Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review, 18951-18972 [2014-06719]
Download as PDF
Vol. 79
Friday,
No. 65
April 4, 2014
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
40 CFR Part 60
Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review; Final Rule
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4717
Sfmt 4717
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
18952
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640; FRL–9907–37–
OAR]
RIN 2060–AR64
Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
This action finalizes revisions
to the new source performance
standards for kraft pulp mills. These
revised standards include particulate
matter emission limits for recovery
furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks and
lime kilns, and opacity limits for
recovery furnaces and lime kilns
equipped with electrostatic
precipitators. These revised standards
apply to emission units commencing
construction, reconstruction or
modification after May 23, 2013. This
final rule removes the General
Provisions exemption for periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction
resulting in a standard that applies at all
times. This final rule also includes
additional testing requirements and
updated monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for affected
sources, including electronic reporting
of performance test data. These
revisions to the testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are expected to ensure that
control systems are properly maintained
over time, ensure continuous
compliance with standards and improve
data accessibility for the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), states, tribal
governments and communities.
DATES: This final action is effective on
April 4, 2014. The incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed
in this rule is approved by the Director
of the Federal Register as of April 4,
2014.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available
(e.g., confidential business information
or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute). Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either
electronically in https://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
the EPA Docket Center, Public Reading
Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington,
DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the
Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744,
and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is (202) 566–1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
questions about this final rule for kraft
pulp mills, contact Dr. Kelley Spence,
Natural Resources Group, Sector
Policies and Programs Division, Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards
(E143–03), Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541–3158; fax number (919) 541–3470;
email address: spence.kelley@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The
following acronyms and abbreviations
are used in this document:
ADTP Air dried ton of pulp
Agency U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency
ANSI American National Standards
Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical
Engineers
BDT Best demonstrated technology
BLO Black liquor oxidation
BLS Black liquor solids
BSER Best system of emissions reduction
BSW Brown stock washer
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface
CEMS Continuous emission monitoring
system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Cir. Circuit Court
COMS Continuous opacity monitoring
system
Court United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit
CWA Clean Water Act
D.C. Cir. United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit
dscf Dry standard cubic foot
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP Electrostatic precipitator
FR Federal Register
gr Grain(s)
H2S Hydrogen sulfide
HAP Hazardous air pollutant(s)
HVLC High-volume, low-concentration
IBR Incorporation by Reference
ICR Information collection request
lb Pound(s)
LVHC Low-volume, high-concentration
N/A Not applicable
NAICS North American Industry
Classification System
NESHAP National emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants
NSPS New source performance standards
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995
NW Northwest
O&M Operating and maintenance
O2 Oxygen
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM Particulate matter
ppm Parts per million
ppmdv Part(s) per million by dry volume
PTC Performance Test Code
RTR Risk and technology review
SDT Smelt dissolving tank
SSM Startup, shutdown and malfunction
TAPPI Technical Association of the Pulp
and Paper Industry
TRS Total reduced sulfur
TTN Technology Transfer Network
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
v. Versus
VCS Voluntary consensus standard(s)
VOC Volatile organic compound
yr Year(s)
Background Information Document.
On May 23, 2013, the EPA proposed
revisions to the Kraft Pulp Mills New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
based on evaluations performed by the
EPA to conduct the NSPS review. In this
action, we are finalizing revisions to the
rule. A document summarizing the
public comments on the proposal and
presenting the EPA responses to those
comments is available in Docket ID
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640.
Organization of This Document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
B. Summary of Major Provisions
C. Summary of Costs and Benefits
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
C. Judicial Review
III. Background
IV. Summary of the Final NSPS Review
A. What are the final rule requirements for
kraft pulp mills?
B. What are the requirements during
periods of startup, shutdown and
malfunction?
C. What are the effective and compliance
dates of the standards?
D. What are the requirements for
submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
V. Summary of Significant Changes
Following Proposal
A. TRS Vent Gas Collection
B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
C. Opacity Monitoring
D. TRS and Oxygen Monitoring
E. Temperature Monitoring
F. ESP Parameter Monitoring
G. Averaging Period for Determining
Monitoring Allowances
H. Other Miscellaneous Changes
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy
and Economic Impacts
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health Risks
and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly
Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
To Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
A red-line version of the regulatory
language that incorporates the changes
in this action is available in the docket
for this action (Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–
OAR–2012–0640).
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) requires the EPA to review
and, if appropriate, revise existing NSPS
at least every 8 years. The NSPS for
Kraft Pulp Mills (40 CFR part 60,
subpart BB) were promulgated in 1978
and last reviewed in 1986. In this
review, the EPA considers what degree
of emission limitation is achievable
through the application of the best
system of emission reductions (BSER),
which (taking into account the cost of
achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental
impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been
adequately demonstrated. The EPA also
considers the emission limitations and
reductions that have been achieved in
practice.
In addition to conducting the NSPS
review, the EPA evaluated the startup,
shutdown and malfunction (SSM)
provisions in this rule in light of the
District of Columbia Circuit Court of
Appeals (D.C. Cir.) decision in Sierra
Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir.
2008), which held that the SSM
exemption in the General Provisions in
40 CFR part 63 violated the CAA’s
requirement that some standard apply
continuously. In the Sierra Club case,
the D.C. Circuit vacated the SSM
exemption provisions in the General
Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 for nonopacity and opacity standards. The
Court explained that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emission standards
or limitations must be continuous in
nature. The Court then held that the
SSM exemption violates the CAA’s
requirement that some section 112
standard apply continuously. In light of
the Court’s reasoning, all rule provisions
must be carefully examined to
determine whether they provide for
periods when no emission standard
applies.
The EPA believes that even though
the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA was
considering a challenge to a section 112
national emissions standard for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), the
Court’s reasoning applies equally to
CAA section 111 (NSPS) and section
129 rules. The EPA’s general approach
to SSM periods has been used
consistently in promulgating new NSPS
standards under CAA section 111, and
in section 112 and section 129
rulemaking actions, since the DC
Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club. See,
e.g., New Source Performance
Standards Review for Nitric Acid Plants,
Final Rule, 77 FR 48433 (August 14,
2012); New Source Performance
Standards for New Stationary Sources
and Emission Guidelines for Existing
Sources; Commercial and Industrial
Solid Waste Incineration Units, Final
rule, 76 FR 15704, (March 21, 2011); Oil
and Natural Gas Sector: New Source
Performance Standards and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Reviews; Final rules, 77 FR
49490, (August 16, 2012).
To address the NSPS review, SSM
exemptions and other changes, the EPA
18953
is promulgating new standards which
apply to affected sources at kraft pulp
mills for which construction,
modification or reconstruction
commences after May 23, 2013. The
affected sources under the NSPS are
new, modified or reconstructed digester
systems, brown stock washer (BSW)
systems, evaporator systems, condensate
stripper systems, recovery furnaces,
smelt dissolving tanks (SDTs) and lime
kilns at kraft pulp mills. The
requirements for these new, modified or
reconstructed sources are included in a
new subpart—40 CFR part 60, subpart
BBa. The EPA is also promulgating
testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements for subpart BBa
that are in some ways different from
what is required under 40 CFR part 60,
subpart BB. Subpart BB continues to
apply for affected sources that are
constructed, modified or reconstructed
after September 24, 1976, and on or
before May 23, 2013, while subpart BBa
applies for affected sources constructed,
modified or reconstructed after May 23,
2013.
B. Summary of Major Provisions
Based on the results of the NSPS
review, and following consideration of
public comments, the EPA is finalizing
the proposed 40 CFR part 60, subpart
BBa standards for filterable particulate
matter (PM), opacity and total reduced
sulfur (TRS) compounds and is
finalizing the associated proposed
monitoring allowances. The final rule
specifies that TRS emissions from
digester systems, BSW systems,
evaporator systems and condensate
stripper systems that are controlled by
incineration or other means must be
collected in a low-volume highconcentration (LVHC) or a high-volume
low-concentration (HVLC) closed-vent
system meeting the requirements of the
provisions of 40 CFR 63.450 of subpart
S. Table 1 summarizes the final
standards for filterable PM, opacity and
TRS contained in subpart BBa.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF SUBPART BBa STANDARDS FOR AFFECTED SOURCES AT KRAFT PULP MILLS CONSTRUCTED,
MODIFIED OR RECONSTRUCTED AFTER MAY 23, 2013
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Affected sources
40 CFR 60.282a Filterable
particulate matter (PM)
Digester system, brown stock washer system, evaporator system and
condensate stripper system.
None ..............................................
40 CFR 60.283a
Total reduced sulfur (TRS)
Meet a limit of 5 ppmdv & 10% oxygen (O2), unless one of the following conditions is met:
1. Collect emissions from affected source in LVHC or HVLC
closed-vent system meeting the requirements in 40 CFR part
63, subpart S and combust in one of the following:
(a) Lime kiln subject to subpart BB or BBa (8 ppmdv TRS &
10% O2 limit); or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:57 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
18954
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF SUBPART BBa STANDARDS FOR AFFECTED SOURCES AT KRAFT PULP MILLS CONSTRUCTED,
MODIFIED OR RECONSTRUCTED AFTER MAY 23, 2013—Continued
40 CFR 60.282a Filterable
particulate matter (PM)
Affected sources
Recovery furnace .............................
Smelt dissolving tank ........................
Lime kiln ...........................................
1A
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
2A
40 CFR 60.283a
1a. Modified: 0.044 grains per dry
standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) @
8% O2; or
1b. New/reconstructed: 0.015 gr/
dscf @ 8% O 2 and.
2. ESP only: 20% opacity; and 2%
monitoring allowance for opacity
(provided ESP secondary voltage/current or power exceed
minimum operating limits).
1a. Modified: 0.2 lb/ton black liquor solids (BLS) dry weight; or
1b. New/reconstructed: 0.12 lb/ton
BLS dry weight if associated
with a new or reconstructed recovery furnace; or
1c. New/reconstructed: 0.2 lb/ton
BLS dry weight if not associated
with a new or reconstructed recovery furnace.
1a. Modified: 0.064 gr/dscf @
10% O2; or
1b. New/reconstructed: 0.010 gr/
dscf @ 10% O2; and
2.a ESP only: 20% opacity; and
1% monitoring allowance for
opacity (provided ESP secondary voltage/current or power
exceed minimum operating limits).
Total reduced sulfur (TRS)
(b) Recovery furnace subject to subpart BB or BBa (5 or 25
ppmdv TRS @ 8% O2 limit); or
(c) Incinerator, recovery furnace or lime kiln not subject to
subpart BB or BBa, operated at a minimum temperature
of 1,200 °F for 0.5 seconds (no ppmdv limit).
2. Collect emissions from affected source in LVHC or HVLC
closed-vent system meeting the requirements in subpart S
and use non-combustion control device with a limit of 5
ppmdv, uncorrected for O2.
3. It is technologically or economically infeasible to incinerate
BSW system gases.
4. Uncontrolled digester gases contain <0.01 pounds of TRS per
air dried ton of pulp (lb TRS/ADTP).
1a. Straight recovery furnace 1 5 ppmdv @ 8% O 2; and 1% monitoring allowance for TRS (restricted to ≤30 ppmdv @ 8% O2 or
1b. Cross recovery furnance 2 25 ppmdv @ 8% O 2 and 1% monitoring allownace for TRS (restricted to ≤50 ppmdv @ 8% O 2).
0.033 lb/ton BLS as hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
8 ppmdv & 10% O2; and 1% monitoring allowance for TRS (restricted to ≤22 ppmdv & 10% O2).
straight recovery furnace is one that only burns kraft pulping liquors.
cross recovery furnace is one that burns kraft and neutral sulfite semichemical pulping liquors.
Continuous monitoring of opacity is
required for recovery furnaces and lime
kilns that are not using wet scrubbers or
combined electrostatic precipitator
(ESP)/scrubber systems. Continuous
monitoring of TRS emissions is required
for recovery furnaces, lime kilns and
other affected sources that comply with
the TRS concentration limits. Parameter
monitoring is required for ESPs, wet
scrubbers and combined ESP/scrubber
systems.
The emission standards are applicable
at all times as specified in the
monitoring and testing provisions in
subpart BBa. The EPA is including in
this final rule an affirmative defense to
civil penalties for exceedances of
emission limits caused by malfunctions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:57 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
that meet certain criteria (i.e., the
exceedance must come from an
‘‘unavoidable failure’’), along with
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
Initial and repeat performance testing
is required once every 5 years for
filterable PM and TRS for new, modified
and reconstructed affected sources in
subpart BBa. The EPA is also requiring
initial and repeat performance testing
for condensable PM to gather emissions
data that will enable a broader
understanding of condensable PM
emissions from pulp and paper
combustion sources. Mills must submit
electronic copies of their performance
test reports using the EPA’s Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT). The EPA is also
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
making certain technical and editorial
changes, clarifying the location of
applicable test methods in the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR),
incorporating by reference two non-EPA
test methods, and adding definitions
pertinent to the requirements in subpart
BBa.
C. Summary of Costs and Benefits
Table 2 summarizes the total costs for
all sources subject to this action and the
total benefits of this action. See section
VI of this preamble for further
discussion.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
18955
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF THE COSTS AND BENEFITS OF SUBPART BBA FOR NEW, MODIFIED AND RECONSTRUCTED
AFFECTED SOURCES AT KRAFT PULP MILLS.
Capital cost
($ thousand)
Requirement
Annual cost
($ thousand)
Net benefit
Repeat emissions testing ................................................................................................
Monitoring ........................................................................................................................
Incremental reporting/recordkeeping ...............................................................................
$186
341
50
$45
129
215
N/A
N/A
N/A
Total nationwide .......................................................................................................
577
390
N/A
Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
Categories and entities potentially
regulated by this action include:
Category
NAICS 1
Code
Industry ..................................................................................................................................................................
Federal government ...............................................................................................................................................
State/local/tribal government .................................................................................................................................
3221
................
................
1 North
Kraft pulp mills.
Not affected.
Not affected.
American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. To determine
whether your facility would be
regulated by this action, you should
examine the applicability criteria in 40
CFR 60.280a. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, contact the person
in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Where can I get a copy of this
document?
In addition to being available in the
docket, an electronic copy of this final
action is available on the World Wide
Web through the Technology Transfer
Network (TTN) Web site. Following
signature, the EPA posted a copy of this
final action on the TTN Web site’s
policy and guidance page for newly
proposed or promulgated rules at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN Web
site provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of
air pollution control.
C. Judicial Review
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Examples of
regulated
entities
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
judicial review of this final action is
available only by filing a petition for
review in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit by June 3, 2014. Under section
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
established by these final rules may not
be challenged separately in any civil or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
criminal proceedings brought by the
EPA to enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA
further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which
was raised with reasonable specificity
during the period for public comment
(including any public hearing) may be
raised during judicial review.’’ This
section also provides a mechanism for
us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising
an objection can demonstrate to the EPA
that it was impracticable to raise such
objection within [the period for public
comment] or if the grounds for such
objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such
objection is of central relevance to the
outcome of the rule.’’ Any person
seeking to make such a demonstration to
us should submit a Petition for
Reconsideration to the Office of the
Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000,
William Jefferson Clinton Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to
both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and
Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), U.S. EPA,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
III. Background
New source performance standards
implement CAA section 111, which
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
requires that each NSPS reflect the
degree of emission limitation achievable
through the application of the BSER
which (taking into consideration the
cost of achieving such emission
reductions, any non-air quality health
and environmental impact and energy
requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately
demonstrated. This level of control is
referred to as BSER and has been
referred to in the past as ‘‘best
demonstrated technology’’ or BDT. In
assessing whether a standard is
achievable, the EPA must account for
routine operating variability associated
with performance of the system on
whose performance the standard is
based. See National Lime Ass’n v. EPA,
627 F. 2d 416, 431–33 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
In addition to new sources, existing
affected sources that are modified or
reconstructed are also subject to this
final rule.
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA
requires the EPA to periodically review
and revise the standards of performance,
as necessary, to reflect improvements in
methods for reducing emissions. The
original NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40
CFR part 60, subpart BB) were
promulgated in the Federal Register on
February 23, 1978 (43 FR 7572). The
first review of the kraft pulp mills NSPS
was completed on May 20, 1986 (51 FR
18544). The latest review of the Kraft
Pulp Mills NSPS was proposed on May
23, 2013, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
BBa for emission units commencing
construction, reconstruction or
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
18956
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
modification after that date. This action
finalizes this latest review, conducted
pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B).
IV. Summary of the Final NSPS Review
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
A. What are the final rule requirements
for kraft pulp mills?
1. Emission Limits
The NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40
CFR 60, subpart BB) applies for digester
systems, BSW systems, multiple-effect
evaporator systems, condensate stripper
systems, recovery furnaces, SDTs and
lime kilns for which construction,
modification or reconstruction
commenced after September 24, 1976,
and on or before May 23, 2013. Through
this final NSPS review, the EPA is
promulgating a new 40 CFR part 60,
subpart BBa containing emission limits
for affected sources constructed,
modified or reconstructed after May 23,
2013. In this final rule (40 CFR 60,
subpart BBa), the EPA is:
• Reducing the NSPS filterable PM
limit for new and reconstructed
recovery furnaces from 0.044 gr/dscf (in
subpart BB) to 0.015 gr/dscf.
• Maintaining the current NSPS
filterable PM limit of 0.044 gr/dscf for
modified recovery furnaces.
• Reducing the NSPS opacity limit for
recovery furnaces from 35-percent (in
subpart BB) to 20-percent opacity,
clarifying that the opacity limit does not
apply where an ESP is used in
combination with a wet scrubber, and
reducing the monitoring allowance from
6 percent (in subpart BB) to 2 percent
of the 6-minute opacity averages.
• Reducing the NSPS filterable PM
limit for lime kilns from 0.066 gr/dscf
for gas-fired kilns and 0.13 gr/dscf for
liquid-fired kilns (in subpart BB) to
0.064 gr/dscf for modified lime kilns (all
fuel types) and 0.010 gr/dscf for new or
reconstructed lime kilns (all fuel types).
• Adding a 20-percent opacity limit
for lime kilns equipped with ESPs with
a 1-percent monitoring allowance and
clarifying that the limit does not apply
where an ESP is used in combination
with a wet scrubber.
• Reducing the NSPS filterable PM
limit for new and reconstructed SDTs
associated with new or reconstructed
recovery furnaces from 0.2 lb/ton BLS
(in subpart BB) to 0.12 lb/ton BLS.
• Maintaining the current NSPS
filterable PM limit of 0.2 lb/ton BLS for
modified and new and reconstructed
SDTs not associated with a new or
reconstructed recovery furnace.
• Maintaining the current NSPS TRS
limit for straight recovery furnaces at 5
parts per million by dry volume
(ppmdv) and restricting the 1-percent
monitoring allowance for TRS emissions
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
to 30 ppmdv or less. Previously, there
was no maximum TRS limit for these
periods in subpart BB.
• Maintaining the current NSPS TRS
limit for cross recovery furnaces at 25
ppmdv and adding a 1-percent
monitoring allowance for TRS emissions
restricted to 50 ppmdv. Previously,
there was no maximum TRS limit for
these periods in subpart BB.
• Maintaining the current NSPS TRS
standards for digester systems, BSW
systems, evaporator systems and
condensate stripper systems.
• Specifying that sources which
comply with the subpart BBa TRS
standards for digester systems, BSW
systems, evaporator systems and
condensate stripper systems by venting
to a combustion device such as a lime
kiln, recovery furnace, incinerator, or
other device (e.g., a boiler) or a noncombustion device must collect gases in
an LVHC or HVLC closed-vent system
meeting the provisions of 40 CFR 63.450
of subpart S.
• Maintaining the current NSPS TRS
limit for lime kilns at 8 ppmdv and
adding a 1-percent monitoring
allowance restricted to 22 ppmdv.
• Maintaining the current NSPS TRS
limit for SDTs at 0.033 lb/ton BLS.
The PM concentration emission limits
are in terms of filterable PM measured
by EPA Method 5. The TRS emission
limits are in terms of TRS (or TRS as
H2S for SDTs) measured by EPA Method
16, 16A, 16B or 16C. Continuous
monitoring of opacity is required for
recovery furnaces and lime kilns that
are not using wet scrubbers. Continuous
monitoring of TRS emissions is required
for recovery furnaces, lime kilns and
other affected sources that comply with
TRS concentration limits. This final rule
states that the filterable PM and TRS
standards apply at all times as specified
in the monitoring and testing provisions
in subpart BBa.
2. Parameter Monitoring Requirements
The EPA reviewed the subpart BB
parameter monitoring requirements and
is making several changes within
subpart BBa. First, the EPA is
promulgating ESP parameter monitoring
requirements for recovery furnaces and
lime kilns equipped with ESPs to enable
affected units to show continuous
compliance with the filterable PM
concentration standards at all times,
including periods when the opacity
monitoring allowance is used. The EPA
is requiring that these sources monitor
the secondary voltage and secondary
current (or, alternatively, total
secondary power) of each ESP collection
field. These ESP parameter monitoring
requirements are in addition to opacity
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
monitoring for recovery furnaces and
lime kilns equipped with ESPs alone.
Second, the EPA is requiring wet
scrubber parameter monitoring for
recovery furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns
equipped with wet scrubber systems
(including combined ESP/scrubber
systems). The parameter monitors will
measure the wet scrubber pressure drop
and scrubbing liquid flow rate (or
scrubbing liquid supply pressure).
Scrubber fan amperage monitoring is
included in this final rule as an
alternative to scrubber pressure drop
monitoring for certain types of scrubbers
used on SDTs (e.g., dynamic scrubbers
that operate near atmospheric pressure).
Third, for recovery furnaces and lime
kilns equipped with an ESP in
combination with a wet scrubber
system, the EPA is requiring ESP and
wet scrubber parameter monitoring in
place of opacity monitoring.
Also, subpart BBa specifies that
parameters must be measured and
recorded at least once every 15 minutes
and reduced to 12-hour block averages,
with two exceptions. When an opacity
monitor is also used, the ESP
parameters must be reduced to a
semiannual average for use in the
opacity monitoring allowance
determination. The EPA is specifying a
5-minute data recording frequency and
3-hour block averaging time for
incinerator temperature measurements
required under subpart BBa.
3. Testing Requirements
As part of an ongoing effort to
improve compliance with federal air
emission regulations, the EPA reviewed
the current filterable PM and TRS
testing requirements of subpart BB and
is including testing requirements for
subpart BBa that are different from
subpart BB in the following ways. First,
although there is no emission limit for
condensable PM in subpart BBa, the
EPA is adding condensable PM to the
list of pollutants to test to gather data to
develop a broader understanding of
condensable PM emissions from pulp
and paper combustion sources. Second,
the EPA is requiring repeat air
emissions performance testing once
every 5 years for facilities subject to
NSPS subpart BBa. This final rule
requires repeat air emissions testing for
filterable PM, condensable PM and TRS
once every 5 years for recovery furnaces,
SDTs and lime kilns. Third, the EPA is
including Method 16C as another
alternative to Method 16 for measuring
emissions of TRS from sources subject
to the TRS standards in subpart BBa.
Method 16C was not available at the
time of the original NSPS and 1986
NSPS review. The method was
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
promulgated on July 30, 2012 (77 FR
44488). Fourth, the EPA is updating the
method used to determine whether a
kraft recovery furnace is a straight or
cross recovery furnace to refer to the
latest TAPPI Method T624 cm-11.
As in subpart BB, emission testing for
subpart BBa is to be performed under
representative operating conditions.
Section 60.8(c) of the NSPS General
Provisions is replaced in 40 CFR
60.285a(a) with a similar paragraph that
states that testing is to be conducted
under representative conditions and not
during periods of startup, shutdown or
malfunction.
4. Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements
The existing subpart BB requires mills
to keep records of TRS and opacity
monitoring data along with scrubber
and incinerator operating parameter
data. The reporting requirements in the
existing subpart BB include semiannual
reports of performance tests and excess
emissions as specified in 40 CFR
60.7(c).
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements are being included as
separate sections within subpart BBa.
Under this final rule, owners/operators
subject to subpart BBa are required to
keep records of all TRS and opacity
monitoring data; all scrubber,
incinerator and ESP operating parameter
data; excess emissions; and
malfunctions. A facility is required to
report all exceedances of the standard,
including exceedances that are the
result of a malfunction. The malfunction
recordkeeping requirements will
provide pulp and paper companies with
some of the information required to
support the assertion of an affirmative
defense in the event of a violation due
to malfunction. In addition to the
recordkeeping requirements specified in
subpart BBa, 40 CFR 60.7(b) of the
General Provisions requires records of
the occurrence and duration of SSM
events.
