relatively few 

TRS stack test reports (for recovery 

furnaces or lime kilns) were submitted 

in response to the EPA’s 2011 ICR 

survey as compared to the number of 

available TRS CEMS datasets. 

The data the EPA analyzed suggest 

that recovery furnace type (DCE vs. 

NDCE) and NSPS applicability (i.e., 

whether or not the unit is required to 

meet the more stringent standard) are 

more relevant than control device type 

in distinguishing between the best 

performing recovery furnaces for TRS. 

Recovery furnaces with combined ESP/ 

scrubber controls did not achieve lower 

TRS emissions than recovery furnaces 

with ESP systems alone, which was 

expected because process control factors 

are expected to play a role in recovery 

furnace TRS emissions. Annual average 

TRS emissions revealed that NDCE 

recovery furnaces can be expected to 

achieve lower TRS levels than DCE 

recovery furnaces. Because compliance 

is based on a 12-hour average, the EPA 

considered the 99th percentile of the 

730 potential 12-hour blocks in a given 

year for each recovery furnace. Nearly 

all DCE furnaces had TRS emissions 

above 5 ppmdv (and usually below 20 

ppmdv) while the majority of NDCE 

furnaces achieved 5 ppmdv 

consistently. Multi-staged BLO has been 

reported to reduce TRS emissions from 

DCE recovery furnaces; however, the 

trend over the past several decades has 

been towards installation of NDCE 

recovery furnaces or ‘‘low-odor’’ 

conversions of DCE recovery furnaces to 

NDCE technology. Only 41 DCE 

recovery furnaces remain in the 

industry, as compared to 108 NDCE 

furnaces. Many of the remaining DCE 

furnaces are approaching the end of 

their useful life and would be expected 

to be replaced with a new NDCE as 

opposed to being modified or 

reconstructed as an NDCE furnace. No 

new DCE recovery furnaces are 

projected for the pulp and paper 

industry. Given these trends, we are not 

proposing separate standards for new, 

reconstructed or modified DCE recovery 

furnaces. All new modified or 

reconstructed furnaces would have to 

comply with the proposed standard of 5 

ppmdv. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31325 

4See memorandum titled, ‘‘Review of the 

Continuous Emission Monitoring and Continuous 

Opacity Monitoring Data from the Pulp and Paper 

Information Collection Request Responses 

Pertaining to Subpart BB Sources’’ in the docket. 

Subpart BB contains a 1 percent 

monitoring allowance for recovery 

furnace TRS which allows 1 percent of 

the reported 12-hour averages in a 

reporting period to exceed the emission 

limit without being considered an 

excess emission. The majority of NDCEs 

subject to the NSPS achieved the 5 

ppmdv limit consistently with 1 percent 

or fewer of the averaging periods in 

exceedance of 5 ppmdv, including 

periods of startup and shutdown. 

Periods of startup and shutdown are not 

excluded under subpart BBa to ensure 

that emissions standards apply 

continuously. The EPA is unaware of 

any technological reason that would 

hinder modified, reconstructed or new 

units from meeting the 1 percent 

allowance, but requests comment on 

such instances. 

Based on analysis of the TRS CEMS 

data for recovery furnaces, which 

included periods of startup and 

shutdown, the EPA is proposing to 

retain the 5 ppmdv at 8 percent O2 TRS 

emission limit for straight recovery 

furnaces with a conditional 1 percent 

monitoring allowance (see conditions 

discussed below) as the standard that 

has been adequately demonstrated. This 

limit would apply at all times, including 

during periods of startup and shutdown. 

The EPA did not identify a lower 

achievable TRS limit based on the data 

and, therefore, is proposing to maintain 

the current limit.4 The 1 percent 

monitoring allowance is proposed to be 

retained and can be used for operational 

variability as well as startup and 

shutdown periods. 

The EPA reviewed NSPS recovery 

furnace TRS CEMS datasets with startup 

and shutdown details to understand the 

effects of startup and shutdown on 

emissions. The EPA observed that 

periods of startup and shutdown can 

lead to a situation where continuously 

monitored TRS concentrations that are 

corrected to a specific percent O2 can be 

grossly inflated as a result of the O2

correction equation. As the stack gas O2

concentration approaches ambient 

conditions, the denominator of the O2

correction equation becomes very small, 

leading to an O2-corrected concentration 

that is artificially high, such that an 

otherwise-compliant TRS measurement 

can exceed the applicable concentration 

because it is corrected for O2. Periods 

when no BLS are fired into the recovery 

furnace seemed to lead to this O2- 

correction artifact. Nevertheless, the 

EPA observed that many mills complied 

with the 5 ppmdv limit with a 1 percent 

monitoring allowance regardless of 

startup and shutdown periods and 

process variability. The highest 

representative TRS 12-hour averages 

associated with startup or shutdown 

periods were on the order of 30 ppmdv 

at 8 percent O2 for three different CEMS. 

A value of 30 ppmdv also corresponds 

with the span setting for TRS monitors 

required in subpart BB. Based on these 

observations, the EPA is proposing to: 

(1) Restrict use of the 1 percent 

monitoring allowance to 12-hour TRS 

averages below an upper limit of 30 

ppmdv (to ensure that the 1 percent 

monitoring allowance is unquestionably 

continuous), (2) address the O2- 

correction issue by clarifying that the 

TRS concentration limit applies when 

black liquor is being fired into the 

recovery furnace and by adding 

language to the rule that would allow 

enforcement authorities to accept 

uncorrected TRS concentration values 

during startup and shutdown periods 

when stack O2 concentration 

approaches ambient levels. The EPA is 

seeking comment on this approach. In 

summary, the EPA is proposing to 

maintain the 5 ppmdv at 8 percent O2

TRS emission limit with a 1 percent 

monitoring allowance, not to exceed 30 

ppmdv. Subpart BB currently requires 

that the TRS monitoring allowance be 

calculated based on the percent of the 

total number of possible contiguous 

periods of excess emissions in a quarter. 

The EPA requests comment on this 

requirement, specifically whether a 

semiannual basis would be more 

appropriate based on the semiannual 

reporting requirement. 

3. Smelt Dissolving Tanks 

SDT PM. The current NSPS PM limit 

for SDTs (0.2 lb/ton BLS) was 

established in 1976 based on use of a 

low-energy water scrubber or a 

combination demister/low-energy water 

scrubber. Wire mesh demister pads were 

determined not to be as effective as lowenergy wet scrubbers in the 1986 NSPS 

review. The 1986 NSPS review 

concluded that no new control 

technology for SDTs had emerged since 

the original NSPS. The subpart MM 

NESHAP PM emission limit (which is a 

surrogate for HAP metals) for existing 

SDTs is equivalent to the NSPS limit of 

0.2 lb/ton BLS. The subpart MM 

NESHAP PM limit for new and 

reconstructed sources with initial 

startup in 2001 or later is 0.12 lb/ton 

BLS based on the use of a highefficiency wet scrubber. A SDT is only 

considered to be new or reconstructed 

under the subpart MM NESHAP if the 

associated recovery furnace is also new 

or reconstructed (see 40 CFR 63.860— 

applicability and designation of affected 

source). 

