[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18951-18972]
[FR Doc No: 2014-06719]

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640; FRL-9907-37-OAR]
RIN 2060-AR64

Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes revisions to the new source performance
standards for kraft pulp mills. These revised standards include
particulate matter emission limits for recovery furnaces, smelt
dissolving tanks and lime kilns, and opacity limits for recovery
furnaces and lime kilns equipped with electrostatic precipitators.
These revised standards apply to emission units commencing
construction, reconstruction or modification after May 23, 2013. This
final rule removes the General Provisions exemption for periods of
startup, shutdown and malfunction resulting in a standard that applies
at all times. This final rule also includes additional testing
requirements and updated monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for affected sources, including electronic reporting of
performance test data. These revisions to the testing, monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements are expected to ensure that
control systems are properly maintained over time, ensure continuous
compliance with standards and improve data accessibility for the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), states, tribal governments and
communities.

DATES: This final action is effective on April 4, 2014. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 4,
2014.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640. All documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available (e.g., confidential
business information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute). Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center,
Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone
number for the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

    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

                                                                       (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.

 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 http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN Web site provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.

C. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of this final
action is available only by filing a petition for review in the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 3,
2014. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements established
by these final rules may not be challenged separately in any civil or
criminal proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, U.S. EPA, Room 3000, William Jefferson
Clinton Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460,
with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section and the Associate General Counsel for the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460.

III. Background

    New source performance standards implement CAA section 111, which
requires that each NSPS reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of the BSER which (taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any non-
air quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements)
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. This
level of control is referred to as BSER and has been referred to in the
past as ``best demonstrated technology'' or BDT. In assessing whether a
standard is achievable, the EPA must account for routine operating
variability associated with performance of the system on whose
performance the standard is based. See National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627
F. 2d 416, 431-33 (D.C. Cir. 1980). In addition to new sources,
existing affected sources that are modified or reconstructed are also
subject to this final rule.
    Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to periodically
review and revise the standards of performance, as necessary, to
reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions. The original
NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills (40 CFR part 60, subpart BB) were promulgated
in the Federal Register on February 23, 1978 (43 FR 7572). The first
review of the kraft pulp mills NSPS was completed on May 20, 1986 (51
FR 18544). The latest review of the Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS was proposed
on May 23, 2013, under 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa for emission units
commencing construction, reconstruction or