Under this final rule, owners/
operators are required to report all
performance test results (including
electronic copies, as specified in section
IV.D below) and excess emissions.
Sections 60.7(c)(2) and 60.7(d) of the
General Provisions require
identification of periods of excess
emissions that occur during SSM
events. The frequency of reporting
under subpart BBa is semiannually, the
same as for subpart BB, and consistent
with NESHAP requirements. Further,
we are including a malfunction report to
provide information on each type of
malfunction which occurred during the
reporting period and which caused or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
may have caused an exceedance of an
emission limit.
5. Other Miscellaneous Differences
Between Subpart BBa and Subpart BB
The following lists additional, minor
differences between the current subpart
BB NSPS and the subpart BBa final rule.
This list includes rule differences that
address editorial and other corrections.
The EPA:
• Revised 40 CFR 60.17 to
incorporate by reference ANSI/ASME
PTC 19.10–1981 and TAPPI T624 cm-11
for subpart BBa.
• Revised the definitions section in
40 CFR 60.281a to alphabetize
definitions; remove paragraph numbers;
remove the definition for black liquor
oxidation (BLO) system; add definitions
for affirmative defense, closed-vent
system, condensable PM, filterable PM,
HVLC closed-vent system, LVHC closedvent system and monitoring system
malfunction; and revise the definition
for digester system to include chip bins
using live steam.
• Revised the wording of the PM
standard in 40 CFR 60.282a and 40 CFR
60.285a to clarify that the PM emission
limits in 40 CFR 60.282a and the
Method 5 PM emission test in 40 CFR
60.285a refer to filterable PM, to avoid
confusion with the inclusion of Method
202 condensable PM testing.
• Revised the wording of the TRS
standard in 40 CFR 60.283a(a)(1) to
clarify that only ‘‘one of’’ the conditions
in 40 CFR 60.283a(a)(1)(i) through (vi)
needs to be met in lieu of the 5 ppmdv
TRS limit for digester systems, BSW
systems, evaporator systems and
condensate stripper systems.
• Revised the monitoring provisions
in 40 CFR 60.284a(a)(1) and (2) to cite
Performance Specifications 1, 3 and 5
for opacity, O2 and TRS continuous
monitoring systems, respectively, to
conform with 40 CFR 60.284a(f).
• Revised the TRS monitoring
provisions in 40 CFR 60.284a(a)(2) to
clarify that the range of the continuous
monitoring system must encompass all
expected concentration values,
including the zero and span values used
for calibration.
• Revised the monitoring provisions
in 40 CFR 60.284a(a)(2)(ii) to specify
that the span of O2 monitoring systems
is 21 percent instead of 25 percent, so
that air can be used instead of a
calibration gas in span checks.
• Revised the monitoring and
recordkeeping provisions in 40 CFR
60.284a(b)(1) and 40 CFR 60.287a(b)(3)
to remove reference to BLO systems
which were excluded from NSPS
applicability during the 1986 NSPS
review.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18957
• Revised the O2 correction equation
in 40 CFR 60.284a(c)(1)(iii) for TRS
continuous emission monitoring system
(CEMS) data to clarify that the
concentration to be corrected is a ‘‘12hour average of the measured
concentrations.’’
• Revised the excess emissions and
recordkeeping provisions in 40 CFR
60.284a(d)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR
60.287a(b)(3) relating to combustion
temperature measurements to clarify
that the provisions apply when an
incinerator is used as the combustion
device.
• Added provisions to 40 CFR
60.284a(d)(3)(iii) specifying that periods
of excess emissions include all times
when gases from digester systems, BSW
systems, evaporator systems and
condensate stripper systems are not
routed through the closed-vent system.
• Revised the provisions in 40 CFR
60.284a(e)(1) to change the period for
calculating the monitoring allowance
from quarterly to semiannual.
• Revised the citations for the EPA
test methods in 40 CFR 60.285a to cite
the specific appendices in parts 51 and
60 where the methods are located.
• Used ‘‘must’’ instead of ‘‘shall’’
throughout subpart BBa, consistent with
plain language guidance.
B. What are the requirements during
periods of startup, shutdown and
malfunction?
1. Periods of Startup or Shutdown
In reviewing the standards in subpart
BB, and in establishing the standards in
the new subpart BBa, the EPA has taken
into account startup and shutdown
periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not established alternate
standards for those periods. Instead, the
EPA is promulgating standards that
apply at all times, including startup and
shutdown periods. We analyzed
continuous monitoring data and
parametric methods for demonstrating
continuous compliance and developed
rule provisions pertaining to continuous
monitoring that encompass or address
startup and shutdown periods. These
provisions include:
• Monitoring allowances that specify
a certain number of exceedances that
will not be considered as violations.
These allowances were developed
through review of TRS CEMS and
continuous opacity monitoring system
(COMS) datasets that included SSM
periods, and are used in conjunction
with ESP parameter monitoring (for
opacity) and upper limits (for TRS) to
ensure the emission standards are
continuous. The PM standard is a
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
18958
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
continuous standard that applies at all
times.
• A provision for enforcement
authorities to consider the uncorrected
TRS concentration during periods of
startup and shutdown if O2 levels in the
stack approach ambient conditions
where the O2 correction equation could
cause an otherwise-compliant TRS
measurement to exceed the applicable
emission limit.
• For ESP parameter monitors,
provisions that define excess emissions
as ESP parameter measurements below
the minimum requirements during
times when BLS or lime mud is fired (as
applicable).
• For ESP parameter monitors used
on combined ESP/scrubber systems,
language that allows facilities to use
only secondary voltage (and not
secondary current or total secondary
power) to demonstrate compliance
during periods of startup and shutdown
because secondary current or the total
secondary power calculated using
secondary current may not meet the
operating limit established during the
performance test as BLS or lime mud is
fired initially.
• For wet scrubber parameter
monitors, language that allows facilities
to use wet scrubber liquid flow rate (or
liquid supply pressure) to demonstrate
compliance during periods of startup
and shutdown because pressure drop is
difficult to achieve during these periods.
• For temperature monitors, a
lengthened 3-hour block averaging time,
and provisions that acknowledge that
the minimum temperature of 1,200 °F is
not a requirement during periods when
an incinerator is not burning TRS (e.g.,
during incinerator warm-up and cooldown or when an alternative control
device is used).
With the above monitoring provisions
that address periods of startup and
shutdown, the EPA concluded that
alternative standards (e.g., work
practices) during startup and shutdown
are unnecessary. Two technical
memoranda available in the docket for
this action (EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640)
provide our analysis of monitoring
systems during startup and shutdown
for pulp and paper processes subject to
subpart BBa.1 2 Additional clarifications
relative to the final rule requirements
during periods of startup and shutdown
1 Updated Review of the Continuous Emission
Monitoring and Continuous Opacity Monitoring
Data from the Pulp and Paper ICR Responses for
NSPS Sources.
2 Review of Pulp and Paper Information
Collection Request (ICR) Responses Pertaining to
Startup and Shutdown of Subpart BB Equipment
(March 22, 2013) (EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640–039
thru 045).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
are provided in section V.C of this
preamble.
2. Periods of Malfunction
Periods of startup, normal operations
and shutdown are all predictable and
routine aspects of a source’s operation.
However, by contrast, malfunction is
defined as ‘‘any sudden, infrequent, and
not reasonably preventable failure of air
pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a
normal or usual manner. Failures that
are caused in part by poor maintenance
or careless operation are not
malfunctions.’’ (40 CFR 60.2) The EPA
has determined that section 111 does
not require that emissions occurring
during periods of malfunction be
factored into development of CAA
section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA
section 111 or in case law requires that
the EPA anticipate and account for the
innumerable types of potential
malfunction events in setting emission
standards. CAA section 111 provides
that the EPA set standards of
performance which reflect the degree of
emission limitation achievable through
‘‘the application of the best system of
emission reduction’’ that the EPA
determines is adequately demonstrated.
Applying the concept of ‘‘the
application of the best system of
emission reduction’’ to periods during
which a source is malfunctioning
presents difficulties. The ‘‘application of
the best system of emission reduction’’
is more appropriately understood to
include operating units in such a way as
to avoid malfunctions.
Further, accounting for malfunctions
would be difficult, if not impossible,
given the myriad different types of
malfunctions that can occur across all
sources in the category and given the
difficulties associated with predicting or
accounting for the frequency, degree
and duration of various malfunctions
that might occur. As such, the
performance of units that are
malfunctioning is not ‘‘reasonably’’
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v.
EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999)
(the EPA typically has wide latitude in
determining the extent of data-gathering
necessary to solve a problem. We
generally defer to an agency’s decision
to proceed on the basis of imperfect
scientific information, rather than to
‘‘invest the resources to conduct the
perfect study.’’). See also, Weyerhaeuser
v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir.
1978) (‘‘In the nature of things, no
general limit, individual permit, or even
any upset provision can anticipate all
upset situations. After a certain point,
the transgression of regulatory limits
caused by ‘uncontrollable acts of third
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
parties,’ such as strikes, sabotage,
operator intoxication or insanity, and a
variety of other eventualities, must be a
matter for the administrative exercise of
case-by-case enforcement discretion, not
for specification in advance by
regulation.’’). In addition, the goal of a
‘‘source that uses the best system of
emission reduction’’ is to operate in
such a way as to avoid malfunctions of
the source, and accounting for
malfunctions could lead to standards
that are significantly less stringent than
levels that are achieved by a wellperforming non-malfunctioning source.
The EPA’s approach to malfunctions is
consistent with section 111 and is a
reasonable interpretation of the statute.
In the event that a source fails to
comply with the applicable CAA section
111 standards as a result of a
malfunction event, the EPA would
determine an appropriate response
based on, among other things, the good
faith efforts of the source to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods,
including preventative and corrective
actions, as well as root cause analyses
to ascertain and rectify excess
emissions. The EPA would also
consider whether the source’s failure to
comply with the CAA section 111
standard was, in fact, ‘‘sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable’’
and was not instead ‘‘caused in part by
poor maintenance or careless
operation.’’ See 40 CFR 60.2 (definition
of malfunction).
Finally, the EPA recognizes that even
equipment that is properly designed and
maintained can sometimes fail and that
such failure can sometimes cause an
exceedance of the relevant emission
standard. See, e.g., State
Implementation Plans: Response to
Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of
Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction;
Proposed rule, 78 FR 12460 (Feb. 22,
2013); State Implementation Plans:
Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on
Excess Emissions During Startup,
Shutdown, Maintenance, and
Malfunctions (Feb. 15, 1983). The EPA
is, therefore, adding to the final rule an
affirmative defense to civil penalties for
violations of emission standards in this
rule that are caused by malfunctions.
(See 40 CFR 60.281a defining
‘‘affirmative defense’’ to mean, in the
context of an enforcement proceeding, a
response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the
defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently
and objectively evaluated in a judicial
or administrative proceeding.) We also
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
have added other regulatory provisions
to specify the elements that are
necessary to establish this affirmative
defense; the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that it
has met all of the elements set forth in
40 CFR 60.285a. (See 40 CFR 22.24.)
The added criteria are designed in part
to ensure that the affirmative defense is
available only where the event that
causes a violation of the emission
standard meets the narrow definition of
malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable
and not caused by poor maintenance or
careless operation). For example, to
successfully assert the added affirmative
defense, the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that
violation ‘‘[w]as caused by a sudden,
infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a
normal or usual manner . . .’’ The
added criteria also are designed to
ensure that steps are taken to correct the
malfunction, to minimize emissions in
accordance with 40 CFR 60.11(d) and to
prevent future malfunctions. For
example, under the added criteria, the
source must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that ‘‘[r]epairs were
made as expeditiously as possible when
a violation occurred . . .’’ and that
‘‘[a]ll possible steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the violation on
ambient air quality, the environment
and human health . . . .’’ In any
judicial or administrative proceeding,
the Administrator may challenge the
assertion of the affirmative defense and,
if the respondent has not met its burden
of proving all of the requirements in the
affirmative defense, appropriate
penalties may be assessed in accordance
with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40
CFR 22.77).
The EPA included in the final rule an
affirmative defense in an attempt to
balance a tension, inherent in many
types of air regulation, to ensure
adequate compliance while
simultaneously recognizing that despite
the most diligent of efforts, emission
standards may be violated under
circumstances beyond the control of the
source. The EPA must establish
emission standards that ‘‘limit the
quantity, rate, or concentration of
emissions of air pollutants on a
continuous basis.’’ 42 U.S.C. 7602(k)
(defining ‘‘emission limitation’’ and
‘‘emission standard’’). See generally,
Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021
(D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is
required to ensure that emission
standards are continuous. The
affirmative defense for malfunction
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
events meets this requirement by
ensuring that even where there is a
malfunction, the emission standard is
still enforceable through injunctive
relief. The United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently
upheld the EPA’s view that an
affirmative defense provision is
consistent with section 113(e) of the
CAA. Luminant Generation Co. LLC v.
United States EPA, 714 F.3d 841 (5th
Cir. Mar. 25, 2013) (upholding the EPA’s
approval of affirmative defense
provisions in a CAA State
Implementation Plan). While
‘‘continuous’’ standards are required,
there is also case law indicating that in
many situations it is appropriate for the
EPA to account for the practical realities
of technology. For example, in Essex
Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427,
433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the DC Circuit
acknowledged that in setting standards
under CAA section 111, ‘‘variant
provisions’’ such as provisions allowing
for upsets during startup, shutdown and
equipment malfunction ‘‘appear
necessary to preserve the reasonableness
of the standards as a whole and that the
record does not support the ‘never to be
exceeded’ standard currently in force.’’
See also, Portland Cement Association
v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir.
1973). Though these earlier cases may
no longer represent binding precedent
in light of the CAA 1977 amendments
and intervening case law such as Sierra
Club v. EPA, they nevertheless support
the EPA’s view that a system that
incorporates some level of flexibility is
reasonable and appropriate. The
affirmative defense simply provides for
a defense to civil penalties for violations
that are proven to be beyond the control
of the source. Through the incorporation
of an affirmative defense, the EPA has
formalized its approach to malfunctions.
In a Clean Water Act (CWA) setting, the
Ninth Circuit required this type of
formalized approach when regulating
‘‘upsets beyond the control of the permit
holder.’’ Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564
F.2d 1253, 1272–73 (9th Cir. 1977). See
also, Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v.
United States EPA, 666 F.3d. 1174 (9th
Cir. 2012) (rejecting industry argument
that reliance on the affirmative defense
was not adequate). But see,
Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d
1011, 1057–58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding
that an informal approach is adequate).
The final affirmative defense provisions
give the EPA the flexibility to both
ensure that its emission standards are
‘‘continuous’’ as required by 42 U.S.C.
7602(k), and account for unplanned
upsets and thus support the
reasonableness of the standard as a
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18959
whole. The EPA is promulgating the
affirmative defense applicable to
malfunctions under the delegation of
general regulatory authority set out in
section 301(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7601(a)(1), in order to balance this
tension between provisions of the Act
and the practical reality, as case law
recognizes, that technology sometimes
fails. See generally, Citizens to Save
Spencer County v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 600 F.2d 844, 873
(D.C. Cir. 1979) (using section 301(a)
authority to harmonize inconsistent
guidelines related to the
implementation of federal
preconstruction review requirements).
C. What are the effective and
compliance dates of the standards?
The provisions of subpart BBa being
promulgated in this action are effective
on April 4, 2014. Emission units that
commence construction, reconstruction
or modification after May 23, 2013,
must comply with the provisions of
subpart BBa by April 4, 2014 or upon
startup, whichever is later.
The initial performance test must be
conducted within 60 days after
achieving the maximum production rate
at which the affected facility will be
operated, but no later than 180 days
after initial startup per 40 CFR 60.8(a).
The first of the 5-year repeat tests must
be conducted no later than 5 years
following the initial performance test,
and thereafter within 5 years from the
date of the previous performance test.
The date to submit performance test
data through ERT is within 60 days after
the date of completing each
performance test.
D. What are the requirements for
submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
For the reasons provided in the
proposed rule preamble, in subpart BBa
the EPA is requiring owners and
operators of kraft pulp mills to submit
electronic copies of required
performance test and performance
evaluation reports to the EPA’s
WebFIRE database. Data will be entered
through an electronic emissions test
report structure called the ERT. The
ERT will generate an electronic report
which will be submitted using the
Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI). The
submitted report will be stored in both
EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)
archive (the official copy of record) and
in the WebFIRE database, making access
to data very straightforward and easy. A
description and instructions for use of
the ERT can be found at https://
www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/,
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
18960
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and CEDRI can be accessed through the
CDX Web site (www.epa.gov/cdx). A
description of the WebFIRE database is
available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/
oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
The requirement to submit
performance test data electronically to
the EPA applies only to those
performance tests conducted using test
methods that are supported by the ERT.3
The ERT supports most of the
commonly used EPA reference methods.
A listing of the pollutants and test
methods supported by the ERT is
available at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
chief/ert/.
As explained in the proposal
preamble, in addition to supporting
regulation development, control strategy
development and other air pollution
control activities, having an electronic
database populated with performance
test data will save industry, state, local,
tribal agencies and the EPA significant
time, money and effort while also
improving the quality of emission
inventories and air quality regulations.
V. Summary of Significant Changes
Following Proposal
The following sections summarize the
significant changes made to subpart BBa
for this final rule to respond to public
comments and to correct technical
inconsistencies or editorial errors in the
proposal. A detailed discussion of these
and other public comments can be
found in the response-to-comments
document, available in Docket ID
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640.4
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
A. TRS Vent Gas Collection
The final subpart BBa rule, as
proposed, allows sources to comply
with the TRS standards for digester
systems, BSW systems, evaporator
systems and condensate stripper
systems by venting emissions to a
combustion device such as a lime kiln,
recovery furnace, incinerator or other
device (e.g., a boiler) or a noncombustion device. Industry
commenters expressed concern that the
proposed provisions were not consistent
with the corresponding hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) reduction provisions in
subpart S which specify requirements
3 As of March 2014, Methods 5, 17 and 202 are
the test methods referenced in subpart BBa that are
included in ERT. Methods 16, 16A, 16B, and 16C
for TRS measurement are not yet supported by ERT.
However, Method 16 (and variant) testing
conducted after Methods 16, 16A, 16B, 16C are
programmed into the ERT will be required to be
reported electronically.
4 See the memorandum in the docket titled, Kraft
Pulp Mills New Source Performance Review (40
CFR Part 60, Subpart BBa), Final Amendments:
Response to Public Comments on May 23, 2013
Proposal.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
for closed-vent collection systems.
Separately, another commenter
expressed concern that the use of
contaminated flash steam during chip
steaming can lead to the release of TRS
compounds, volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and HAPs and urged
the EPA to ensure standards are in place
to prevent release of emissions.
In response to these concerns and to
promote consistency with the subpart S
requirements for closed-vent collection
systems, we added provisions to this
final rule requiring that sources collect
and transport the vent gases through
HVLC or LVHC closed-vent systems to
incineration or other control devices, to
match what is required under subpart S.
We added definitions for ‘‘closed-vent
system,’’ ‘‘high-volume, lowconcentration (HVLC) closed-vent
system,’’ and ‘‘low-volume, highconcentration (LVHC) closed-vent
system’’ to this final rule to eliminate
any conflicts with the subpart S excess
emission allowances for closed-vent
systems. We defined excess emissions
as all times when gases are not routed
through the closed-vent system. We also
revised the definition for ‘‘digester
system’’ to specifically include chip
bins using live steam (flash steam) to
clarify that these units are subject to
regulation under subpart BBa as part of
the digester system.
Further, an industry commenter made
the specific comment that, with the
removal of the SSM exemption, there
are no provisions in subpart BBa
specifically addressing short periods of
safety-related venting of gases from
digester systems, brown stock washer
systems, multiple-effect evaporator
systems or condensate stripper systems.
According to the commenter, best
available technology includes
unavoidable periods when vent gases
cannot be routed to the control device
for safety reasons or when the control
device is inoperable or necessarily
operating at a reduced rate due to a
malfunction. The subpart S excess
emission allowances (see 40 CFR
63.443(e)(1)–(3)), currently address
these types of excess emissions. The
SSM exemption was previously
removed from subpart S (77 FR 55698).
The commenter noted that they
provided more detail in previously
submitted comments on subpart S
which they attached for consideration.
The commenter recommended that the
EPA adopt the excess emission
provisions in subpart S for digester,
brown stock washer, evaporator and
stripper systems covered by subpart
BBa. We did not intend to propose a
standard that removed the use of these
allowances for NSPS units, creating a
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
standard more stringent than the
NESHAP. Therefore, we have added
language in this final rule that
recognizes the current subpart S excess
emission provisions for closed-vent
systems. (Further discussion of the
EPA’s anticipated review of the subpart
S excess emission provisions is
provided below.) These provisions
define excess emissions as all times
when gases are not routed through the
closed-vent system. (See 40 CFR
60.284a(d).) We also addressed short
periods of safety-related venting in 40
CFR 60.284a(e), which provides limited
allowances of 1 percent of semiannual
operating time for LVHC systems, or 4
percent of semiannual operating time
for HVLC or combined LVHC/HVLC
systems. As long as these time periods
are not exceeded, excess emissions
associated with short periods of safetyrelated venting will not be considered in
violation of the closed-vent system
requirements added to 40 CFR
60.283a(a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v).
Affected facilities are required to
maintain and operate with good air
pollution control practice for
minimizing emissions during periods of
excess emissions (including during
safety-related venting), as specified in
40 CFR 60.284a(e)(2) of subpart BBa.
We acknowledge that representatives
of the pulp and paper industry have
submitted a petition for reconsideration
of the final 40 CFR part 63, subpart S
risk and technology (RTR) rule relating
to safety-related venting of pulp mill
vent gases.5 Additionally, in the subpart
S RTR action (77 FR 55698) we deferred
action on the review of the 40 CFR
63.443(e) excess emission allowances.
We have acted at this time to create
consistency between subpart BBa and
subpart S in how these episodes are
handled. However, we note that, when
the EPA reviews the subpart S excess
emission allowances, we will consider
whether actions that we take after
conducting that subpart S review should
result in revisions to the NSPS for kraft
pulp mills. It should also be noted that
the standards in subpart S apply to HAP
emissions from a broad range of pulp
mill sources and will be applicable to
existing sources, while the subpart BBa
TRS standards will apply only for the
small subset of subpart S sources that
are constructed, modified or
reconstructed after May 23, 2013.
Consequently, if the subpart S standards
are amended to become more stringent
5 Letter from P. Noe, AF&PA, to Lisa Jackson.
Petition for Reconsideration of National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the
Pulp and Paper Industry; Final Rule, 77 FR 55698
(Sept. 11, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
with respect to pulp mill safety-related
venting, then those amended subpart S
standards will apply equally to subpart
BBa sources, because all subpart BBa
sources (as well as all subpart BB
sources and any sources subject to
future revisions to the Kraft Pulp Mill
NSPS) will also be subject to subpart S
(including any revisions made to it in
the future), regardless of when the next
NSPS review to update subpart BBa is
performed.
B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
One commenter supported and
multiple commenters objected to our
proposal to remove the SSM exemption
from the subpart BBa standards. The
rationale for our removal of the SSM
exemption was provided in the
preamble to the proposed rule, is
provided in section IV.B of this
preamble, and is also discussed in the
response-to-comments document 6 along
with a description of the revisions to the
NSPS monitoring requirements made to
ensure that the NSPS provisions remain
achievable following removal of the
SSM exemption.
Multiple commenters expressed
confusion regarding the provisions in
the proposed rule briefly stating that the
PM and TRS standards apply at all
times (40 CFR 60.282a(b) and 40 CFR
60.283a(b), respectively). The comments
revealed confusion regarding which
paragraphs of the NSPS General
Provisions relating to SSM are
superseded by subpart BBa or remain
applicable. In response to these
comments, we revised 40 CFR
60.282a(b) and 40 CFR 60.283a(b) to
clarify that the standards apply at all
times as specified in the monitoring and
testing provisions of the rule (40 CFR
60.284a and 40 CFR 60.285a) and to
clarify the relationship between the
continuous standards and provisions for
testing, monitoring and the monitoring
allowances in subpart BBa. We also
offer the following clarifications relative
to the relationship between the General
Provisions and subpart BBa:
• The definitions of SSM in 40 CFR
60.2 apply to subpart BBa.