Analysis of recent SDT PM stack test 

data collected with the 2011 ICR shows 

that nearly all SDTs have achieved 0.2 

lb/ton BLS (with the exception of a few 

SDTs with mist eliminators and SDTs 

included in the PM bubble compliance 

option under the subpart MM NESHAP). 

Many SDTs have also achieved the new 

source MACT limit of 0.12 lb/ton BLS, 

without a federal requirement to do so. 

Therefore, the EPA considers a PM limit 

of 0.12 lb/ton BLS to be adequately 

demonstrated for new and reconstructed 

SDTs associated with new or 

reconstructed recovery furnaces. 

Because 0.12 lb/ton BLS is already 

required for new and reconstructed 

SDTs associated with new or 

reconstructed recovery furnaces under 

the subpart MM NESHAP, there would 

be no additional cost associated with 

applying this limit for new and 

reconstructed SDTs associated with new 

or reconstructed recovery furnaces 

under subpart BBa. For these reasons, 

the EPA is proposing to establish a limit 

of 0.12 lb/ton BLS for new and 

reconstructed SDTs associated with new 

or reconstructed recovery furnaces. 

The EPA also considered the control 

options for modified, and reconstructed 

and new SDTs not associated with a 

new or reconstructed recovery furnace. 

These units would not be required to 

meet a limit of 0.12 lb/ton by the 

subpart MM NESHAP. The EPA 

estimated the cost-effectiveness to 

reduce PM from existing SDTs that are 

modified to be $6,600/ton (in 2012 

dollars). This cost assumes that an 

owner or operator would automatically 

replace the existing scrubber with a new 

one upon modification because the 

scrubbers for the projected units have 

surpassed their useful life. However, if 

a new scrubber would not have been 

required in the absence of revised NSPS, 

the cost-effectiveness would increase to 

$15,500/ton. Similar cost effectiveness 

can be expected from SDTs that trigger 

the new source or reconstruction 

provisions under NSPS (independent of 

the recovery furnace) but do not meet 

the new source or reconstruction criteria 

under the subpart MM NESHAP (e.g., 

because the recovery furnace is 

included in the reconstruction capital 

cost calculation under the subpart MM 

NESHAP). Considering this relatively 

high cost effectiveness and that test data 

for several existing SDTs exceeds 0.12 

lb/ton BLS (as they are not currently 

required to meet 0.12 lb/ton BLS), the 

EPA is proposing to retain the current 

PM NSPS limit of 0.2 lb/ton BLS for 

SDTs that are modified, and for new or 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31326 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

5We note that the May 22, 1979, Federal Register 

notice (44 FR 29828) announcing availability of the 

final emissions guideline document for kraft pulp 

mills incorrectly stated that the emission guideline 

for SDT TRS was 0.168 lb/ton BLS, but the actual 

March 1979 emissions guideline document 

contained a guideline of 0.0168 lb/ton BLS. The 

emissions guidelines are used by states in setting 

standards for existing sources. 

reconstructed SDTs that are not 

associated with a new or reconstructed 

recovery furnace. 

SDT TRS. The current NSPS limits 

TRS emissions from SDTs to 0.033 lb as 

H2S/ton BLS (the ‘‘as H2S’’ represents 

how TRS is measured—we will refer to 

this as ‘‘lb/ton BLS’’ for the remainder 

of this section). This limit was raised 

from 0.0168 to 0.033 lb/ton BLS during 

the 1986 NSPS review because some 

SDTs with wet scrubbers could not meet 

the original 1976 limit of 0.0168 lb/ton 

BLS. Both of these limits were 

considered as regulatory options in the 

current NSPS review because the 

emissions guideline for existing SDTs 

remains at 0.0168 lb/ton BLS.5 The EPA 

intends to review these emission 

guidelines in the future to correct for 

this discrepancy. The technology basis 

for the current NSPS limit is the use of 

water that is not highly contaminated 

with dissolved sulfides for dissolving 

smelt and for scrubbing. A study 

conducted by the National Council for 

Air and Stream Improvement in 2005 

summarized 1990s SDT TRS emissions 

test data showing that the current NSPS 

emission limit of 0.033 lb/ton BLS could 

not be met consistently in a few cases, 

and that a lower limit of 0.0168 lb/ton 

BLS can be difficult to achieve for a 

number of existing SDTs. The inability 

for some units to consistently meet the 

more stringent limit is the result of 

plant-specific process variables. The 

analysis of approximately 100 recent 

TRS stack tests (most conducted in 2004 

or later) collected through the EPA’s 

2011 ICR showed that all of the SDTs 

tested were able to meet the current 

NSPS limit of 0.033 lb/ton BLS, but 

some of the SDTs were repeatedly 

unable to achieve the former limit of 

0.0168 lb/ton BLS. Thus, a limit of 0.033 

lb/ton BLS appears to be adequately 

demonstrated, while adequate 

demonstration of 0.0168 lb/ton BLS is 

questionable. The EPA estimated the 

cost effectiveness of scrubber upgrades 

that could aid in reduction of TRS 

emissions from SDTs to be $45,300/ton 

(in 2012 dollars). The EPA has no 

information to estimate additional 

process-change costs that may be 

incurred in order for some mills to 

achieve a limit of 0.0168 lb/ton BLS. 

The EPA also investigated limits 

between 0.033 lb/ton BLS and 0.0168 

lb/ton BLS, but costs for scrubber 

upgrades were assumed to be the same 

while emission reductions were less, 

therefore the most cost-effective option 

was 0.0168 lb/ton BLS. Considering the 

high cost of reducing the TRS limit to 

0.0168 (even without process-change 

costs) and that emissions data show a 

limit of 0.033 lb/ton BLS has been 

adequately demonstrated, the EPA is 

proposing the current subpart BB TRS 

limit of 0.033 lb/ton BLS as the standard 

for new, reconstructed and modified 

SDTs in subpart BBa. 

SDT scrubber monitoring. Monitoring 

of scrubber liquid supply pressure and 

pressure loss is specified in the current 

NSPS subpart BB for SDTs. For subpart 

BBa, the EPA is proposing that scrubber 

liquid flow rate and pressure drop be 

monitored consistent with the wet 

scrubber parameter monitoring 

requirements under subpart MM 

NESHAP. Scrubber liquid supply 

pressure is allowed as an alternative to 

scrubber liquid flow rate because some 

mills received approval to monitor 

scrubber liquid supply pressure 

(required under subpart BB) instead of 

scrubber liquid flow rate (required 

under subpart MM) following 

promulgation of subpart MM. Consistent 

with several EPA applicability 

determinations, the EPA is also 

proposing that SDT scrubber fan 

amperage may be used as an alternative 

to pressure drop measurement for SDT 

dynamic scrubbers operating at ambient 

pressure or for low-energy entrainment 

scrubbers on SDTs where the fan speed 

does not vary. The EPA is proposing a 

12-hour averaging time for wet scrubber 

parameters recorded at least once every 

15 minutes rather than retaining the 

current NSPS requirement to record wet 

scrubber parameters only once per shift. 