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

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

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

have added other regulatory provisions to specify the elements that are
necessary to establish this affirmative defense; the source must prove
by a preponderance of the evidence that it has met all of the elements
set forth in 40 CFR 60.285a. (See 40 CFR 22.24.) The added criteria are
designed in part to ensure that the affirmative defense is available
only where the event that causes a violation of the emission standard
meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40 CFR 60.2 (sudden,
infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused by poor
maintenance or careless operation). For example, to successfully assert
the added affirmative defense, the source must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that violation ``[w]as caused by a sudden, infrequent,
and unavoidable failure of air pollution control, process equipment, or
a process to operate in a normal or usual manner . . .'' The added
criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken to correct
the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40 CFR
60.11(d) and to prevent future malfunctions. For example, under the
added criteria, the source must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that ``[r]epairs were made as expeditiously as possible when a
violation occurred . . .'' and that ``[a]ll possible steps were taken
to minimize the impact of the violation on ambient air quality, the
environment and human health . . . .'' In any judicial or
administrative proceeding, the Administrator may challenge the
assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the respondent has not met
its burden of proving all of the requirements in the affirmative
defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in accordance with
section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.77).
    The EPA included in the final rule an affirmative defense in an
attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation,
to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that
despite the most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be
violated under circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA
must establish emission standards that ``limit the quantity, rate, or
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.''
42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ``emission limitation'' and ``emission
standard''). See generally, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021
(D.C. Cir. 2008). Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that emission
standards are continuous. The affirmative defense for malfunction
events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where there is a
malfunction, the emission standard is still enforceable through
injunctive relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit recently upheld the EPA's view that an affirmative defense
provision is consistent with section 113(e) of the CAA. Luminant
Generation Co. LLC v. United States EPA, 714 F.3d 841 (5th Cir. Mar.
25, 2013) (upholding the EPA's approval of affirmative defense
provisions in a CAA State Implementation Plan). While ``continuous''
standards are required, there is also case law indicating that in many
situations it is appropriate for the EPA to account for the practical
realities of technology. For example, in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus,
486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973), the DC Circuit acknowledged that in
setting standards under CAA section 111, ``variant provisions'' such as
provisions allowing for upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment
malfunction ``appear necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the
standards as a whole and that the record does not support the `never to
be exceeded' standard currently in force.'' See also, Portland Cement
Association v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though these
earlier cases may no longer represent binding precedent in light of the
CAA 1977 amendments and intervening case law such as Sierra Club v.
EPA, they nevertheless support the EPA's view that a system that
incorporates some level of flexibility is reasonable and appropriate.
The affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to civil
penalties for violations that are proven to be beyond the control of
the source. Through the incorporation of an affirmative defense, the
EPA has formalized its approach to malfunctions. In a Clean Water Act
(CWA) setting, the Ninth Circuit required this type of formalized
approach when regulating ``upsets beyond the control of the permit
holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v. EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir.
1977). See also, Mont. Sulphur & Chem. Co. v. United States EPA, 666
F.3d. 1174 (9th Cir. 2012) (rejecting industry argument that reliance
on the affirmative defense was not adequate). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co.
v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011, 1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an
informal approach is adequate). The final affirmative defense
provisions give the EPA the flexibility to both ensure that its
emission standards are ``continuous'' as required by 42 U.S.C. 7602(k),
and account for unplanned upsets and thus support the reasonableness of
the standard as a whole. The EPA is promulgating the affirmative
defense applicable to malfunctions under the delegation of general
regulatory authority set out in section 301(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7601(a)(1), in order to balance this tension between provisions of the
Act and the practical reality, as case law recognizes, that technology
sometimes fails. See generally, Citizens to Save Spencer County v. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 600 F.2d 844, 873 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
(using section 301(a) authority to harmonize inconsistent guidelines
related to the implementation of federal preconstruction review
requirements).

C. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?

    The provisions of subpart BBa being promulgated in this action are
effective on April 4, 2014. Emission units that commence construction,
reconstruction or modification after May 23, 2013, must comply with the
provisions of subpart BBa by April 4, 2014 or upon startup, whichever
is later.
    The initial performance test must be conducted within 60 days after
achieving the maximum production rate at which the affected facility
will be operated, but no later than 180 days after initial startup per
40 CFR 60.8(a). The first of the 5-year repeat tests must be conducted
no later than 5 years following the initial performance test, and
thereafter within 5 years from the date of the previous performance
test. The date to submit performance test data through ERT is within 60
days after the date of completing each performance test.

D. What are the requirements for submission of performance test data to
the EPA?

    For the reasons provided in the proposed rule preamble, in subpart
BBa the EPA is requiring owners and operators of kraft pulp mills to
submit electronic copies of required performance test and performance
evaluation reports to the EPA's WebFIRE database. Data will be entered
through an electronic emissions test report structure called the ERT.
The ERT will generate an electronic report which will be submitted
using the Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface (CEDRI).
The submitted report will be stored in both EPA's Central Data Exchange
(CDX) archive (the official copy of record) and in the WebFIRE
database, making access to data very straightforward and easy. A
description and instructions for use of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html,

and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site (www.epa.gov/cdx). A
description of the WebFIRE database is available at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.
    The requirement to submit performance test data electronically to
the EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted using test
methods that are supported by the ERT.\3\ The ERT supports most of the
commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and
test methods supported by the ERT is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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

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.