• The requirement to maintain
records of SSM periods and periods
when continuous monitoring systems
are inoperative under 40 CFR 60.7(b)
applies to subpart BBa.
• The requirements under 40 CFR
60.7(c)(2) to identify in the excess
emissions report each period of excess
emissions that occurs during SSM and
6 See the memorandum in the docket titled, Kraft
Pulp Mills New Source Performance Review (40
CFR Part 60, Subpart BBa), Final Amendments:
Response to Public Comments on May 23, 2013
Proposal.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
the nature of any malfunction apply to
subpart BBa.
• Inclusion of startup and shutdown
in the summary report format provided
in 40 CFR 60.7(d) applies for subpart
BBa.
• The 40 CFR 60.11(c) exemption
from the opacity standards during SSM
is superseded for subpart BBa by 40 CFR
60.282a(c).
• The 40 CFR 60.11(d) requirement to
use good air pollution control practices
at all times including SSM applies to
subpart BBa.
Furthermore, we added a clarifying
statement to 40 CFR 60.285a(a) to repeat
only the portion of 40 CFR 60.8(c) that
applies under subpart BBa (i.e., the
requirement that performance tests be
conducted under representative
conditions applies). The SSM
exemption phrase ‘‘nor shall emissions
in excess of the level of the applicable
emission limit during periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction be
considered a violation of the applicable
emission limit unless otherwise
specified in the applicable standard’’
was eliminated from the revised
wording of 40 CFR 60.8(c) incorporated
into subpart BBa in light of the DC
Circuit’s decision in Sierra Club v. EPA
vacating the 40 CFR part 63 SSM
exemption provisions. The revised
wording in 40 CFR 60.285a(a) of subpart
BBa supersedes 40 CFR 60.8(c).
C. Opacity Monitoring
One commenter questioned whether a
source controlled by an ESP/scrubber
combination would be relieved from
meeting the opacity requirements in this
final rule. In response to this comment,
we revised the opacity standards for
recovery furnaces and lime kilns to
clarify that units equipped with a
combination ESP and wet scrubber
system are not subject to the opacity
standards, because opacity monitoring
is not appropriate for these units. This
does not create an exemption or a
standard that does not apply at all times
because continuous compliance with
the filterable PM standards is
demonstrated through ESP and wet
scrubber parameter monitoring for
combined ESP/scrubber systems.
D. TRS and Oxygen Monitoring
Measurements exceeding instrument
span. Three commenters requested that
the EPA clarify the procedure for
reporting and treatment of uncorrected
TRS concentrations that exceed the span
value (30 ppmdv) for the TRS CEMS
instrument. In response to these
comments, we note that data above the
instrument span have value and are
required to be included in any CEMS
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18961
hourly average or other long-term
rolling average calculation; otherwise,
facilities could inappropriately dismiss
noncompliant values as invalid data.
Consequently, we added language to the
final rule to clarify that the range of the
continuous monitoring system must
encompass all expected concentration
values, including the zero and span
values used for calibration.
Recovery furnace upper limit. One
commenter argued that it was
inappropriate for the EPA to use data
from straight recovery furnaces to
establish the TRS monitoring allowance
upper limit for cross recovery furnaces.
In response to this comment, we revised
this final rule to clarify that the 1percent allowance, restricted to 30
ppmdv, applies to TRS emissions from
straight recovery furnaces. The cross
recovery furnace TRS emission limit is
higher than the straight recovery TRS
limit for three technical reasons. First,
the sulfur content of the semichemical
liquor is higher than traditional kraft
liquor. Second, the heat content of the
liquor is lower because it contains less
organic material than kraft liquor due to
higher pulping yields. Third, the
heavier sulfur loading and the lower
operating temperature puts a restriction
on the amount of excess O2 available to
oxidize the sulfur compounds. Because
we do not have continuous monitoring
data for cross recovery furnaces to
analyze (with no known cross recovery
furnaces subject to NSPS at this time),
we are setting the upper TRS limit for
cross recovery furnaces at the
instrument span of 50 ppmdv for these
units. This upper limit can be
reevaluated during the next NSPS
review should data become available for
cross recovery furnaces subject to NSPS
in the future.
E. Temperature Monitoring
One commenter recommended that
the temperature monitoring requirement
should only apply when TRS control is
achieved in a stand-alone incinerator
and requested that the EPA make this
clarification in this final rule. The
commenter noted that temperature
monitoring is not required in subpart S
for boilers, lime kilns and recovery
furnaces that combust pulping vent
gases because these units normally
operate at temperatures higher than
1,200 °F. We revised the relevant
provisions of subpart BBa to clarify that
combustion temperature monitoring is
required only when an incinerator is
used as the combustion device in
response to this comment.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
18962
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
F. ESP Parameter Monitoring
Two commenters requested that the
EPA add total secondary power as an
alternative to monitoring ESP secondary
voltage and secondary current for
recovery furnace ESPs to be consistent
with the monitoring alternative
provided in the proposed rule for lime
kiln ESPs. We made the conforming
edits requested to clarify our intent, as
proposed, that monitoring of total
secondary power is an alternative for
recovery furnace ESPs.
Another commenter requested that
the EPA use only ESP secondary voltage
monitoring to determine compliance
during periods of startup and shutdown
for combined ESP/scrubber control
systems. The commenter explained that
the first 12-hour block average ESP
secondary current (or total secondary
power) may not be within the range
achieved during the last performance
test, as firing of BLS or lime mud
increases or decreases during startup or
shutdown, but the ESP would still be
operating optimally using its automated
power management system. The
commenter requested that the EPA
exclude from the definition of excess
emissions all 12-hour average
measurements of secondary current (or
total secondary power) during startup
and shutdown that are less than the sitespecific operating parameter limits, as it
has done for scrubber pressure drop. We
agree with the commenter that
secondary current (or total secondary
power) can vary during startup and
shutdown. We changed the definition of
ESP-related excess emissions for
combined ESP/scrubber controls in 40
CFR 60.284a(d)(5) in response to this
comment to include all 12-hour block
averages of ESP secondary voltage
below the minimum operating limit at
all times (including startup and
shutdown), and 12-hour block averages
of secondary current (or total secondary
power) below the minimum operating
limit at all times except during startup
and shutdown. The rule changes make
the startup/shutdown accommodations
for ESPs comparable to the parameter
monitoring requirements for wet
scrubbers during startup and shutdown.
This definitional change does not apply
for ESP systems that have longer
averaging periods in conjunction with
an opacity limit. For further discussion,
see the response-to-comments document
found in the docket.
G. Averaging Period for Determining
Monitoring Allowances
In response to our request for
comment on whether a quarterly or
semiannual period would be more
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
appropriate for calculation of the
monitoring allowances in 40 CFR
60.284a(e), multiple commenters
supported a semiannual period. One
state agency commenter specifically
supported changing the ESP parameter
averaging period from quarterly to
semiannually when an opacity monitor
is also used on the ESP. The commenter
also supported using a semiannual
instead of a quarterly basis for
determining the TRS and opacity
monitoring allowances. In response to
these comments and consistent with the
semiannual reporting frequency for
subpart BBa, we revised the period for
calculating the opacity and TRS
monitoring allowances from quarterly to
semiannually. We made a
corresponding change to a semiannual
basis for the ESP parameter averaging
period for ESPs that also monitor
opacity.
H. Other Miscellaneous Changes
A few additional changes were made
to the proposed rule either as a result of
public comments, to correct references
or to ensure conformity among the
various rule sections. These changes are
described below.
BLO systems. One commenter asked
that the EPA remove outdated
references to BLO systems from the rule
because subpart BBa does not contain
any specific requirements for these
systems. We agree with this editorial
change and removed the definition of
‘‘black liquor oxidation system’’ and
other inadvertently remaining
references to BLO systems from this
final rule. The 1986 review of the kraft
pulp mills NSPS removed the BLO
system from the list of regulated
emission units.
Testing frequency. One commenter
requested that the EPA revise the repeat
testing frequency from once every 60
months to once every 5 years to provide
maximum operational flexibility. In
particular, the requested change would
make clear that the repeat testing could
be done at any point during the fifth
calendar year (which is consistent with
the requirements for CAA title V
permitting) as opposed to requiring
testing to be done during the 60th
month. We agree with the commenter
and revised the testing provisions of this
final rule accordingly.
Performance specifications. In the
proposed rule, we specified that sources
must install, certify and operate their
opacity and TRS continuous monitoring
systems in accordance with
Performance Specifications 1 and 5,
respectively, in Appendix B to 40 CFR
part 60. To correct an oversight, we
added a citation to this final rule for
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Performance Specification 3 for the O2
continuous monitoring system used to
correct the TRS CEMS data for O2
concentration.
Incorporation by reference. In
reviewing the testing provisions in
subpart BBa for the final rule, we noted
that the test method for determining
whether a kraft recovery furnace is a
straight or cross recovery furnace, which
is cited in this final rule and
incorporated by reference in 40 CFR
60.17 as TAPPI T624 os-68, is out-ofdate, as is the address for obtaining a
copy of the method. We updated the
testing provisions in this final rule and
the IBR provisions in 40 CFR 60.17 to
cite the latest version of the method—
TAPPI T624 cm-11. We also updated 40
CFR 60.17 to cite the current address for
obtaining a copy of the method.
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental,
Energy and Economic Impacts
In setting standards, the CAA requires
us to consider alternative emission
control approaches, taking into account
the estimated costs as well as impacts
on energy, solid waste and other effects.
The EPA presented estimates of the
impacts for subpart BBa, which revises
the performance standards for new,
modified or reconstructed emission
units at kraft pulp mills, in the preamble
to the proposed rule and in the docket
for this rulemaking. (See 78 FR 31331–
31332, and the memorandum, Emissions
Inventory for Kraft Pulp Mills and Costs/
Impacts of the Section 111(b) Review of
the Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS.) These
impact estimates have not changed
since proposal because we have not
changed any rule requirements in a way
that would alter the projected number of
affected facilities or costs of compliance.
While we added language to subpart
BBa to clarify that TRS emissions from
new, modified or reconstructed pulping
emission sources must be delivered to
incineration or other controls through a
closed-vent collection system as
required under 40 CFR 63.450 of
subpart S, there is no incremental cost
associated with this requirement in
subpart BBa because the closed-vent
collection system standards are already
required for new and existing sources
under subpart S.
The EPA estimates that the total
increase in nationwide annual cost
associated with this final rule is
$389,900 for all of the emission units
projected to be constructed, modified or
reconstructed between 2013 and 2018.
Costs are based on the third quarter of
2012. The impacts are expressed as
incremental differences between the
impacts of emission units complying
with subpart BBa and the baseline (e.g.,
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
NSPS subpart BB or NESHAP subpart
MM) requirements for these sources.
The impacts represent emission units at
kraft pulp mills projected to commence
construction, reconstruction or
modification over the 5 years following
May 23, 2013. No additional control
devices or other equipment are expected
to be needed to meet the NSPS
requirements beyond those that would
already be installed to meet the baseline
requirements for these emission units.
Thus, no emission reductions, energy
impacts or secondary air emission
impacts are expected to result from this
final rule.
This final action is not expected to
induce measurable changes in the
average national price and production of
pulp and paper products. Hence, the
overall economic impact of this NSPS
should be minimal on the affected
industries and their consumers. For
more information, please refer to the
memorandum, Economic Impact
Analysis for the Section 111(b) Review
of the Kraft Pulp Mills New Source
Performance Standards Subpart BB, in
the docket for this rulemaking.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review
This action is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and is, therefore, not
subject to review under Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011).
The EPA prepared an analysis of the
potential costs and benefits associated
with this action. This analysis is
contained in the memorandum,
Economic Impact Analysis for the
Section 111(b) Review of the Kraft Pulp
Mills New Source Performance
Standards Subpart BB. A copy of the
analysis is available in the docket for
this action.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this final rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501, et seq. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until
OMB approves them.
These revisions to the NSPS for Kraft
Pulp Mills for future affected sources
include different emission limits and
continuous monitoring requirements
and additional performance testing from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
what is in subpart BB. The additional
performance testing requirements for
recovery furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns
include initial testing for condensable
PM and 5-year repeat testing for
filterable PM, condensable PM and TRS.
The monitoring requirements include a
different opacity limit and monitoring
allowance for recovery furnaces,
restriction of the monitoring allowances
for TRS to an upper concentration limit,
continuous opacity monitoring for lime
kilns equipped with ESPs and
continuous ESP parameter monitoring
for recovery furnaces and lime kilns
equipped with ESPs. These testing and
monitoring requirements are in addition
to the initial performance testing and
continuous monitoring requirements
described in section IV.A of this
preamble, which are required under the
current subpart BB.
The recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with these
testing and monitoring provisions are
specifically authorized by CAA section
114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information
submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded
according to the EPA policies set forth
in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
When a malfunction occurs, sources
must report it according to the
applicable reporting requirements of 40
CFR part 60, subpart BBa. An
affirmative defense to civil penalties for
violations of emission standards that are
caused by malfunctions is available to a
source if it can demonstrate that certain
criteria and requirements are satisfied.
In addition, the source must meet
certain notification and reporting
requirements. For example, the source
must prepare a written root cause
analysis and submit a written report to
the Administrator documenting that it
has met the conditions and
requirements for assertion of the
affirmative defense.
For this final rule, the EPA is
considering the affirmative defense in
its estimate of burden in the information
collection request (ICR). To provide the
public with an estimate of the relative
magnitude of the burden associated
with an assertion of the affirmative
defense position adopted by a source,
the EPA has provided administrative
adjustments to the ICR that shows what
the notification, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements associated with
the assertion of the affirmative defense
might entail. The EPA’s estimate for the
required notification, reports and
records, including the root cause
analysis associated with a single
incident totals approximately $3,375,
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18963
and is based on the time and effort
required of a source to review relevant
data, interview plant employees and
document the events surrounding a
malfunction that has caused a violation
of an emission limit. The estimate also
includes time to produce and retain the
records and reports for submission to
the EPA.
The EPA provides this illustrative
estimate of this burden because these
costs are only incurred if there has been
a violation and a source chooses to take
advantage of the affirmative defense.
Given the variety of circumstances
under which malfunctions could occur,
as well as differences among sources’
operation and maintenance practices,
the EPA cannot reliably predict the
severity and frequency of malfunctionrelated excess emission events for a
particular source. It is important to note
that the EPA has no basis currently for
estimating the number of malfunctions
that would qualify for an affirmative
defense. Current historical records
would be an inappropriate basis, as
source owners or operators previously
operated their facilities in recognition
that they were exempt from the
requirement to comply with emission
standards during malfunctions. Of the
number of violation events reported by
source operators, only a small number
would be expected to result from a
malfunction (based on the definition of
a malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2), and only
a subset of violations caused by
malfunctions would result in the source
choosing to assert the affirmative
defense. Thus, the EPA believes the
number of instances in which source
operators might be expected to avail
themselves of the affirmative defense
will be extremely small.
For this reason, the EPA estimates no
more than two such occurrences for all
sources subject to 40 CFR part 60,
subpart BBa over the 3-year period
covered by the ICR. The EPA expects to
gather information on such events in the
future and will revise this estimate as
better information becomes available.
The annual burden for this
information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to
total 1,905 labor-hours per year at a cost
of $186,324/yr. The annualized capital
costs are estimated at $411,300/yr. The
annual operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs are $155,880/yr. The total
annualized capital and O&M costs are
$567,180/yr. Burden is defined in 5 CFR
1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB
control number. The OMB control
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
18964
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
numbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When
this ICR is approved by OMB, the
agency will publish a technical
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the
Federal Register to display the OMB
control number for the approved
information collection requirements
contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice-and-comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts
of this final rule on small entities, small
entity is defined as: (1) A small business
as defined by the Small Business
Administration’s regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental
jurisdiction that is a government of a
city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less
than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
This certification is based on the
economic impact of this action to all
affected small entities. Only two small
entities may be impacted by this final
rule. The EPA estimates that all affected
small entities will have annualized costs
of less than 0.1 percent of their sales.
Thus, the EPA concludes that this final
rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
For more information on the small
entity impacts associated with this rule,
please refer to the memorandum,
Economic Impact Analysis for the
Section 111(b) Review of the Kraft Pulp
Mills New Source Performance
Standards Subpart BB, in the public
docket. Although this final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities,
the EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the
impact of this final rule on small
entities. When developing these
standards, the EPA took special steps to
ensure that the burdens imposed on
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
small entities were minimal. The EPA
conducted several meetings with the
industry trade association to discuss
regulatory options and the
corresponding burden on industry, such
as recordkeeping and reporting and
impacts on existing sources that are
modified.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This final rule does not contain a
federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more
for state, local and tribal governments,
in the aggregate, or to the private sector
in any one year. This final rule is not
expected to impact state, local or tribal
governments. The nationwide
annualized cost of this final rule for
affected industrial sources is estimated
to be $389,900/yr. Thus, this final rule
is not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
This final rule is also not subject to
the requirements of section 203 of
UMRA because it contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. This
final rule will not apply to such
governments and will not impose any
obligations upon them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism
implications. It will not have substantial
direct effects on the states, on the
relationship between the national
government and the states or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132. None of the
facilities subject to this action are
owned or operated by state
governments, and nothing in this final
rule will supersede state regulations.
Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not
apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments
This action does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000). It will not have substantial direct
effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the federal
government and Indian tribes or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities between the federal
government and Indian tribes, as
specified in Executive Order 13175.
This final rule imposes requirements on
owners and operators of kraft pulp mills
and not tribal governments. The EPA
does not know of any kraft pulp mills
owned or operated by Indian tribal
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
governments. However, if there are any,
the effect of this rule on communities of
tribal governments would not be unique
or disproportionate to the effect on other
communities. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 22, 1997) as
applying to those regulatory actions that
concern health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5–
501 of the Executive Order has the
potential to influence the regulation.
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because it is based solely
on an analysis of the degree of emission
reduction that is achievable through the
application of the best system of
emissions reduction, as provided in
CAA section 111.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22,
2001), because it is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order
12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104–
113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs the
EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA
directs the EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the
agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
This rulemaking involves technical
standards. The EPA has decided to use
one VCS in this rulemaking. The VCS,
ASME PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and
Exhaust Gas Analyses,’’ is cited in this
rule for its manual method of measuring
the content of the exhaust gas as an
acceptable alternative to EPA Method
3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A–2.
This standard is available at https://
www.asme.org or by mail at the
American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME), Two Park Avenue,
New York, NY 10016–5990.
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
The EPA has identified two other VCS
as being potentially applicable to this
final rule. The first, ASTM D7520–09, is
an alternative to Method 9 (see part 60,
appendix A–4 for a description of
Method 9). This final rule currently
provides the use of COMS as an
alternative to Method 9; therefore, the
EPA has decided not to use ASTM
D7520–09 in this rulemaking. The
second, ANSI/ASME PTC 19–10–1981–
Part 10, is an alternative to Method 16A
(see part 60, appendix A–6 for a
description of Method 16A). The EPA is
incorporating this VCS as an alternative
to Method 3B above, but is not
incorporating it as an alternative to
Method 16A because it is an alternative
for only the manual portion and not the
instrumental portion of Method 16A,
and sources are already allowed four
EPA methods for measuring TRS
(Methods 16, 16A, 16B and 16C). See
the docket for this rule for the reasons
for these determinations.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) establishes federal
executive policy on environmental
justice. Its main provision directs
federal agencies, to the greatest extent
practicable and permitted by law, to
make environmental justice part of their
mission by identifying and addressing,
as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or
environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority
populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
The EPA has concluded that it is not
practicable to determine whether there
would be disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority, low income or
indigenous populations from this final
rule as it is unknown where new
facilities will be located and the EPA
does not expect new facilities to be
built. However, the agency has reviewed
the areas surrounding all existing kraft
pulp mills to determine if there is an
overrepresentation of minority, low
income or indigenous populations near
the sources, such that they may
currently face disproportionate risks
from pollutants.
To gain a better understanding of the
source category and near source
populations, the EPA conducted a
demographic analysis on the source
category for this rulemaking. This
analysis only gives some indication of
the prevalence of subpopulations that
may be exposed to air pollution from
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
the sources and, therefore, would be
those populations that may be expected
to benefit most from this regulation; it
does not identify the demographic
characteristics of the most highly
affected individuals or communities,
nor does it quantify the level of risk
faced by those individuals or
communities. The data show that most
demographic categories were below or
within 20 percent of their corresponding
national averages except for the African
American population percentage within
three miles of any source potentially
affected by this rulemaking. This
segment of the population exceeds the
national average by 5 percentage points
(18 percent v. 13 percent), or plus 38
percent. There is no indication that this
segment of the population faces an
unacceptable risk from emissions from
these sources. However, the additional
information that will be collected from
the increase in testing requirements
with this rule is expected to better
inform the agency of the emissions
associated with this source category.
This will ensure better compliance with
this final rule and will result in this rule
being more protective of human health.
The demographic analysis results and
the details concerning their
development are presented in the
September 18, 2012, memorandum
titled, Environmental Justice Review:
Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS, a copy of which
is available in the docket for this action
(EPA–HQ–OAR–2012–0640).
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that, before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this final rule
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of this final rule in the
Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is
published in the Federal Register. This
action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will
be effective on April 4, 2014.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18965
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: March 14, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
As described in the preamble above,
the EPA amends 40 CFR part 60 as
follows:
PART 60—STANDARDS OF
PERFORMANCE FOR NEW
STATIONARY SOURCES
1. The authority citation for part 60
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A—[Amended]
2. Section 60.17 is amended by:
a. Revising paragraph (f) introductory
text,
■ b. Revising paragraph (f)(14),
■ c. Revising paragraph (o) introductory
text, and
■ d. Revising paragraph (o)(1).
The amendments read as follows:
■
■
§ 60.17
Incorporations by reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(f) The following material is available
for purchase from the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Two
Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016–
5990, Telephone (800) 843–2763, and is
also available at the following Web site:
https://www.asme.org. * * * * *
(14) ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10–1981,
Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 10,
Instruments and Apparatus], (Issued
August 31, 1981), IBR approved for
§§ 60.56c(b), 60.63(f), 60.106(e),
60.104a(d), (h), (i), and (j), 60.105a(d),
(f), and (g), § 60.106a(a), § 60.107a(a),
(c), and (d), tables 1 and 3 to subpart
EEEE, tables 2 and 4 to subpart FFFF,
table 2 to subpart JJJJ, § 60.285a(f),
§§ 60.4415(a), 60.2145(s) and (t),
60.2710(s) (t), and (w), 60.2730(q),
60.4900(b), 60.5220(b), tables 1 and 2 to
subpart LLLL, tables 2 and 3 to subpart
MMMM, §§ 60.5406(c) and 60.5413(b).
*
*
*
*
*
(o) The following material is available
for purchase from the Technical
Association of the Pulp and Paper
Industry (TAPPI), 15 Technology
Parkway South, Suite 115, Peachtree
Corners, GA 30092, Telephone (800)
332–8686, and is also available at the
following Web site: https://
www.tappi.org.
(1) TAPPI Method T 624 cm-11,
(Copyright 2011), IBR approved, for
§§ 60.285(d) and 60.285a(d).
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Section 60.280 is amended by
revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
18966
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
§ 60.280 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Except as noted in
§ 60.283(a)(1)(iv), any facility under
paragraph (a) of this section that
commences construction,
reconstruction, or modification after
September 24, 1976, and on or before
May 23, 2013 is subject to the
requirements of this subpart. Any
facility under paragraph (a) of this
section that commences construction,
reconstruction, or modification after
May 23, 2013 is subject to the
requirements of subpart BBa of this part.
■ 4. Add subpart BBa to read as follows:
Subpart BBa—Standards of Performance
for Kraft Pulp Mill Affected Sources for
Which Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification Commenced After May 23,
2013
Sec.
60.280a Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
60.281a Definitions.
60.282a Standard for filterable particulate
matter.
60.283a Standard for total reduced sulfur
(TRS).
60.284a Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
60.285a Test methods and procedures.
60.286a Affirmative defense for violations
of emission standards during
malfunction.
60.287a Recordkeeping.