Excess emissions for SDTs would be 

defined in subpart BBa as any 12-hour 

scrubber parameter average below its 

respective site-specific parameter limits 

(established during performance testing) 

during times when BLS is fired. Data 

from the ICR indicate that facilities have 

difficulty meeting the minimum 

pressure drop requirement during 

startup and shutdown, as expected due 

to the reduced (and changing) 

volumetric flow of stack gases during 

startup and shutdown. The EPA is 

proposing to consider only scrubber 

liquid flow rate or liquid supply 

pressure during these periods (i.e., 

excess emissions would include any 12- 

hour period when BLS is fired that the 

scrubber flow rate [or liquid supply 

pressure] does not meet the minimum 

parameter limits set in the initial 

performance test). The EPA requests 

comment on the SDT scrubber 

parameter monitoring requirements, 

especially the recording frequency and 

the averaging time for wet scrubber 

parameters. 

4. Lime Kilns 

Lime kiln PM. New, modified and 

reconstructed lime kilns are required 

under subpart BB to meet a PM 

emission limit of 0.066 gr/dscf for 

gaseous fuel-fired kilns and 0.13 gr/dscf 

for liquid fuel-fired kilns, both at 10 

percent O2. However, a more stringent 

PM limit of 0.064 gr/dscf at 10 percent 

O2 is required for existing lime kilns 

under the subpart MM NESHAP. For 

new or reconstructed lime kilns, the 

NESHAP limit is 0.010 gr/dscf at 10 

percent O2 based on use of a highefficiency ESP. The NESHAP does not 

distinguish between fuel types. Lime 

kilns typically burn natural gas, fuel oil, 

petroleum coke or a combination of 

these fuels. They may also burn NCGs 

or pulp mill byproducts such as tall oil. 

Lime kiln air pollution control 

devices include wet scrubbers, ESPs, or 

a combination system including an ESP 

followed by a wet scrubber. Wet 

scrubbers were the most common 

control in 1986 when the NSPS was last 

reviewed and remain the most common 

lime kiln control system today. 

However, the number of lime kilns with 

ESPs or ESP/wet scrubber combinations 

is increasing. The ICR data indicate that, 

of 131 lime kilns in the U.S., 29 kilns 

have ESPs and 10 kilns have ESP/wet 

scrubber combinations. 

The EPA reviewed PM stack test data 

from more than 250 filterable PM stack 

tests (including several repeat tests) on 

110 lime kilns in the U.S. for purposes 

of reevaluating the NSPS PM limits for 

lime kilns. The tests included lime kilns 

with scrubbers, ESPs and ESP/wet 

scrubber combination controls and were 

representative of the various fuel 

combinations burned in lime kilns. 

Consistent with the NESHAP (subpart 

MM), the EPA found no reason to 

distinguish among fuel types for 

purposes of establishing a PM limit in 

subpart BBa. The EPA found that ESP 

and ESP/wet scrubber controls typically 

reduce PM to lower levels than wet 

scrubbers alone and that wet scrubbers 

would not be expected to meet the new 

source MACT limit of 0.010 gr/dscf at 

10 percent O2. The ESP/wet scrubber 

systems did not necessarily perform 

better on filterable PM than the ESPs 

alone. Several ESP and ESP/wet 

scrubber-controlled kilns consistently 

met the limit of 0.010 gr/dscf at 10 

percent O2. Therefore, the EPA is 

proposing a PM limit of 0.010 gr/dscf at 

10 percent O2 for new and reconstructed 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31327 

6See memorandum titled, ‘‘Review of the 

Continuous Emission Monitoring and Continuous 

Opacity Monitoring Data from the Pulp and Paper 

Information Collection Request Responses 

Pertaining to Subpart BB Sources’’ in the docket. 

lime kilns as the PM limit that has been 

adequately demonstrated. There are no 

incremental cost impacts or emissions 

reductions associated with a limit of 

0.010 gr/dscf at 10 percent O2 for new 

and reconstructed lime kilns because 

this limit is already required under 

subpart MM NESHAP. 

As noted above for recovery furnaces, 

lime kilns can trigger the NSPS 

provisions as a result of modification 

but would not trigger the new source 

MACT requirements because there are 

no modification provisions under the 

NESHAP (subpart MM) or the subpart A 

General Provisions for part 63 

standards. The EPA estimated the cost 

effectiveness of incremental 

improvements in ESP performance 

needed for modified lime kilns to meet 

0.010 gr/dscf to be $16,000/ton (in 2012 

dollars). This cost-effectiveness 

calculation assumes that modified kilns 

would have installed a new ESP to meet 

the current NSPS PM limit (because the 

kilns that were projected to be modified 

have scrubbers that have exceeded their 

useful equipment life). The EPA 

considered PM emission limits between 

0.010 gr/dscf and 0.064 gr/dscf, 

however, the costs for air pollution 

control device upgrades remained the 

same, therefore 0.010 gr/dscf was the 

most cost effective option. With the high 

cost (poor cost effectiveness) of further 

PM reductions and the potential for 

some modified lime kilns to be unable 

to achieve 0.010 gr/dscf without new 

controls, the EPA is proposing the 

existing source MACT limit of 0.064 gr/ 

dscf at 10 percent O2 for modified lime 

kilns under subpart BBa. 

Lime kiln opacity and parameter 

monitoring. Monitoring of scrubber 

liquid supply pressure and pressure loss 

(drop) is specified in the current NSPS 

subpart BB for lime kilns controlled by 

wet scrubbers. For subpart BBa, the EPA 

is proposing that scrubber liquid flow 

rate (or liquid supply pressure) and 

pressure drop be monitored consistent 

with the wet scrubber parameter 

monitoring requirements under subpart 

MM NESHAP. Liquid supply pressure is 

an indicator of flow rate, therefore either 

can be monitored. 

