Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review
Posted Date: 2013-05-23T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31315-31341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12081]

[[Page 31315]]

Vol. 78

Thursday,

No. 100

May 23, 2013

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 60

Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 100 / Thursday, May 23, 2013 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 31316]]

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

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

[[Page 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 
non-opacity 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

[[Page 31318]]

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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Capital cost   Annual cost ($
                           Requirement                             ($ thousand)      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:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of  regulated
           Category            NAICS code \1\           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

[[Page 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:

[[Page 31320]]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           40 CFR 60.282 Particulate
           Affected sources                       matter (PM)           40 CFR 60.283 Total reduced sulfur (TRS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digester system.......................  None..........................  One of the following conditions must be
Brown stock washer system.............                                   met:
Evaporator system.....................                                  1. Combust emissions from affected
Condensate stripper system............                                   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 [deg]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.  1a. Straight \1\: 5 ppmdv @ 8% O2; or
                                        2. 35% opacity; and...........  1b. Cross \2\: 25 ppmdv @ 8% O2; and
                                        3. 6% monitoring allowance for  2. 1% monitoring allowance for TRS.
                                         opacity..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 @  8 ppmdv @ 10% O2.
                                         10% O2; or.
                                        1b. Liquid fuel-fired: 0.13 gr/
                                         dscf @ 10% O2..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A straight recovery furnace is one that only burns kraft pulping liquors.
\2\ A 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 site-specific 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,    TRS............  Incineration of the
 evaporator and condensate                         gases in the recovery
 stripper systems.                                 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 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

[[Page 31322]]

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 Sec. Sec.  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 incineration-based 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 co-control 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 [deg]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 [deg]F for a period of 5 minutes or 
more (excluding periods of startup and shutdown, per Sec.  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 [deg]F during control startup prior to firing 
gases containing TRS emissions (and subsequently cool to below 1200 
[deg]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

[[Page 31323]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Exceptions included a few stack tests that were repeated, or 
recovery furnaces that participate in the PM bubble compliance 
option under subpart MM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 31324]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 co-located 
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. EPA. Review of New Source Performance Standards for 
Kraft Pulp Mills. EPA-450/3-83-017. September 1983.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 31325]]

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 low-energy 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 high-efficiency 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

[[Page 31326]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 high-efficiency 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

[[Page 31327]]

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 ESP-
controlled 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 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 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

[[Page 31328]]

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 [deg]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 [deg]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

[[Page 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 well-
performing 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

[[Page 31330]]

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.

[[Page 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) Sec.  60.17 incorporates by reference ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981;
    (2) Alphabetized definitions and removed paragraph numbers in Sec.  
60.281a;
    (3) Definitions for affirmative defense, condensable PM, filterable 
PM, and monitoring system malfunction in Sec.  60.281a;
    (4) Text makes clear that the PM emission limits in Sec.  60.282a 
and the Method 5 PM emission test in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
60.283a(1) needs to be met.
    (9) Mentioned performance specifications 1 and 5 in Sec.  
60.284a(a)(1) and (2) in addition to Sec.  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

[[Page 31332]]

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

[[Page 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 malfunction-
related 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

[[Page 31334]]

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

[[Page 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 60 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

0
2. Section 60.17 is amended by revising paragraph (h)(4) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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 Sec.  60.56c(b), Sec.  60.63(f), Sec.  60.104a(d), (h), (i), and 
(j), Sec.  60.105a(d), (f), and (g), Sec.  60.106(e), Sec.  60.106a(a), 
Sec.  60.107a(a), (c), and (e), Sec.  60.285a(f), tables 1 and 3 of 
subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 of subpart FFFF, table 2 of subpart JJJJ, 
Sec.  60.2145(s), Sec.  60.2145(t), Sec.  60.2710(s), Sec.  60.2710(t), 
Sec.  60.2710(w), Sec.  60.2730(q), Sec.  60.4415(a), Sec.  60.4900(b), 
Sec.  60.5220(b), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, tables 2 and 3 to 
subpart MMMM, Sec.  60.5406(c), and Sec.  60.5413(b).
* * * * *
0
3. Section 60.280 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  60.280  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as noted in Sec.  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.
0
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

Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  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,

[[Page 31336]]

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 direct-contact 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.

Sec.  60.282a  Standard for filterable particulate matter.

    (a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to 
be conducted by Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.283a  Standard for total reduced sulfur (TRS).

    (a) On and after the date on which the performance test required to 
be conducted by Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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 [deg]C 
(1200 [deg]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

[[Page 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.

Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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

[[Page 31338]]

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 Sec.  
60.283a(a)(1)(v) apply must not be corrected for oxygen content:

Ccorr = Cmeas x (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 Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 out-of-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 Sec.  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 [deg]C (1200 
[deg]F), where the provisions of Sec.  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 Sec.  
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 Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.285a  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) In conducting the performance tests required by this subpart 
and Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  60.283a, except Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

[[Page 31340]]

    (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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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/m\3\-ppm (8.846 x 
10-8 lb H2S/ft\3\-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 Sec.  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 [deg]C (400 [deg]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 Sec.  60.17(h)(4)) 
may be used.

Sec.  60.286a  Affirmative defense for violations of emission standards 
During malfunction.

    In response to an action to enforce the standards set forth in 
Sec. Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  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

[[Page 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 Sec.  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 
Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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.

Sec.  60.288a  Reporting.

    (a) For the purpose of reports required under Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  60.4.
    (c) Within 60 days after the date of completing each CEMS 
performance evaluation test as defined in Sec.  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 Sec.  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 Sec.  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