60.288a Reporting.
Subpart BBa—Standards of
Performance for Kraft Pulp Mill
Affected Sources for Which
Construction, Reconstruction, or
Modification Commenced After May 23,
2013
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
§ 60.280a Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to the following affected
facilities in kraft pulp mills: digester
system, brown stock washer system,
multiple-effect evaporator system,
recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank,
lime kiln and condensate stripper
system. In pulp mills where kraft
pulping is combined with neutral sulfite
semichemical pulping, the provisions of
this subpart are applicable when any
portion of the material charged to an
affected facility is produced by the kraft
pulping operation.
(b) Except as noted in
§ 60.283a(a)(1)(iv), any facility under
paragraph (a) of this section that
commences construction, reconstruction
or modification after May 23, 2013, is
subject to the requirements of this
subpart. Any facility under paragraph
(a) of this section that commenced
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
construction, reconstruction, or
modification after September 24, 1976,
and on or before May 23, 2013 is subject
to the requirements of subpart BB of this
part.
§ 60.281a
Definitions.
As used in this subpart, all terms not
defined herein must have the same
meaning given them in the Act and in
subpart A.
Affirmative defense means, in the
context of an enforcement proceeding, a
response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the
defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently
and objectively evaluated in a judicial
or administrative proceeding.
Black liquor solids (BLS) means the
dry weight of the solids which enter the
recovery furnace in the black liquor.
Brown stock washer system means
brown stock washers and associated
knotters, vacuum pumps, and filtrate
tanks used to wash the pulp following
the digester system. Diffusion washers
are excluded from this definition.
Closed-vent system means a system
that is not open to the atmosphere and
is composed of piping, ductwork,
connections, and, if necessary, flowinducing devices that transport gas or
vapor from an emission point to a
control device.
Condensable particulate matter, for
purposes of this subpart, means
particulate matter (PM) measured by
EPA Method 202 of Appendix M of 40
CFR part 51 that is vapor phase at stack
conditions, but condenses and/or reacts
upon cooling and dilution in the
ambient air to form solid or liquid PM
immediately after discharge from the
stack.
Condensate stripper system means a
column, and associated condensers,
used to strip, with air or steam, total
reduced sulfur (TRS) compounds from
condensate streams from various
processes within a kraft pulp mill.
Cross recovery furnace means a
furnace used to recover chemicals
consisting primarily of sodium and
sulfur compounds by burning black
liquor which on a quarterly basis
contains more than 7 weight percent of
the total pulp solids from the neutral
sulfite semichemical process and has a
green liquor sulfidity of more than 28
percent.
Digester system means each
continuous digester or each batch
digester used for the cooking of wood in
white liquor, and associated flash
tank(s), blow tank(s), chip steamer(s)
including chip bins using live steam,
and condenser(s).
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
Filterable particulate matter, for
purposes of this subpart, means
particulate matter measured by EPA
Method 5 of Appendix A–3 of this part.
Green liquor sulfidity means the
sulfidity of the liquor which leaves the
smelt dissolving tank.
High volume, low concentration
(HVLC) closed-vent system means the
gas collection and transport system used
to convey gases from the brown stock
washer system to a control device.
Kraft pulp mill means any stationary
source which produces pulp from wood
by cooking (digesting) wood chips in a
water solution of sodium hydroxide and
sodium sulfide (white liquor) at high
temperature and pressure. Regeneration
of the cooking chemicals through a
recovery process is also considered part
of the kraft pulp mill.
Lime kiln means a unit used to calcine
lime mud, which consists primarily of
calcium carbonate, into quicklime,
which is calcium oxide.
Low volume, high concentration
(LVHC) closed-vent system means the
gas collection and transport system used
to convey gases from the digester
system, condensate stripper system, and
multiple-effect evaporator system to a
control device.
Monitoring system malfunction means
a sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable failure of the monitoring
system to provide valid data.
Monitoring system failures that are
caused in part by poor maintenance or
careless operation are not malfunctions.
The owner or operator is required to
implement monitoring system repairs in
response to monitoring system
malfunctions or out-of-control periods,
and to return the monitoring system to
operation as expeditiously as
practicable.
Multiple-effect evaporator system
means the multiple-effect evaporators
and associated condenser(s) and
hotwell(s) used to concentrate the spent
cooking liquid that is separated from the
pulp (black liquor).
Neutral sulfite semichemical pulping
operation means any operation in which
pulp is produced from wood by cooking
(digesting) wood chips in a solution of
sodium sulfite and sodium bicarbonate,
followed by mechanical defibrating
(grinding).
Recovery furnace means either a
straight kraft recovery furnace or a cross
recovery furnace, and includes the
direct-contact evaporator for a directcontact furnace.
Smelt dissolving tank means a vessel
used for dissolving the smelt collected
from the recovery furnace.
Straight kraft recovery furnace means
a furnace used to recover chemicals
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
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.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
§ 60.282a Standard for filterable
particulate matter.
(a) On and after the date on which the
performance test required to be
conducted by § 60.8 is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere:
(1) From any modified recovery
furnace any gases which:
(i) Contain filterable particulate
matter in excess of 0.10 gram per dry
standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.044
grain per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf)) corrected to 8-percent oxygen.
(ii) Exhibit 20-percent opacity or
greater, where an electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) emission control
device is used, except where it is used
in combination with a wet scrubber.
(2) From any new or reconstructed
recovery furnace any gases which:
(i) Contain filterable particulate
matter in excess of 0.034 g/dscm (0.015
gr/dscf) corrected to 8-percent oxygen.
(ii) Exhibit 20-percent opacity or
greater, where an ESP emission control
device is used, except where it is used
in combination with a wet scrubber.
(3) From any modified or
reconstructed smelt dissolving tank, or
from any new smelt dissolving tank that
is not associated with a new or
reconstructed recovery furnace subject
to the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of
this section, any gases which contain
filterable particulate matter in excess of
0.1 gram per kilogram (g/kg) (0.2 pound
per ton (lb/ton)) of black liquor solids
(dry weight).
(4) From any new smelt dissolving
tank associated with a new or
reconstructed recovery furnace subject
to the provisions of paragraph (a)(2) of
this section, any gases which contain
filterable particulate matter in excess of
0.060 g/kg (0.12 lb/ton) black liquor
solids (dry weight).
(5) From any modified lime kiln any
gases which:
(i) Contain filterable particulate
matter in excess of 0.15 g/dscm (0.064
gr/dscf) corrected to 10-percent oxygen.
(ii) Exhibit 20-percent opacity or
greater, where an ESP emission control
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
device is used, except where it is used
in combination with a wet scrubber.
(6) From any new or reconstructed
lime kiln any gases which:
(i) Contain filterable particulate
matter in excess of 0.023 g/dscm (0.010
gr/dscf) corrected to 10-percent oxygen.
(ii) Exhibit 20-percent opacity or
greater, where an ESP emission control
device is used, except where it is used
in combination with a wet scrubber.
(b) These standards apply at all times
as specified in §§ 60.284a and 60.285a.
(c) The exemptions to opacity
standards under 40 CFR 60.11(c) do not
apply to subpart BBa.
§ 60.283a
(TRS).
Standard for total reduced sulfur
(a) On and after the date on which the
performance test required to be
conducted by § 60.8 is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart must cause to
be discharged into the atmosphere:
(1) From any digester system, brown
stock washer system, multiple-effect
evaporator system, or condensate
stripper system any gases which contain
TRS in excess of 5 parts per million
(ppm) by volume on a dry basis,
corrected to 10-percent oxygen, unless
one of the following conditions are met:
(i) The gases are collected in an LVHC
or HVLC closed-vent system meeting the
requirements of § 63.450 and combusted
in a lime kiln subject to the provisions
of either paragraph (a)(5) of this section
or § 60.283(a)(5); or
(ii) The gases are collected in an
LVHC or HVLC closed-vent system
meeting the requirements of § 63.450
and combusted in a recovery furnace
subject to the provisions of either
paragraphs (a)(2) or (3) of this section or
§ 60.283(a)(2) or (3); or
(iii) The gases are collected in an
LVHC or HVLC closed-vent system
meeting the requirements of § 63.450
and combusted with other waste gases
in an incinerator or other device, or
combusted in a lime kiln or recovery
furnace not subject to the provisions of
this subpart (or subpart BB of this part),
and are subjected to a minimum
temperature of 650 °C (1200 °F) for at
least 0.5 second; or
(iv) It has been demonstrated to the
Administrator’s satisfaction by the
owner or operator that incinerating the
exhaust gases from a new, modified, or
reconstructed brown stock washer
system is technologically or
economically unfeasible. Any exempt
system will become subject to the
provisions of this subpart if the facility
is changed so that the gases can be
incinerated.
(v) The gases from the digester
system, brown stock washer system, or
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18967
condensate stripper system are collected
in an LVHC or HVLC closed-vent system
meeting the requirements of § 63.450
and controlled by a means other than
combustion. In this case, this system
must not discharge any gases to the
atmosphere which contain TRS in
excess of 5 ppm by volume on a dry
basis, uncorrected for oxygen content.
(vi) The uncontrolled exhaust gases
from a new, modified, or reconstructed
digester system contain TRS less than
0.005 g/kg (0.01 lb/ton) air dried pulp
(ADP).
(2) From any straight kraft recovery
furnace any gases which contain TRS in
excess of 5 ppm by volume on a dry
basis, corrected to 8-percent oxygen.
(3) From any cross recovery furnace
any gases which contain TRS in excess
of 25 ppm by volume on a dry basis,
corrected to 8-percent oxygen.
(4) From any smelt dissolving tank
any gases which contain TRS in excess
of 0.016 g/kg (0.033 lb/ton) of black
liquor solids as hydrogen sulfide (H2S).
(5) From any lime kiln any gases
which contain TRS in excess of 8 ppm
by volume on a dry basis, corrected to
10-percent oxygen.
(b) These standards apply at all times
as specified in §§ 60.284a and 60.285a.
§ 60.284a Monitoring of emissions and
operations.
(a) Any owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart must
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
the continuous monitoring systems
specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of
this section:
(1) A continuous monitoring system
to monitor and record the opacity of the
gases discharged into the atmosphere
from any recovery furnace or lime kiln
using an ESP emission control device,
except as specified in paragraph (b)(4) of
this section. The span of this system
must be set at 70-percent opacity. You
must install, certify, and operate the
continuous opacity monitoring system
in accordance with Performance
Specification (PS) 1 in Appendix B to 40
CFR part 60.
(2) Continuous monitoring systems to
monitor and record the concentration of
TRS emissions on a dry basis and the
percent of oxygen by volume on a dry
basis in the gases discharged into the
atmosphere from any lime kiln, recovery
furnace, digester system, brown stock
washer system, multiple-effect
evaporator system, or condensate
stripper system, except where the
provisions of § 60.283a(a)(1)(iii) or (iv)
apply. You must install, certify, and
operate the continuous TRS monitoring
system in accordance with Performance
Specification (PS) 5 in Appendix B to 40
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
18968
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
CFR part 60. You must install, certify,
and operate the continuous oxygen
monitoring system in accordance with
Performance Specification (PS) 3 in
Appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. These
systems must be located downstream of
the control device(s). The range of the
continuous monitoring system must
encompass all expected concentration
values, including the zero and span
values used for calibration. The spans of
these continuous monitoring system(s)
must be set:
(i) At a TRS concentration of 30 ppm
for the TRS continuous monitoring
system, except that for any cross
recovery furnace the span must be set at
50 ppm.
(ii) At 21-percent oxygen for the
continuous oxygen monitoring system.
(b) Any owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart must
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
the following continuous parameter
monitoring devices specified in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(1) For any incinerator, a monitoring
device for the continuous measurement
of the combustion temperature at the
point of incineration of effluent gases
which are emitted from any digester
system, brown stock washer system,
multiple effect evaporator system, or
condensate stripper system where the
provisions of § 60.283a(a)(1)(iii) apply.
The monitoring device is to be certified
by the manufacturer to be accurate
within ±1 percent of the temperature
being measured.
(2) For any recovery furnace, lime
kiln, or smelt dissolving tank using a
wet scrubber emission control device:
(i) A monitoring device for the
continuous measurement of the pressure
drop of the gas stream through the
control equipment. The monitoring
device is to be certified by the
manufacturer to be accurate to within a
gage pressure of ±500 Pascals (±2 inches
water gage pressure).
(ii) A monitoring device for the
continuous measurement of the
scrubbing liquid flow rate. The
monitoring device used for continuous
measurement of the scrubbing liquid
flow rate must be certified by the
manufacturer to be accurate within ±5
percent of the design scrubbing liquid
flow rate.
(iii) As an alternative to pressure drop
measurement under paragraph (b)(2)(i)
of this section, a monitoring device for
measurement of fan amperage may be
used for smelt dissolving tank dynamic
scrubbers that operate at ambient
pressure or for low-energy entrainment
scrubbers where the fan speed does not
vary.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
(iv) As an alternative to scrubbing
liquid flow rate measurement under
paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, a
monitoring device for measurement of
scrubbing liquid supply pressure may
be used. The monitoring device is to be
certified by the manufacturer to be
accurate within ±15 percent of design
scrubbing liquid supply pressure. The
pressure sensor or tap is to be located
close to the scrubber liquid discharge
point. The Administrator may be
consulted for approval of alternative
locations.
(3) For any recovery furnace or lime
kiln using an ESP emission control
device, the owner or operator must use
the continuous parameter monitoring
devices specified in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)
and (ii) of this section.
(i) A monitoring device for the
continuous measurement of the
secondary voltage of each ESP
collection field.
(ii) A monitoring device for the
continuous measurement of the
secondary current of each ESP
collection field.
(iii) Total secondary power may be
calculated as the product of the
secondary voltage and secondary
current measurements for each ESP
collection field and used to demonstrate
compliance as an alternative to the
secondary voltage and secondary
current measurements.
(4) For any recovery furnace or lime
kiln using an ESP followed by a wet
scrubber, the owner or operator must
use the continuous parameter
monitoring devices specified in
paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section.
The opacity monitoring system
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section is not required for combination
ESP/wet scrubber control device
systems.
(c) Monitor operation and
calculations. Any owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
must follow the procedures for
collecting and reducing monitoring data
and setting operating limits in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section. Subpart A of this part specifies
methods for reducing continuous
opacity monitoring system data.
(1) Any owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart must,
except where the provisions of
§ 60.283a(a)(1)(iii) or (iv) apply, perform
the following:
(i) Calculate and record on a daily
basis 12-hour average TRS
concentrations for the two consecutive
periods of each operating day. Each 12hour average must be determined as the
arithmetic mean of the appropriate 12
contiguous 1-hour average TRS
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
concentrations provided by each
continuous monitoring system installed
under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(ii) Calculate and record on a daily
basis 12-hour average oxygen
concentrations for the two consecutive
periods of each operating day for the
recovery furnace and lime kiln. These
12- hour averages must correspond to
the 12-hour average TRS concentrations
under paragraph (c)(1)(i) of this section
and must be determined as an
arithmetic mean of the appropriate 12
contiguous 1-hour average oxygen
concentrations provided by each
continuous monitoring system installed
under paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
(iii) Using the following equation,
correct all 12-hour average TRS
concentrations to 10 volume percent
oxygen, except that all 12-hour average
TRS concentrations from a recovery
furnace must be corrected to 8 volume
percent oxygen instead of 10 percent,
and all 12-hour average TRS
concentrations from a facility to which
the provisions of § 60.283a(a)(1)(v)
apply must not be corrected for oxygen
content:
Ccorr = Cmeas × (21¥X/21¥Y)
Where:
Ccorr = the concentration corrected for
oxygen.
Cmeas = the 12-hour average of the measured
concentrations uncorrected for oxygen.
X = the volumetric oxygen concentration in
percentage to be corrected to (8 percent
for recovery furnaces and 10 percent for
lime kilns, incinerators, or other
devices).
Y = the 12-hour average of the measured
volumetric oxygen concentration.
(2) Record at least once each
successive 5-minute period all
measurements obtained from the
continuous monitoring devices installed
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.
Calculate 3-hour block averages from
the recorded measurements of
incinerator temperature. Temperature
measurements recorded when no TRS
emissions are fired in the incinerator
(e.g., during incinerator warm-up and
cool-down periods when no TRS
emissions are generated or an
alternative control device is used) may
be omitted from the block average
calculation.
(3) Record at least once each
successive 15-minute period all
measurements obtained from the
continuous monitoring devices installed
under paragraph (b)(2) through (4) of
this section and reduce the data as
follows:
(i) Calculate 12-hour block averages
from the recorded measurements of wet
scrubber pressure drop (or smelt
dissolving tank scrubber fan amperage)
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
and liquid flow rate (or liquid supply
pressure), as applicable.
(ii) Calculate semiannual averages
from the recorded measurements of ESP
parameters (secondary voltage and
secondary current, or total secondary
power) for ESP-controlled recovery
furnaces or lime kilns that measure
opacity in addition to ESP parameters.
(iii) Calculate 12-hour block averages
from the recorded measurements of ESP
parameters (secondary voltage and
secondary current, or total secondary
power) for recovery furnaces or lime
kilns with combination ESP/wet
scrubber controls.
(4) During the initial performance test
required in § 60.285a, the owner or
operator must establish site-specific
operating limits for the monitoring
parameters in paragraphs (b)(2) through
(4) of this section by continuously
monitoring the parameters and
determining the arithmetic average
value of each parameter during the
performance test. The arithmetic
average of the measured values for the
three test runs establishes your
minimum site-specific operating limit
for each wet scrubber or ESP parameter.
Multiple performance tests may be
conducted to establish a range of
parameter values. The owner or operator
may establish replacement operating
limits for the monitoring parameters
during subsequent performance tests
using the test methods in § 60.285a.
(5) You must operate the continuous
monitoring systems required in
paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section to
collect data at all required intervals at
all times the affected facility is
operating except for periods of
monitoring system malfunctions or outof-control periods, repairs associated
with monitoring system malfunctions or
out-of-control periods, and required
monitoring system quality assurance or
quality control activities including, as
applicable, calibration checks and
required zero and span adjustments.
(6) You may not use data recorded
during monitoring system malfunctions
or out-of-control periods, repairs
associated with monitoring system
malfunctions or out-of-control periods,
or required monitoring system quality
assurance or control activities in
calculations used to report emissions or
operating limits. You must use all the
data collected during all other periods
in assessing the operation of the control
device and associated control system.
(7) Except for periods of monitoring
system malfunctions, repairs associated
with monitoring system malfunctions,
and required quality monitoring system
quality assurance or quality control
activities (including, as applicable,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
system accuracy audits and required
zero and span adjustments), failure to
collect required data is a deviation of
the monitoring requirements.
(d) Excess emissions are defined for
this subpart as follows:
(1) For emissions from any recovery
furnace, periods of excess emissions are:
(i) All 12-hour averages of TRS
concentrations above 5 ppm by volume
at 8-percent oxygen for straight kraft
recovery furnaces and above 25 ppm by
volume at 8-percent oxygen for cross
recovery furnaces during times when
BLS is fired.
(ii) All 6-minute average opacities that
exceed 20 percent during times when
BLS is fired.
(2) For emissions from any lime kiln,
periods of excess emissions are:
(i) All 12-hour average TRS
concentrations above 8 ppm by volume
at 10-percent oxygen during times when
lime mud is fired.
(ii) All 6-minute average opacities that
exceed 20 percent during times when
lime mud is fired.
(3) For emissions from any digester
system, brown stock washer system,
multiple-effect evaporator system, or
condensate stripper system, periods of
excess emissions are:
(i) All 12-hour average TRS
concentrations above 5 ppm by volume
at 10-percent oxygen unless the
provisions of § 60.283a(a)(1)(i), (ii), or
(iv) apply; or
(ii) All 3-hour block averages during
which the combustion temperature at
the point of incineration is less than
650 °C (1200 °F), where the provisions
of § 60.283a(a)(1)(iii) apply and an
incinerator is used as the combustion
device.
(iii) All times when gases are not
routed through the closed-vent system
to one of the control devices specified
in § 60.283a(a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v).
(4) For any recovery furnace, lime
kiln, or smelt dissolving tank controlled
with a wet scrubber emission control
device that complies with the parameter
monitoring requirements specified in
§ 60.284a(b)(2), periods of excess
emissions are:
(i) All 12-hour block average
scrubbing liquid flow rate (or scrubbing
liquid supply pressure) measurements
below the minimum site-specific limit
established during performance testing
during times when BLS or lime mud is
fired (as applicable), and
(ii) All 12-hour block average scrubber
pressure drop (or fan amperage, if used
as an alternative under paragraph
(b)(2)(iii) of this section) measurements
below the minimum site-specific limit
established during performance testing
during times when BLS or lime mud is
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18969
fired (as applicable), except during
startup and shutdown.
(5) For any recovery furnace or lime
kiln controlled with an ESP followed by
a wet scrubber that complies with the
parameter monitoring requirements
specified in § 60.284a(b)(4), periods of
excess emissions are:
(i) All 12-hour block average
scrubbing liquid flow rate (or scrubbing
liquid supply pressure) measurements
below the minimum site-specific limit
established during performance testing
during times when BLS or lime mud is
fired (as applicable), and
(ii) All 12-hour block average scrubber
pressure drop measurements below the
minimum site-specific limit established
during performance testing during times
when BLS or lime mud is fired (as
applicable) except during startup and
shutdown,
(iii) All 12-hour block average ESP
secondary voltage measurements below
the minimum site-specific limit
established during performance testing
during times when BLS or lime mud is
fired (as applicable) including startup
and shutdown.
(iv) All 12-hour block average ESP
secondary current measurements (or
total secondary power values) below the
minimum site-specific limit established
during performance testing during times
when BLS or lime mud is fired (as
applicable) except during startup and
shutdown.
(e) The Administrator will not
consider periods of excess emissions
reported under § 60.288a(a) to be
indicative of a violation of the standards
provided the criteria in paragraphs (e)(1)
and (2) of this section are met.
(1) The percent of the total number of
possible contiguous periods of excess
emissions in the semiannual reporting
period does not exceed:
(i) One percent for TRS emissions
from straight recovery furnaces,
provided that the 12-hour average TRS
concentration does not exceed 30 ppm
corrected to 8-percent oxygen.
(ii) Two percent for average opacities
from recovery furnaces, provided that
the ESP secondary voltage and
secondary current (or total secondary
power) averaged over the semiannual
period remained above the minimum
operating limits established during the
performance test.
(iii) One percent for TRS emissions
from lime kilns, provided that the 12hour average TRS concentration does
not exceed 22 ppm corrected to 10percent oxygen.
(iv) One percent for average opacities
from lime kilns, provided that the ESP
secondary voltage and secondary
current (or total secondary power)
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
18970
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
averaged over the semiannual period
remained above the minimum operating
limits established during the
performance test.
(v) One percent for TRS emissions
from cross recovery furnaces, provided
that the 12-hour average TRS
concentration does not exceed 50 ppm
corrected to 8-percent oxygen.
(vi) For closed-vent systems
delivering gases to one of the control
devices specified in § 60.283a(a)(1)(i)
through (iii) and (v), the time of excess
emissions divided by the total process
operating time in the semiannual
reporting period does not exceed:
(A) One percent for LVHC closed-vent
systems; or
(B) Four percent for HVLC closed-vent
systems or for HVLC and LVHC closedvent systems combined.
(2) The Administrator determines that
the affected facility, including air
pollution control equipment, is
maintained and operated in a manner
which is consistent with good air
pollution control practice for
minimizing emissions during periods of
excess emissions.
(3) The 12-hour average TRS
concentration uncorrected for oxygen
may be considered when determining
compliance with the excess emission
provisions in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and
(iii) of this section during periods of
startup or shutdown when the 12-hour
average stack oxygen percentage
approaches ambient conditions. If the
12-hour average TRS concentration
uncorrected for oxygen is less than the
applicable limit (5 ppm for recovery
furnaces or 8 ppm for lime kilns) during
periods of startup or shutdown when
the 12-hour average stack oxygen
concentration is 15 percent or greater,
then the Administrator will consider the
TRS average to be in compliance. This
provision only applies during periods of
affected facility startup and shutdown.
(f) The procedures under § 60.13 must
be followed for installation, evaluation,
and operation of the continuous
monitoring systems required under this
section. All continuous monitoring
systems must be operated in accordance
with the applicable procedures under
Performance Specifications 1, 3, and 5
of appendix B of this part.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
§ 60.285a
Test methods and procedures.