While subpart BB specifies wet 

scrubber parameter monitoring 

requirements for lime kilns, it does not 

specify any requirements for lime kilns 

controlled with ESPs or ESP/scrubber 

combinations. The EPA is proposing to 

add requirements to subpart BBa for 

monitoring lime kiln opacity and ESP 

operating parameters (secondary voltage 

and secondary current, or total 

secondary power) for lime kilns 

controlled by ESPs alone. When an 

opacity monitor is used, the ESP 

parameters would be averaged over the 

same calendar quarter used for 

determining the opacity monitoring 

allowance. For ESP/scrubber 

combination controls, the EPA is 

proposing to add 12-hour average ESP 

parameter monitoring requirements in 

addition to the wet scrubber parameter 

monitoring requirements. The EPA is 

proposing a 12-hour averaging time for 

wet scrubber parameters recorded at 

least once every 15 minutes (instead of 

the current NSPS requirement to record 

wet scrubber parameters only once per 

shift). Excess emissions for lime kilns 

with ESP/scrubber combination controls 

would be any 12-hour block ESP or 

scrubber parameter below its respective 

site-specific limit (established during 

the performance test) during times when 

lime mud is fired in the kiln. As with 

SDT scrubbers, the EPA is proposing to 

consider only scrubber liquid flow rate 

(or supply pressure) during periods of 

startup and shutdown (i.e., excess 

emissions would include any 12-hour 

period when lime mud is fired that the 

scrubber flow rate [or liquid supply 

pressure] does not meet the minimum 

parameter limits set in the initial 

performance test). The EPA requests 

comment on the 12-hour averaging time 

specified for ESP and scrubber 

parameters, and whether a 3-hour 

averaging time (such as that specified 

under the subpart MM NESHAP for wet 

scrubber parameters) would be more 

appropriate and adequately account for 

periods of process variability in the 

absence of a monitoring allowance (such 

as that specified under the subpart MM 

NESHAP for wet scrubber parameters). 

The subpart MM NESHAP requires 

continuous opacity monitoring for lime 

kilns and specifies 20 percent as the 

opacity level where corrective action is 

required for both new and existing 

kilns. The NESHAP (subpart MM) 

contains an opacity monitoring 

allowance where 6 percent of the 6- 

minute opacity averages may exceed the 

20 percent limit without being 

considered a violation. 

The EPA is proposing opacity 

monitoring for lime kilns with ESPs 

alone under subpart BBa based on our 

review of COMS data for 27 lime kilns 

that show 20 percent opacity has been 

adequately demonstrated under periods 

of normal operation and during startup 

and shutdown. The COMS data were 

used to evaluate the 6 percent 

monitoring allowance for lime kiln 

opacity under the NESHAP (subpart 

MM).6 The COMS data show that the 

majority of existing lime kilns are 

meeting a 20 percent opacity limit based 

on a 6-minute average, with fewer than 

1 percent of averaging periods 

exceeding 20 percent opacity, including 

periods of startup and shutdown. 

Therefore, the EPA is proposing a 1 

percent monitoring allowance for 

opacity for ESP-controlled lime kilns. 

As with recovery furnaces, the potential 

for brief high-level spikes in ESPcontrolled lime kiln opacity can be 

accommodated with a 1 percent 

monitoring allowance with no upper 

limit on opacity. To ensure continuous 

compliance with the PM limit, the EPA 

is proposing that the quarterly average 

of lime kiln ESP parameters be above 

the site-specific minimum parametric 

monitor values established during the 

PM performance test in order for the 

lime kiln opacity 1 percent monitoring 

allowance to be used. To be consistent 

with current monitoring requirements 

for opacity and TRS from recovery 

furnaces, the EPA is proposing that the 

monitoring allowance for lime kiln 

opacity be calculated based on the 

percent of the total number of possible 

contiguous periods of excess emissions 

in a quarter. The EPA requests comment 

on this requirement, specifically 

whether a semiannual basis would be 

more appropriate based on the 

semiannual reporting requirement of 

subpart BB. 

Lime kiln TRS. Lime kiln TRS 

emissions are limited by the current 

NSPS to 8 ppmdv at 10 percent O2. The 

EPA analyzed 1 year of TRS CEMS data 

for most lime kilns as part of our NSPS 

review. The EPA found that that there 

is no clear distinction in lime kiln TRS 

emissions for the different control 

devices that are used (wet scrubbers, 

ESPs or ESP/wet scrubber 

combinations). This affirms that process 

factors (e.g., mud washing, use of 

uncontaminated scrubber water and 

NCG burning) are likely to have a 

greater effect on lime kiln TRS 

emissions than control device type. Use 

of caustic (alkaline) scrubbing liquid in 

the lime kiln scrubber may reduce 

emissions of two of the four TRS 

compounds (H2S and methyl mercaptan, 

which are acidic compounds) but would 

not reduce emissions of dimethyl 

sulfide and dimethyl disulfide, which 

are neutral compounds. The EPA 

considered whether NCG burning or 

white liquor scrubbing of NCG streams 

prior to the lime kiln significantly alters 

lime kiln TRS emissions and found no 

conclusive evidence of increased lime 

kiln TRS emissions due to NCG burning 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31328 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

or significantly decreased lime kiln TRS 

due to NCG pre-scrubbing. 

The CEMS data reviewed show that, 

while most existing lime kilns (i.e., 

those kilns that are not subject to the 

NSPS) achieved the 8 ppmdv NSPS 

limit on an annual average basis, several 

existing kilns controlled by wet 

scrubbers and two existing kilns with 

ESPs exceeded 8 ppmdv for a relatively 

high percentage of 12-hour averaging 

periods. The TRS NSPS for lime kilns is 

more stringent that the emissions 

guideline for existing kilns that have not 

triggered NSPS, therefore a more 

focused review of the 8 ppmdv limit on 

only those kilns that are required to 

meet that limit under the NSPS was 

performed. 

All of the lime kilns subject to NSPS 

met the 8 ppmdv limit on an annual 

average basis, regardless of control 

device type; however, compliance is not 

based on an annual average. In a given 

year, 730 12-hour average values are 

generated by TRS CEMS for comparison 

to the emission limit. The 99th 

percentile of the 12-hour averages for 

most NSPS kilns was near to or below 

8 ppmdv limit, and most NSPS kilns 

had less than 1 percent of averaging 

periods that exceeded the 12-hour 

average 8 ppmdv limit, including 

periods of startup and shutdown. The 

data did not show that a lower TRS 

limit is consistently achieved in 

practice, therefore the EPA is proposing 

to maintain the TRS emission limit of 8 

ppmdv at 10 percent O2. The EPA is 

also proposing a 1 percent monitoring 

allowance to account for process-related 

factors that lead to variability in lime 

kiln TRS emissions. 

The EPA also reviewed the TRS 

CEMS data to determine the impact of 

continuously applying the 8 ppmdv 

limit to startup and shutdown periods 

in addition to normal operations. 

Twenty of 31 TRS CEMS datasets with 

startup and shutdown details contained 

no exceedances of the 12-hour 8 ppmdv 

limit, suggesting that compliance with 

the 8 ppmdv limit during startup and 

shutdown has been demonstrated at 

many mills. The maximum number of 

12-hour averages where the 8 ppmdv 

limit was exceeded by any mill was 

eight. Eight of 730 possible 12-hour 

blocks in a year corresponds to 1.1 

percent of possible averaging periods (8/ 

730 = 1.1 percent). An upper limit 12- 

hour average of 22 ppmdv appears to 

adequately represent the TRS 

concentration that has been achieved in 

practice considering process variability 

and startup and shutdown events. To be 

consistent with current monitoring 

requirements for opacity and TRS from 

recovery furnaces, the EPA is proposing 

that the monitoring allowance for lime 

kiln TRS be calculated based on the 

percent of the total number of possible 

contiguous periods of excess emissions 

in a quarter. The EPA requests comment 

on this requirement, specifically 

whether a semiannual basis would be 

more appropriate based on the 

semiannual reporting requirement of 

subpart BBa. 