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.,

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

numbers for the EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part
9. When this ICR is approved by OMB, the agency will publish a
technical amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display
the OMB control number for the approved information collection
requirements contained in this final rule.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201;
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
certification is based on the economic impact of this action to all
affected small entities. Only two small entities may be impacted by
this final rule. The EPA estimates that all affected small entities
will have annualized costs of less than 0.1 percent of their sales.
Thus, the EPA concludes that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    For more information on the small entity impacts associated with
this rule, please refer to the memorandum, Economic Impact Analysis for
the Section 111(b) Review of the Kraft Pulp Mills New Source
Performance Standards Subpart BB, in the public docket. Although this
final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, the EPA nonetheless tried to reduce the
impact of this final rule on small entities. When developing these
standards, the EPA took special steps to ensure that the burdens
imposed on small entities were minimal. The EPA conducted several
meetings with the industry trade association to discuss regulatory
options and the corresponding burden on industry, such as recordkeeping
and reporting and impacts on existing sources that are modified.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This final rule does not contain a federal mandate that may result
in expenditures of $100 million or more for state, local and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any one
year. This final rule is not expected to impact state, local or tribal
governments. The nationwide annualized cost of this final rule for
affected industrial sources is estimated to be $389,900/yr. Thus, this
final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA).
    This final rule is also not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This final rule
will not apply to such governments and will not impose any obligations
upon them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the facilities subject to
this action are owned or operated by state governments, and nothing in
this final rule will supersede state regulations. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the federal government and Indian tribes or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities between the federal government and Indian
tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. This final rule imposes
requirements on owners and operators of kraft pulp mills and not tribal
governments. The EPA does not know of any kraft pulp mills owned or
operated by Indian tribal governments. However, if there are any, the
effect of this rule on communities of tribal governments would not be
unique or disproportionate to the effect on other communities. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 22,
1997) as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based
solely on an analysis of the degree of emission reduction that is
achievable through the application of the best system of emissions
reduction, as provided in CAA section 111.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995, Public Law 104-113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note), directs
the EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS
bodies. The NTTAA directs the EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the agency decides not to use available and
applicable VCS.
    This rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA has decided
to use one VCS in this rulemaking. The VCS, ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue
and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is cited in this rule for its manual method
of measuring the content of the exhaust gas as an acceptable
alternative to EPA Method 3B of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A-2. This
standard is available at http://www.asme.org or by mail at the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME), Two Park Avenue, New York, NY
10016-5990.

    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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and is also available at
the following Web site: http://www.asme.org. * * * * *
    (14) ASME/ANSI PTC 19.10-1981, Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus], (Issued August 31, 1981), IBR approved
for 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<PHONE_NUMBER>, and is also available at the following Web
site: http://www.tappi.org.
    (1) TAPPI Method T 624 cm-11, (Copyright 2011), IBR approved, for
Sec. Sec.  60.285(d) and 60.285a(d).
* * * * *

0
3. Section 60.280 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as
follows:

Sec.  60.280  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

* * * * *
    (b) Except as noted in Sec.  60.283(a)(1)(iv), any facility under
paragraph (a) of this section that commences construction,
reconstruction, or modification after September 24, 1976, and on or
before May 23, 2013 is subject to the requirements of this subpart. Any
facility under paragraph (a) of this section that commences
construction, reconstruction, or modification after May 23, 2013 is
subject to the requirements of subpart BBa of this part.

0
4. Add subpart BBa to read as follows:
Subpart BBa--Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp Mill Affected
Sources for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification
Commenced After May 23, 2013
Sec.
60.280a Applicability and designation of affected facility.
60.281a Definitions.
60.282a Standard for filterable particulate matter.
60.283a Standard for total reduced sulfur (TRS).
60.284a Monitoring of emissions and operations.
60.285a Test methods and procedures.
60.286a Affirmative defense for violations of emission standards
during malfunction.
60.287a Recordkeeping.
60.288a Reporting.

Subpart BBa--Standards of Performance for Kraft Pulp Mill Affected
Sources for Which Construction, Reconstruction, or Modification
Commenced After May 23, 2013

Sec.  60.280a  Applicability and designation of affected facility.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to the following
affected facilities in kraft pulp mills: digester system, brown stock
washer system, multiple-effect evaporator system, recovery furnace,
smelt dissolving tank, lime kiln and condensate stripper system. In
pulp mills where kraft pulping is combined with neutral sulfite
semichemical pulping, the provisions of this subpart are applicable
when any portion of the material charged to an affected facility is
produced by the kraft pulping operation.
    (b) Except as noted in Sec.  60.283a(a)(1)(iv), any facility under
paragraph (a) of this section that commences construction,
reconstruction or modification after May 23, 2013, is subject to the
requirements of this subpart. 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

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

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)

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.