(a) In conducting the performance
tests required by this subpart and § 60.8,
the owner or operator must use as
reference methods and procedures the
test methods in appendix A of this part
or other methods and procedures in this
section, except as provided in § 60.8(b).
Acceptable alternative methods and
procedures are given in paragraph (f) of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
this section. Section 60.8(c) must be
read as follows for purposes of this
subpart: Performance tests shall be
conducted under such conditions as the
Administrator shall specify to the plant
operator based on representative
performance of the affected facility. The
owner or operator shall make available
to the Administrator such records as
may be necessary to determine the
conditions of the performance tests.
Operations during periods of startup,
shutdown and malfunction shall not
constitute representative conditions for
the purpose of a performance test.
(b) The owner or operator must
determine compliance with the
filterable particulate matter standards in
§ 60.282a(a)(1), (2), (5) and (6) as
follows:
(1) Method 5 of Appendix A–3 of this
part must be used to determine the
filterable particulate matter
concentration. The sampling time and
sample volume for each run must be at
least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8
dscf). Water must be used as the
cleanup solvent instead of acetone in
the sample recovery procedure. The
particulate concentration must be
corrected to the appropriate oxygen
concentration according to
§ 60.284a(c)(3).
(2) The emission rate correction
factor, integrated sampling and analysis
procedure of Method 3B of Appendix
A–2 of this part must be used to
determine the oxygen concentration.
The gas sample must be taken at the
same time and at the same traverse
points as the particulate sample.
(3) Method 9 of Appendix A–4 of this
part and the procedures in § 60.11 must
be used to determine opacity. Opacity
measurement is not required for
recovery furnaces or lime kilns
operating with a wet scrubber alone or
a wet scrubber in combination with an
ESP.
(4) In addition to the initial
performance test required by this
subpart and § 60.8(a), you must conduct
repeat performance tests for filterable
particulate matter at intervals no longer
than 5 years following the previous
performance test using the procedures
in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(5) When the initial and repeat
performance tests are conducted for
filterable particulate matter, the owner
or operator must also measure
condensable particulate matter using
Method 202 of Appendix M of 40 CFR
part 51.
(c) The owner or operator must
determine compliance with the
filterable particular matter standards in
§ 60.282a(a)(3) and (4) as follows:
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
(1) The emission rate (E) of filterable
particulate matter must be computed for
each run using the following equation:
E = csQsd/BLS
Where:
E = emission rate of filterable particulate
matter, g/kg (lb/ton) of BLS.
cs = Concentration of filterable particulate
matter, g/dscm (lb/dscf).
Qsd = volumetric flow rate of effluent gas, dry
standard cubic meter per hour (dscm/hr)
(dry standard cubic feet per hour (dscf/
hr)).
BLS = black liquor solids (dry weight) feed
rate, kg/hr (ton/hr).
(2) Method 5 of Appendix A–3 of this
part must be used to determine the
filterable particulate matter
concentration (cs) and the volumetric
flow rate (Qsd) of the effluent gas. The
sampling time and sample volume must
be at least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm
(31.8 dscf). Water must be used instead
of acetone in the sample recovery.
(3) Process data must be used to
determine the black liquor solids (BLS)
feed rate on a dry weight basis.
(4) In addition to the initial
performance test required by this
subpart and § 60.8(a), you must conduct
repeat performance tests for filterable
particulate matter at intervals no longer
than 5 years following the previous
performance test using the procedures
in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this
section.
(5) When the initial and repeat
performance tests are conducted for
filterable particulate matter, the owner
or operator must also measure
condensable particulate matter using
Method 202 of Appendix M of 40 CFR
part 51.
(d) The owner or operator must
determine compliance with the TRS
standards in § 60.283a, except
§ 60.283a(a)(1)(vi) and (4), as follows:
(1) Method 16 of Appendix A–6 of
this part must be used to determine the
TRS concentration. The TRS
concentration must be corrected to the
appropriate oxygen concentration using
the procedure in § 60.284a(c)(3). The
sampling time must be at least 3 hours,
but no longer than 6 hours.
(2) The emission rate correction
factor, integrated sampling and analysis
procedure of Method 3B of Appendix
A–2 of this part must be used to
determine the oxygen concentration.
The sample must be taken over the same
time period as the TRS samples.
(3) When determining whether a
furnace is a straight kraft recovery
furnace or a cross recovery furnace,
TAPPI Method T 624 (incorporated by
reference—see § 60.17) must be used to
determine sodium sulfide, sodium
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
hydroxide, and sodium carbonate.
These determinations must be made 3
times daily from the green liquor, and
the daily average values must be
converted to sodium oxide (Na20) and
substituted into the following equation
to determine the green liquor sulfidity:
GLS=100CNa2S/(CNa2SCNaOHCNa2CO3)
Where:
GLS = green liquor sulfidity, percent.
CNa2S = concentration of Na2S as Na2O,
milligrams per liter (mg/L) (grains per
gallon (gr/gal)).
CNaOH = concentration of NaOH as Na2O, mg/
L (gr/gal).
CNa2CO3 = concentration of Na2CO3 as Na2O,
mg/L (gr/gal).
(4) For recovery furnaces and lime
kilns, in addition to the initial
performance test required in this
subpart and § 60.8(a), you must conduct
repeat TRS performance tests at
intervals no longer than 5 years
following the previous performance test
using the procedures in paragraphs
(d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(e) The owner or operator must
determine compliance with the TRS
standards in § 60.283a(a)(1)(vi) and (4)
as follows:
(1) The emission rate (E) of TRS must
be computed for each run using the
following equation:
E=CTRS F Qsd/P
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Where:
E = emission rate of TRS, g/kg (lb/ton) of BLS
or ADP.
CTRS = average combined concentration of
TRS, ppm.
F = conversion factor, 0.001417 g H2S/cubic
meter (m3)-ppm (8.846 × 10 8 lb H2S/
cubic foot (ft3)-ppm).
Qsd = volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscm/
hr (dscf/hr).
P = black liquor solids feed or pulp
production rate, kg/hr (ton/hr).
(2) Method 16 of Appendix A–6 of
this part must be used to determine the
TRS concentration (CTRS).
(3) Method 2 of Appendix A–1 of this
part must be used to determine the
volumetric flow rate (Qsd) of the effluent
gas.
(4) Process data must be used to
determine the black liquor feed rate or
the pulp production rate (P).
(5) For smelt dissolving tanks, in
addition to the initial performance test
required in this subpart and § 60.8(a),
you must conduct repeat TRS
performance tests at intervals no longer
than 5 years following the previous
performance test using the procedures
in paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this
section.
(f) The owner or operator may use the
following as alternatives to the reference
methods and procedures specified in
this section:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
(1) In place of Method 5 of Appendix
A–3 of this part, Method 17 of
Appendix A–6 of this part may be used
if a constant value of 0.009 g/dscm
(0.004 gr/dscf) is added to the results of
Method 17 and the stack temperature is
no greater than 204°C (400 °F).
(2) In place of Method 16 of Appendix
A–6 of this part, Method 16A, 16B, or
16C of Appendix A–6 of this part may
be used.
(3) In place of Method 3B of
Appendix A–2 of this part, ASME PTC
19.10–1981 (incorporated by reference—
see § 60.17) may be used.
§ 60.286a Affirmative Defense for
Violations of Emission Standards During
Malfunction.
In response to an action to enforce the
standards set forth in §§ 60.282a and
60.283a, you may assert an affirmative
defense to a claim for civil penalties for
violations of such standards that are
caused by malfunction, as defined at
§ 60.2. Appropriate penalties may be
assessed if you fail to meet your burden
of proving all of the requirements in the
affirmative defense. The affirmative
defense must not be available for claims
for injunctive relief.
(a) Assertion of affirmative defense.
To establish the affirmative defense in
any action to enforce such a standard,
you must timely meet the reporting
requirements in paragraph (b) of this
section, and must prove by a
preponderance of evidence that:
(1) The violation:
(i) Was caused by a sudden,
infrequent, and unavoidable failure of
air pollution control equipment, process
equipment, or a process to operate in a
normal or usual manner; and
(ii) Could not have been prevented
through careful planning, proper design
or better operation and maintenance
practices; and
(iii) Did not stem from any activity or
event that could have been foreseen and
avoided, or planned for; and
(iv) Was not part of a recurring pattern
indicative of inadequate design,
operation, or maintenance; and
(2) Repairs were made as
expeditiously as possible when a
violation occurred; and
(3) The frequency, amount, and
duration of the violation (including any
bypass) were minimized to the
maximum extent practicable; and
(4) If the violation resulted from a
bypass of control equipment or a
process, then the bypass was
unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property
damage; and
(5) All possible steps were taken to
minimize the impact of the violation on
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4700
18971
ambient air quality, the environment,
and human health; and
(6) All emission monitoring and
control systems were kept in operation
if at all possible, consistent with safety
and good air pollution control practices;
and
(7) All of the actions in response to
the violation were documented by
properly signed, contemporaneous
operating logs; and
(8) At all times, the affected source
was operated in a manner consistent
with good practices for minimizing
emissions; and
(9) A written root cause analysis has
been prepared, the purpose of which is
to determine, correct, and eliminate the
primary causes of the malfunction and
the violation resulting from the
malfunction event at issue. The analysis
must also specify, using best monitoring
methods and engineering judgment, the
amount of any emissions that were the
result of the malfunction.
(b) Report. The owner or operator
seeking to assert an affirmative defense
must submit a written report to the
Administrator with all necessary
supporting documentation that explains
how it has met the requirements set
forth in paragraph (a) of this section.
This affirmative defense report must be
included in the first periodic
compliance, deviation report or excess
emission report otherwise required after
the initial occurrence of the violation of
the relevant standard (which may be the
end of any applicable averaging period).
If such compliance, deviation report or
excess emission report is due less than
45 days after the initial occurrence of
the violation, the affirmative defense
report may be included in the second
compliance, deviation report or excess
emission report due after the initial
occurrence of the violation of the
relevant standard.
§ 60.287a
Recordkeeping.
(a) The owner or operator must
maintain records of the performance
evaluations of the continuous
monitoring systems.
(b) For each continuous monitoring
system, the owner or operator must
maintain records of the following
information, as applicable:
(1) Records of the opacity of the gases
discharged into the atmosphere from
any recovery furnace or lime kiln using
an ESP emission control device, except
as specified in paragraph (b)(6) of this
section, and records of the ESP
secondary voltage and secondary
current (or total secondary power)
averaged over the reporting period for
the opacity allowances specified in
§ 60.284a(e)(1)(ii) and (iv).
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
18972
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules and Regulations
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2
(2) Records of the concentration of
TRS emissions on a dry basis and the
percent of oxygen by volume on a dry
basis in the gases discharged into the
atmosphere from any lime kiln, recovery
furnace, digester system, brown stock
washer system, multiple-effect
evaporator system, or condensate
stripper system, except where the
provisions of § 60.283a(a)(1)(iii) or (iv)
apply.
(3) Records of the incinerator
combustion temperature at the point of
incineration of effluent gases which are
emitted from any digester system,
brown stock washer system, multiple
effect evaporator system, or condensate
stripper system where the provisions of
§ 60.283a(a)(1)(iii) apply and an
incinerator is used as the combustion
device.
(4) For any recovery furnace, lime
kiln, or smelt dissolving tank using a
wet scrubber emission control device:
(i) Records of the pressure drop of the
gas stream through the control
equipment (or smelt dissolving tank
scrubber fan amperage), and
(ii) Records of the scrubbing liquid
flow rate (or scrubbing liquid supply
pressure).
(5) For any recovery furnace or lime
kiln using an ESP control device:
(i) Records of the secondary voltage of
each ESP collection field, and
(ii) Records of the secondary current
of each ESP collection field, and
(iii) If used as an alternative to
secondary voltage and current, records
of the total secondary power of each
ESP collection field.
(6) For any recovery furnace or lime
kiln using an ESP followed by a wet
scrubber, the records specified under
paragraphs (b)(4) and (5) of this section.
(7) Records of excess emissions as
defined in § 60.284a(d).
(c) For each malfunction, the owner or
operator must maintain records of the
following information:
(1) Records of the occurrence and
duration of each malfunction of
operation (i.e., process equipment) or
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 03, 2014
Jkt 232001
the air pollution control and monitoring
equipment.
(2) Records of actions taken during
periods of malfunction to minimize
emissions in accordance with § 60.11(d),
including corrective actions to restore
malfunctioning process and air
pollution control and monitoring
equipment to its normal or usual
manner of operation.
§ 60.288a
Reporting.
(a) For the purpose of reports required
under § 60.7(c), any owner or operator
subject to the provisions of this subpart
must report semiannually periods of
excess emissions defined in
§ 60.284a(d).
(b) Within 60 days after the date of
completing each performance test
(defined in § 60.8) as required by this
subpart you must submit the results of
the performance tests, including any
associated fuel analyses, required by
this subpart to the EPA as follows. You
must use the latest version of the EPA’s
Electronic Reporting Tool (ERT) (see
https://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
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: WebFIRE
Administrator, MD C404–02, 4930 Old
Page Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same
ERT file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via CDX as
described earlier in this paragraph (b).
At the discretion of the delegated
authority, you must also submit these
reports, including the CBI, to the
delegated authority in the format
specified by the delegated authority. For
any performance test conducted using
test methods that are not listed on the
ERT Web site, the owner or operator
must submit the results of the
performance test to the Administrator at
the appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(c) Within 60 days after the date of
completing each CEMS performance
evaluation test as defined in § 60.13,
you must submit relative accuracy test
audit (RATA) data to the EPA’s Central
Data Exchange (CDX) by using CEDRI in
accordance with paragraph (b) of this
section. Only RATA pollutants that can
be documented with the ERT (as listed
on the ERT Web site) are subject to this
requirement. For any performance
evaluations with no corresponding
RATA pollutants listed on the ERT Web
site, the owner or operator must submit
the results of the performance
evaluation to the Administrator at the
appropriate address listed in § 60.4.
(d) If a malfunction occurred during
the reporting period, you must submit a
report that contains the following:
(1) The number, duration, and a brief
description for each type of malfunction
which occurred during the reporting
period and which caused or may have
caused any applicable emission
limitation to be exceeded.
(2) A description of actions taken by
an owner or operator during a
malfunction of an affected facility to
minimize emissions in accordance with
§ 60.11(d), including actions taken to
correct a malfunction.
[FR Doc. 2014–06719 Filed 4–3–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\04APR2.SGM
04APR2
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18951-18972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06719]
[[Page 18951]]
Vol. 79
Friday,
No. 65
April 4, 2014
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR Part 60
Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 79 , No. 65 / Friday, April 4, 2014 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 18952]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 60
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640; FRL-9907-37-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR64
Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes revisions to the new source performance
standards for kraft pulp mills. These revised standards include
particulate matter emission limits for recovery furnaces, smelt
dissolving tanks and lime kilns, and opacity limits for recovery
furnaces and lime kilns equipped with electrostatic precipitators.
These revised standards apply to emission units commencing
construction, reconstruction or modification after May 23, 2013. This
final rule removes the General Provisions exemption for periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction resulting in a standard that applies
at all times. This final rule also includes additional testing
requirements and updated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for affected sources, including electronic reporting of
performance test data. These revisions to the testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are expected to ensure that
control systems are properly maintained over time, ensure continuous
compliance with standards and improve data accessibility for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, tribal governments and
communities.
DATES: This final action is effective on April 4, 2014. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 4,
2014.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640. All documents in the docket are
listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., confidential
business information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final rule
for kraft pulp mills, contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Natural Resources
Group, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (E143-03), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-3158; fax number (919) 541-3470; email address:
spence.kelley@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document:
ADTP Air dried ton of pulp
Agency U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BDT Best demonstrated technology
BLO Black liquor oxidation
BLS Black liquor solids
BSER Best system of emissions reduction
BSW Brown stock washer
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS Continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
Cir. Circuit Court
COMS Continuous opacity monitoring system
Court United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit
CWA Clean Water Act
D.C. Cir. United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
dscf Dry standard cubic foot
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP Electrostatic precipitator
FR Federal Register
gr Grain(s)
H2S Hydrogen sulfide
HAP Hazardous air pollutant(s)
HVLC High-volume, low-concentration
IBR Incorporation by Reference
ICR Information collection request
lb Pound(s)
LVHC Low-volume, high-concentration
N/A Not applicable
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NESHAP National emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
NSPS New source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
NW Northwest
O&M Operating and maintenance
O2 Oxygen
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PM Particulate matter
ppm Parts per million
ppmdv Part(s) per million by dry volume
PTC Performance Test Code
RTR Risk and technology review
SDT Smelt dissolving tank
SSM Startup, shutdown and malfunction
TAPPI Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry
TRS Total reduced sulfur
TTN Technology Transfer Network
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
v. Versus
VCS Voluntary consensus standard(s)
VOC Volatile organic compound
yr Year(s)
Background Information Document. On May 23, 2013, the EPA proposed
revisions to the Kraft Pulp Mills New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) based on evaluations performed by the EPA to conduct the NSPS
review. In this action, we are finalizing revisions to the rule. A
document summarizing the public comments on the proposal and presenting
the EPA responses to those comments is available in Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640.
Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
B. Summary of Major Provisions
C. Summary of Costs and Benefits
II. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
III. Background
IV. Summary of the Final NSPS Review
A. What are the final rule requirements for kraft pulp mills?
B. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown
and malfunction?
C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
D. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
V. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal
A. TRS Vent Gas Collection
B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
C. Opacity Monitoring
D. TRS and Oxygen Monitoring
E. Temperature Monitoring
F. ESP Parameter Monitoring
G. Averaging Period for Determining Monitoring Allowances
H. Other Miscellaneous Changes
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
[[Page 18953]]
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
A red-line version of the regulatory language that incorporates the
changes in this action is available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640).
I. Executive Summary
A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA to
review and, if appropriate, revise existing NSPS at least every 8
years. The NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40 CFR part 60, subpart BB) were
promulgated in 1978 and last reviewed in 1986. In this review, the EPA
considers what degree of emission limitation is achievable through the
application of the best system of emission reductions (BSER), which
(taking into account the cost of achieving such reduction and any non-
air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements)
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. The EPA
also considers the emission limitations and reductions that have been
achieved in practice.
In addition to conducting the NSPS review, the EPA evaluated the
startup, shutdown and malfunction (SSM) provisions in this rule in
light of the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals (D.C. Cir.)
decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), which
held that the SSM exemption in the General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63
violated the CAA's requirement that some standard apply continuously.
In the Sierra Club case, the D.C. Circuit vacated the SSM exemption
provisions in the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 for non-opacity
and opacity standards. The Court explained that under section 302(k) of
the CAA, emission standards or limitations must be continuous in
nature. The Court then held that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that some section 112 standard apply continuously. In light
of the Court's reasoning, all rule provisions must be carefully
examined to determine whether they provide for periods when no emission
standard applies.
The EPA believes that even though the Court in Sierra Club v. EPA
was considering a challenge to a section 112 national emissions
standard for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP), the Court's reasoning
applies equally to CAA section 111 (NSPS) and section 129 rules. The
EPA's general approach to SSM periods has been used consistently in
promulgating new NSPS standards under CAA section 111, and in section
112 and section 129 rulemaking actions, since the DC Circuit's decision
in Sierra Club. See, e.g., New Source Performance Standards Review for
Nitric Acid Plants, Final Rule, 77 FR 48433 (August 14, 2012); New
Source Performance Standards for New Stationary Sources and Emission
Guidelines for Existing Sources; Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units, Final rule, 76 FR 15704, (March 21, 2011); Oil and
Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews; Final rules,
77 FR 49490, (August 16, 2012).
To address the NSPS review, SSM exemptions and other changes, the
EPA is promulgating new standards which apply to affected sources at
kraft pulp mills for which construction, modification or reconstruction
commences after May 23, 2013. The affected sources under the NSPS are
new, modified or reconstructed digester systems, brown stock washer
(BSW) systems, evaporator systems, condensate stripper systems,
recovery furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks (SDTs) and lime kilns at
kraft pulp mills. The requirements for these new, modified or
reconstructed sources are included in a new subpart--40 CFR part 60,
subpart BBa. The EPA is also promulgating testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for subpart BBa that are in
some ways different from what is required under 40 CFR part 60, subpart
BB. Subpart BB continues to apply for affected sources that are
constructed, modified or reconstructed after September 24, 1976, and on
or before May 23, 2013, while subpart BBa applies for affected sources
constructed, modified or reconstructed after May 23, 2013.
B. Summary of Major Provisions
Based on the results of the NSPS review, and following
consideration of public comments, the EPA is finalizing the proposed 40
CFR part 60, subpart BBa standards for filterable particulate matter
(PM), opacity and total reduced sulfur (TRS) compounds and is
finalizing the associated proposed monitoring allowances. The final
rule specifies that TRS emissions from digester systems, BSW systems,
evaporator systems and condensate stripper systems that are controlled
by incineration or other means must be collected in a low-volume high-
concentration (LVHC) or a high-volume low-concentration (HVLC) closed-
vent system meeting the requirements of the provisions of 40 CFR 63.450
of subpart S. Table 1 summarizes the final standards for filterable PM,
opacity and TRS contained in subpart BBa.
Table 1--Summary of Subpart BBa Standards for Affected Sources at Kraft Pulp Mills Constructed, Modified or
Reconstructed After May 23, 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40 CFR 60.282a Filterable
Affected sources particulate matter (PM) 40 CFR 60.283a Total reduced sulfur (TRS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digester system, brown stock washer None....................... Meet a limit of 5 ppmdv & 10% oxygen
system, evaporator system and (O[ihel2]), unless one of the following
condensate stripper system. conditions is met:
1. Collect emissions from affected source
in LVHC or HVLC closed-vent system meeting
the requirements in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart S and combust in one of the
following:
(a) Lime kiln subject to subpart BB or
BBa (8 ppmdv TRS & 10% O[ihel2] limit);
or
[[Page 18954]]
(b) Recovery furnace subject to subpart
BB or BBa (5 or 25 ppmdv TRS @ 8%
O[ihel2] limit); or
(c) Incinerator, recovery furnace or lime
kiln not subject to subpart BB or BBa,
operated at a minimum temperature of
1,200 [deg]F for 0.5 seconds (no ppmdv
limit).
2. Collect emissions from affected source
in LVHC or HVLC closed-vent system meeting
the requirements in subpart S and use non-
combustion control device with a limit of
5 ppmdv, uncorrected for O[ihel2].
3. It is technologically or economically
infeasible to incinerate BSW system gases.
4. Uncontrolled digester gases contain
<0.01 pounds of TRS per air dried ton of
pulp (lb TRS/ADTP).
Recovery furnace................... 1a. Modified: 0.044 grains 1a. Straight recovery furnace \1\ 5 ppmdv @ 8%
per dry standard cubic O [ihel2]; and 1% monitoring allowance for
foot (gr/dscf) @ 8% TRS (restricted to <=30 ppmdv @ 8% O[ihel2]
O[ihel2]; or or
1b. New/reconstructed: 1b. Cross recovery furnance \2\ 25 ppmdv @ 8%
0.015 gr/dscf @ 8% O O [ihel2] and 1% monitoring allownace for TRS
[ihel2] and. (restricted to <=50 ppmdv @ 8% O [ihel2]).
2. ESP only: 20% opacity;
and 2% monitoring
allowance for opacity
(provided ESP secondary
voltage/current or power
exceed minimum operating
limits).
Smelt dissolving tank.............. 1a. Modified: 0.2 lb/ton 0.033 lb/ton BLS as hydrogen sulfide
black liquor solids (BLS) (H[ihel2]S).
dry weight; or
1b. New/reconstructed: 0.12
lb/ton BLS dry weight if
associated with a new or
reconstructed recovery
furnace; or
1c. New/reconstructed: 0.2
lb/ton BLS dry weight if
not associated with a new
or reconstructed recovery
furnace.
Lime kiln.......................... 1a. Modified: 0.064 gr/dscf 8 ppmdv & 10% O[ihel2]; and 1% monitoring
@ 10% O[ihel2]; or allowance for TRS (restricted to <=22 ppmdv &
10% O[ihel2]).