Considering the findings described 

above, the EPA proposes for subpart 

BBa that the current 8 ppmdv limit with 

a 1 percent monitoring allowance has 

been adequately demonstrated during 

normal operations and startup and 

shutdown. To ensure that the standard 

with a monitoring allowance is a 

continuous standard, the EPA is 

proposing to restrict use of the 1 percent 

monitoring allowance with an upper 

limit of 22 ppmdv. Mills would not 

violate the standard if they exceed 8 

ppmdv with their TRS monitors for no 

more than 1 percent of the averaging 

periods (up to 7 averaging periods per 

year) as long as the 12-hour average 

emissions for each of those periods does 

not exceed 22 ppmdv. As discussed 

above, the EPA is proposing a provision 

where TRS concentrations uncorrected 

for O2 may be considered to avoid the 

situation were near-ambient stack 

oxygen levels that could occur during 

startup and shutdown lead to seemingly 

non-compliant TRS concentrations by 

virtue of the O2 correction equation. 

5. Periods of Startup, Shutdown and 

Malfunction 

Periods of startup or shutdown. In 

reviewing the standards in this rule, and 

in proposing 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 proposed alternate standards for 

those periods. Instead, the EPA has 

proposed standards that apply at all 

times, including startup and shutdown 

periods. Continuous opacity and TRS 

emissions monitoring are used to 

indicate ongoing compliance with the 

PM and TRS emission limits. In 

developing proposed standards for 

subpart BBa, the EPA reviewed 

numerous continuous opacity and TRS 

monitoring datasets that included 

periods of startup and shutdown, and 

the affected units will be able to comply 

with the proposed standards at all 

times. The EPA is also proposing a 

provision that would allow enforcement 

authorities to consider an alternative 

compliance calculation that allows TRS 

emissions to be uncorrected for O2

during startup and shutdown periods 

because the O2 correction equation 

could cause an otherwise-compliant 

TRS measurement to exceed the 

applicable concentration emission limit 

when O2 levels in the stack approach 

ambient conditions. 

Incinerator temperature, ESP and wet 

scrubber parameter monitoring are also 

required under the proposed NSPS 

subpart BBa. Parameter limits apply at 

all times, including during startup and 

shutdown. Incinerator temperature is to 

be recorded at least once every 5 

minutes. Wet scrubber and ESP 

operating parameters are to be recorded 

at least once every 15 minutes. In 

addition to specifying a 3-hour block 

averaging time for incinerator 

temperature monitors, the EPA is 

proposing to define excess emissions as 

periods where the minimum 

temperature of 1200 °F is not met when 

TRS emissions are not fired (i.e., periods 

when an incinerator is not burning TRS 

such as during warm-up and cool-down 

or when an alternative control device is 

used, would not be considered 

violations). The ESP and scrubber 

parameters are to be averaged over a 12- 

hour block (except for ESPs with COMS, 

which would have ESP parameters 

averaged quarterly). To address the need 

for ESPs to warm to a specified 

temperature (typically above 200 °F) 

before full power is applied to the 

transformer-rectifier set, the EPA is 

proposing to define excess emissions as 

ESP parameter measurements below the 

minimum requirements during times 

when BLS or lime mud is fired (as 

applicable) based on several responses 

to the ICR indicating that mills with ESP 

minimum temperature requirements 

bring the ESP online before introducing 

BLS or lime mud into the recovery 

furnace or lime kiln, respectively. The 

EPA is also proposing language that 

would allow affected units 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. 

The EPA solicits comment on whether 

the proposal to apply these standards at 

all times is practicable and achievable. 

In particular, the EPA notes that the 

General Provisions in part 60 require 

facilities to keep records of the 

occurrence and duration of any startup, 

shutdown or malfunction (40 CFR 

60.7(b)) and either report to the EPA any 

period of excess emissions that occurs 

during periods of startup, shutdown or 

malfunction (40 CFR 60.7(c)(2)) or 

report that no excess emissions occurred 

(40 CFR 60.7(c)(4)). In light of this 

requirement, comments that contend 

that sources cannot meet the proposed 

standard during startup and shutdown 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31329 

periods should include data and other 

specifics supporting this claim. 

Periods of malfunction. Periods of 

startup, normal operations and 

shutdown are all predictable and 

routine aspects of a source’s operations. 

However, by contrast, ‘‘malfunction 

means 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 that occur 

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. Section 111 of the CAA 

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 avoid 

malfunctions and to minimize 

emissions during malfunction periods, 

including preventative and corrective 

actions, as well as root cause analyses 

to determine, correct and eliminate the 

primary causes of the malfunction and 

the violation resulting from the 

malfunction event at issue. 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, proposing to add an 

affirmative defense to civil penalties for 

violations of emission standards 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 are also proposing 

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 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 and or careless 

operation). For example, to successfully 

assert the 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 

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, 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 an affirmative 

defense in the proposed rule 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 section 111 

emissions standards are continuous. 

The affirmative defense for malfunction 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31330 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

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, 2013 U.S. App. 

LEXIS 6397 (5th Cir. Mar. 25, 2013) 

(upholding the EPA’s approval of 

affirmative defense provisions in a CAA 

State Implementation Plan). While 

‘‘continuous’’ standards, on the one 

hand, 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 D.C. 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 intervening case law 

such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 

1977 amendments call into question the 

relevance of these cases today, they 

support the EPA’s view that a system 

that incorporates some level of 

flexibility is reasonable. The affirmative 

defense simply provides for a defense to 

civil penalties for violations that are 

proven to be beyond the control of the 

source. By incorporating an affirmative 

defense, the EPA has formalized its 

approach to malfunctions. In a 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 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. 

B. What testing requirements is the EPA 

proposing? 

As part of an ongoing effort to 

improve compliance with federal air 

emission regulations, the EPA reviewed 

the current testing requirements of 

subpart BB and is proposing the testing 

requirements for subpart BBa be 

different from subpart BB in the 

following ways. First, the EPA is 

proposing to require repeat air 

emissions performance testing once 

every 5 years for facilities subject to 

NSPS subpart BBa. Repeat performance 

tests are already required by permitting 

authorities for some facilities. Further, 

the EPA believes that requiring periodic 

repeat performance tests will help to 

ensure that control systems are properly 

maintained over time. Today’s proposal 

would require repeat air emissions 

testing for filterable PM, condensable 

PM and TRS once every 60 months (5 

years) for recovery furnaces, SDTs and 

lime kilns. The EPA added condensable 

PM to the list of pollutants to test to 

develop a broader understanding of 

condensable PM emissions from pulp 

and paper combustion sources and to 

determine mechanisms for reducing 

condensable PM, as discussed in section 

IV.B above. 