1b. New/reconstructed:
0.010 gr/dscf @ 10%
O[ihel2]; and
2.a ESP only: 20% opacity;
and 1% monitoring
allowance for opacity
(provided ESP secondary
voltage/current or power
exceed minimum operating
limits).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
Continuous monitoring of opacity is required for recovery furnaces
and lime kilns that are not using wet scrubbers or combined
electrostatic precipitator (ESP)/scrubber systems. Continuous
monitoring of TRS emissions is required for recovery furnaces, lime
kilns and other affected sources that comply with the TRS concentration
limits. Parameter monitoring is required for ESPs, wet scrubbers and
combined ESP/scrubber systems.
The emission standards are applicable at all times as specified in
the monitoring and testing provisions in subpart BBa. The EPA is
including in this final rule an affirmative defense to civil penalties
for exceedances of emission limits caused by malfunctions that meet
certain criteria (i.e., the exceedance must come from an ``unavoidable
failure''), along with recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
Initial and repeat performance testing is required once every 5
years for filterable PM and TRS for new, modified and reconstructed
affected sources in subpart BBa. The EPA is also requiring initial and
repeat performance testing for condensable PM to gather emissions data
that will enable a broader understanding of condensable PM emissions
from pulp and paper combustion sources. Mills must submit electronic
copies of their performance test reports using the EPA's Electronic
Reporting Tool (ERT). The EPA is also making certain technical and
editorial changes, clarifying the location of applicable test methods
in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), incorporating by reference
two non-EPA test methods, and adding definitions pertinent to the
requirements in subpart BBa.
C. Summary of Costs and Benefits
Table 2 summarizes the total costs for all sources subject to this
action and the total benefits of this action. See section VI of this
preamble for further discussion.
[[Page 18955]]
Table 2--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 action
include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAICS \1\ Examples of regulated
Category Code entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................ 3221 Kraft pulp mills.
Federal government.............. ......... Not affected.
State/local/tribal government... ......... Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
60.280a. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, contact the person in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action is available on the World Wide Web through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN) Web site. Following signature, the
EPA posted a copy of this final action on the TTN Web site's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN Web site provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final
action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 3,
2014. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established
by these final rules may not be challenged separately in any civil or
criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, William Jefferson
Clinton Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460,
with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate General Counsel for the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.
III. Background
New source performance standards implement CAA section 111, which
requires that each NSPS reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of the BSER which (taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non-
air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements)
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. This
level of control is referred to as BSER and has been referred to in the
past as ``best demonstrated technology'' or BDT. In assessing whether a
standard is achievable, the EPA must account for routine operating
variability associated with performance of the system on whose
performance the standard is based. See National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627
F. 2d 416, 431-33 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In addition to new sources,
existing affected sources that are modified or reconstructed are also
subject to this final rule.
Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to periodically
review and revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to
reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions. The original
NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40 CFR part 60, subpart BB) were promulgated
in the Federal Register on February 23, 1978 (43 FR 7572). The first
review of the kraft pulp mills NSPS was completed on May 20, 1986 (51
FR 18544). The latest review of the Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS was proposed
on May 23, 2013, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa for emission units
commencing construction, reconstruction or
[[Page 18956]]
modification after that date. This action finalizes this latest review,
conducted pursuant to CAA section 111(b)(1)(B).
IV. Summary of the Final NSPS Review
A. What are the final rule requirements for kraft pulp mills?
1. Emission Limits
The NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40 CFR 60, subpart BB) applies for
digester systems, BSW systems, multiple-effect evaporator systems,
condensate stripper systems, recovery furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns for
which construction, modification or reconstruction commenced after
September 24, 1976, and on or before May 23, 2013. Through this final
NSPS review, the EPA is promulgating a new 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa
containing emission limits for affected sources constructed, modified
or reconstructed after May 23, 2013. In this final rule (40 CFR 60,
subpart BBa), the EPA is:
Reducing the NSPS filterable PM limit for new and
reconstructed recovery furnaces from 0.044 gr/dscf (in subpart BB) to
0.015 gr/dscf.
Maintaining the current NSPS filterable PM limit of 0.044
gr/dscf for modified recovery furnaces.
Reducing the NSPS opacity limit for recovery furnaces from
35-percent (in subpart BB) to 20-percent opacity, clarifying that the
opacity limit does not apply where an ESP is used in combination with a
wet scrubber, and reducing the monitoring allowance from 6 percent (in
subpart BB) to 2 percent of the 6-minute opacity averages.
Reducing the NSPS filterable PM limit for lime kilns from
0.066 gr/dscf for gas-fired kilns and 0.13 gr/dscf for liquid-fired
kilns (in subpart BB) to 0.064 gr/dscf for modified lime kilns (all
fuel types) and 0.010 gr/dscf for new or reconstructed lime kilns (all
fuel types).
Adding a 20-percent opacity limit for lime kilns equipped
with ESPs with a 1-percent monitoring allowance and clarifying that the
limit does not apply where an ESP is used in combination with a wet
scrubber.
Reducing the NSPS filterable PM limit for new and
reconstructed SDTs associated with new or reconstructed recovery
furnaces from 0.2 lb/ton BLS (in subpart BB) to 0.12 lb/ton BLS.
Maintaining the current NSPS filterable PM limit of 0.2
lb/ton BLS for modified and new and reconstructed SDTs not associated
with a new or reconstructed recovery furnace.
Maintaining the current NSPS TRS limit for straight
recovery furnaces at 5 parts per million by dry volume (ppmdv) and
restricting the 1-percent monitoring allowance for TRS emissions to 30
ppmdv or less. Previously, there was no maximum TRS limit for these
periods in subpart BB.
Maintaining the current NSPS TRS limit for cross recovery
furnaces at 25 ppmdv and adding a 1-percent monitoring allowance for
TRS emissions restricted to 50 ppmdv. Previously, there was no maximum
TRS limit for these periods in subpart BB.
Maintaining the current NSPS TRS standards for digester
systems, BSW systems, evaporator systems and condensate stripper
systems.
Specifying that sources which comply with the subpart BBa
TRS standards for digester systems, BSW systems, evaporator systems and
condensate stripper systems by venting to a combustion device such as a
lime kiln, recovery furnace, incinerator, or other device (e.g., a
boiler) or a non-combustion device must collect gases in an LVHC or
HVLC closed-vent system meeting the provisions of 40 CFR 63.450 of
subpart S.
Maintaining the current NSPS TRS limit for lime kilns at 8
ppmdv and adding a 1-percent monitoring allowance restricted to 22
ppmdv.
Maintaining the current NSPS TRS limit for SDTs at 0.033
lb/ton BLS.
The PM concentration emission limits are in terms of filterable PM
measured by EPA Method 5. The TRS emission limits are in terms of TRS
(or TRS as H2S for SDTs) measured by EPA Method 16, 16A, 16B
or 16C. Continuous monitoring of opacity is required for recovery
furnaces and lime kilns that are not using wet scrubbers. Continuous
monitoring of TRS emissions is required for recovery furnaces, lime
kilns and other affected sources that comply with TRS concentration
limits. This final rule states that the filterable PM and TRS standards
apply at all times as specified in the monitoring and testing
provisions in subpart BBa.
2. Parameter Monitoring Requirements
The EPA reviewed the subpart BB parameter monitoring requirements
and is making several changes within subpart BBa. First, the EPA is
promulgating ESP parameter monitoring requirements for recovery
furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs to enable affected units to
show continuous compliance with the filterable PM concentration
standards at all times, including periods when the opacity monitoring
allowance is used. The EPA is requiring that these sources monitor the
secondary voltage and secondary current (or, alternatively, total
secondary power) of each ESP collection field. These ESP parameter
monitoring requirements are in addition to opacity monitoring for
recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs alone.
Second, the EPA is requiring wet scrubber parameter monitoring for
recovery furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns equipped with wet scrubber
systems (including combined ESP/scrubber systems). The parameter
monitors will measure the wet scrubber pressure drop and scrubbing
liquid flow rate (or scrubbing liquid supply pressure). Scrubber fan
amperage monitoring is included in this final rule as an alternative to
scrubber pressure drop monitoring for certain types of scrubbers used
on SDTs (e.g., dynamic scrubbers that operate near atmospheric
pressure).
Third, for recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped with an ESP in
combination with a wet scrubber system, the EPA is requiring ESP and
wet scrubber parameter monitoring in place of opacity monitoring.
Also, subpart BBa specifies that parameters must be measured and
recorded at least once every 15 minutes and reduced to 12-hour block
averages, with two exceptions. When an opacity monitor is also used,
the ESP parameters must be reduced to a semiannual average for use in
the opacity monitoring allowance determination. The EPA is specifying a
5-minute data recording frequency and 3-hour block averaging time for
incinerator temperature measurements required under subpart BBa.
3. Testing Requirements
As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with federal air
emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the current filterable PM and
TRS testing requirements of subpart BB and is including testing
requirements for subpart BBa that are different from subpart BB in the
following ways. First, although there is no emission limit for
condensable PM in subpart BBa, the EPA is adding condensable PM to the
list of pollutants to test to gather data to develop a broader
understanding of condensable PM emissions from pulp and paper
combustion sources. Second, the EPA is requiring repeat air emissions
performance testing once every 5 years for facilities subject to NSPS
subpart BBa. This final rule requires repeat air emissions testing for
filterable PM, condensable PM and TRS once every 5 years for recovery
furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns. Third, the EPA is including Method 16C
as another alternative to Method 16 for measuring emissions of TRS from
sources subject to the TRS standards in subpart BBa. Method 16C was not
available at the time of the original NSPS and 1986 NSPS review. The
method was
[[Page 18957]]
promulgated on July 30, 2012 (77 FR 44488). Fourth, the EPA is updating
the method used to determine whether a kraft recovery furnace is a
straight or cross recovery furnace to refer to the latest TAPPI Method
T624 cm-11.
As in subpart BB, emission testing for subpart BBa is to be
performed under representative operating conditions. Section 60.8(c) of
the NSPS General Provisions is replaced in 40 CFR 60.285a(a) with a
similar paragraph that states that testing is to be conducted under
representative conditions and not during periods of startup, shutdown
or malfunction.
4. Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
The existing subpart BB requires mills to keep records of TRS and
opacity monitoring data along with scrubber and incinerator operating
parameter data. The reporting requirements in the existing subpart BB
include semiannual reports of performance tests and excess emissions as
specified in 40 CFR 60.7(c).
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are being included as
separate sections within subpart BBa. Under this final rule, owners/
operators subject to subpart BBa are required to keep records of all
TRS and opacity monitoring data; all scrubber, incinerator and ESP
operating parameter data; excess emissions; and malfunctions. A
facility is required to report all exceedances of the standard,
including exceedances that are the result of a malfunction. The
malfunction recordkeeping requirements will provide pulp and paper
companies with some of the information required to support the
assertion of an affirmative defense in the event of a violation due to
malfunction. In addition to the recordkeeping requirements specified in
subpart BBa, 40 CFR 60.7(b) of the General Provisions requires records
of the occurrence and duration of SSM events.
Under this final rule, owners/operators are required to report all
performance test results (including electronic copies, as specified in
section IV.D below) and excess emissions. Sections 60.7(c)(2) and
60.7(d) of the General Provisions require identification of periods of
excess emissions that occur during SSM events. The frequency of
reporting under subpart BBa is semiannually, the same as for subpart
BB, and consistent with NESHAP requirements. Further, we are including
a malfunction report to provide information on each type of malfunction
which occurred during the reporting period and which caused or may have
caused an exceedance of an emission limit.
5. Other Miscellaneous Differences Between Subpart BBa and Subpart BB
The following lists additional, minor differences between the
current subpart BB NSPS and the subpart BBa final rule. This list
includes rule differences that address editorial and other corrections.
The EPA:
Revised 40 CFR 60.17 to incorporate by reference ANSI/ASME
PTC 19.10-1981 and TAPPI T624 cm-11 for subpart BBa.
Revised the definitions section in 40 CFR 60.281a to
alphabetize definitions; remove paragraph numbers; remove the
definition for black liquor oxidation (BLO) system; add definitions for
affirmative defense, closed-vent system, condensable PM, filterable PM,
HVLC closed-vent system, LVHC closed-vent system and monitoring system
malfunction; and revise the definition for digester system to include
chip bins using live steam.
Revised the wording of the PM standard in 40 CFR 60.282a
and 40 CFR 60.285a to clarify that the PM emission limits in 40 CFR
60.282a and the Method 5 PM emission test in 40 CFR 60.285a refer to
filterable PM, to avoid confusion with the inclusion of Method 202
condensable PM testing.
Revised the wording of the TRS standard in 40 CFR
60.283a(a)(1) to clarify that only ``one of'' the conditions in 40 CFR
60.283a(a)(1)(i) through (vi) needs to be met in lieu of the 5 ppmdv
TRS limit for digester systems, BSW systems, evaporator systems and
condensate stripper systems.
Revised the monitoring provisions in 40 CFR 60.284a(a)(1)
and (2) to cite Performance Specifications 1, 3 and 5 for opacity,
O2 and TRS continuous monitoring systems, respectively, to
conform with 40 CFR 60.284a(f).
Revised the TRS monitoring provisions in 40 CFR
60.284a(a)(2) to clarify that the range of the continuous monitoring
system must encompass all expected concentration values, including the
zero and span values used for calibration.
Revised the monitoring provisions in 40 CFR
60.284a(a)(2)(ii) to specify that the span of O2 monitoring
systems is 21 percent instead of 25 percent, so that air can be used
instead of a calibration gas in span checks.
Revised the monitoring and recordkeeping provisions in 40
CFR 60.284a(b)(1) and 40 CFR 60.287a(b)(3) to remove reference to BLO
systems which were excluded from NSPS applicability during the 1986
NSPS review.
Revised the O2 correction equation in 40 CFR
60.284a(c)(1)(iii) for TRS continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS)
data to clarify that the concentration to be corrected is a ``12-hour
average of the measured concentrations.''
Revised the excess emissions and recordkeeping provisions
in 40 CFR 60.284a(d)(3)(ii) and 40 CFR 60.287a(b)(3) relating to
combustion temperature measurements to clarify that the provisions
apply when an incinerator is used as the combustion device.
Added provisions to 40 CFR 60.284a(d)(3)(iii) specifying
that periods of excess emissions include all times when gases from
digester systems, BSW systems, evaporator systems and condensate
stripper systems are not routed through the closed-vent system.
Revised the provisions in 40 CFR 60.284a(e)(1) to change
the period for calculating the monitoring allowance from quarterly to
semiannual.
Revised the citations for the EPA test methods in 40 CFR
60.285a to cite the specific appendices in parts 51 and 60 where the
methods are located.
Used ``must'' instead of ``shall'' throughout subpart BBa,
consistent with plain language guidance.
B. What are the requirements during periods of startup, shutdown and
malfunction?
1. Periods of Startup or Shutdown
In reviewing the standards in subpart BB, and in establishing the
standards in the new subpart BBa, the EPA has taken into account
startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained below, has
not established alternate standards for those periods. Instead, the EPA
is promulgating standards that apply at all times, including startup
and shutdown periods. We analyzed continuous monitoring data and
parametric methods for demonstrating continuous compliance and
developed rule provisions pertaining to continuous monitoring that
encompass or address startup and shutdown periods. These provisions
include:
Monitoring allowances that specify a certain number of
exceedances that will not be considered as violations. These allowances
were developed through review of TRS CEMS and continuous opacity
monitoring system (COMS) datasets that included SSM periods, and are
used in conjunction with ESP parameter monitoring (for opacity) and
upper limits (for TRS) to ensure the emission standards are continuous.
The PM standard is a
[[Page 18958]]
continuous standard that applies at all times.
A provision for enforcement authorities to consider the
uncorrected TRS concentration during periods of startup and shutdown if
O2 levels in the stack approach ambient conditions where the
O2 correction equation could cause an otherwise-compliant
TRS measurement to exceed the applicable emission limit.
For ESP parameter monitors, provisions that define excess
emissions as ESP parameter measurements below the minimum requirements
during times when BLS or lime mud is fired (as applicable).
For ESP parameter monitors used on combined ESP/scrubber
systems, language that allows facilities to use only secondary voltage
(and not secondary current or total secondary power) to demonstrate
compliance during periods of startup and shutdown because secondary
current or the total secondary power calculated using secondary current
may not meet the operating limit established during the performance
test as BLS or lime mud is fired initially.
For wet scrubber parameter monitors, language that allows
facilities to use wet scrubber liquid flow rate (or liquid supply
pressure) to demonstrate compliance during periods of startup and
shutdown because pressure drop is difficult to achieve during these
periods.
For temperature monitors, a lengthened 3-hour block
averaging time, and provisions that acknowledge that the minimum
temperature of 1,200 [deg]F is not a requirement during periods when an
incinerator is not burning TRS (e.g., during incinerator warm-up and
cool-down or when an alternative control device is used).
With the above monitoring provisions that address periods of
startup and shutdown, the EPA concluded that alternative standards
(e.g., work practices) during startup and shutdown are unnecessary. Two
technical memoranda available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0640) provide our analysis of monitoring systems during
startup and shutdown for pulp and paper processes subject to subpart
BBa.1 2 Additional clarifications relative to the final rule
requirements during periods of startup and shutdown are provided in
section V.C of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Updated Review of the Continuous Emission Monitoring and
Continuous Opacity Monitoring Data from the Pulp and Paper ICR
Responses for NSPS Sources.
\2\ Review of Pulp and Paper Information Collection Request
(ICR) Responses Pertaining to Startup and Shutdown of Subpart BB
Equipment (March 22, 2013) (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640-039 thru 045).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Periods of Malfunction
Periods of startup, normal operations and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operation. However, by
contrast, malfunction is defined as ``any sudden, infrequent, and not
reasonably preventable failure of air pollution control equipment,
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner.
Failures that are caused in part by poor maintenance or careless
operation are not malfunctions.'' (40 CFR 60.2) The EPA has determined
that section 111 does not require that emissions occurring during
periods of malfunction be factored into development of CAA section 111
standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or in case law requires that the
EPA anticipate and account for the innumerable types of potential
malfunction events in setting emission standards. CAA section 111
provides that the EPA set standards of performance which reflect the
degree of emission limitation achievable through ``the application of
the best system of emission reduction'' that the EPA determines is
adequately demonstrated. Applying the concept of ``the application of
the best system of emission reduction'' to periods during which a
source is malfunctioning presents difficulties. The ``application of
the best system of emission reduction'' is more appropriately
understood to include operating units in such a way as to avoid
malfunctions.
Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the
performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably''
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C.
Cir. 1999) (the EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the
extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally
defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect
scientific information, rather than to ``invest the resources to
conduct the perfect study.''). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590
F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (``In the nature of things, no general
limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can anticipate
all upset situations. After a certain point, the transgression of
regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of third parties,'
such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or insanity, and a
variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for the administrative
exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not for specification
in advance by regulation.''). In addition, the goal of a ``source that
uses the best system of emission reduction'' is to operate in such a
way as to avoid malfunctions of the source, and accounting for
malfunctions could lead to standards that are significantly less
stringent than levels that are achieved by a 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 minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 111 standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation.'' See 40 CFR 60.2 (definition of
malfunction).
Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can
sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. See,
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Findings of Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction; Proposed rule, 78 FR 12460 (Feb. 22, 2013); State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb.
15, 1983). The EPA is, therefore, adding to the final rule an
affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission
standards in this rule that are caused by malfunctions. (See 40 CFR
60.281a defining ``affirmative defense'' to mean, in the context of an
enforcement proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a
defendant, regarding which the defendant has the burden of proof, and
the merits of which are independently and objectively evaluated in a
judicial or administrative proceeding.) We also
[[Page 18959]]
have added other regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are
necessary to establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements
set forth in 40 CFR 60.285a. (See 40 CFR 22.24.) The added criteria are
designed in part to ensure that the affirmative defense is available
only where the event that causes a violation of the emission standard
meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor
maintenance or careless operation). For example, to successfully assert
the added affirmative defense, the source must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that violation ``[w]as caused by a sudden, infrequent,
and unavoidable failure of air pollution control, process equipment, or
a process to operate in a normal or usual manner . . .'' The added
criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct
the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR
60.11(d) and to prevent future malfunctions. For example, under the
added criteria, the source must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a
violation occurred . . .'' and that ``[a]ll possible steps were taken
to minimize the impact of the violation on ambient air quality, the
environment and human health . . . .'' In any judicial or
administrative proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the
assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met
its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative
defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in accordance with
section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.77).
The EPA included in the final rule an affirmative defense in an
attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation,
to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that
despite the most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be
violated under circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA
must establish emission standards that ``limit the quantity, rate, or
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.''
42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ``emission limitation'' and ``emission
standard''). See generally, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021
(D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that emission
standards are continuous. The affirmative defense for malfunction
events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where there is a
malfunction, the emission standard is still enforceable through
injunctive relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit recently upheld the EPA's view that an affirmative defense
provision is consistent with section 113(e) of the CAA. Luminant
Generation Co. LLC v. United States EPA, 714 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. Mar.
25, 2013) (upholding the EPA's approval of affirmative defense
provisions in a CAA State Implementation Plan). While ``continuous''
standards are required, there is also case law indicating that in many
situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical
realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus,
486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the DC Circuit acknowledged that in
setting standards under CAA section 111, ``variant provisions'' such as
provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment
malfunction ``appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the
standards as a whole and that the record does not support the `never to
be exceeded' standard currently in force.'' See also, Portland Cement
Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though these
earlier cases may no longer represent binding precedent in light of the
CAA 1977 amendments and intervening case law such as Sierra Club v.
EPA, they nevertheless support the EPA's view that a system that
incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable and appropriate.
The affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil
penalties for violations that are proven to be beyond the control of
the source. Through the incorporation of an affirmative defense, the
EPA has formalized its approach to malfunctions. In a Clean Water Act
(CWA) setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of formalized
approach when regulating ``upsets beyond the control of the permit
holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir.
1977). See also, Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. United States EPA, 666
F.3d. 1174 (9th Cir. 2012) (rejecting industry argument that reliance
on the affirmative defense was not adequate). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co.
v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an
informal approach is adequate). The final affirmative defense
provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its
emission standards are ``continuous'' as required by 42 U.S.C. 7602(k),
and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the reasonableness of
the standard as a whole. The EPA is promulgating the affirmative
defense applicable to malfunctions under the delegation of general
regulatory authority set out in section 301(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7601(a)(1), in order to balance this tension between provisions of the
Act and the practical reality, as case law recognizes, that technology
sometimes fails. See generally, Citizens to Save Spencer County v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 600 F.2d 844, 873 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
(using section 301(a) authority to harmonize inconsistent guidelines
related to the implementation of federal preconstruction review
requirements).
C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
The provisions of subpart BBa being promulgated in this action are
effective on April 4, 2014. Emission units that commence construction,
reconstruction or modification after May 23, 2013, must comply with the
provisions of subpart BBa by April 4, 2014 or upon startup, whichever
is later.
The initial performance test must be conducted within 60 days after
achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected facility
will be operated, but no later than 180 days after initial startup per
40 CFR 60.8(a). The first of the 5-year repeat tests must be conducted
no later than 5 years following the initial performance test, and
thereafter within 5 years from the date of the previous performance
test. The date to submit performance test data through ERT is within 60
days after the date of completing each performance test.
D. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA?
For the reasons provided in the proposed rule preamble, in subpart
BBa the EPA is requiring owners and operators of kraft pulp mills to
submit electronic copies of required performance test and performance
evaluation reports to the EPA's WebFIRE database. Data will be entered
through an electronic emissions test report structure called the ERT.
The ERT will generate an electronic report which will be submitted
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
The submitted report will be stored in both EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) archive (the official copy of record) and in the WebFIRE
database, making access to data very straightforward and easy. A
description and instructions for use of the ERT can be found at https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/,
[[Page 18960]]
and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site (www.epa.gov/cdx). A
description of the WebFIRE database is available at: https://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to
the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted using test
methods that are supported by the ERT.\3\ The ERT supports most of the
commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and
test methods supported by the ERT is available at: https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ As of March 2014, Methods 5, 17 and 202 are the test methods
referenced in subpart BBa that are included in ERT. Methods 16, 16A,
16B, and 16C for TRS measurement are not yet supported by ERT.