Second, the EPA is proposing to 

include 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 

promulgated on July 30, 2012 (77 FR 

44488). 

C. What notification, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements is the EPA 

proposing? 

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 reports of 

performance tests and excess emissions. 

The frequency of reporting is 

semiannually as specified in 40 CFR 

60.7(c). 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements are being proposed as 

separate sections for subpart BBa. Under 

this proposal, owners/operators subject 

to subpart BBa would be 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 would be 

required to report all exceedances of the 

standard, including exceedances that 

are the result of a malfunction. The 

proposed malfunction recordkeeping 

requirements would 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. 

Under this proposal, owners/ 

operators would be required to report all 

performance tests, results and excess 

emissions. The frequency of reporting 

for subpart BBa would be semiannually, 

the same as for subpart BB, and 

consistent with the NESHAP 

requirement. Further, we are proposing 

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. 

The proposed subpart BBa also 

includes a requirement for electronic 

reporting of performance test data, as 

discussed below. 

Electronic Reporting Tool. In this 

proposal, the EPA is describing a 

process to increase the ease and 

efficiency of performance test data 

submittal while improving data 

accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing that owners and operators of 

kraft pulp mills submit electronic copies 

of required performance test and 

performance evaluation reports by 

direct computer-to-computer electronic 

transfer using EPA-provided software. 

The direct computer-to-computer 

electronic transfer is accomplished 

through the EPA’s CDX using the 

CEDRI. The Central Data Exchange is 

the EPA’s portal for submittal of 

electronic data. The EPA-provided 

software is called the ERT which is used 

to generate electronic reports of 

performance tests and evaluations. The 

ERT generates an electronic report 

package which will be submitted using 

the CEDRI. The submitted report 

package will be stored in the CDX 

archive (the official copy of record) and 

the EPA’s public database called 

WebFIRE. All stakeholders will have 

access to all reports and data in 

WebFIRE and accessing these reports 

and data will be very straightforward 

and easy (see the WebFIRE Report 

Search and Retrieval link at http://

cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?

action=fire.searchERTSubmission). A 

description and instructions for use of 

the ERT can be found at http://www.

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


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31331 

The proposal 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. 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. 

We believe that industry would 

benefit from this proposed approach to 

electronic data submittal. Specifically, 

by using this approach, industry will 

save time in the performance test 

submittal process. Additionally, the 

standardized format that the ERT uses 

allows sources to create a more 

complete test report resulting in less 

time spent on data backfilling if a source 

failed to include all data elements 

required to be submitted. Also through 

this proposal, industry may only need to 

submit a report once to meet the 

requirements of the applicable subpart 

because stakeholders can readily access 

these reports from the WebFIRE 

database. This also benefits industry by 

cutting back on recordkeeping costs as 

the performance test reports that are 

submitted to the EPA using CEDRI are 

no longer required to be retained in hard 

copy, thereby, reducing staff time 

needed to coordinate these records. 

Since the EPA will already have 

performance test data in hand, another 

benefit to industry is that fewer or less 

substantial data collection requests in 

conjunction with prospective required 

residual risk assessments or technology 

reviews will be needed. This would 

result in a decrease in staff time needed 

to respond to data collection requests. 

State, local and tribal air pollution 

control agencies may also benefit from 

having electronic versions of the reports 

they are now receiving. For example, 

these agencies may be able to conduct 

a more streamlined and accurate review 

of electronic data submitted to them. 

For example, the ERT would allow for 

an electronic review process, rather than 

a manual data assessment, therefore, 

making review and evaluation of the 

source provided data and calculations 

easier and more efficient. In addition, 

the public stands to benefit from 

electronic reporting of emissions data 

because the electronic data will be 

easier for the public to access. How the 

air emissions data are collected, 

accessed and reviewed will be more 

transparent for all stakeholders. 

One major advantage of the proposed 

submittal of performance test data 

through the ERT is a standardized 

method to compile and store much of 

the documentation required to be 

reported by this rule. The ERT clearly 

states what testing information would 

be required by the test method and has 

the ability to house additional data 

elements that might be required by a 

delegated authority. 

In addition the EPA must have 

performance test data to conduct 

effective reviews of CAA section 111 

standards, as well as for many other 

purposes including compliance 

determinations, emission factor 

development and annual emission rate 

determinations. In conducting these 

required reviews, the EPA has found it 

ineffective and time consuming, not 

only for us, but also for regulatory 

agencies and source owners and 

operators, to locate, collect, and submit 

performance test data. In recent years, 

though, stack testing firms have 

typically collected performance test data 

in electronic format, making it possible 

to move to an electronic data submittal 

system that would increase the ease and 

efficiency of data submittal and improve 

data accessibility. 

A common complaint heard from 

industry and regulators is that emission 

factors are outdated or not 

representative of a particular source 

category. With timely receipt and 

incorporation of data from most 

performance tests, the EPA would be 

able to ensure that emission factors, 

when updated, represent the most 

current range of operational practices. 

Finally, another benefit of the proposed 

data submittal to WebFIRE 

electronically is that these data would 

greatly improve the overall quality of 

existing and new emissions factors by 

supplementing the pool of emissions 

test data for establishing emissions 

factors. 

In summary, in addition to supporting 

regulation development, control strategy 

development and other air pollution 

control activities, having an electronic 

database populated with performance 

test data would 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. 

D. Other Miscellaneous Differences 

Between the Proposed Subpart BBa and 

the Current Subpart BB 

The following lists additional, minor 

differences between the current subpart 

BB NSPS and the proposed rule BBa. 

This list includes proposed rule 

differences that address editorial and 

other corrections. 

(1) § 60.17 incorporates by reference 

ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981; 

(2) Alphabetized definitions and 

removed paragraph numbers in 

§ 60.281a; 

(3) Definitions for affirmative defense, 

condensable PM, filterable PM, and 

monitoring system malfunction in 

§ 60.281a; 

(4) Text makes clear that the PM 

emission limits in § 60.282a and the 

Method 5 PM emission test in § 60.285a 

actually refer to filterable PM, to avoid 

confusion with the inclusion of Method 

202 condensable PM testing; and 

(5) Referenced the specific appendices 

in parts 51 and 60 for EPA test methods 

cited in § 60.285a. 

(6) Used ‘‘must’’ instead of ‘‘shall’’ 

throughout subpart BBa consistent with 

plain language guidance. 

(7) The span of O2 monitoring systems 

is 21 percent instead of 25 percent in 

§ 60.284a so air can be used instead of 

a calibration gas in span checks. 

(8) Text makes clear that only ‘‘one 

of’’ the conditions in § 60.283a(1) needs 

to be met. 

(9) Mentioned performance 

specifications 1 and 5 in § 60.284a(a)(1) 

and (2) in addition to § 60.284a(f). 

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, 

Energy, and Economic Impacts of These 

Proposed Standards 

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. 

A. What are the impacts for new, 

modified, and reconstructed emission 

units at kraft pulp mills? 

The EPA is presenting estimates of the 

impacts for the proposed 40 CFR part 

60, subpart BBa that revises the 

performance standards for new, 

modified, or reconstructed emission 

units at kraft pulp mills. The impacts 

presented in this section are expressed 

as incremental differences between the 

impacts of emission units complying 

with the proposed subpart BBa and the 

baseline (NSPS subpart BB or NESHAP 

subpart MM) requirements for these 

sources. The impacts are presented for 

emission units at kraft pulp mills that 

commence construction, reconstruction 

or modification over the 5 years 

following proposal of the revised NSPS 

(subpart BBa). Costs are based on the 

third quarter of 2012. The analyses and 

the documents referenced below can be 

found in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. 

In order to determine the incremental 

impacts of this proposed rule, the EPA 

first projected the number of new, 

modified, or reconstructed emission 

units that would become subject to 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31332 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

regulation during the 5-year period after 

proposal of subpart BBa. Extrapolating 

from the number of recovery furnaces, 

SDTs and lime kilns that have been 

constructed, modified, or reconstructed 

during the 10-year period preceding the 

base-year 2009 pulp and paper ICR 

conducted in 2011 (1999 to 2009), an 

estimated 19 emission units (8 recovery 

furnaces, 8 SDTs and 3 lime kilns) at 10 

kraft pulp mills are expected to be 

constructed, modified, or reconstructed 

in the 5-year period after proposal of 

subpart BBa (2013 to 2018). For further 

detail on the methodology of these 

calculations, see the memorandum, 

Projections of the Number of New, 

Modified, and Reconstructed Emission 

Units for the Kraft Pulp Mill NSPS 

Review, in the docket for this proposed 

rulemaking. 

The proposed subpart BBa emission 

limits reflect the performance of control 

technologies currently in use by the 

industry. The proposed NSPS PM and 

TRS limits under subpart BBa for 

modified emission units and the 

proposed NSPS TRS limits under 

subpart BBa for new and reconstructed 

emission units are the same as the 

subpart BB limits. Consequently, there 

are no emission control costs or 

emissions reductions associated with 

these proposed requirements. The 

proposed NSPS PM limits under subpart 

BBa for new and reconstructed emission 

units are the same as the PM limits 

under the NESHAP (subpart MM) for 

new sources. As a result, the air 

pollution control systems that these 

sources would install to meet the 

NESHAP (subpart MM) limits could be 

used to meet the proposed NSPS PM 

limits, with no additional emission 

control cost or emissions reduction. 

There are differences in the testing, 

monitoring, reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements under 

subpart BB and the proposed subpart 

BBa that would result in increased 

costs. The additional testing 

requirements for recovery furnaces, 

SDTs and lime kilns under subpart BBa 

include initial testing for condensable 

PM and 5-year repeat testing for 

filterable PM, condensable PM and TRS, 

and sources would need to submit 

documentation of these additional tests. 

While the continuous monitoring 

requirements for opacity and wet 

scrubbers in subpart BBa are already 

incurred at baseline (resulting in zero 

incremental cost), subpart BBa would 

restrict use of the TRS monitoring 

allowances to an upper ppmdv limit 

which would have an associated cost. 

Additional monitoring costs would also 

be incurred for ESP parameter 

monitoring. The recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements for subpart BBa 

would include records of the occurrence 

and duration of startup and shutdown 

and the inclusion of records of a failure 

to meet a standard in otherwise required 

periodic reports. 

The EPA estimates that the total 

increase in nationwide annual cost 

associated with this proposed rule is 

$389,900 for the emission units 

projected to be constructed, modified, or 

reconstructed between 2013 and 2018. 

The methodology is detailed in the 

memorandum, Emissions Inventory for 

Kraft Pulp Mills and Costs/Impacts of 

the Section 111(b) Review of the Kraft 

Pulp Mills NSPS, in the docket for this 

proposed rulemaking. 

B. What are the secondary impacts for 

new, modified, and reconstructed 

emission units at kraft pulp mills? 

Indirect or secondary air emissions 

impacts are impacts that would result 

from the increased electricity usage 

associated with the operation of control 

devices (i.e., increased secondary 

emissions of criteria pollutants from 

power plants). Energy impacts consist of 

the electricity and steam needed to 

operate control devices and other 

equipment that would be required 

under this proposed rule. No additional 

control devices or other equipment are 

expected to be needed to meet the 

proposed NSPS requirements beyond 

those that would already be installed to 

meet the baseline requirements for these 

emission units. Thus, no secondary 

impacts are expected. 

C. What are the economic impacts for 

new, modified, and reconstructed 

emission units at kraft pulp mills? 

The EPA performed an economic 

impact analysis that estimates changes 

in prices and output for emission units 

nationally using the annual compliance 

costs estimated for this proposed rule. 

All estimates are for the fifth year after 

proposal since this is the year for which 

the compliance cost impacts are 

estimated. The proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed rule have 

been submitted for approval to OMB 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR document 

prepared by the EPA has been assigned 

the EPA ICR number 2485.01. 

These proposed 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 proposed 

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 III.B 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31333 

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 standard 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 rule, the EPA is considering 

the affirmative defense in its estimate of 

burden in the 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 

record 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 emissions 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 emissions 

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 per year. 

The annual O&M costs are $155,880. 

The total annualized capital and O&M 

costs are $567,180 per year. Burden is 

defined at 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 

numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40 

CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. 

To comment on the agency’s need for 

this information, the accuracy of the 

provided burden estimates and any 

suggested methods for minimizing 

respondent burden, the EPA has 

established a public docket for this rule, 

which includes this ICR, under Docket 

ID Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640. 

Submit any comments related to the ICR 

to the EPA and OMB. See ADDRESSES

section at the beginning of this notice 

for where to submit comments to the 

EPA. Send comments to OMB at the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 

Office for the EPA. Since OMB is 

required to make a decision concerning 

the ICR between 30 and 60 days after 

May 23, 2013, a comment to OMB is 

best assured of having its full effect if 

OMB receives it by June 24, 2013. The 

final rule will respond to any OMB or 

public comments on the information 

collection requirements contained in 

this proposal. 

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 (SISNOSE). 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small organizations and small 

governmental jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this 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 proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a SISNOSE. 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 proposed rule. The EPA estimates 

that all affected small entities will have 

annualized costs of less than 0.1 percent 

of their sales. The EPA concludes that 

there is no SISNOSE for this rule. 

For more information on the small 

entity impacts associated with this 

proposed rule, please refer to the 

Economic Impact and Small Business 

Analyses in the public docket. Although 

this proposed rule would not have a 

SISNOSE, the EPA nonetheless tried to 

reduce the impact of this proposed rule 

on small entities. When developing 

these proposed 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. The EPA 

continues to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This rule does not contain a federal 

mandate that may result in expenditures 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31334 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

of $100 million or more for state, local 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or to the private sector in any 1 year. 