However, Method 16 (and variant) testing conducted after Methods 16,
16A, 16B, 16C are programmed into the ERT will be required to be
reported electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained in the proposal preamble, in addition to supporting
regulation development, control strategy development and other air
pollution control activities, having an electronic database populated
with performance test data will save industry, state, local, tribal
agencies and the EPA significant time, money and effort while also
improving the quality of emission inventories and air quality
regulations.
V. Summary of Significant Changes Following Proposal
The following sections summarize the significant changes made to
subpart BBa for this final rule to respond to public comments and to
correct technical inconsistencies or editorial errors in the proposal.
A detailed discussion of these and other public comments can be found
in the response-to-comments document, available in Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, Kraft Pulp Mills
New Source Performance Review (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BBa), Final
Amendments: Response to Public Comments on May 23, 2013 Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. TRS Vent Gas Collection
The final subpart BBa rule, as proposed, allows sources to comply
with the TRS standards for digester systems, BSW systems, evaporator
systems and condensate stripper systems by venting emissions to a
combustion device such as a lime kiln, recovery furnace, incinerator or
other device (e.g., a boiler) or a non-combustion device. Industry
commenters expressed concern that the proposed provisions were not
consistent with the corresponding hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
reduction provisions in subpart S which specify requirements for
closed-vent collection systems. Separately, another commenter expressed
concern that the use of contaminated flash steam during chip steaming
can lead to the release of TRS compounds, volatile organic compounds
(VOC) and HAPs and urged the EPA to ensure standards are in place to
prevent release of emissions.
In response to these concerns and to promote consistency with the
subpart S requirements for closed-vent collection systems, we added
provisions to this final rule requiring that sources collect and
transport the vent gases through HVLC or LVHC closed-vent systems to
incineration or other control devices, to match what is required under
subpart S. We added definitions for ``closed-vent system,'' ``high-
volume, low-concentration (HVLC) closed-vent system,'' and ``low-
volume, high-concentration (LVHC) closed-vent system'' to this final
rule to eliminate any conflicts with the subpart S excess emission
allowances for closed-vent systems. We defined excess emissions as all
times when gases are not routed through the closed-vent system. We also
revised the definition for ``digester system'' to specifically include
chip bins using live steam (flash steam) to clarify that these units
are subject to regulation under subpart BBa as part of the digester
system.
Further, an industry commenter made the specific comment that, with
the removal of the SSM exemption, there are no provisions in subpart
BBa specifically addressing short periods of safety-related venting of
gases from digester systems, brown stock washer systems, multiple-
effect evaporator systems or condensate stripper systems. According to
the commenter, best available technology includes unavoidable periods
when vent gases cannot be routed to the control device for safety
reasons or when the control device is inoperable or necessarily
operating at a reduced rate due to a malfunction. The subpart S excess
emission allowances (see 40 CFR 63.443(e)(1)-(3)), currently address
these types of excess emissions. The SSM exemption was previously
removed from subpart S (77 FR 55698). The commenter noted that they
provided more detail in previously submitted comments on subpart S
which they attached for consideration. The commenter recommended that
the EPA adopt the excess emission provisions in subpart S for digester,
brown stock washer, evaporator and stripper systems covered by subpart
BBa. We did not intend to propose a standard that removed the use of
these allowances for NSPS units, creating a standard more stringent
than the NESHAP. Therefore, we have added language in this final rule
that recognizes the current subpart S excess emission provisions for
closed-vent systems. (Further discussion of the EPA's anticipated
review of the subpart S excess emission provisions is provided below.)
These provisions define excess emissions as all times when gases are
not routed through the closed-vent system. (See 40 CFR 60.284a(d).) We
also addressed short periods of safety-related venting in 40 CFR
60.284a(e), which provides limited allowances of 1 percent of
semiannual operating time for LVHC systems, or 4 percent of semiannual
operating time for HVLC or combined LVHC/HVLC systems. As long as these
time periods are not exceeded, excess emissions associated with short
periods of safety-related venting will not be considered in violation
of the closed-vent system requirements added to 40 CFR 60.283a(a)(1)(i)
through (iii) and (v). Affected facilities are required to maintain and
operate with good air pollution control practice for minimizing
emissions during periods of excess emissions (including during safety-
related venting), as specified in 40 CFR 60.284a(e)(2) of subpart BBa.
We acknowledge that representatives of the pulp and paper industry
have submitted a petition for reconsideration of the final 40 CFR part
63, subpart S risk and technology (RTR) rule relating to safety-related
venting of pulp mill vent gases.\5\ Additionally, in the subpart S RTR
action (77 FR 55698) we deferred action on the review of the 40 CFR
63.443(e) excess emission allowances. We have acted at this time to
create consistency between subpart BBa and subpart S in how these
episodes are handled. However, we note that, when the EPA reviews the
subpart S excess emission allowances, we will consider whether actions
that we take after conducting that subpart S review should result in
revisions to the NSPS for kraft pulp mills. It should also be noted
that the standards in subpart S apply to HAP emissions from a broad
range of pulp mill sources and will be applicable to existing sources,
while the subpart BBa TRS standards will apply only for the small
subset of subpart S sources that are constructed, modified or
reconstructed after May 23, 2013. Consequently, if the subpart S
standards are amended to become more stringent
[[Page 18961]]
with respect to pulp mill safety-related venting, then those amended
subpart S standards will apply equally to subpart BBa sources, because
all subpart BBa sources (as well as all subpart BB sources and any
sources subject to future revisions to the Kraft Pulp Mill NSPS) will
also be subject to subpart S (including any revisions made to it in the
future), regardless of when the next NSPS review to update subpart BBa
is performed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Letter from P. Noe, AF&PA, to Lisa Jackson. Petition for
Reconsideration of National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants From the Pulp and Paper Industry; Final Rule, 77 FR 55698
(Sept. 11, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
One commenter supported and multiple commenters objected to our
proposal to remove the SSM exemption from the subpart BBa standards.
The rationale for our removal of the SSM exemption was provided in the
preamble to the proposed rule, is provided in section IV.B of this
preamble, and is also discussed in the response-to-comments document
\6\ along with a description of the revisions to the NSPS monitoring
requirements made to ensure that the NSPS provisions remain achievable
following removal of the SSM exemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, Kraft Pulp Mills
New Source Performance Review (40 CFR Part 60, Subpart BBa), Final
Amendments: Response to Public Comments on May 23, 2013 Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple commenters expressed confusion regarding the provisions in
the proposed rule briefly stating that the PM and TRS standards apply
at all times (40 CFR 60.282a(b) and 40 CFR 60.283a(b), respectively).
The comments revealed confusion regarding which paragraphs of the NSPS
General Provisions relating to SSM are superseded by subpart BBa or
remain applicable. In response to these comments, we revised 40 CFR
60.282a(b) and 40 CFR 60.283a(b) to clarify that the standards apply at
all times as specified in the monitoring and testing provisions of the
rule (40 CFR 60.284a and 40 CFR 60.285a) and to clarify the
relationship between the continuous standards and provisions for
testing, monitoring and the monitoring allowances in subpart BBa. We
also offer the following clarifications relative to the relationship
between the General Provisions and subpart BBa:
The definitions of SSM in 40 CFR 60.2 apply to subpart
BBa.
The requirement to maintain records of SSM periods and
periods when continuous monitoring systems are inoperative under 40 CFR
60.7(b) applies to subpart BBa.
The requirements under 40 CFR 60.7(c)(2) to identify in
the excess emissions report each period of excess emissions that occurs
during SSM and the nature of any malfunction apply to subpart BBa.
Inclusion of startup and shutdown in the summary report
format provided in 40 CFR 60.7(d) applies for subpart BBa.
The 40 CFR 60.11(c) exemption from the opacity standards
during SSM is superseded for subpart BBa by 40 CFR 60.282a(c).
The 40 CFR 60.11(d) requirement to use good air pollution
control practices at all times including SSM applies to subpart BBa.
Furthermore, we added a clarifying statement to 40 CFR 60.285a(a)
to repeat only the portion of 40 CFR 60.8(c) that applies under subpart
BBa (i.e., the requirement that performance tests be conducted under
representative conditions applies). The SSM exemption phrase ``nor
shall emissions in excess of the level of the applicable emission limit
during periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction be considered a
violation of the applicable emission limit unless otherwise specified
in the applicable standard'' was eliminated from the revised wording of
40 CFR 60.8(c) incorporated into subpart BBa in light of the DC
Circuit's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA vacating the 40 CFR part 63
SSM exemption provisions. The revised wording in 40 CFR 60.285a(a) of
subpart BBa supersedes 40 CFR 60.8(c).
C. Opacity Monitoring
One commenter questioned whether a source controlled by an ESP/
scrubber combination would be relieved from meeting the opacity
requirements in this final rule. In response to this comment, we
revised the opacity standards for recovery furnaces and lime kilns to
clarify that units equipped with a combination ESP and wet scrubber
system are not subject to the opacity standards, because opacity
monitoring is not appropriate for these units. This does not create an
exemption or a standard that does not apply at all times because
continuous compliance with the filterable PM standards is demonstrated
through ESP and wet scrubber parameter monitoring for combined ESP/
scrubber systems.
D. TRS and Oxygen Monitoring
Measurements exceeding instrument span. Three commenters requested
that the EPA clarify the procedure for reporting and treatment of
uncorrected TRS concentrations that exceed the span value (30 ppmdv)
for the TRS CEMS instrument. In response to these comments, we note
that data above the instrument span have value and are required to be
included in any CEMS hourly average or other long-term rolling average
calculation; otherwise, facilities could inappropriately dismiss
noncompliant values as invalid data. Consequently, we added language to
the final rule to clarify that the range of the continuous monitoring
system must encompass all expected concentration values, including the
zero and span values used for calibration.
Recovery furnace upper limit. One commenter argued that it was
inappropriate for the EPA to use data from straight recovery furnaces
to establish the TRS monitoring allowance upper limit for cross
recovery furnaces. In response to this comment, we revised this final
rule to clarify that the 1-percent allowance, restricted to 30 ppmdv,
applies to TRS emissions from straight recovery furnaces. The cross
recovery furnace TRS emission limit is higher than the straight
recovery TRS limit for three technical reasons. First, the sulfur
content of the semichemical liquor is higher than traditional kraft
liquor. Second, the heat content of the liquor is lower because it
contains less organic material than kraft liquor due to higher pulping
yields. Third, the heavier sulfur loading and the lower operating
temperature puts a restriction on the amount of excess O2
available to oxidize the sulfur compounds. Because we do not have
continuous monitoring data for cross recovery furnaces to analyze (with
no known cross recovery furnaces subject to NSPS at this time), we are
setting the upper TRS limit for cross recovery furnaces at the
instrument span of 50 ppmdv for these units. This upper limit can be
reevaluated during the next NSPS review should data become available
for cross recovery furnaces subject to NSPS in the future.
E. Temperature Monitoring
One commenter recommended that the temperature monitoring
requirement should only apply when TRS control is achieved in a stand-
alone incinerator and requested that the EPA make this clarification in
this final rule. The commenter noted that temperature monitoring is not
required in subpart S for boilers, lime kilns and recovery furnaces
that combust pulping vent gases because these units normally operate at
temperatures higher than 1,200[emsp14][deg]F. We revised the relevant
provisions of subpart BBa to clarify that combustion temperature
monitoring is required only when an incinerator is used as the
combustion device in response to this comment.
[[Page 18962]]
F. ESP Parameter Monitoring
Two commenters requested that the EPA add total secondary power as
an alternative to monitoring ESP secondary voltage and secondary
current for recovery furnace ESPs to be consistent with the monitoring
alternative provided in the proposed rule for lime kiln ESPs. We made
the conforming edits requested to clarify our intent, as proposed, that
monitoring of total secondary power is an alternative for recovery
furnace ESPs.
Another commenter requested that the EPA use only ESP secondary
voltage monitoring to determine compliance during periods of startup
and shutdown for combined ESP/scrubber control systems. The commenter
explained that the first 12-hour block average ESP secondary current
(or total secondary power) may not be within the range achieved during
the last performance test, as firing of BLS or lime mud increases or
decreases during startup or shutdown, but the ESP would still be
operating optimally using its automated power management system. The
commenter requested that the EPA exclude from the definition of excess
emissions all 12-hour average measurements of secondary current (or
total secondary power) during startup and shutdown that are less than
the site-specific operating parameter limits, as it has done for
scrubber pressure drop. We agree with the commenter that secondary
current (or total secondary power) can vary during startup and
shutdown. We changed the definition of ESP-related excess emissions for
combined ESP/scrubber controls in 40 CFR 60.284a(d)(5) in response to
this comment to include all 12-hour block averages of ESP secondary
voltage below the minimum operating limit at all times (including
startup and shutdown), and 12-hour block averages of secondary current
(or total secondary power) below the minimum operating limit at all
times except during startup and shutdown. The rule changes make the
startup/shutdown accommodations for ESPs comparable to the parameter
monitoring requirements for wet scrubbers during startup and shutdown.
This definitional change does not apply for ESP systems that have
longer averaging periods in conjunction with an opacity limit. For
further discussion, see the response-to-comments document found in the
docket.
G. Averaging Period for Determining Monitoring Allowances
In response to our request for comment on whether a quarterly or
semiannual period would be more appropriate for calculation of the
monitoring allowances in 40 CFR 60.284a(e), multiple commenters
supported a semiannual period. One state agency commenter specifically
supported changing the ESP parameter averaging period from quarterly to
semiannually when an opacity monitor is also used on the ESP. The
commenter also supported using a semiannual instead of a quarterly
basis for determining the TRS and opacity monitoring allowances. In
response to these comments and consistent with the semiannual reporting
frequency for subpart BBa, we revised the period for calculating the
opacity and TRS monitoring allowances from quarterly to semiannually.
We made a corresponding change to a semiannual basis for the ESP
parameter averaging period for ESPs that also monitor opacity.
H. Other Miscellaneous Changes
A few additional changes were made to the proposed rule either as a
result of public comments, to correct references or to ensure
conformity among the various rule sections. These changes are described
below.
BLO systems. One commenter asked that the EPA remove outdated
references to BLO systems from the rule because subpart BBa does not
contain any specific requirements for these systems. We agree with this
editorial change and removed the definition of ``black liquor oxidation
system'' and other inadvertently remaining references to BLO systems
from this final rule. The 1986 review of the kraft pulp mills NSPS
removed the BLO system from the list of regulated emission units.
Testing frequency. One commenter requested that the EPA revise the
repeat testing frequency from once every 60 months to once every 5
years to provide maximum operational flexibility. In particular, the
requested change would make clear that the repeat testing could be done
at any point during the fifth calendar year (which is consistent with
the requirements for CAA title V permitting) as opposed to requiring
testing to be done during the 60th month. We agree with the commenter
and revised the testing provisions of this final rule accordingly.
Performance specifications. In the proposed rule, we specified that
sources must install, certify and operate their opacity and TRS
continuous monitoring systems in accordance with Performance
Specifications 1 and 5, respectively, in Appendix B to 40 CFR part 60.
To correct an oversight, we added a citation to this final rule for
Performance Specification 3 for the O2 continuous monitoring
system used to correct the TRS CEMS data for O2
concentration.
Incorporation by reference. In reviewing the testing provisions in
subpart BBa for the final rule, we noted that the test method for
determining whether a kraft recovery furnace is a straight or cross
recovery furnace, which is cited in this final rule and incorporated by
reference in 40 CFR 60.17 as TAPPI T624 os-68, is out-of-date, as is
the address for obtaining a copy of the method. We updated the testing
provisions in this final rule and the IBR provisions in 40 CFR 60.17 to
cite the latest version of the method-- TAPPI T624 cm-11. We also
updated 40 CFR 60.17 to cite the current address for obtaining a copy
of the method.
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts
In setting standards, the CAA requires us to consider alternative
emission control approaches, taking into account the estimated costs as
well as impacts on energy, solid waste and other effects.
The EPA presented estimates of the impacts for subpart BBa, which
revises the performance standards for new, modified or reconstructed
emission units at kraft pulp mills, in the preamble to the proposed
rule and in the docket for this rulemaking. (See 78 FR 31331-31332, and
the memorandum, Emissions Inventory for Kraft Pulp Mills and Costs/
Impacts of the Section 111(b) Review of the Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS.)
These impact estimates have not changed since proposal because we have
not changed any rule requirements in a way that would alter the
projected number of affected facilities or costs of compliance. While
we added language to subpart BBa to clarify that TRS emissions from
new, modified or reconstructed pulping emission sources must be
delivered to incineration or other controls through a closed-vent
collection system as required under 40 CFR 63.450 of subpart S, there
is no incremental cost associated with this requirement in subpart BBa
because the closed-vent collection system standards are already
required for new and existing sources under subpart S.
The EPA estimates that the total increase in nationwide annual cost
associated with this final rule is $389,900 for all of the emission
units projected to be constructed, modified or reconstructed between
2013 and 2018. Costs are based on the third quarter of 2012. The
impacts are expressed as incremental differences between the impacts of
emission units complying with subpart BBa and the baseline (e.g.,
[[Page 18963]]
NSPS subpart BB or NESHAP subpart MM) requirements for these sources.
The impacts represent emission units at kraft pulp mills projected to
commence construction, reconstruction or modification over the 5 years
following May 23, 2013. No additional control devices or other
equipment are expected to be needed to meet the NSPS requirements
beyond those that would already be installed to meet the baseline
requirements for these emission units. Thus, no emission reductions,
energy impacts or secondary air emission impacts are expected to result
from this final rule.
This final action is not expected to induce measurable changes in
the average national price and production of pulp and paper products.
Hence, the overall economic impact of this NSPS should be minimal on
the affected industries and their consumers. For more information,
please refer to the memorandum, Economic Impact Analysis for the
Section 111(b) Review of the Kraft Pulp Mills New Source Performance
Standards Subpart BB, in the docket for this rulemaking.
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is,
therefore, not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the
memorandum, Economic Impact Analysis for the Section 111(b) Review of
the Kraft Pulp Mills New Source Performance Standards Subpart BB. A
copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this final rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
These revisions to the NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills for future
affected sources include different emission limits and continuous
monitoring requirements and additional performance testing from what is
in subpart BB. The additional performance testing requirements for
recovery furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns include initial testing for
condensable PM and 5-year repeat testing for filterable PM, condensable
PM and TRS. The monitoring requirements include a different opacity
limit and monitoring allowance for recovery furnaces, restriction of
the monitoring allowances for TRS to an upper concentration limit,
continuous opacity monitoring for lime kilns equipped with ESPs and
continuous ESP parameter monitoring for recovery furnaces and lime
kilns equipped with ESPs. These testing and monitoring requirements are
in addition to the initial performance testing and continuous
monitoring requirements described in section IV.A of this preamble,
which are required under the current subpart BB.
The recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with these
testing and monitoring provisions are specifically authorized by CAA
section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to the EPA
policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
When a malfunction occurs, sources must report it according to the
applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa. An
affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission
standards that are caused by malfunctions is available to a source if
it can demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are
satisfied. In addition, the source must meet certain notification and
reporting requirements. For example, the source must prepare a written
root cause analysis and submit a written report to the Administrator
documenting that it has met the conditions and requirements for
assertion of the affirmative defense.
For this final rule, the EPA is considering the affirmative defense
in its estimate of burden in the information collection request (ICR).
To provide the public with an estimate of the relative magnitude of the
burden associated with an assertion of the affirmative defense position
adopted by a source, the EPA has provided administrative adjustments to
the ICR that shows what the notification, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements associated with the assertion of the affirmative defense
might entail. The EPA's estimate for the required notification, reports
and records, including the root cause analysis associated with a single
incident totals approximately $3,375, and is based on the time and
effort required of a source to review relevant data, interview plant
employees and document the events surrounding a malfunction that has
caused a violation of an emission limit. The estimate also includes
time to produce and retain the records and reports for submission to
the EPA.
The EPA provides this illustrative estimate of this burden because
these costs are only incurred if there has been a violation and a
source chooses to take advantage of the affirmative defense. Given the
variety of circumstances under which malfunctions could occur, as well
as differences among sources' operation and maintenance practices, the
EPA cannot reliably predict the severity and frequency of malfunction-
related excess emission events for a particular source. It is important
to note that the EPA has no basis currently for estimating the number
of malfunctions that would qualify for an affirmative defense. Current
historical records would be an inappropriate basis, as source owners or
operators previously operated their facilities in recognition that they
were exempt from the requirement to comply with emission standards
during malfunctions. Of the number of violation events reported by
source operators, only a small number would be expected to result from
a malfunction (based on the definition of a malfunction in 40 CFR
60.2), and only a subset of violations caused by malfunctions would
result in the source choosing to assert the affirmative defense. Thus,
the EPA believes the number of instances in which source operators
might be expected to avail themselves of the affirmative defense will
be extremely small.
For this reason, the EPA estimates no more than two such
occurrences for all sources subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa over
the 3-year period covered by the ICR. The EPA expects to gather
information on such events in the future and will revise this estimate
as better information becomes available.
The annual burden for this information collection averaged over the
first 3 years of this ICR is estimated to total 1,905 labor-hours per
year at a cost of $186,324/yr. The annualized capital costs are
estimated at $411,300/yr. The annual operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs are $155,880/yr. The total annualized capital and O&M costs are
$567,180/yr. Burden is defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control
[[Page 18964]]
numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part
9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the agency will publish a
technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display
the OMB control number for the approved information collection
requirements contained in this final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
certification is based on the economic impact of this action to all
affected small entities. Only two small entities may be impacted by
this final rule. The EPA estimates that all affected small entities
will have annualized costs of less than 0.1 percent of their sales.
Thus, the EPA concludes that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For more information on the small entity impacts associated with
this rule, please refer to the memorandum, Economic Impact Analysis for
the Section 111(b) Review of the Kraft Pulp Mills New Source
Performance Standards Subpart BB, in the public docket. Although this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the
impact of this final rule on small entities. When developing these
standards, the EPA took special steps to ensure that the burdens
imposed on small entities were minimal. The EPA conducted several
meetings with the industry trade association to discuss regulatory
options and the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping
and reporting and impacts on existing sources that are modified.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
This final rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one
year. This final rule is not expected to impact state, local or tribal
governments. The nationwide annualized cost of this final rule for
affected industrial sources is estimated to be $389,900/yr. Thus, this
final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final rule
will not apply to such governments and will not impose any obligations
upon them.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject to
this action are owned or operated by state governments, and nothing in
this final rule will supersede state regulations. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the federal government and Indian tribes or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian
tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule imposes
requirements on owners and operators of kraft pulp mills and not tribal
governments. The EPA does not know of any kraft pulp mills owned or
operated by Indian tribal governments. However, if there are any, the
effect of this rule on communities of tribal governments would not be
unique or disproportionate to the effect on other communities. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 22,
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on an analysis of the degree of emission reduction that is
achievable through the application of the best system of emissions
reduction, as provided in CAA section 111.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
This rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA has decided
to use one VCS in this rulemaking. The VCS, ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue
and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in this rule for its manual method
of measuring the content of the exhaust gas as an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2. This
standard is available at https://www.asme.org or by mail at the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Two Park Avenue, New York, NY
10016-5990.
[[Page 18965]]
The EPA has identified two other VCS as being potentially
applicable to this final rule. The first, ASTM D7520-09, is an
alternative to Method 9 (see part 60, appendix A-4 for a description of
Method 9). This final rule currently provides the use of COMS as an
alternative to Method 9; therefore, the EPA has decided not to use ASTM
D7520-09 in this rulemaking. The second, ANSI/ASME PTC 19-10-1981-Part
10, is an alternative to Method 16A (see part 60, appendix A-6 for a
description of Method 16A). The EPA is incorporating this VCS as an
alternative to Method 3B above, but is not incorporating it as an
alternative to Method 16A because it is an alternative for only the
manual portion and not the instrumental portion of Method 16A, and
sources are already allowed four EPA methods for measuring TRS (Methods
16, 16A, 16B and 16C). See the docket for this rule for the reasons for
these determinations.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
The EPA has concluded that it is not practicable to determine
whether there would be disproportionately high and adverse human health
or environmental effects on minority, low income or indigenous
populations from this final rule as it is unknown where new facilities
will be located and the EPA does not expect new facilities to be built.
However, the agency has reviewed the areas surrounding all existing
kraft pulp mills to determine if there is an overrepresentation of
minority, low income or indigenous populations near the sources, such
that they may currently face disproportionate risks from pollutants.
To gain a better understanding of the source category and near
source populations, the EPA conducted a demographic analysis on the
source category for this rulemaking. This analysis only gives some
indication of the prevalence of subpopulations that may be exposed to
air pollution from the sources and, therefore, would be those
populations that may be expected to benefit most from this regulation;
it does not identify the demographic characteristics of the most highly
affected individuals or communities, nor does it quantify the level of
risk faced by those individuals or communities. The data show that most
demographic categories were below or within 20 percent of their
corresponding national averages except for the African American
population percentage within three miles of any source potentially
affected by this rulemaking. This segment of the population exceeds the
national average by 5 percentage points (18 percent v. 13 percent), or
plus 38 percent. There is no indication that this segment of the
population faces an unacceptable risk from emissions from these
sources. However, the additional information that will be collected
from the increase in testing requirements with this rule is expected to
better inform the agency of the emissions associated with this source
category. This will ensure better compliance with this final rule and
will result in this rule being more protective of human health. The
demographic analysis results and the details concerning their
development are presented in the September 18, 2012, memorandum titled,
Environmental Justice Review: Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS, a copy of which is
available in the docket for this action (EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640).
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller
General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing
this final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the
U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of this final rule in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be effective on April 4, 2014.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 60
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 14, 2014.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
As described in the preamble above, the EPA amends 40 CFR part 60
as follows:
PART 60--STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
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:
0
a. Revising paragraph (f) introductory text,
0
b. Revising paragraph (f)(14),
0
c. Revising paragraph (o) introductory text, and
0
d. Revising paragraph (o)(1).
The amendments read as follows:
Sec. 60.17 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(f) The following material is available for purchase from the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Two Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10016-5990, Telephone (800) 843-2763, and is also available at
the following Web site: https://www.asme.org. * * * * *
(14) ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], (Issued August 31, 1981), IBR approved
for Sec. Sec. 60.56c(b), 60.63(f), 60.106(e), 60.104a(d), (h), (i),
and (j), 60.105a(d), (f), and (g), Sec. 60.106a(a), Sec. 60.107a(a),
(c), and (d), tables 1 and 3 to subpart EEEE, tables 2 and 4 to subpart
FFFF, table 2 to subpart JJJJ, Sec. 60.285a(f), Sec. Sec. 60.4415(a),
60.2145(s) and (t), 60.2710(s) (t), and (w), 60.2730(q), 60.4900(b),
60.5220(b), tables 1 and 2 to subpart LLLL, tables 2 and 3 to subpart
MMMM, Sec. Sec. 60.5406(c) and 60.5413(b).
* * * * *
(o) The following material is available for purchase from the
Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry (TAPPI), 15
Technology Parkway South, Suite 115, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092,
Telephone (800) 332-8686, and is also available at the following Web
site: https://www.tappi.org.
(1) TAPPI Method T 624 cm-11, (Copyright 2011), IBR approved, for
Sec. Sec. 60.285(d) and 60.285a(d).
* * * * *
0
3. Section 60.280 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
[[Page 18966]]
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. Any facility under paragraph (a) of this
section that commenced construction, reconstruction, or modification
after September 24, 1976, and on or before May 23, 2013 is subject to
the requirements of subpart BB of this part.
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.
Affirmative defense means, in the context of an enforcement
proceeding, a response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding
which the defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which
are independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or
administrative proceeding.
Black liquor solids (BLS) means the dry weight of the solids which
enter the recovery furnace in the black liquor.
Brown stock washer system means brown stock washers and associated
knotters, vacuum pumps, and filtrate tanks used to wash the pulp
following the digester system. Diffusion washers are excluded from this
definition.
Closed-vent system means a system that is not open to the
atmosphere and is composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and, if
necessary, flow-inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from an
emission point to a control device.
Condensable particulate matter, for purposes of this subpart, means
particulate matter (PM) measured by EPA Method 202 of Appendix M of 40
CFR part 51 that is vapor phase at stack conditions, but condenses and/
or reacts upon cooling and dilution in the ambient air to form solid or
liquid PM immediately after discharge from the stack.
Condensate stripper system means a column, and associated
condensers, used to strip, with air or steam, total reduced sulfur
(TRS) compounds from condensate streams from various processes within a
kraft pulp mill.
Cross recovery furnace means a furnace used to recover chemicals
consisting primarily of sodium and sulfur compounds by burning black
liquor which on a quarterly basis contains more than 7 weight percent
of the total pulp solids from the neutral sulfite semichemical process
and has a green liquor sulfidity of more than 28 percent.
Digester system means each continuous digester or each batch
digester used for the cooking of wood in white liquor, and associated
flash tank(s), blow tank(s), chip steamer(s) including chip bins using
live steam, and condenser(s).
Filterable particulate matter, for purposes of this subpart, means
particulate matter measured by EPA Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of this
part.
Green liquor sulfidity means the sulfidity of the liquor which
leaves the smelt dissolving tank.
High volume, low concentration (HVLC) closed-vent system means the
gas collection and transport system used to convey gases from the brown
stock washer system to a control device.
Kraft pulp mill means any stationary source which produces pulp
from wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips in a water solution of
sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide (white liquor) at high temperature
and pressure. Regeneration of the cooking chemicals through a recovery
process is also considered part of the kraft pulp mill.
Lime kiln means a unit used to calcine lime mud, which consists
primarily of calcium carbonate, into quicklime, which is calcium oxide.
Low volume, high concentration (LVHC) closed-vent system means the
gas collection and transport system used to convey gases from the
digester system, condensate stripper system, and multiple-effect
evaporator system to a control device.
Monitoring system malfunction means a sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable failure of the monitoring system to provide
valid data. Monitoring system failures that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions. The owner or
operator is required to implement monitoring system repairs in response
to monitoring system malfunctions or out-of-control periods, and to
return the monitoring system to operation as expeditiously as
practicable.
Multiple-effect evaporator system means the multiple-effect
evaporators and associated condenser(s) and hotwell(s) used to
concentrate the spent cooking liquid that is separated from the pulp
(black liquor).
Neutral sulfite semichemical pulping operation means any operation
in which pulp is produced from wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips
in a solution of sodium sulfite and sodium bicarbonate, followed by
mechanical defibrating (grinding).
Recovery furnace means either a straight kraft recovery furnace or
a cross recovery furnace, and includes the direct-contact evaporator
for a 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
[[Page 18967]]
consisting primarily of sodium and sulfur compounds by burning black
liquor which on a quarterly basis contains 7 weight percent or less of
the total pulp solids from the neutral sulfite semichemical process or
has green liquor sulfidity of 28 percent or less.
Total reduced sulfur (TRS) means the sum of the sulfur compounds
hydrogen sulfide, methyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl
disulfide that are released during the kraft pulping operation and
measured by Method 16 of Appendix A-6 of this part.
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 shall cause to be discharged into the
atmosphere:
(1) From any modified recovery furnace any gases which:
(i) Contain filterable particulate matter in excess of 0.10 gram
per dry standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.044 grain per dry standard
cubic foot (gr/dscf)) corrected to 8-percent oxygen.
(ii) Exhibit 20-percent opacity or greater, where an electrostatic
precipitator (ESP) emission control device is used, except where it is
used in combination with a wet scrubber.
(2) From any new or reconstructed recovery furnace any gases which:
(i) Contain filterable particulate matter in excess of 0.034 g/dscm
(0.015 gr/dscf) corrected to 8-percent oxygen.
(ii) Exhibit 20-percent opacity or greater, where an ESP emission
control device is used, except where it is used in combination with a
wet scrubber.
(3) From any modified or reconstructed smelt dissolving tank, or
from any new smelt dissolving tank that is not associated with a new or
reconstructed recovery furnace subject to the provisions of paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, any gases which contain filterable particulate
matter in excess of 0.1 gram per kilogram (g/kg) (0.2 pound per ton
(lb/ton)) of black liquor solids (dry weight).
(4) From any new smelt dissolving tank associated with a new or
reconstructed recovery furnace subject to the provisions of paragraph
(a)(2) of this section, any gases which contain filterable particulate
matter in excess of 0.060 g/kg (0.12 lb/ton) black liquor solids (dry
weight).
(5) From any modified lime kiln any gases which:
(i) Contain filterable particulate matter in excess of 0.15 g/dscm
(0.064 gr/dscf) corrected to 10-percent oxygen.
(ii) Exhibit 20-percent opacity or greater, where an ESP emission
control device is used, except where it is used in combination with a
wet scrubber.
(6) From any new or reconstructed lime kiln any gases which:
(i) Contain filterable particulate matter in excess of 0.023 g/dscm
(0.010 gr/dscf) corrected to 10-percent oxygen.
(ii) Exhibit 20-percent opacity or greater, where an ESP emission
control device is used, except where it is used in combination with a
wet scrubber.
(b) These standards apply at all times as specified in Sec. Sec.
60.284a and 60.285a.
(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 parts per million (ppm) by volume on a dry
basis, corrected to 10-percent oxygen, unless one of the following
conditions are met:
(i) The gases are collected in an LVHC or HVLC closed-vent system
meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.450 and combusted in a lime kiln
subject to the provisions of either paragraph (a)(5) of this section or
Sec. 60.283(a)(5); or
(ii) The gases are collected in an LVHC or HVLC closed-vent system
meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.450 and combusted in a recovery
furnace subject to the provisions of either paragraphs (a)(2) or (3) of
this section or Sec. 60.283(a)(2) or (3); or
(iii) The gases are collected in an LVHC or HVLC closed-vent system
meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.450 and combusted with other waste
gases in an incinerator or other device, or combusted in a lime kiln or
recovery furnace not subject to the provisions of this subpart (or
subpart BB of this part), and are subjected to a minimum temperature of
650 [deg]C (1200[emsp14][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 collected in an LVHC or HVLC closed-
vent system meeting the requirements of Sec. 63.450 and controlled by
a means other than combustion. In this case, this system must not
discharge any gases to the atmosphere which contain TRS in excess of 5
ppm by volume on a dry basis, uncorrected for oxygen content.
(vi) The uncontrolled exhaust gases from a new, modified, or
reconstructed digester system contain TRS less than 0.005 g/kg (0.01
lb/ton) air dried pulp (ADP).
(2) From any straight kraft recovery furnace any gases which
contain TRS in excess of 5 ppm by volume on a dry basis, corrected to
8-percent oxygen.
(3) From any cross recovery furnace any gases which contain TRS in
excess of 25 ppm by volume on a dry basis, corrected to 8-percent
oxygen.
(4) From any smelt dissolving tank any gases which contain TRS in
excess of 0.016 g/kg (0.033 lb/ton) of black liquor solids as hydrogen
sulfide (H2S).
(5) From any lime kiln any gases which contain TRS in excess of 8
ppm by volume on a dry basis, corrected to 10-percent oxygen.
(b) These standards apply at all times as specified in Sec. Sec.
60.284a and 60.285a.
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
[[Page 18968]]
CFR part 60. You must install, certify, and operate the continuous
oxygen monitoring system in accordance with Performance Specification
(PS) 3 in Appendix B to 40 CFR part 60. These systems must be located
downstream of the control device(s). The range of the continuous
monitoring system must encompass all expected concentration values,
including the zero and span values used for calibration. The spans of
these continuous monitoring system(s) must be set:
(i) At a TRS concentration of 30 ppm for the TRS continuous
monitoring system, except that for any cross recovery furnace the span
must be set at 50 ppm.
(ii) At 21-percent oxygen for the continuous oxygen monitoring
system.
(b) Any owner or operator subject to the provisions of this subpart
must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate the following continuous
parameter monitoring devices specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4)
of this section.
(1) For any incinerator, a monitoring device for the continuous
measurement of the combustion temperature at the point of incineration
of effluent gases which are emitted from any digester system, brown
stock washer system, multiple effect evaporator system, or condensate
stripper system where the provisions of 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 under paragraph
(c)(1)(i) of this section and must be determined as an arithmetic mean
of the appropriate 12 contiguous 1-hour average oxygen concentrations
provided by each continuous monitoring system installed under paragraph
(a)(2) of this section.
(iii) Using the following equation, correct all 12-hour average TRS
concentrations to 10 volume percent oxygen, except that all 12-hour
average TRS concentrations from a recovery furnace must be corrected to
8 volume percent oxygen instead of 10 percent, and all 12-hour average
TRS concentrations from a facility to which the provisions of 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 12-hour average of the measured
concentrations uncorrected for oxygen.
X = the volumetric oxygen concentration in percentage to be
corrected to (8 percent for recovery furnaces and 10 percent for
lime kilns, incinerators, or other devices).
Y = the 12-hour average of the measured volumetric oxygen
concentration.
(2) Record at least once each successive 5-minute period all
measurements obtained from the continuous monitoring devices installed
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section. Calculate 3-hour block averages
from the recorded measurements of incinerator temperature. Temperature
measurements recorded when no TRS emissions are fired in the
incinerator (e.g., during incinerator warm-up and cool-down periods
when no TRS emissions are generated or an alternative control device is
used) may be omitted from the block average calculation.
(3) Record at least once each successive 15-minute period all
measurements obtained from the continuous monitoring devices installed
under paragraph (b)(2) through (4) of this section and reduce the data
as follows:
(i) Calculate 12-hour block averages from the recorded measurements
of wet scrubber pressure drop (or smelt dissolving tank scrubber fan
amperage)
[[Page 18969]]
and liquid flow rate (or liquid supply pressure), as applicable.
(ii) Calculate semiannual averages from the recorded measurements
of ESP parameters (secondary voltage and secondary current, or total
secondary power) for ESP-controlled recovery furnaces or lime kilns
that measure opacity in addition to ESP parameters.
(iii) Calculate 12-hour block averages from the recorded
measurements of ESP parameters (secondary voltage and secondary
current, or total secondary power) for recovery furnaces or lime kilns
with combination ESP/wet scrubber controls.
(4) During the initial performance test required in 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 concentrations above 8 ppm by volume at
10-percent oxygen during times when lime mud is fired.
(ii) All 6-minute average opacities that exceed 20 percent during
times when lime mud is fired.
(3) For emissions from any digester system, brown stock washer
system, multiple-effect evaporator system, or condensate stripper
system, periods of excess emissions are:
(i) All 12-hour average TRS concentrations above 5 ppm by volume at
10-percent oxygen unless the provisions of 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[emsp14][deg]F), where the provisions of Sec. 60.283a(a)(1)(iii)
apply and an incinerator is used as the combustion device.
(iii) All times when gases are not routed through the closed-vent
system to one of the control devices specified in Sec.
60.283a(a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v).
(4) For any recovery furnace, lime kiln, or smelt dissolving tank
controlled with a wet scrubber emission control device that complies
with the parameter monitoring requirements specified in 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 minimum site-specific limit established during performance
testing during times when BLS or lime mud is fired (as applicable)
except during startup and shutdown,
(iii) All 12-hour block average ESP secondary voltage measurements
below the minimum site-specific limit established during performance
testing during times when BLS or lime mud is fired (as applicable)
including startup and shutdown.
(iv) All 12-hour block average ESP secondary current measurements
(or total secondary power values) below the minimum site-specific limit
established during performance testing during times when BLS or lime
mud is fired (as applicable) except during startup and shutdown.
(e) The Administrator will not consider periods of excess emissions
reported under 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 the semiannual reporting period does not exceed:
(i) One percent for TRS emissions from straight recovery furnaces,
provided that the 12-hour average TRS concentration does not exceed 30
ppm corrected to 8-percent oxygen.
(ii) Two percent for average opacities from recovery furnaces,
provided that the ESP secondary voltage and secondary current (or total
secondary power) averaged over the semiannual period remained above the
minimum operating limits established during the performance test.
(iii) One percent for TRS emissions from lime kilns, provided that
the 12-hour average TRS concentration does not exceed 22 ppm corrected
to 10-percent oxygen.
(iv) One percent for average opacities from lime kilns, provided
that the ESP secondary voltage and secondary current (or total
secondary power)
[[Page 18970]]
averaged over the semiannual period remained above the minimum
operating limits established during the performance test.
(v) One percent for TRS emissions from cross recovery furnaces,
provided that the 12-hour average TRS concentration does not exceed 50
ppm corrected to 8-percent oxygen.
(vi) For closed-vent systems delivering gases to one of the control
devices specified in Sec. 60.283a(a)(1)(i) through (iii) and (v), the
time of excess emissions divided by the total process operating time in
the semiannual reporting period does not exceed:
(A) One percent for LVHC closed-vent systems; or
(B) Four percent for HVLC closed-vent systems or for HVLC and LVHC
closed-vent systems combined.
(2) The Administrator determines that the affected facility,
including air pollution control equipment, is maintained and operated
in a manner which is consistent with good air pollution control
practice for minimizing emissions during periods of excess emissions.
(3) The 12-hour average TRS concentration uncorrected for oxygen
may be considered when determining compliance with the excess emission
provisions in paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and (iii) of this section during
periods of startup or shutdown when the 12-hour average stack oxygen
percentage approaches ambient conditions. If the 12-hour average TRS
concentration uncorrected for oxygen is less than the applicable limit
(5 ppm for recovery furnaces or 8 ppm for lime kilns) during periods of
startup or shutdown when the 12-hour average stack oxygen concentration
is 15 percent or greater, then the Administrator will consider the TRS
average to be in compliance. This provision only applies during periods
of affected facility startup and shutdown.
(f) The procedures under 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. Section 60.8(c) must be read as follows for
purposes of this subpart: Performance tests shall be conducted under
such conditions as the Administrator shall specify to the plant
operator based on representative performance of the affected facility.
The owner or operator shall make available to the Administrator such
records as may be necessary to determine the conditions of the
performance tests. Operations during periods of startup, shutdown and
malfunction shall not constitute representative conditions for the
purpose of a performance test.
(b) The owner or operator must determine compliance with the
filterable particulate matter standards in 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 5 years
following the previous performance test using the procedures in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.
(5) When the initial and repeat performance tests are conducted for
filterable particulate matter, the owner or operator must also measure
condensable particulate matter using Method 202 of Appendix M of 40 CFR
part 51.
(c) The owner or operator must determine compliance with the
filterable particular matter standards in 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, dry standard
cubic meter per hour (dscm/hr) (dry standard cubic feet per hour
(dscf/hr)).
BLS = black liquor solids (dry weight) feed rate, kg/hr (ton/hr).
(2) Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of this part must be used to determine
the filterable particulate matter concentration (cs) and the
volumetric flow rate (Qsd) of the effluent gas. The sampling
time and sample volume must be at least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8
dscf). Water must be used instead of acetone in the sample recovery.
(3) Process data must be used to determine the black liquor solids
(BLS) feed rate on a dry weight basis.
(4) In addition to the initial performance test required by this
subpart and Sec. 60.8(a), you must conduct repeat performance tests
for filterable particulate matter at intervals no longer than 5 years
following the previous performance test using the procedures in
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
(5) When the initial and repeat performance tests are conducted for
filterable particulate matter, the owner or operator must also measure
condensable particulate matter using Method 202 of Appendix M of 40 CFR
part 51.
(d) The owner or operator must determine compliance with the TRS
standards in 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.
(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) must be used to determine sodium
sulfide, sodium
[[Page 18971]]
hydroxide, and sodium carbonate. These determinations must be made 3
times daily from the green liquor, and the daily average values must be
converted to sodium oxide (Na20) and substituted into the
following equation to determine the green liquor sulfidity:
GLS=100CNa2S/
(CNa2SCNaOHCNa2CO
3)
Where:
GLS = green liquor sulfidity, percent.
CNa2S = concentration of Na2S as
Na2O, milligrams per liter (mg/L) (grains per gallon (gr/
gal)).
CNaOH = concentration of NaOH as Na2O, mg/L
(gr/gal).
CNa2CO3 = concentration of
Na2CO3 as Na2O, mg/L (gr/gal).
(4) For recovery furnaces and lime kilns, in addition to the
initial performance test required in this subpart and Sec. 60.8(a),
you must conduct repeat TRS performance tests at intervals no longer
than 5 years following the previous performance test using the
procedures in paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.
(e) The owner or operator must determine compliance with the TRS
standards in Sec. 60.283a(a)(1)(vi) and (4) as follows:
(1) The emission rate (E) of TRS must be computed for each run
using the following equation:
E=CTRS F Qsd/P
Where:
E = emission rate of TRS, g/kg (lb/ton) of BLS or ADP.
CTRS = average combined concentration of TRS, ppm.
F = conversion factor, 0.001417 g H2S/cubic meter (m\3\)-
ppm (8.846 x 10\-8\ lb H2S/cubic foot (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 5
years following the previous performance test using the procedures in
paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
(f) The owner or operator may use the following as alternatives to
the reference methods and procedures specified in this section:
(1) In place of Method 5 of Appendix A-3 of this part, Method 17 of
Appendix A-6 of this part may be used if a constant value of 0.009 g/
dscm (0.004 gr/dscf) is added to the results of Method 17 and the stack
temperature is no greater than 204[deg]C (400[emsp14][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 (incorporated by reference--see Sec. 60.17) 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 emission monitoring and control systems were kept in
operation if at all possible, consistent with safety and good air
pollution control practices; and
(7) All of the actions in response to the violation were documented
by properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs; and
(8) At all times, the affected source was operated in a manner
consistent with good practices for minimizing emissions; and
(9) A written root cause analysis has been prepared, the purpose of
which is to determine, correct, and eliminate the primary causes of the
malfunction and the violation resulting from the malfunction event at
issue. The analysis must also specify, using best monitoring methods
and engineering judgment, the amount of any emissions that were the
result of the malfunction.
(b) Report. The owner or operator seeking to assert an affirmative
defense must submit a written report to the Administrator with all
necessary supporting documentation that explains how it has met the
requirements set forth in paragraph (a) of this section. This
affirmative defense report must be included in the first periodic
compliance, deviation report or excess emission report otherwise
required after the initial occurrence of the violation of the relevant
standard (which may be the end of any applicable averaging period). If
such compliance, deviation report or excess emission report is due less
than 45 days after the initial occurrence of the violation, the
affirmative defense report may be included in the second compliance,
deviation report or excess emission report due after the initial
occurrence of the violation of the relevant standard.
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
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).
[[Page 18972]]
(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 incinerator combustion temperature at the point
of incineration of effluent gases which are emitted from any digester
system, brown stock washer system, multiple effect evaporator system,
or condensate stripper system where the provisions of Sec.
60.283a(a)(1)(iii) apply and an incinerator is used as the combustion
device.
(4) For any recovery furnace, lime kiln, or smelt dissolving tank
using a wet scrubber emission control device:
(i) Records of the pressure drop of the gas stream through the
control equipment (or smelt dissolving tank scrubber fan amperage), and
(ii) Records of the scrubbing liquid flow rate (or scrubbing liquid
supply pressure).
(5) For any recovery furnace or lime kiln using an ESP control
device:
(i) Records of the secondary voltage of each ESP collection field,
and
(ii) Records of the secondary current of each ESP collection field,
and
(iii) If used as an alternative to secondary voltage and current,
records of the total secondary power of each ESP collection field.
(6) For any recovery furnace or lime kiln using an ESP followed by
a wet scrubber, the records specified under paragraphs (b)(4) and (5)
of this section.
(7) Records of excess emissions as defined in 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 Sec. 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 https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/) existing at the time
of the performance test to generate a submission package file, which
documents performance test data. You must then submit the file
generated by the ERT through the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data
Reporting Interface (CEDRI), which can be accessed by logging in to the
EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) (https://cdx.epa.gov/). Only data
collected using test methods supported by the ERT as listed on the ERT
Web site are subject to the requirement to submit the performance test
data electronically. Owners or operators who claim that some of the
information being submitted for performance tests is confidential
business information (CBI) must submit a complete ERT file including
information claimed to be CBI on a compact disk, flash drive, or other
commonly used electronic storage media to the EPA. The electronic media
must be clearly marked as CBI and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI
Office, Attention: WebFIRE Administrator, MD C404-02, 4930 Old Page
Rd., Durham, NC 27703. The same ERT file with the CBI omitted must be
submitted to the EPA via CDX as described earlier in this paragraph
(b). At the discretion of the delegated authority, you must also submit
these reports, including the CBI, to the delegated authority in the
format specified by the delegated authority. For any performance test
conducted using test methods that are not listed on the ERT Web site,
the owner or operator must submit the results of the performance test
to the Administrator at the appropriate address listed in 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. 2014-06719 Filed 4-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P