This proposed rule is not expected to 

impact state, local or tribal 

governments. The nationwide 

annualized cost of this proposed rule for 

affected industrial sources is estimated 

to be $389,900/yr. Thus, this rule is not 

subject to the requirements of sections 

202 and 205 of the UMRA. 

This 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 

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 proposal will 

supersede state regulations. Thus, 

Executive Order 13132 does not apply 

to this proposed rule. In the spirit of 

Executive Order 13132, and consistent 

with the EPA policy to promote 

communications between the EPA and 

state and local governments, the EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

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 proposed 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 

proposed 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. The 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

The EPA interprets Executive Order 

13045 (62 F.R. 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 technology performance. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution or Use 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ as defined in 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 NTTAA of 1995, 

Public Law 104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 

note), directs the EPA to use 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 proposed rulemaking involves 

technical standards. The EPA proposes 

to use one VCS in this proposed rule. 

The VCS, ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue 

and Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ is cited in 

this proposed 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), P.O. Box 

2900, Fairfield, NJ 07007–2900; or at 

Global Engineering Documents, Sales 

Department, 15 Inverness Way East, 

Englewood, CO 80112. 

The EPA has identified two other VCS 

as being potentially applicable to this 

proposed 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 rule currently 

provides the use of continuous opacity 

monitors as an alternate 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 alternate 

for only the manual portion and not the 

instrumental portion of Method 16A. 

Given that sources are already allowed 

four EPA methods for measuring TRS 

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

that the VCS is only partially applicable, 

the EPA has decided not to use this VCS 

in this rulemaking. See the docket for 

this proposed rule for the reasons for 

these determinations. 

The EPA welcomes comments on this 

aspect of the proposed rulemaking and 

specifically invites the public to identify 

potentially applicable VCS and to 

explain why such standards should be 

used in this regulation. 

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 

proposed 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31335 

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 

3 miles of any source potentially 

affected by this rulemaking. This 

segment of the population exceeds the 

national average by 5 percentage points 

(18 percent vs. 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 is 

expected to better inform the agency of 

the emissions associated with this 

source category. This will ensure better 

compliance with this 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). 

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: May 14, 2013. 

Bob Perciasepe, 

Acting EPA Administrator. 

40 CFR part 60 is proposed to be 

amended 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 

revising paragraph (h)(4) to read as 

follows: 

§ 60.17 Incorporations by reference. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(4) ANSI/ASME 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), § 60.104a(d), (h), 

(i), and (j), § 60.105a(d), (f), and (g), 

§ 60.106(e), § 60.106a(a), § 60.107a(a), 

(c), and (e), § 60.285a(f), tables 1 and 3 

of subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of 

subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, 

§ 60.2145(s), § 60.2145(t), § 60.2710(s), 

§ 60.2710(t), § 60.2710(w), § 60.2730(q), 

§ 60.4415(a), § 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). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 60.280 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b) to read as follows: 

§ 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. 

§ 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 of this part. 

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 oxidation system means 

the vessels used to oxidize, with air or 

oxygen, the black liquor, and associated 

storage tank(s). 

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. 

Condensable particulate matter, for 

purposes of this subpart, means 

particulate matter measured by EPA 

Method 202 of Appendix M of part 51 

of this chapter 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, 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31336 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

used to strip, with air or steam, 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), 

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. 

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. 

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 

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 must 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 g/dscm (0.044 

gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen. 

(ii) Exhibit 20 percent opacity or 

greater, where an electrostatic 

precipitator (ESP) emission control 

device is used. 

(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. 

(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 g/kg black liquor solids (dry weight) 

[0.2 lb/ton 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 black liquor solids (dry 

weight) [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. 

(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. 

(b) The standards in this section apply 

at all times. 

(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 ppm by volume on 

a dry basis, corrected to 10 percent 

oxygen, unless one of the following 

conditions are met: 

(i) The gases are combusted in a lime 

kiln subject to the provisions of either 

paragraph (a)(5) of this section or 

§ 60.283(a)(5) of subpart BB of this part; 

or 

(ii) The gases are combusted in a 

recovery furnace subject to the 

provisions of either paragraphs (a)(2) or 

(a)(3) of this section or § 60.283(a)(2) or 

(a)(3) of subpart BB of this part; or 

(iii) The gases are 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31337 

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 air dried pulp (ADP) (0.01 lb/ 

ton 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 black liquor solids as H2S 

(0.033 lb/ton black liquor solids as 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) The standards in this section apply 

at all times. 

§ 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 

CFR part 60. These systems must be 

located downstream of the control 

device(s) and 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, black 

liquor oxidation 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31338 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

under paragraph (c)(1) 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 concentration 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 measured 12-hour average 

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) 

and liquid flow rate (or liquid supply 

pressure), as applicable. 

(ii) Calculate quarterly 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 

concentration 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. 

(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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31339 

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 and 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). 

(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 a quarter does not exceed: 

(i) One percent for TRS emissions 

from recovery furnaces, provided that 

the 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 averaged over the 

quarter remained above the minimum 

operating limits established during the 

performance test. 

(iii) One percent for TRS emissions 

from lime kilns, provided that the 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) 

averaged over the quarter remained 

above the minimum operating limits 

established during the performance test. 

(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 TRS concentration 

uncorrected for oxygen may be 

considered when determining 

compliance with the excess emissions 

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

(iii) of this section during periods of 

startup or shutdown when stack oxygen 

percentage approaches ambient 

conditions. If the measured 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 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. 

(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 60 months 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 part 51 

of this chapter. 

(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, 

dscm/hr (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 60 months following the previous 

performance test using the procedures 

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

section must be conducted within 60 

months following the previous filterable 

particulate matter performance test. 

(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 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. 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
31340 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

(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(d)(1)) must be 

used to determine sodium sulfide, 

sodium 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 = 100 CNa2S/(CNa2SCNaOHCNa2CO3) 

Where: 

GLS = green liquor sulfidity, percent. 

CNa2S = concentration of Na2S as Na2O, mg/ 

liter (gr/gal). 

CNaOH = concentration of NaOH as Na2O, mg/ 

liter (gr/gal). 

CNa2CO3 = concentration of Na2CO3 as Na2O, 

mg/ liter (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 60 months 

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 

(a)(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/m3- 

ppm (8.846 × 10¥8 lb H2S/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 60 months 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 [Part 10] (incorporated by 

reference—see § 60.17(h)(4)) 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 emissions 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 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / Proposed Rules 31341 

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). 

(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 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, black liquor 

oxidation system, or condensate stripper 

system where the provisions of 

§ 60.283a(a)(1)(iii) apply. 

(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. At 

the discretion of the delegated authority, 

you must also submit these reports, 

including the confidential business 

information, 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. 2013–12081 Filed 5–22–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS