[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 100 (Thursday, May 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31315-31341]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12081]

Vol. 78

Thursday,

No. 100

May 23, 2013

Part IV

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 60

Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review; Proposed Rule

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

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 60

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640; FRL-9815-9]
RIN 2060-AR64

Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing revisions to the new source performance
standards for kraft pulp mills. These revised standards include
particulate matter emission limits for recovery furnaces, smelt
dissolving tanks and lime kilns, which apply to emission units
commencing construction, reconstruction or modification after May 23,
2013 that are different than those required under the existing
standards for kraft pulp mills. The exemptions to opacity standards do
not apply to the proposed standards for kraft pulp mills. The proposed
rule also removes the exemption for periods of startup and shutdown
resulting in a standard that applies at all times. The proposed rule
includes additional testing requirements and updated monitoring,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for affected sources. These
differences are expected to ensure that control systems are properly
maintained over time, ensure continuous compliance with standards and
improve data accessibility for the EPA, states, tribal governments and
communities.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 8, 2013. Under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection
provisions are best assured of having full effect if the Office of
Management and Budget receives a copy of your comments on or before
June 24, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OAR-2012-0640, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/oar/docket.html.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the EPA Air and
Radiation Docket Web site.
     E-Mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-
0640 in the subject line of the message.
     Fax: Fax your comments to:<PHONE_NUMBER>, Attention:
Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640.
     Mail: Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-
2012-0640. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please
mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St.
NW., Washington, DC 20503.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: In person or by courier, deliver
comments to EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460. Such deliveries are only accepted
during the Docket Center's normal hours of operation, (8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays), and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information. Please include a total of two copies.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number or Regulatory Identifier Number (RIN) for this
rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means that the EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to the EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and will be made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, the EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If the EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, the EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form
of encryption and be free of any defects or viruses. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see the ``General Information'' heading under the
``Organization of This Document'' heading in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available (e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute). Certain other material,
such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA
Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-
1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this proposed rule
for kraft pulp mills, contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Natural Resources
Group, Sector Policies and Program Division, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (E143-03), Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, telephone number (919)
541-3158; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Acronyms and Abbreviations. The following acronyms and
abbreviations are used in this document:

ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
BACT Best achievable control technology
BDT Best demonstrated technology
BLO Black liquor oxidation
BLS Black liquor solids
BSER Best system of emissions reduction
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI Confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CEMS Continuous emission monitoring system
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CO Carbon monoxide
COMS Continuous opacity monitoring system
CWA Clean Water Act
DCE Direct contact evaporator
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP Electrostatic precipitator
g/dscm Grams per dry standard cubic meter

gr/dscf Grains per dry standard cubic foot
HAP Hazardous air pollutant
H2S Hydrogen Sulfide
HVLC High volume low concentration
ICR Information collection request
lb Pound
LVHC Low volume high concentration
MACT Maximum achievable control technology
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NCG Non-condensable gas
NDCE Non-direct contact evaporator
NESHAP National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
NOX Nitrogen oxides
NSPS New Source Performance Standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OMB Office of Management and Budget
O&M Operating and maintenance
O2 Oxygen
PM Particulate Matter
ppm Parts per million
ppmv Parts per Million by Volume
ppmdv Parts per Million of Dry Volume
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
RIN Regulatory Identifier Number
SD Smelt dissolving tank
SISNOSE Significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities
S/L/Ts State, local and tribal
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SSM Startup, shutdown and malfunction
TTN Technology Transfer Network
TRS Total reduced sulfur
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
VCS Voluntary consensus standards
WWW Worldwide Web

    Organization of This Document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Executive Summary
    A. Purpose of Regulatory Action
    B. Summary of Major Provisions
    C. Summary of Costs and Benefits
II. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document?
    D. When would a public hearing occur?
III. Background Information
    A. What is the statutory authority for this proposed rule?
    B. What are the current NSPS for kraft pulp mills?
IV. Summary of Proposed Standards
    A. What source category is being regulated?
    B. What pollutants are emitted from these sources?
    C. What are the proposed standards?
V. Rationale for the Proposed Standards
    A. What is the EPA's rationale for the proposed emission limits
and monitoring requirements for affected sources?
    B. What testing requirements is the EPA proposing?
    C. What notification, reporting and recordkeeping requirements
is the EPA proposing?
    D. Other Miscellaneous Differences Between the Proposed Subpart
BBa and the Current Subpart BB
VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy and Economic Impacts of
These Proposed Standards
    A. What are the impacts for new, modified and reconstructed
emission units at kraft pulp mills?
    B. What are the secondary impacts for new, modified and
reconstructed emission units at kraft pulp mills?
    C. What are the economic impacts for new, modified and
reconstructed emission units at kraft pulp mills?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

I. Executive Summary

A. Purpose of Regulatory Action

    Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the EPA to review and, if
appropriate, revise existing NSPS at least every 8 years. The NSPS for
kraft pulp mills (40 CFR part 60, subpart BB) were promulgated in 1978
and last reviewed in 1986. As part of the review, the EPA considers
what degree of emission limitation is achievable through the
application of the BSER, which (taking into account the cost of
achieving such reduction and any nonair quality health and
environmental impact and energy requirements) the Administrator
determines has been adequately demonstrated. The EPA also considers the
emission limitations and reductions that have been achieved in
practice.
    In addition to conducting the NSPS review, the EPA is evaluating
the SSM provisions in the rule in light of the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),
which held that the SSM exemption in the General Provisions in 40 CFR
part 63 violated the CAA's requirement that some standard apply
continuously. In the Sierra Club case, the D.C. Circuit vacated the SSM
exemption provisions in the General Provisions of 40 CFR part 63 for
non-opacity and opacity standards. The court explained that under
section 302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature. The court then held that the SSM exemption
violates the CAA's requirement that some section 112 standard apply
continuously. In light of the court's reasoning, all rule provisions
must be carefully examined to determine whether they provide for
periods when no emission standard applies. The EPA believes the
reasoning behind the D.C. Circuit's decision in Sierra Club v. EPA
applies equally to section 111 rules. The EPA's general approach to SSM
periods has been used consistently in CAA section 111, 112 and section
129 rulemaking actions, since the D.C. Circuit's decision in Sierra
Club. See, e.g., New Source Performance Standards Review for Nitric
Acid Plants, Final Rule, 77 FR 48433 (August 14, 2012); New Source
Performance Standards for New Stationary Sources and Emission
guidelines for Existing Sources; Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste
Incineration Units, Final rule, 76 FR 15704 (March 21, 2011); Oil and
Natural Gas Sector: New Source Performance Standards and National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Reviews; Final rules,
77 FR 49490 (August 16, 2012).
    To address the NSPS review, SSM exemptions and other changes, the
EPA is proposing new standards, which will apply to affected sources at
kraft pulp mills for which construction, modification or reconstruction
commences on or after May 23, 2013. The affected sources under the
proposed NSPS are new, modified or reconstructed digester systems,
brown stock washer systems, evaporator systems, condensate stripper
systems, recovery furnaces, SDTs, and lime kilns at kraft pulp mills.
The requirements for these new, modified or reconstructed sources will
be included in a new subpart--40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa. The EPA is
also proposing testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for subpart BBa that are in some ways different from what
is required under subpart BB.

B. Summary of Major Provisions

    Based on the results of the NSPS review, the EPA is proposing the
following regarding the standards for filterable PM, opacity and TRS
compounds:
     Reducing the filterable PM emission limit for new and
reconstructed

recovery furnaces and lime kilns and new and reconstructed SDTs
associated with new or reconstructed recovery furnaces to levels
equivalent to the new source PM limits in the NESHAP for chemical
recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite and stand-alone
semichemical pulp mills (40 CFR part 63, subpart MM), to which these
sources would already be subject;
     Maintaining the filterable PM emission limit for modified
recovery furnaces and lime kilns and for modified SDTs and new and
reconstructed SDTs not associated with a new or reconstructed recovery
furnace at their current NSPS levels;
     Reducing the opacity limit for recovery furnaces to the 20
percent corrective action level in NESHAP subpart MM and reducing the
opacity monitoring allowance from 6 percent to 2 percent;
     Adding an opacity limit of 20 percent for lime kilns
equipped with ESPs with an opacity monitoring allowance of 1 percent;
and
     Maintaining the TRS emission limit for digester systems,
brown stock washer systems, evaporator systems, condensate stripper
systems, recovery furnaces, SDTs, and lime kilns at their current
levels, but restricting the TRS monitoring allowance of 1 percent for
recovery furnaces to 30 ppmdv and adding a TRS monitoring allowance of
1 percent for lime kilns, restricted to 22 ppmdv.
    To ensure continuous compliance with the PM standards, including
during periods when the opacity monitoring allowance is used, the EPA
is proposing new ESP parameter monitoring requirements for recovery
furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs. The EPA is proposing wet
scrubber parameter monitoring requirements for recovery furnaces, SDTs
and lime kilns equipped with wet scrubbers that will be consistent with
the wet scrubber parameter monitoring requirements under NESHAP subpart
MM. The PM standards and parameter monitoring requirements are
applicable at all times. The EPA is proposing to include in the rule an
affirmative defense to civil penalties for exceedances of emission
limits caused by malfunctions that meet certain criteria (i.e., the
exceedance must come from an ``unavoidable failure''), along with
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
    The EPA is proposing repeat performance testing for filterable PM
and TRS once every 5 years for new, modified and reconstructed affected
sources complying with the filterable PM and TRS standards in subpart
BBa. The EPA is also proposing initial and repeat performance testing
for condensable PM to gather emissions data that will enable a broader
understanding of condensable PM emissions from pulp and paper
combustion sources. The EPA is proposing that mills submit electronic
copies of their performance test reports to the EPA using the EPA's
ERT. The EPA is also proposing text with certain technical and
editorial differences, including clarifying the location of applicable
test methods in the CFR, incorporating by reference one non-EPA test
method, and including definitions to subpart BBa pertinent to the
differences between the proposed subpart BBa and the current subpart
BB.

C. Summary of Costs and Benefits

    Table 1 summarizes the costs and benefits of this proposed action.
See section VI of this preamble for further discussion.

 Table 1--Summary of the Costs and Benefits of Subpart BBa for New, Modified and Reconstructed Affected Sources
                                               at Kraft Pulp Mills
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Capital cost   Annual cost ($
                           Requirement                             ($ thousand)      thousand)      Net benefit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Repeat emissions testing........................................            $186             $45             N/A
Monitoring......................................................             341             129             N/A
Incremental reporting/recordkeeping.............................              50             215             N/A
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total nationwide............................................             577             390             N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding.

II. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule
include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Examples of  regulated
           Category            NAICS code \1\           entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.....................            3221  Kraft pulp mills.
Federal government...........  ..............  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government  ..............  Not affected.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industrial Classification System.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
60.280a. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this
proposed action to a particular entity, contact the person in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to the EPA?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or
deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address:
Roberto Morales, OAQPS

Document Control Officer (C404-02), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC
27711, Attention: Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0640. Clearly mark
the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI
information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information marked as CBI will not be disclosed except
in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
the proposed action is available on the WWW through the TTN Web site.
Following signature, the EPA posted a copy of the proposed action on
the TTN Web site's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or
promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN Web site
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air
pollution control.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

    The EPA will hold a public hearing on this proposed rule if
requested. Requests for a hearing must be made by June 3, 2013. Please
contact Ms. Joan Rogers at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER> by June
3, 2013 to request a public hearing. If a hearing is requested, the EPA
will hold a hearing on June 7, 2013 at the U.S. EPA, 109 T.W. Alexander
Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711. Please contact Ms.
Joan Rogers for details regarding the public hearing.

III. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for this proposed rule?

    New source performance standards implement CAA section 111, which
requires that each NSPS reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through the application of the BSER which (taking into
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reductions, any
nonair quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements)
the Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated. This
level of control is referred to as BSER and has been referred to in the
past as ``best demonstrated technology'' or BDT. In assessing whether a
standard is achievable, the EPA must account for routine operating
variability associated with performance of the system on whose
performance the standard is based. See National Lime Ass'n v. EPA, 627
F. 2d 416, 431-33 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
    Existing affected facilities that are modified or reconstructed
would also be subject to this proposed rule for affected sources. Under
CAA section 111(a)(4), ``modification'' means any physical change in,
or change in the method of operation of, a stationary source which
increases the amount of any air pollutant emitted by such source or
which results in the emission of any air pollutant not previously
emitted. Changes to an existing facility that do not result in an
increase in emissions are not considered modifications.
    Rebuilt emission units would become subject to the proposed
standards under the reconstruction provisions, regardless of changes in
emission rate. Reconstruction means the replacement of components of an
existing facility such that: (1) The fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed capital cost that would be
required to construct a comparable entirely new facility; and (2) it is
technologically and economically feasible to meet the applicable
standards (40 CFR 60.15). Section 111(b)(1)(B) of the CAA requires the
EPA to periodically review and revise the standards of performance, as
necessary, to reflect improvements in methods for reducing emissions.
    The NSPS are directly enforceable federal regulations issued for
categories of sources which cause, or contribute significantly to, air
pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health
or welfare. Since 1970, the NSPS have been successful in achieving
long-term emissions reductions in numerous industries by assuring that
cost-effective controls are installed on new, reconstructed or modified
sources.

B. What are the current NSPS for kraft pulp mills?

    The original NSPS for kraft pulp mills (40 CFR part 60, subpart BB)
were promulgated in the Federal Register on February 23, 1978 (43 FR
7572). The first review of the kraft pulp mills NSPS was completed on
May 20, 1986 (51 FR 18544). The 1986 review made changes to TRS
emission limits and temperature monitoring requirements. Minor testing
and monitoring changes and technical corrections were made to the kraft
pulp mills NSPS after the 1986 review (February 14, 1989 (54 FR 6673);
May 17, 1989 (54 FR 21344); February 14, 1990 (55 FR 5212); October 17,
2000 (65 FR 61759); and September 21, 2006 (71 FR 55127)).
    The current kraft pulp mills NSPS (subpart BB) apply to the
following emission units constructed, reconstructed or modified after
September 24, 1976, that are located at facilities engaged in kraft
pulping:

 Digester systems
 Brown stock washer systems
 Multiple-effect evaporator systems
 Condensate stripper systems
 Recovery furnaces
 Smelt dissolving tanks
 Lime kilns

    The current NSPS, as amended under the 1986 review and later
actions, include the following emission limits and work practice
standards:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           40 CFR 60.282 Particulate
           Affected sources                       matter (PM)           40 CFR 60.283 Total reduced sulfur (TRS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digester system.......................  None..........................  One of the following conditions must be
Brown stock washer system.............                                   met:
Evaporator system.....................                                  1. Combust emissions from affected
Condensate stripper system............                                   source in one of the following:
                                                                        (a) lime kiln subject to subpart BB (8
                                                                         ppmdv TRS limit);
                                                                        (b) recovery furnace subject to subpart
                                                                         BB (5 or 25 ppmdv TRS limit); or
                                                                        (c) incinerator, recovery furnace, or
                                                                         lime kiln not subject to subpart BB,
                                                                         operated at a minimum temperature of
                                                                         1200 [deg]F for 0.5 seconds (no ppmdv
                                                                         limit).
                                                                        2. Use non-combustion control device
                                                                         with a limit of 5 ppmdv.
                                                                        3. It is technologically or economically
                                                                         infeasible to incinerate brown stock
                                                                         washer systems gases.
                                                                        4. Uncontrolled digester gases contain
                                                                         less than 0.01 pound of TRS per ton of
                                                                         air-dried pulp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recovery furnace......................  1. 0.044 gr/dscf @ 8% O2; and.  1a. Straight \1\: 5 ppmdv @ 8% O2; or
                                        2. 35% opacity; and...........  1b. Cross \2\: 25 ppmdv @ 8% O2; and
                                        3. 6% monitoring allowance for  2. 1% monitoring allowance for TRS.
                                         opacity..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smelt dissolving tank.................  0.2 lb/ton BLS dry weight.....  0.033 lb/ton BLS as H2S.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lime kiln.............................  1a. Gas-fired: 0.066 gr/dscf @  8 ppmdv @ 10% O2.
                                         10% O2; or.
                                        1b. Liquid fuel-fired: 0.13 gr/
                                         dscf @ 10% O2..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A straight recovery furnace is one that only burns kraft pulping liquors.
\2\ A cross recovery furnace is one that burns kraft and neutral sulfite semichemical pulping liquors.

    Initial compliance with the PM and TRS emission limits in the
current NSPS (subpart BB) is demonstrated by conducting initial
performance tests for these pollutants. To demonstrate continuous
compliance, certain operating parameters must be monitored and
maintained within a range of site-specific values. Continuous opacity
monitors are required for recovery furnaces and continuous TRS monitors
are required for recovery furnaces and lime kilns. Parameter monitors
for scrubber pressure loss and scrubbing liquid supply pressure are
required for any lime kiln or SDT using a wet scrubber to comply with
their respective PM emission limits in subpart BB. For digester
systems, brown stock washers, evaporators and condensate stripper
systems that use an incinerator to control emissions, incinerator
temperature monitors are required. Subpart BB requires TRS monitors for
those that do not use incinerators (e.g., the TRS monitor installed on
a recovery furnace or lime kiln controlling emissions is used; or a TRS
monitor is installed on a non-combustion control system).

IV. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. What source category is being regulated?

    Today's proposed standards would apply to affected emission sources
at kraft pulp mills for which construction, modification or
reconstruction commences on or after May 23, 2013. The affected sources
under the proposed NSPS are new, modified or reconstructed digester
systems, brown stock washer systems, evaporator systems, condensate
stripper systems, recovery furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks and lime
kilns located at a kraft pulp mill.

B. What pollutants are emitted from these sources?

    The pollutants regulated under section 111(b) for new, modified or
reconstructed emission units at kraft pulp mills are filterable PM and
TRS. Opacity is regulated to ensure proper operation and maintenance of
the ESP used to control PM emissions.
    Particulate matter emissions and opacity are also regulated under a
separate federal standard, the subpart MM NESHAP for chemical recovery
combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite and stand-alone semichemical
pulp mills (40 CFR part 63). These standards were promulgated on
January 12, 2001 (66 FR 3180) and were not challenged; therefore the
standards are an appropriate baseline for analysis. Particulate matter
is regulated as a surrogate for HAP metals in the subpart MM NESHAP
pursuant to CAA section 112.
    The most common technologies used to control PM and TRS emissions
from kraft pulp mills are listed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Affected sources            Pollutant       Control technology
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Digester, brown stock washer,    TRS............  Incineration of the
 evaporator and condensate                         gases in the recovery
 stripper systems.                                 furnace, lime kiln or
                                                   separate incineration
                                                   unit.
Recovery furnace...............  PM.............  Use of an ESP.
                                 TRS............  Use of a NDCE recovery
                                                   furnace; or use of
                                                   staged BLO for DCE
                                                   recovery furnaces.
Smelt dissolving tank..........  PM.............  Use of a wet scrubber.
                                 TRS............  Use of water not
                                                   highly contaminated
                                                   with dissolved
                                                   sulfides for
                                                   dissolving the smelt
                                                   and for scrubbing.
Lime kiln......................  PM.............  Use of a venturi
                                                   scrubber, ESP, or
                                                   scrubber/ESP
                                                   combination.
                                 TRS............  More efficient process
                                                   controls (e.g., mud
                                                   washing) and use of
                                                   caustic solution in
                                                   the scrubber.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PM concentration limits in the subpart BB NSPS and subpart MM
NESHAP are based on filterable PM measured by EPA Method 5. Filterable
PM consists of those particles directly emitted by a source as a solid
or liquid at the stack (or similar release conditions) and captured on
the filter of a stack test train. A fraction of the PM emitted from
recovery furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns is PM with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5). The
EPA is not proposing separate standards for PM2.5 in this
action because the available emissions test data for PM2.5
are limited and not adequate for setting standards (e.g., the
measurement method for PM2.5 does not apply for scrubber wet
stacks), and the same controls that remove filterable PM also reduce
filterable PM2.5.
    Condensable PM is also emitted from recovery furnaces, SDTs and
lime kilns. Condensable PM is material that is in vapor phase at stack
conditions that condenses and/or reacts upon cooling and dilution in
the ambient air to form solid or liquid PM after discharge from the
stack. For purposes of implementing the NAAQS, Appendix A to subpart A
of 40 CFR part 51 defines PM2.5 as including both filterable
and condensable fractions of PM.
    The PM concentration limits in today's proposed NSPS review are
based on filterable PM measured by EPA Method 5 because the majority of
PM emissions data available are Method 5 data. Emissions of condensable
PM are measured using EPA Method 202, which can be added as the ``back
half'' to a Method 5 sampling train. Although today's proposed NSPS
review contains no emission limits for condensable PM, the EPA is
proposing to require emissions testing for condensable PM in
conjunction with filterable PM testing to gather condensable PM
emissions data for future analyses. Additional data and research are
needed to develop a broader understanding of condensable PM emissions
from pulp and paper combustion sources and to determine mechanisms for
reducing condensable PM. Work to date suggests that condensable PM
emissions may not correlate with filterable PM emissions, and there is
some indication that SO2 present in the stack gas from pulp
and paper combustion sources may affect the accuracy of the condensable
PM measurement. Additional data will aid in our understanding of
condensable PM from pulp and paper sources and how it may be addressed.
    In addition to PM and TRS, kraft pulp mills are also sources of
criteria pollutants such as NOX, SO2, and CO.
Today's proposed NSPS review focuses on the PM and TRS emission
standards in subpart BB that are due for review under CAA section
111(b)(1)(B). No standards were established for SO2,
NOX, and CO emissions from recovery furnaces and lime kilns
in the original kraft pulping NSPS or in the 1986 NSPS review because
no best demonstrated control techniques, considering costs, were
identified for these pollutants and sources in the kraft pulping
industry. Since that time, permitting authorities have implemented
permit limits for these pollutants based on site-specific process
measures that may or may not be transferrable from mill to mill. The
pollutants NOX and SO2 are of particular interest
because these pollutants can react in the atmosphere to form secondary
emissions of PM2.5. Additional research will be done for a
potential future rulemaking to determine if federal emission limits
should be established for other criteria pollutants (such as
NOX or SO2), including research into the
technological basis for permit limits; analysis of emissions test data;
and analysis of the benefits, trade-offs and costs of controls to
achieve reductions in these pollutants.

C. What are the proposed standards?

    The EPA is proposing the following actions regarding the NSPS
emission limits for those affected sources for which construction,
modification or reconstruction is commenced on or after May 23, 2013:

     Reduce the NSPS PM limit for new and reconstructed
recovery furnaces from 0.044 gr/dscf to the new source PM limit of
0.015 gr/dscf found in the subpart MM NESHAP.
     Reduce the opacity limit for recovery furnaces from 35
percent to 20 percent opacity and reduce the monitoring allowance
from 6 percent to 2 percent of the 6-minute opacity averages.
     Maintain the current NSPS TRS limits for recovery
furnaces (5 ppmdv for straight, 25 ppmdv for cross) and restrict the
1 percent monitoring allowance for TRS emissions to 30 ppmdv or
less. Previously, there was no maximum TRS limit for these periods.
     Reduce the NSPS PM limit for new and reconstructed SDTs
associated with new or reconstructed recovery furnaces from 0.2 lb/
ton BLS to the new source PM limit of 0.12 lb/ton BLS in the subpart
MM NESHAP.
     Reduce the NSPS PM limit for modified lime kilns from
0.066 gr/dscf for gas-fired kilns and 0.13 gr/dscf for liquid-fired
kilns to the existing source limit of 0.064 gr/dscf found in the
subpart MM NESHAP (for all fuels) and reduce the NSPS PM limit for
new and reconstructed lime kilns from 0.066 gr/dscf for gas-fired
kilns and 0.13 gr/dscf for liquid-fired kilns to the new source
limit of 0.010 gr/dscf found in the subpart MM NESHAP.
     Maintain the current NSPS TRS limit for lime kilns at 8
ppmdv and add a 1 percent monitoring allowance restricted to 22
ppmdv.
     Add an opacity limit for lime kilns equipped with ESPs
based on the subpart MM NESHAP limit of 20 percent opacity with a 1
percent monitoring allowance.

    The EPA is proposing the following emission limits for those
affected sources for which construction, modification or reconstruction
is commenced on or after May 23, 2013 to be the same as currently in
subpart BB:

     Maintain the current NSPS PM limit of 0.044 gr/dscf for
modified recovery furnaces.
     Maintain the current NSPS TRS limit for SDTs at 0.033
lb/ton BLS.
     Maintain the current NSPS PM limit of 0.2 lb/ton BLS
for modified and new and reconstructed SDTs not associated with a
new or reconstructed recovery furnace.

The emission limits for new, modified or reconstructed sources will be
included in a new subpart--40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa. The PM
concentration emission limits are in terms of filterable PM measured by
EPA Method 5. The TRS emission limits are in terms of TRS (or TRS as
H2S for SDTs) measured by EPA Method 16, 16A, 16B or 16C.

    The EPA is proposing ESP parameter monitoring requirements for
recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs to enable affected
units to show continuous compliance with the PM concentration standards
at all times, including periods when the opacity monitoring allowance
is used. The EPA is proposing that these sources monitor the secondary
voltage and secondary current (or, alternatively, total secondary
power) of each ESP collection field. These ESP parameter monitoring
requirements are in addition to opacity monitoring for recovery
furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs alone. For recovery furnaces
or lime kilns equipped with an ESP in combination with a wet scrubber
system, the EPA is proposing wet scrubber parameter monitoring and ESP
parameter monitoring instead of opacity monitoring. The parameter
monitors will measure the wet scrubber pressure drop and scrubber
liquid flow rate (or liquor supply pressure). Scrubber fan amperage
monitoring is proposed as an alternative to scrubber pressure drop
monitoring for certain types of scrubbers used on SDTs (e.g., dynamic
scrubbers that operate near atmospheric pressure). All parameters would
be measured and recorded at least once every 15 minutes and reduced to
12-hour block averages (except that ESP parameters would be reduced to
a quarterly average when an opacity monitor is also used on the ESP).
The EPA is proposing to specify

a 5-minute data recording frequency and 3-hour block averaging time for
incinerator temperature measurements required under the NSPS.
    The General Provisions in 40 CFR part 60 provide that emissions in
excess of the level of the applicable emission limit during periods of
SSM shall not be considered a violation of the applicable emission
limit unless otherwise specified in the applicable standard. See 40 CFR
60.8(c). The General Provisions, however, may be amended for individual
subparts. Here, the EPA is proposing standards in subpart BBa that
apply at all times as specified in the proposed Sec. Sec.  60.282a(b)
and 60.283a(b). This is discussed further in section V.A.5, and with
respect to specific standards in various sections below.
    The EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly designed
and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can sometimes
cause a violation of the relevant emission standard; thus, the EPA is
proposing to include an affirmative defense to civil penalties for
violations of emission standards that are caused by malfunctions that
meet certain criteria, as discussed in section V.A.5 below.
    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with the
standards, the EPA is proposing to require repeat air emissions testing
for filterable PM, and TRS for recovery furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns
once every 60 months (5 years), as discussed in section V.B below. The
EPA is also proposing initial and repeat condensable PM testing once
every 60 months (5 years) for informational purposes.
    To increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve
data accessibility, the EPA is also proposing to require mills to
submit electronic copies of performance test reports to the EPA's
WebFIRE database, as discussed in section V.C below.

V. Rationale for the Proposed Standards

    Section 111(a)(1) requires that standards of performance for new
sources reflect the--

* * * degree of emission limitation achievable through the
application of the best system of emission reduction which (taking
into account the cost of achieving such reduction, and any nonair
quality health and environmental impact and energy requirements) the
Administrator determines has been adequately demonstrated.

Section 111(b)(1)(B) requires the EPA to ``at least every 8 years
review and, if appropriate, revise'' performance standards unless the
``Administrator determines that such review is not appropriate in light
of readily available information on the efficacy'' of the standard.

A. What is the EPA's rationale for the proposed emission limits and
monitoring requirements for affected sources?

1. Digesters, Brown Stock Washers, Evaporators and Condensate Strippers
    National emission standards for HAPs were promulgated for pulp and
paper manufacturing emissions sources in 1998. Under the pulp and paper
manufacturing NESHAP (40 CFR part 63, subpart S), NCGs from digesters,
evaporators and condensate strippers are collected as part of the LVHC
system for incineration control. The NCGs from brown stock washers are
either collected as part of the HVLC system under the subpart S NESHAP
for incineration-based control, or are subject to the subpart S NESHAP
clean condensate alternative. (See 40 CFR 63.447.) The incineration
control technology used for NESHAP subpart S compliance is the same as
that needed to meet the TRS emission limit under the NSPS, and the
incineration control technology has not changed since implementation of
the NESHAP. In many respects, the NESHAP is more expansive in its
coverage of NCG sources than the NSPS (e.g., the NESHAP targets HAP
emissions while the NSPS targets the largest sources of TRS emissions),
such that additional reductions in TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills
have occurred as a result of the TRS co-control benefits of the NESHAP.
Implementation of the NESHAP has expanded use of incineration-based
controls, and mills are likely to have made process monitoring
improvements to ensure the reliability and effectiveness of NCG
collection systems and incineration-based controls as part of NESHAP
implementation. While TRS control benefits from enhancements of NCG
collection and control systems made for NESHAP implementation, the
underlying technology that is the basis of the 5 ppmdv TRS limit and
the level of control that is achieved in practice have not changed. The
EPA received four datasets (TRS CEMS) for processes emitting NCGs. (See
memo titled, Review of the Continuous Emission Monitoring and
Continuous Opacity Monitoring Data from the Pulp and Paper Information
Collection Request Responses Pertaining to Subpart BB Sources, in the
docket.) The analysis of these datasets confirm that incineration
remains the best demonstrated technology and show that 5 ppm remains
the appropriate limit. Recognizing improvements to control system
operations and monitoring, a maximum limit was added for TRS emissions
from lime kilns and recovery furnaces. Alternatives to incineration,
such as scrubbing, are less effective at the removal of TRS because
only two of the four TRS compounds (H2S and methyl
mercaptan) are acidic enough to be removed with alkaline scrubbing,
resulting in a removal efficiency much lower than that achieved by
incineration. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to maintain the TRS limit
for NCG sources.
    Incinerator temperature monitoring. Subpart BB requires monitoring
of incineration temperature in conjunction with the compliance option
for TRS emissions from digesters, washers, evaporators and strippers to
be combusted at a temperature of 1200 [deg]F for 0.5 seconds. Subpart
BB does not specify a data recording frequency or averaging time for
the temperature measurements but does define excess emissions as
temperature measurements below 1200 [deg]F for a period of 5 minutes or
more (excluding periods of startup and shutdown, per Sec.  60.8(c)). In
the subpart S NESHAP, incinerator temperature averaging time is not
specified, but compliance testing is based on a 3-hour average (an
average of three 1-hour test runs). For subpart BBa, the EPA is
proposing to clarify the incineration temperature monitoring
requirement by specifying a data recording frequency of at least every
5 minutes, and to create consistency between subpart S and subpart BBa
by proposing a 3-hour block averaging period. Because incineration
devices must warm to 1200 [deg]F during control startup prior to firing
gases containing TRS emissions (and subsequently cool to below 1200
[deg]F during control shutdown), the EPA is proposing to allow
facilities to omit 5-minute recorded temperature measurements from the
3-hour block averages when no TRS emissions are fired. This means that
when the incinerator is not burning TRS (e.g., during incinerator warm-
up and cool-down periods before TRS emissions are generated or when an
alternative control device is used), the low temperature does not
constitute a violation. The EPA requests comment on the 3-hour
averaging time for incinerator temperature monitoring, especially as it
relates to temperature data recording and averaging practices specified
for individual mills under the subpart S NESHAP.
2. Recovery Furnaces
    Recovery furnace PM. Under the current subpart BB, new, modified
and reconstructed recovery furnaces are

required to meet a PM emission limit of 0.044 gr/dscf at 8 percent
O2. The PM emission limit in subpart BB is the same as the
existing source emission limit for recovery furnaces under the NESHAP
for chemical recovery combustion sources (40 CFR part 63, subpart MM).
    For the NSPS review, the EPA reviewed data from more than 200
filterable PM stack tests, including some repeat tests, on nearly all
of the recovery furnaces in the United States. Test data were reviewed
for DCE and NDCE recovery furnaces using a variety of PM emission
controls (ESP, ESP and wet scrubber combinations, and wet scrubbers).
The PM stack test data revealed little or no distinction between DCE
and NDCE recovery furnaces for PM emissions. Nearly all of the recovery
furnaces tested met the current NSPS and existing source NESHAP
(subpart MM) limit (0.044 gr/dscf),\1\ and many met the new source
NESHAP (subpart MM) limit (0.015 gr/dscf). However, some recovery
furnaces equipped with a wet scrubber alone or with a wet scrubber in
combination with an ESP exhibited PM emissions above 0.015 gr/dscf (but
below the 0.044 gr/dscf existing source NESHAP limit subpart MM). This
suggests that wet scrubbing of recovery furnace exhaust gases (either
alone or in conjunction with an ESP) does not necessarily improve
filterable PM removal. The review of the stack test data also shows
that a limit lower than 0.015 gr/dscf has not been adequately
demonstrated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Based on our review of the stack test data and technologies used to
reduce PM emissions from kraft recovery furnaces, the EPA is proposing
a limit equivalent to the subpart MM NESHAP PM limit for new and
reconstructed recovery furnaces (0.015 gr/dscf at 8 percent
O2) for recovery furnaces constructed or reconstructed
(excluding modified units) after May 23, 2013. Because a limit of 0.015
gr/dscf has been adequately demonstrated (and is already required under
the subpart MM NESHAP) for new and reconstructed recovery furnaces, the
EPA does not expect any incremental costs or emissions reductions
associated with adopting a NSPS limit of 0.015 gr/dscf for new or
reconstructed recovery furnaces. The proposed limits establish
consistency between this NSPS and other regulatory requirements.
    The EPA also considered a 0.015 gr/dscf limit for existing recovery
furnaces that are modified. Unlike new or reconstructed sources which
trigger both the new source MACT requirements and NSPS upon
construction or reconstruction, recovery furnaces can trigger the
applicable NSPS provisions as a result of modification but would not
trigger the new source MACT requirements because there are no
modification provisions under the NESHAP (subpart MM) or the subpart A
General Provisions for part 63 standards. Therefore, costs and
emissions reductions associated with controlling PM emissions down to a
level of 0.015 gr/dscf are different for modified units than for new or
reconstructed units. The EPA evaluated the number of existing recovery
furnaces with PM stack test data above 0.015 gr/dscf but below 0.044
gr/dscf, and concluded that some existing recovery furnaces that are
modified could have difficulty achieving a limit of 0.015 gr/dscf if
they attempt to use their existing control device to meet this limit.
The EPA estimated the cost effectiveness of incremental improvements in
ESP performance needed for modified recovery furnaces to meet 0.015 gr/
dscf to be $27,500/ton (in 2012 dollars). The EPA also evaluated other
emission limits between 0.015 gr/dscf and 0.044 gr/dscf, but because
the costs associated with ESP upgrades remained the same with smaller
emission reductions, the options were less cost effective. With the
high costs (poor cost effectiveness) of further PM reductions and the
potential for some modified recovery furnaces to have difficulty
achieving 0.015 gr/dscf, the EPA is proposing to retain the 0.044 gr/
dscf PM limit for existing recovery furnaces that are modified. For
more information, see the memorandum, Emissions Inventory for Kraft
Pulp Mills and Costs/Impacts of the Section 111(b) Review of the Kraft
Pulp Mills NSPS, in the docket.
    Recovery furnace opacity and parameter monitoring. Ongoing
compliance with the subpart BB PM concentration limit is demonstrated
by continuously monitoring opacity. The recovery furnace PM opacity
limit under subpart BB is 35 percent opacity with a monitoring
allowance that allows 6 percent of the 6-minute opacity averages during
a quarter (excluding periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction and
periods when the facility is not operating) to exceed 35 percent
without being considered a violation.
    The subpart MM NESHAP also requires continuous opacity monitoring,
specifying a 20 percent opacity limit for new sources beyond which a
violation occurs if more than 6 percent of the 6-minute averages exceed
20 percent opacity during the reporting period (i.e., a monitoring
allowance) and a 35 percent opacity limit for existing sources with a
similar monitoring allowance. The subpart MM NESHAP also establishes a
corrective action threshold of 10 consecutive 6-minute averages above
20 percent opacity for existing sources.
    The EPA reviewed COMS data for 138 recovery furnaces to evaluate
the opacity limits in the current NSPS subpart BB. The EPA also
reviewed state permits and found many recovery furnaces with state
permit limits of 20 percent opacity. In addition, as noted above, 20
percent opacity also represents the corrective action level for
existing recovery furnaces and the new source opacity limit under the
subpart MM NESHAP. The COMS data analyzed for the NSPS review show that
20 percent opacity has been adequately demonstrated and achieved in
practice by both DCE and NDCE recovery furnaces using a variety of air
pollution controls and including periods of startup and shutdown. Given
numerous state limits of 20 percent opacity, and the fact that new and
reconstructed sources must meet 20 percent under the subpart MM NESHAP,
the EPA is proposing an opacity limit of 20 percent for new, modified
and reconstructed units subject to subpart BBa. The EPA believes there
are no incremental costs or emission reductions associated with
adopting an opacity limit of 20 percent because the majority of units
are already meeting this limit, without a federal requirement to do so.
The EPA is unaware of any technological reason that would hinder
modified units from meeting this limit but requests comment on the 20
percent opacity requirement for modified sources.
    The EPA also used the COMS data to evaluate the current 6 percent
monitoring allowance for opacity. Our analysis of the COMS data is
included in a memorandum in the docket.\2\ The COMS data show that over
90 percent of existing recovery furnaces, whether subject to the
current NSPS or not, regardless of design (DCE or NDCE), and with most
controls, are meeting a 20 percent opacity limit based on a 6-minute
average with fewer than 2 percent of averaging periods exceeding 20
percent opacity, including periods of startup and shutdown. Therefore,
the EPA has determined in subpart BBa that a 2 percent monitoring
allowance for recovery furnace opacity has been

adequately demonstrated to be achieved in practice and is more
representative of actual performance than the current 6 percent
monitoring allowance, and thus the EPA is proposing that the monitoring
allowance be 2 percent for the new NSPS subpart BBa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See memorandum titled, ``Review of the Continuous Emission
Monitoring and Continuous Opacity Monitoring Data from the Pulp and
Paper Information Collection Request Responses Pertaining to Subpart
BB Sources'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The COMS data for recovery furnaces currently subject to NSPS
(subpart BB) were reviewed closely to understand the impacts of startup
and shutdown on opacity and to what extent a monitoring allowance
should be refined to reflect opacity levels achieved in practice during
startup and shutdown. High short-duration spikes in opacity were
observed during some (but not all) instances of startup and shutdown at
some recovery furnaces. Brief spikes were also observed during normal
operation. The exact causes of these brief spikes were not documented
in the COMS datasets but could have been monitor malfunctions, high
level span checks, calibrations or some other cause. The COMs data
showed that the maximum 6-minute opacity average at approximately half
of the recovery furnaces for which COMS data are available exceeded 75
percent opacity, while the annual average of the 6-minute values for
these units was no more than 16 percent opacity. The potential for
brief high-level spikes in opacity can be accommodated with a 2 percent
monitoring allowance without an upper limit. To ensure continuous
compliance with the PM limit, the EPA is also proposing to add an ESP
parameter monitoring requirement to subpart BBa that would provide
another indicator of ESP performance and ensure continuous compliance
with the PM limit during the reporting period. The EPA is proposing
that ESP secondary voltage and secondary current (or total secondary
power) be monitored and averaged over the same calendar quarter as the
opacity monitoring allowance. The 2 percent opacity monitoring
allowance will only be available for recovery furnaces with ESP
parameters that are above the minimum limits established during the PM
performance test (i.e., above the minimum secondary current and
secondary voltage or above minimum total secondary power). Subpart BB
currently requires that the opacity allowance be calculated based on
the percent of the total number of possible contiguous periods of
excess emissions in a quarter. The EPA requests comment on this
requirement, specifically whether a semiannual basis would be more
appropriate based on the semiannual reporting requirement.
    Monitoring for recovery furnaces with combined ESP/scrubber
controls. Because opacity is not a suitable monitoring requirement for
recovery furnaces with wet scrubber stacks, the EPA is proposing to
require ESP and wet scrubber parameter monitoring for recovery furnaces
equipped with an ESP followed by a wet scrubber. The ESP parameters to
be monitored are secondary voltage and secondary current (or,
alternatively, total secondary power), and the wet scrubber parameters
are pressure drop and scrubber liquid flow rate (or scrubber liquid
supply pressure). The EPA is specifying that these parameters would be
measured and recorded at least once every 15 minutes and these 15-
minute measurements used to calculate 12-hour block averages. The EPA
requests comment on the use of parameter monitoring instead of opacity
monitoring in systems that utilize both an ESP and a wet scrubber. The
EPA is also requesting comment on the parameter recording frequency and
averaging time for ESP parameters and wet scrubber parameters.
    Cross recovery furnace TRS. Although the current NSPS limits TRS
from cross recovery furnaces to 25 ppmdv at 8 percent O2,
there are currently no cross recovery furnaces subject to the NSPS,
and, likewise, no TRS emissions data to analyze for cross recovery
furnaces. Although there are currently no cross recovery furnaces
subject to the NSPS, there are some kraft mills with co-located
semichemical processes that may, in the future, have furnaces
designated as NSPS cross recovery furnaces; therefore, a TRS limit for
these sources should be maintained.
    The cross recovery furnace TRS emission limit is higher than the
straight recovery furnace TRS emission limit of 5 ppmdv at 8 percent
O2 for three technical reasons. First, the sulfur content of
the semichemical liquor is higher than traditional kraft liquor.
Second, the heat content of the liquor is lower because it contains
less organic material than kraft liquor due to higher pulping yields.
Third, the heavier sulfur loading and the lower operating temperature
puts a restriction on the amount of excess O2 available to
oxidize the sulfur compounds.\3\ For these reasons, the EPA is
proposing to retain the current cross recovery furnace TRS emission
limit of 25 ppmdv at 8 percent O2 for the new NSPS subpart
BBa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Straight recovery furnace TRS. The current kraft NSPS limits TRS
emissions from straight recovery furnaces (including both DCE and NDCE
recovery furnaces) to 5 ppmdv at 8 percent O2. The CAA
111(d) TRS emission guidelines (44 FR 29828) limit TRS to 5 ppmdv for
existing NDCE recovery furnaces and 20 ppmdv for existing DCE recovery
furnaces.
    The EPA analyzed 1 year of TRS CEMS data for most recovery furnaces
as part of the NSPS review. Our review focused on CEMS data as opposed
to stack test data because relatively few TRS stack test reports (for
recovery furnaces or lime kilns) were submitted in response to the
EPA's 2011 ICR survey as compared to the number of available TRS CEMS
datasets.
    The data the EPA analyzed suggest that recovery furnace type (DCE
vs. NDCE) and NSPS applicability (i.e., whether or not the unit is
required to meet the more stringent standard) are more relevant than
control device type in distinguishing between the best performing
recovery furnaces for TRS. Recovery furnaces with combined ESP/scrubber
controls did not achieve lower TRS emissions than recovery furnaces
with ESP systems alone, which was expected because process control
factors are expected to play a role in recovery furnace TRS emissions.
Annual average TRS emissions revealed that NDCE recovery furnaces can
be expected to achieve lower TRS levels than DCE recovery furnaces.
Because compliance is based on a 12-hour average, the EPA considered
the 99th percentile of the 730 potential 12-hour blocks in a given year
for each recovery furnace. Nearly all DCE furnaces had TRS emissions
above 5 ppmdv (and usually below 20 ppmdv) while the majority of NDCE
furnaces achieved 5 ppmdv consistently. Multi-staged BLO has been
reported to reduce TRS emissions from DCE recovery furnaces; however,
the trend over the past several decades has been towards installation
of NDCE recovery furnaces or ``low-odor'' conversions of DCE recovery
furnaces to NDCE technology. Only 41 DCE recovery furnaces remain in
the industry, as compared to 108 NDCE furnaces. Many of the remaining
DCE furnaces are approaching the end of their useful life and would be
expected to be replaced with a new NDCE as opposed to being modified or
reconstructed as an NDCE furnace. No new DCE recovery furnaces are
projected for the pulp and paper industry. Given these trends, we are
not proposing separate standards for new, reconstructed or modified DCE
recovery furnaces. All new modified or reconstructed furnaces would
have to comply with the proposed standard of 5 ppmdv.

    Subpart BB contains a 1 percent monitoring allowance for recovery
furnace TRS which allows 1 percent of the reported 12-hour averages in
a reporting period to exceed the emission limit without being
considered an excess emission. The majority of NDCEs subject to the
NSPS achieved the 5 ppmdv limit consistently with 1 percent or fewer of
the averaging periods in exceedance of 5 ppmdv, including periods of
startup and shutdown. Periods of startup and shutdown are not excluded
under subpart BBa to ensure that emissions standards apply
continuously. The EPA is unaware of any technological reason that would
hinder modified, reconstructed or new units from meeting the 1 percent
allowance, but requests comment on such instances.
    Based on analysis of the TRS CEMS data for recovery furnaces, which
included periods of startup and shutdown, the EPA is proposing to
retain the 5 ppmdv at 8 percent O2 TRS emission limit for
straight recovery furnaces with a conditional 1 percent monitoring
allowance (see conditions discussed below) as the standard that has
been adequately demonstrated. This limit would apply at all times,
including during periods of startup and shutdown. The EPA did not
identify a lower achievable TRS limit based on the data and, therefore,
is proposing to maintain the current limit.\4\ The 1 percent monitoring
allowance is proposed to be retained and can be used for operational
variability as well as startup and shutdown periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See memorandum titled, ``Review of the Continuous Emission
Monitoring and Continuous Opacity Monitoring Data from the Pulp and
Paper Information Collection Request Responses Pertaining to Subpart
BB Sources'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA reviewed NSPS recovery furnace TRS CEMS datasets with
startup and shutdown details to understand the effects of startup and
shutdown on emissions. The EPA observed that periods of startup and
shutdown can lead to a situation where continuously monitored TRS
concentrations that are corrected to a specific percent O2
can be grossly inflated as a result of the O2 correction
equation. As the stack gas O2 concentration approaches
ambient conditions, the denominator of the O2 correction
equation becomes very small, leading to an O2-corrected
concentration that is artificially high, such that an otherwise-
compliant TRS measurement can exceed the applicable concentration
because it is corrected for O2. Periods when no BLS are
fired into the recovery furnace seemed to lead to this O2-
correction artifact. Nevertheless, the EPA observed that many mills
complied with the 5 ppmdv limit with a 1 percent monitoring allowance
regardless of startup and shutdown periods and process variability. The
highest representative TRS 12-hour averages associated with startup or
shutdown periods were on the order of 30 ppmdv at 8 percent
O2 for three different CEMS. A value of 30 ppmdv also
corresponds with the span setting for TRS monitors required in subpart
BB. Based on these observations, the EPA is proposing to: (1) Restrict
use of the 1 percent monitoring allowance to 12-hour TRS averages below
an upper limit of 30 ppmdv (to ensure that the 1 percent monitoring
allowance is unquestionably continuous), (2) address the O2-
correction issue by clarifying that the TRS concentration limit applies
when black liquor is being fired into the recovery furnace and by
adding language to the rule that would allow enforcement authorities to
accept uncorrected TRS concentration values during startup and shutdown
periods when stack O2 concentration approaches ambient
levels. The EPA is seeking comment on this approach. In summary, the
EPA is proposing to maintain the 5 ppmdv at 8 percent O2 TRS
emission limit with a 1 percent monitoring allowance, not to exceed 30
ppmdv. Subpart BB currently requires that the TRS monitoring allowance
be calculated based on the percent of the total number of possible
contiguous periods of excess emissions in a quarter. The EPA requests
comment on this requirement, specifically whether a semiannual basis
would be more appropriate based on the semiannual reporting
requirement.
3. Smelt Dissolving Tanks
    SDT PM. The current NSPS PM limit for SDTs (0.2 lb/ton BLS) was
established in 1976 based on use of a low-energy water scrubber or a
combination demister/low-energy water scrubber. Wire mesh demister pads
were determined not to be as effective as low-energy wet scrubbers in
the 1986 NSPS review. The 1986 NSPS review concluded that no new
control technology for SDTs had emerged since the original NSPS. The
subpart MM NESHAP PM emission limit (which is a surrogate for HAP
metals) for existing SDTs is equivalent to the NSPS limit of 0.2 lb/ton
BLS. The subpart MM NESHAP PM limit for new and reconstructed sources
with initial startup in 2001 or later is 0.12 lb/ton BLS based on the
use of a high-efficiency wet scrubber. A SDT is only considered to be
new or reconstructed under the subpart MM NESHAP if the associated
recovery furnace is also new or reconstructed (see 40 CFR 63.860--
applicability and designation of affected source).
    Analysis of recent SDT PM stack test data collected with the 2011
ICR shows that nearly all SDTs have achieved 0.2 lb/ton BLS (with the
exception of a few SDTs with mist eliminators and SDTs included in the
PM bubble compliance option under the subpart MM NESHAP). Many SDTs
have also achieved the new source MACT limit of 0.12 lb/ton BLS,
without a federal requirement to do so. Therefore, the EPA considers a
PM limit of 0.12 lb/ton BLS to be adequately demonstrated for new and
reconstructed SDTs associated with new or reconstructed recovery
furnaces. Because 0.12 lb/ton BLS is already required for new and
reconstructed SDTs associated with new or reconstructed recovery
furnaces under the subpart MM NESHAP, there would be no additional cost
associated with applying this limit for new and reconstructed SDTs
associated with new or reconstructed recovery furnaces under subpart
BBa. For these reasons, the EPA is proposing to establish a limit of
0.12 lb/ton BLS for new and reconstructed SDTs associated with new or
reconstructed recovery furnaces.
    The EPA also considered the control options for modified, and
reconstructed and new SDTs not associated with a new or reconstructed
recovery furnace. These units would not be required to meet a limit of
0.12 lb/ton by the subpart MM NESHAP. The EPA estimated the cost-
effectiveness to reduce PM from existing SDTs that are modified to be
$6,600/ton (in 2012 dollars). This cost assumes that an owner or
operator would automatically replace the existing scrubber with a new
one upon modification because the scrubbers for the projected units
have surpassed their useful life. However, if a new scrubber would not
have been required in the absence of revised NSPS, the cost-
effectiveness would increase to $15,500/ton. Similar cost effectiveness
can be expected from SDTs that trigger the new source or reconstruction
provisions under NSPS (independent of the recovery furnace) but do not
meet the new source or reconstruction criteria under the subpart MM
NESHAP (e.g., because the recovery furnace is included in the
reconstruction capital cost calculation under the subpart MM NESHAP).
Considering this relatively high cost effectiveness and that test data
for several existing SDTs exceeds 0.12 lb/ton BLS (as they are not
currently required to meet 0.12 lb/ton BLS), the EPA is proposing to
retain the current PM NSPS limit of 0.2 lb/ton BLS for SDTs that are
modified, and for new or

reconstructed SDTs that are not associated with a new or reconstructed
recovery furnace.
    SDT TRS. The current NSPS limits TRS emissions from SDTs to 0.033
lb as H2S/ton BLS (the ``as H2S'' represents how
TRS is measured--we will refer to this as ``lb/ton BLS'' for the
remainder of this section). This limit was raised from 0.0168 to 0.033
lb/ton BLS during the 1986 NSPS review because some SDTs with wet
scrubbers could not meet the original 1976 limit of 0.0168 lb/ton BLS.
Both of these limits were considered as regulatory options in the
current NSPS review because the emissions guideline for existing SDTs
remains at 0.0168 lb/ton BLS.\5\ The EPA intends to review these
emission guidelines in the future to correct for this discrepancy. The
technology basis for the current NSPS limit is the use of water that is
not highly contaminated with dissolved sulfides for dissolving smelt
and for scrubbing. A study conducted by the National Council for Air
and Stream Improvement in 2005 summarized 1990s SDT TRS emissions test
data showing that the current NSPS emission limit of 0.033 lb/ton BLS
could not be met consistently in a few cases, and that a lower limit of
0.0168 lb/ton BLS can be difficult to achieve for a number of existing
SDTs. The inability for some units to consistently meet the more
stringent limit is the result of plant-specific process variables. The
analysis of approximately 100 recent TRS stack tests (most conducted in
2004 or later) collected through the EPA's 2011 ICR showed that all of
the SDTs tested were able to meet the current NSPS limit of 0.033 lb/
ton BLS, but some of the SDTs were repeatedly unable to achieve the
former limit of 0.0168 lb/ton BLS. Thus, a limit of 0.033 lb/ton BLS
appears to be adequately demonstrated, while adequate demonstration of
0.0168 lb/ton BLS is questionable. The EPA estimated the cost
effectiveness of scrubber upgrades that could aid in reduction of TRS
emissions from SDTs to be $45,300/ton (in 2012 dollars). The EPA has no
information to estimate additional process-change costs that may be
incurred in order for some mills to achieve a limit of 0.0168 lb/ton
BLS. The EPA also investigated limits between 0.033 lb/ton BLS and
0.0168 lb/ton BLS, but costs for scrubber upgrades were assumed to be
the same while emission reductions were less, therefore the most cost-
effective option was 0.0168 lb/ton BLS. Considering the high cost of
reducing the TRS limit to 0.0168 (even without process-change costs)
and that emissions data show a limit of 0.033 lb/ton BLS has been
adequately demonstrated, the EPA is proposing the current subpart BB
TRS limit of 0.033 lb/ton BLS as the standard for new, reconstructed
and modified SDTs in subpart BBa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We note that the May 22, 1979, Federal Register notice (44
FR 29828) announcing availability of the final emissions guideline
document for kraft pulp mills incorrectly stated that the emission
guideline for SDT TRS was 0.168 lb/ton BLS, but the actual March
1979 emissions guideline document contained a guideline of 0.0168
lb/ton BLS. The emissions guidelines are used by states in setting
standards for existing sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SDT scrubber monitoring. Monitoring of scrubber liquid supply
pressure and pressure loss is specified in the current NSPS subpart BB
for SDTs. For subpart BBa, the EPA is proposing that scrubber liquid
flow rate and pressure drop be monitored consistent with the wet
scrubber parameter monitoring requirements under subpart MM NESHAP.
Scrubber liquid supply pressure is allowed as an alternative to
scrubber liquid flow rate because some mills received approval to
monitor scrubber liquid supply pressure (required under subpart BB)
instead of scrubber liquid flow rate (required under subpart MM)
following promulgation of subpart MM. Consistent with several EPA
applicability determinations, the EPA is also proposing that SDT
scrubber fan amperage may be used as an alternative to pressure drop
measurement for SDT dynamic scrubbers operating at ambient pressure or
for low-energy entrainment scrubbers on SDTs where the fan speed does
not vary. The EPA is proposing a 12-hour averaging time for wet
scrubber parameters recorded at least once every 15 minutes rather than
retaining the current NSPS requirement to record wet scrubber
parameters only once per shift. Excess emissions for SDTs would be
defined in subpart BBa as any 12-hour scrubber parameter average below
its respective site-specific parameter limits (established during
performance testing) during times when BLS is fired. Data from the ICR
indicate that facilities have difficulty meeting the minimum pressure
drop requirement during startup and shutdown, as expected due to the
reduced (and changing) volumetric flow of stack gases during startup
and shutdown. The EPA is proposing to consider only scrubber liquid
flow rate or liquid supply pressure during these periods (i.e., excess
emissions would include any 12-hour period when BLS is fired that the
scrubber flow rate [or liquid supply pressure] does not meet the
minimum parameter limits set in the initial performance test). The EPA
requests comment on the SDT scrubber parameter monitoring requirements,
especially the recording frequency and the averaging time for wet
scrubber parameters.
4. Lime Kilns
    Lime kiln PM. New, modified and reconstructed lime kilns are
required under subpart BB to meet a PM emission limit of 0.066 gr/dscf
for gaseous fuel-fired kilns and 0.13 gr/dscf for liquid fuel-fired
kilns, both at 10 percent O2. However, a more stringent PM
limit of 0.064 gr/dscf at 10 percent O2 is required for
existing lime kilns under the subpart MM NESHAP. For new or
reconstructed lime kilns, the NESHAP limit is 0.010 gr/dscf at 10
percent O2 based on use of a high-efficiency ESP. The NESHAP
does not distinguish between fuel types. Lime kilns typically burn
natural gas, fuel oil, petroleum coke or a combination of these fuels.
They may also burn NCGs or pulp mill byproducts such as tall oil.
    Lime kiln air pollution control devices include wet scrubbers,
ESPs, or a combination system including an ESP followed by a wet
scrubber. Wet scrubbers were the most common control in 1986 when the
NSPS was last reviewed and remain the most common lime kiln control
system today. However, the number of lime kilns with ESPs or ESP/wet
scrubber combinations is increasing. The ICR data indicate that, of 131
lime kilns in the U.S., 29 kilns have ESPs and 10 kilns have ESP/wet
scrubber combinations.
    The EPA reviewed PM stack test data from more than 250 filterable
PM stack tests (including several repeat tests) on 110 lime kilns in
the U.S. for purposes of reevaluating the NSPS PM limits for lime
kilns. The tests included lime kilns with scrubbers, ESPs and ESP/wet
scrubber combination controls and were representative of the various
fuel combinations burned in lime kilns. Consistent with the NESHAP
(subpart MM), the EPA found no reason to distinguish among fuel types
for purposes of establishing a PM limit in subpart BBa. The EPA found
that ESP and ESP/wet scrubber controls typically reduce PM to lower
levels than wet scrubbers alone and that wet scrubbers would not be
expected to meet the new source MACT limit of 0.010 gr/dscf at 10
percent O2. The ESP/wet scrubber systems did not necessarily
perform better on filterable PM than the ESPs alone. Several ESP and
ESP/wet scrubber-controlled kilns consistently met the limit of 0.010
gr/dscf at 10 percent O2. Therefore, the EPA is proposing a
PM limit of 0.010 gr/dscf at 10 percent O2 for new and
reconstructed

lime kilns as the PM limit that has been adequately demonstrated. There
are no incremental cost impacts or emissions reductions associated with
a limit of 0.010 gr/dscf at 10 percent O2 for new and
reconstructed lime kilns because this limit is already required under
subpart MM NESHAP.
    As noted above for recovery furnaces, lime kilns can trigger the
NSPS provisions as a result of modification but would not trigger the
new source MACT requirements because there are no modification
provisions under the NESHAP (subpart MM) or the subpart A General
Provisions for part 63 standards. The EPA estimated the cost
effectiveness of incremental improvements in ESP performance needed for
modified lime kilns to meet 0.010 gr/dscf to be $16,000/ton (in 2012
dollars). This cost-effectiveness calculation assumes that modified
kilns would have installed a new ESP to meet the current NSPS PM limit
(because the kilns that were projected to be modified have scrubbers
that have exceeded their useful equipment life). The EPA considered PM
emission limits between 0.010 gr/dscf and 0.064 gr/dscf, however, the
costs for air pollution control device upgrades remained the same,
therefore 0.010 gr/dscf was the most cost effective option. With the
high cost (poor cost effectiveness) of further PM reductions and the
potential for some modified lime kilns to be unable to achieve 0.010
gr/dscf without new controls, the EPA is proposing the existing source
MACT limit of 0.064 gr/dscf at 10 percent O2 for modified
lime kilns under subpart BBa.
    Lime kiln opacity and parameter monitoring. Monitoring of scrubber
liquid supply pressure and pressure loss (drop) is specified in the
current NSPS subpart BB for lime kilns controlled by wet scrubbers. For
subpart BBa, the EPA is proposing that scrubber liquid flow rate (or
liquid supply pressure) and pressure drop be monitored consistent with
the wet scrubber parameter monitoring requirements under subpart MM
NESHAP. Liquid supply pressure is an indicator of flow rate, therefore
either can be monitored.
    While subpart BB specifies wet scrubber parameter monitoring
requirements for lime kilns, it does not specify any requirements for
lime kilns controlled with ESPs or ESP/scrubber combinations. The EPA
is proposing to add requirements to subpart BBa for monitoring lime
kiln opacity and ESP operating parameters (secondary voltage and
secondary current, or total secondary power) for lime kilns controlled
by ESPs alone. When an opacity monitor is used, the ESP parameters
would be averaged over the same calendar quarter used for determining
the opacity monitoring allowance. For ESP/scrubber combination
controls, the EPA is proposing to add 12-hour average ESP parameter
monitoring requirements in addition to the wet scrubber parameter
monitoring requirements. The EPA is proposing a 12-hour averaging time
for wet scrubber parameters recorded at least once every 15 minutes
(instead of the current NSPS requirement to record wet scrubber
parameters only once per shift). Excess emissions for lime kilns with
ESP/scrubber combination controls would be any 12-hour block ESP or
scrubber parameter below its respective site-specific limit
(established during the performance test) during times when lime mud is
fired in the kiln. As with SDT scrubbers, the EPA is proposing to
consider only scrubber liquid flow rate (or supply pressure) during
periods of startup and shutdown (i.e., excess emissions would include
any 12-hour period when lime mud is fired that the scrubber flow rate
[or liquid supply pressure] does not meet the minimum parameter limits
set in the initial performance test). The EPA requests comment on the
12-hour averaging time specified for ESP and scrubber parameters, and
whether a 3-hour averaging time (such as that specified under the
subpart MM NESHAP for wet scrubber parameters) would be more
appropriate and adequately account for periods of process variability
in the absence of a monitoring allowance (such as that specified under
the subpart MM NESHAP for wet scrubber parameters).
    The subpart MM NESHAP requires continuous opacity monitoring for
lime kilns and specifies 20 percent as the opacity level where
corrective action is required for both new and existing kilns. The
NESHAP (subpart MM) contains an opacity monitoring allowance where 6
percent of the 6-minute opacity averages may exceed the 20 percent
limit without being considered a violation.
    The EPA is proposing opacity monitoring for lime kilns with ESPs
alone under subpart BBa based on our review of COMS data for 27 lime
kilns that show 20 percent opacity has been adequately demonstrated
under periods of normal operation and during startup and shutdown. The
COMS data were used to evaluate the 6 percent monitoring allowance for
lime kiln opacity under the NESHAP (subpart MM).\6\ The COMS data show
that the majority of existing lime kilns are meeting a 20 percent
opacity limit based on a 6-minute average, with fewer than 1 percent of
averaging periods exceeding 20 percent opacity, including periods of
startup and shutdown. Therefore, the EPA is proposing a 1 percent
monitoring allowance for opacity for ESP-controlled lime kilns. As with
recovery furnaces, the potential for brief high-level spikes in ESP-
controlled lime kiln opacity can be accommodated with a 1 percent
monitoring allowance with no upper limit on opacity. To ensure
continuous compliance with the PM limit, the EPA is proposing that the
quarterly average of lime kiln ESP parameters be above the site-
specific minimum parametric monitor values established during the PM
performance test in order for the lime kiln opacity 1 percent
monitoring allowance to be used. To be consistent with current
monitoring requirements for opacity and TRS from recovery furnaces, the
EPA is proposing that the monitoring allowance for lime kiln opacity be
calculated based on the percent of the total number of possible
contiguous periods of excess emissions in a quarter. The EPA requests
comment on this requirement, specifically whether a semiannual basis
would be more appropriate based on the semiannual reporting requirement
of subpart BB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See memorandum titled, ``Review of the Continuous Emission
Monitoring and Continuous Opacity Monitoring Data from the Pulp and
Paper Information Collection Request Responses Pertaining to Subpart
BB Sources'' in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lime kiln TRS. Lime kiln TRS emissions are limited by the current
NSPS to 8 ppmdv at 10 percent O2. The EPA analyzed 1 year of
TRS CEMS data for most lime kilns as part of our NSPS review. The EPA
found that that there is no clear distinction in lime kiln TRS
emissions for the different control devices that are used (wet
scrubbers, ESPs or ESP/wet scrubber combinations). This affirms that
process factors (e.g., mud washing, use of uncontaminated scrubber
water and NCG burning) are likely to have a greater effect on lime kiln
TRS emissions than control device type. Use of caustic (alkaline)
scrubbing liquid in the lime kiln scrubber may reduce emissions of two
of the four TRS compounds (H2S and methyl mercaptan, which
are acidic compounds) but would not reduce emissions of dimethyl
sulfide and dimethyl disulfide, which are neutral compounds. The EPA
considered whether NCG burning or white liquor scrubbing of NCG streams
prior to the lime kiln significantly alters lime kiln TRS emissions and
found no conclusive evidence of increased lime kiln TRS emissions due
to NCG burning

or significantly decreased lime kiln TRS due to NCG pre-scrubbing.
    The CEMS data reviewed show that, while most existing lime kilns
(i.e., those kilns that are not subject to the NSPS) achieved the 8
ppmdv NSPS limit on an annual average basis, several existing kilns
controlled by wet scrubbers and two existing kilns with ESPs exceeded 8
ppmdv for a relatively high percentage of 12-hour averaging periods.
The TRS NSPS for lime kilns is more stringent that the emissions
guideline for existing kilns that have not triggered NSPS, therefore a
more focused review of the 8 ppmdv limit on only those kilns that are
required to meet that limit under the NSPS was performed.
    All of the lime kilns subject to NSPS met the 8 ppmdv limit on an
annual average basis, regardless of control device type; however,
compliance is not based on an annual average. In a given year, 730 12-
hour average values are generated by TRS CEMS for comparison to the
emission limit. The 99th percentile of the 12-hour averages for most
NSPS kilns was near to or below 8 ppmdv limit, and most NSPS kilns had
less than 1 percent of averaging periods that exceeded the 12-hour
average 8 ppmdv limit, including periods of startup and shutdown. The
data did not show that a lower TRS limit is consistently achieved in
practice, therefore the EPA is proposing to maintain the TRS emission
limit of 8 ppmdv at 10 percent O2. The EPA is also proposing
a 1 percent monitoring allowance to account for process-related factors
that lead to variability in lime kiln TRS emissions.
    The EPA also reviewed the TRS CEMS data to determine the impact of
continuously applying the 8 ppmdv limit to startup and shutdown periods
in addition to normal operations. Twenty of 31 TRS CEMS datasets with
startup and shutdown details contained no exceedances of the 12-hour 8
ppmdv limit, suggesting that compliance with the 8 ppmdv limit during
startup and shutdown has been demonstrated at many mills. The maximum
number of 12-hour averages where the 8 ppmdv limit was exceeded by any
mill was eight. Eight of 730 possible 12-hour blocks in a year
corresponds to 1.1 percent of possible averaging periods (8/730 = 1.1
percent). An upper limit 12-hour average of 22 ppmdv appears to
adequately represent the TRS concentration that has been achieved in
practice considering process variability and startup and shutdown
events. To be consistent with current monitoring requirements for
opacity and TRS from recovery furnaces, the EPA is proposing that the
monitoring allowance for lime kiln TRS be calculated based on the
percent of the total number of possible contiguous periods of excess
emissions in a quarter. The EPA requests comment on this requirement,
specifically whether a semiannual basis would be more appropriate based
on the semiannual reporting requirement of subpart BBa.
    Considering the findings described above, the EPA proposes for
subpart BBa that the current 8 ppmdv limit with a 1 percent monitoring
allowance has been adequately demonstrated during normal operations and
startup and shutdown. To ensure that the standard with a monitoring
allowance is a continuous standard, the EPA is proposing to restrict
use of the 1 percent monitoring allowance with an upper limit of 22
ppmdv. Mills would not violate the standard if they exceed 8 ppmdv with
their TRS monitors for no more than 1 percent of the averaging periods
(up to 7 averaging periods per year) as long as the 12-hour average
emissions for each of those periods does not exceed 22 ppmdv. As
discussed above, the EPA is proposing a provision where TRS
concentrations uncorrected for O2 may be considered to avoid
the situation were near-ambient stack oxygen levels that could occur
during startup and shutdown lead to seemingly non-compliant TRS
concentrations by virtue of the O2 correction equation.
5. Periods of Startup, Shutdown and Malfunction
    Periods of startup or shutdown. In reviewing the standards in this
rule, and in proposing the standards in the new subpart BBa, the EPA
has taken into account startup and shutdown periods and, for the
reasons explained below, has not proposed alternate standards for those
periods. Instead, the EPA has proposed standards that apply at all
times, including startup and shutdown periods. Continuous opacity and
TRS emissions monitoring are used to indicate ongoing compliance with
the PM and TRS emission limits. In developing proposed standards for
subpart BBa, the EPA reviewed numerous continuous opacity and TRS
monitoring datasets that included periods of startup and shutdown, and
the affected units will be able to comply with the proposed standards
at all times. The EPA is also proposing a provision that would allow
enforcement authorities to consider an alternative compliance
calculation that allows TRS emissions to be uncorrected for
O2 during startup and shutdown periods because the
O2 correction equation could cause an otherwise-compliant
TRS measurement to exceed the applicable concentration emission limit
when O2 levels in the stack approach ambient conditions.
    Incinerator temperature, ESP and wet scrubber parameter monitoring
are also required under the proposed NSPS subpart BBa. Parameter limits
apply at all times, including during startup and shutdown. Incinerator
temperature is to be recorded at least once every 5 minutes. Wet
scrubber and ESP operating parameters are to be recorded at least once
every 15 minutes. In addition to specifying a 3-hour block averaging
time for incinerator temperature monitors, the EPA is proposing to
define excess emissions as periods where the minimum temperature of
1200 [deg]F is not met when TRS emissions are not fired (i.e., periods
when an incinerator is not burning TRS such as during warm-up and cool-
down or when an alternative control device is used, would not be
considered violations). The ESP and scrubber parameters are to be
averaged over a 12-hour block (except for ESPs with COMS, which would
have ESP parameters averaged quarterly). To address the need for ESPs
to warm to a specified temperature (typically above 200 [deg]F) before
full power is applied to the transformer-rectifier set, the EPA is
proposing to define excess emissions as ESP parameter measurements
below the minimum requirements during times when BLS or lime mud is
fired (as applicable) based on several responses to the ICR indicating
that mills with ESP minimum temperature requirements bring the ESP
online before introducing BLS or lime mud into the recovery furnace or
lime kiln, respectively. The EPA is also proposing language that would
allow affected units to use wet scrubber liquid flow rate (or liquid
supply pressure) to demonstrate compliance during periods of startup
and shutdown because pressure drop is difficult to achieve during these
periods.
    The EPA solicits comment on whether the proposal to apply these
standards at all times is practicable and achievable. In particular,
the EPA notes that the General Provisions in part 60 require facilities
to keep records of the occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown
or malfunction (40 CFR 60.7(b)) and either report to the EPA any period
of excess emissions that occurs during periods of startup, shutdown or
malfunction (40 CFR 60.7(c)(2)) or report that no excess emissions
occurred (40 CFR 60.7(c)(4)). In light of this requirement, comments
that contend that sources cannot meet the proposed standard during
startup and shutdown

periods should include data and other specifics supporting this claim.
    Periods of malfunction. Periods of startup, normal operations and
shutdown are all predictable and routine aspects of a source's
operations. However, by contrast, ``malfunction means any sudden,
infrequent, and not reasonably preventable failure of air pollution
control equipment, process equipment, or a process to operate in a
normal or usual manner. Failures that are caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.'' (40 CFR
60.2). The EPA has determined that section 111 does not require that
emissions that occur during periods of malfunction be factored into
development of CAA section 111 standards. Nothing in CAA section 111 or
in case law requires that the EPA anticipate and account for the
innumerable types of potential malfunction events in setting emission
standards. Section 111 of the CAA provides that the EPA set standards
of performance which reflect the degree of emission limitation
achievable through ``the application of the best system of emission
reduction'' that the EPA determines is adequately demonstrated.
Applying the concept of ``the application of the best system of
emission reduction'' to periods during which a source is malfunctioning
presents difficulties. The ``application of the best system of emission
reduction'' is more appropriately understood to include operating units
in such a way as to avoid malfunctions.
    Further, accounting for malfunctions would be difficult, if not
impossible, given the myriad different types of malfunctions that can
occur across all sources in the category and given the difficulties
associated with predicting or accounting for the frequency, degree and
duration of various malfunctions that might occur. As such, the
performance of units that are malfunctioning is not ``reasonably''
foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v. EPA, 167 F. 3d 658, 662 (D.C.
Cir. 1999) (the EPA typically has wide latitude in determining the
extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem. We generally
defer to an agency's decision to proceed on the basis of imperfect
scientific information, rather than to ``invest the resources to
conduct the perfect study.''). See also, Weyerhaeuser v. Costle, 590
F.2d 1011, 1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978). (``In the nature of things, no
general limit, individual permit, or even any upset provision can
anticipate all upset situations. After a certain point, the
transgression of regulatory limits caused by `uncontrollable acts of
third parties,' such as strikes, sabotage, operator intoxication or
insanity, and a variety of other eventualities, must be a matter for
the administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not
for specification in advance by regulation.''). In addition, the goal
of a ``source that uses the best system of emission reduction'' is to
operate in such a way as to avoid malfunctions of the source and
accounting for malfunctions could lead to standards that are
significantly less stringent than levels that are achieved by a well-
performing non-malfunctioning source. The EPA's approach to
malfunctions is consistent with section 111 and is a reasonable
interpretation of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 111 standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA would
determine an appropriate response based on, among other things, the
good faith efforts of the source to avoid malfunctions and to minimize
emissions during malfunction periods, including preventative and
corrective actions, as well as root cause analyses to determine,
correct and eliminate the primary causes of the malfunction and the
violation resulting from the malfunction event at issue. The EPA would
also consider whether the source's failure to comply with the CAA
section 111 standard was, in fact, ``sudden, infrequent, not reasonably
preventable'' and was not instead ``caused in part by poor maintenance
or careless operation.'' See 40 CFR 60.2 (definition of malfunction).
    Finally, the EPA recognizes that even equipment that is properly
designed and maintained can sometimes fail and that such failure can
sometimes cause an exceedance of the relevant emission standard. See,
e.g., State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Findings of Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and
Malfunction; Proposed rule, 78 FR 12460 (Feb. 22, 2013); State
Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excessive Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown (Sept. 20, 1999); Policy on Excess
Emissions During Startup, Shutdown, Maintenance, and Malfunctions (Feb.
15, 1983). The EPA is, therefore, proposing to add an affirmative
defense to civil penalties for violations of emission standards that
are caused by malfunctions. (See 40 CFR 60.281a defining ``affirmative
defense'' to mean, in the context of an enforcement proceeding, a
response or defense put forward by a defendant, regarding which the
defendant has the burden of proof, and the merits of which are
independently and objectively evaluated in a judicial or administrative
proceeding.) We are also proposing other regulatory provisions to
specify the elements that are necessary to establish this affirmative
defense; the source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
it has met all of the elements set forth in 40 CFR 60.285a. See 40 CFR
22.24. The criteria are designed in part to ensure that the affirmative
defense is available only where the event that causes a violation of
the emission standard meets the narrow definition of malfunction in 40
CFR 60.2 (sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable and not caused
by poor maintenance and or careless operation). For example, to
successfully assert the affirmative defense, the source must prove by a
preponderance of the evidence that violation ``[w]as caused by a
sudden, infrequent, and unavoidable failure of air pollution control,
process equipment, or a process to operate in a normal or usual manner
. . .'' The criteria also are designed to ensure that steps are taken
to correct the malfunction, to minimize emissions in accordance with 40
CFR 60.11(d) and to prevent future malfunctions. For example, the
source must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that ``[r]epairs
were made as expeditiously as possible when a violation occurred'' and
that ``[a]ll possible steps were taken to minimize the impact of the
violation on ambient air quality, the environment and human health . .
. .'' In any judicial or administrative proceeding, the Administrator
may challenge the assertion of the affirmative defense and, if the
respondent has not met its burden of proving all of the requirements in
the affirmative defense, appropriate penalties may be assessed in
accordance with section 113 of the CAA (see also 40 CFR 22.77).
    The EPA included an affirmative defense in the proposed rule in an
attempt to balance a tension, inherent in many types of air regulation,
to ensure adequate compliance while simultaneously recognizing that
despite the most diligent of efforts, emission standards may be
violated under circumstances beyond the control of the source. The EPA
must establish emission standards that ``limit the quantity, rate, or
concentration of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis.''
42 U.S.C. 7602(k) (defining ``emission limitation'' and ``emission
standard''). See generally, Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019, 1021
(D.C. Cir. 2008) Thus, the EPA is required to ensure that section 111
emissions standards are continuous. The affirmative defense for
malfunction

events meets this requirement by ensuring that even where there is a
malfunction, the emission standard is still enforceable through
injunctive relief. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit recently upheld the EPA's view that an affirmative defense
provision is consistent with section 113(e) of the CAA. Luminant
Generation Co. LLC v. United States EPA, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 6397 (5th
Cir. Mar. 25, 2013) (upholding the EPA's approval of affirmative
defense provisions in a CAA State Implementation Plan). While
``continuous'' standards, on the one hand, are required, there is also
case law indicating that in many situations it is appropriate for the
EPA to account for the practical realities of technology. For example,
in Essex Chemical v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 427, 433 (D.C. Cir. 1973),
the D.C. Circuit acknowledged that in setting standards under CAA
section 111 ``variant provisions'' such as provisions allowing for
upsets during startup, shutdown and equipment malfunction ``appear
necessary to preserve the reasonableness of the standards as a whole
and that the record does not support the `never to be exceeded'
standard currently in force.'' See also, Portland Cement Association v.
Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375 (D.C. Cir. 1973). Though intervening case law
such as Sierra Club v. EPA and the CAA 1977 amendments call into
question the relevance of these cases today, they support the EPA's
view that a system that incorporates some level of flexibility is
reasonable. The affirmative defense simply provides for a defense to
civil penalties for violations that are proven to be beyond the control
of the source. By incorporating an affirmative defense, the EPA has
formalized its approach to malfunctions. In a CWA setting, the Ninth
Circuit required this type of formalized approach when regulating
``upsets beyond the control of the permit holder.'' Marathon Oil Co. v.
EPA, 564 F.2d 1253, 1272-73 (9th Cir. 1977). See also, Mont. Sulphur &
Chem. Co. v. United States EPA, 666 F.3d. 1174 (9th Cir. 2012)
(rejecting industry argument that reliance on the affirmative defense
was not adequate). But see, Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011,
1057-58 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (holding that an informal approach is
adequate). The affirmative defense provisions give the EPA the
flexibility to both ensure that its emission standards are
``continuous'' as required by 42 U.S.C. 7602(k), and account for
unplanned upsets and thus support the reasonableness of the standard as
a whole.

B. What testing requirements is the EPA proposing?

    As part of an ongoing effort to improve compliance with federal air
emission regulations, the EPA reviewed the current testing requirements
of subpart BB and is proposing the testing requirements for subpart BBa
be different from subpart BB in the following ways. First, the EPA is
proposing to require repeat air emissions performance testing once
every 5 years for facilities subject to NSPS subpart BBa. Repeat
performance tests are already required by permitting authorities for
some facilities. Further, the EPA believes that requiring periodic
repeat performance tests will help to ensure that control systems are
properly maintained over time. Today's proposal would require repeat
air emissions testing for filterable PM, condensable PM and TRS once
every 60 months (5 years) for recovery furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns.
The EPA added condensable PM to the list of pollutants to test to
develop a broader understanding of condensable PM emissions from pulp
and paper combustion sources and to determine mechanisms for reducing
condensable PM, as discussed in section IV.B above.
    Second, the EPA is proposing to include Method 16C as another
alternative to Method 16 for measuring emissions of TRS from sources
subject to the TRS standards in subpart BBa. Method 16C was not
available at the time of the original NSPS and 1986 NSPS review. The
method was promulgated on July 30, 2012 (77 FR 44488).

C. What notification, reporting and recordkeeping requirements is the
EPA proposing?

    The existing subpart BB requires mills to keep records of TRS and
opacity monitoring data along with scrubber and incinerator operating
parameter data. The reporting requirements in the existing subpart BB
include reports of performance tests and excess emissions. The
frequency of reporting is semiannually as specified in 40 CFR 60.7(c).
    Reporting and recordkeeping requirements are being proposed as
separate sections for subpart BBa. Under this proposal, owners/
operators subject to subpart BBa would be required to keep records of
all TRS and opacity monitoring data; all scrubber, incinerator and ESP
operating parameter data; excess emissions; and malfunctions. A
facility would be required to report all exceedances of the standard,
including exceedances that are the result of a malfunction. The
proposed malfunction recordkeeping requirements would provide pulp and
paper companies with some of the information required to support the
assertion of an affirmative defense in the event of a violation due to
malfunction.
    Under this proposal, owners/operators would be required to report
all performance tests, results and excess emissions. The frequency of
reporting for subpart BBa would be semiannually, the same as for
subpart BB, and consistent with the NESHAP requirement. Further, we are
proposing a malfunction report to provide information on each type of
malfunction which occurred during the reporting period and which caused
or may have caused an exceedance of an emission limit.
    The proposed subpart BBa also includes a requirement for electronic
reporting of performance test data, as discussed below.
    Electronic Reporting Tool. In this proposal, the EPA is describing
a process to increase the ease and efficiency of performance test data
submittal while improving data accessibility. Specifically, the EPA is
proposing that owners and operators of kraft pulp mills submit
electronic copies of required performance test and performance
evaluation reports by direct computer-to-computer electronic transfer
using EPA-provided software. The direct computer-to-computer electronic
transfer is accomplished through the EPA's CDX using the CEDRI. The
Central Data Exchange is the EPA's portal for submittal of electronic
data. The EPA-provided software is called the ERT which is used to
generate electronic reports of performance tests and evaluations. The
ERT generates an electronic report package which will be submitted
using the CEDRI. The submitted report package will be stored in the CDX
archive (the official copy of record) and the EPA's public database
called WebFIRE. All stakeholders will have access to all reports and
data in WebFIRE and accessing these reports and data will be very
straightforward and easy (see the WebFIRE Report Search and Retrieval
link at http://cfpub.epa.gov/webfire/index.cfm?action=fire.searchERTSubmission). A description and
instructions for use of the ERT can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html and CEDRI can be accessed through the CDX Web site
(www.epa.gov/cdx). A description of the WebFIRE database is available
at: http://cfpub.epa.gov/oarweb/index.cfm?action=fire.main.

    The proposal to submit performance test data electronically to the
EPA applies only to those performance tests conducted using test
methods that are supported by the ERT. The ERT supports most of the
commonly used EPA reference methods. A listing of the pollutants and
test methods supported by the ERT is available at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ert/index.html.
    We believe that industry would benefit from this proposed approach
to electronic data submittal. Specifically, by using this approach,
industry will save time in the performance test submittal process.
Additionally, the standardized format that the ERT uses allows sources
to create a more complete test report resulting in less time spent on
data backfilling if a source failed to include all data elements
required to be submitted. Also through this proposal, industry may only
need to submit a report once to meet the requirements of the applicable
subpart because stakeholders can readily access these reports from the
WebFIRE database. This also benefits industry by cutting back on
recordkeeping costs as the performance test reports that are submitted
to the EPA using CEDRI are no longer required to be retained in hard
copy, thereby, reducing staff time needed to coordinate these records.
    Since the EPA will already have performance test data in hand,
another benefit to industry is that fewer or less substantial data
collection requests in conjunction with prospective required residual
risk assessments or technology reviews will be needed. This would
result in a decrease in staff time needed to respond to data collection
requests.
    State, local and tribal air pollution control agencies may also
benefit from having electronic versions of the reports they are now
receiving. For example, these agencies may be able to conduct a more
streamlined and accurate review of electronic data submitted to them.
For example, the ERT would allow for an electronic review process,
rather than a manual data assessment, therefore, making review and
evaluation of the source provided data and calculations easier and more
efficient. In addition, the public stands to benefit from electronic
reporting of emissions data because the electronic data will be easier
for the public to access. How the air emissions data are collected,
accessed and reviewed will be more transparent for all stakeholders.
    One major advantage of the proposed submittal of performance test
data through the ERT is a standardized method to compile and store much
of the documentation required to be reported by this rule. The ERT
clearly states what testing information would be required by the test
method and has the ability to house additional data elements that might
be required by a delegated authority.
    In addition the EPA must have performance test data to conduct
effective reviews of CAA section 111 standards, as well as for many
other purposes including compliance determinations, emission factor
development and annual emission rate determinations. In conducting
these required reviews, the EPA has found it ineffective and time
consuming, not only for us, but also for regulatory agencies and source
owners and operators, to locate, collect, and submit performance test
data. In recent years, though, stack testing firms have typically
collected performance test data in electronic format, making it
possible to move to an electronic data submittal system that would
increase the ease and efficiency of data submittal and improve data
accessibility.
    A common complaint heard from industry and regulators is that
emission factors are outdated or not representative of a particular
source category. With timely receipt and incorporation of data from
most performance tests, the EPA would be able to ensure that emission
factors, when updated, represent the most current range of operational
practices. Finally, another benefit of the proposed data submittal to
WebFIRE electronically is that these data would greatly improve the
overall quality of existing and new emissions factors by supplementing
the pool of emissions test data for establishing emissions factors.
    In summary, in addition to supporting regulation development,
control strategy development and other air pollution control
activities, having an electronic database populated with performance
test data would save industry, state, local, tribal agencies, and the
EPA significant time, money, and effort while also improving the
quality of emission inventories and air quality regulations.

D. Other Miscellaneous Differences Between the Proposed Subpart BBa and
the Current Subpart BB

    The following lists additional, minor differences between the
current subpart BB NSPS and the proposed rule BBa. This list includes
proposed rule differences that address editorial and other corrections.
    (1) Sec.  60.17 incorporates by reference ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981;
    (2) Alphabetized definitions and removed paragraph numbers in Sec.
60.281a;
    (3) Definitions for affirmative defense, condensable PM, filterable
PM, and monitoring system malfunction in Sec.  60.281a;
    (4) Text makes clear that the PM emission limits in Sec.  60.282a
and the Method 5 PM emission test in Sec.  60.285a actually refer to
filterable PM, to avoid confusion with the inclusion of Method 202
condensable PM testing; and
    (5) Referenced the specific appendices in parts 51 and 60 for EPA
test methods cited in Sec.  60.285a.
    (6) Used ``must'' instead of ``shall'' throughout subpart BBa
consistent with plain language guidance.
    (7) The span of O2 monitoring systems is 21 percent
instead of 25 percent in Sec.  60.284a so air can be used instead of a
calibration gas in span checks.
    (8) Text makes clear that only ``one of'' the conditions in Sec.
60.283a(1) needs to be met.
    (9) Mentioned performance specifications 1 and 5 in Sec.
60.284a(a)(1) and (2) in addition to Sec.  60.284a(f).

VI. Summary of Cost, Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts of
These Proposed Standards

    In setting standards, the CAA requires us to consider alternative
emission control approaches, taking into account the estimated costs as
well as impacts on energy, solid waste and other effects.

A. What are the impacts for new, modified, and reconstructed emission
units at kraft pulp mills?

    The EPA is presenting estimates of the impacts for the proposed 40
CFR part 60, subpart BBa that revises the performance standards for
new, modified, or reconstructed emission units at kraft pulp mills. The
impacts presented in this section are expressed as incremental
differences between the impacts of emission units complying with the
proposed subpart BBa and the baseline (NSPS subpart BB or NESHAP
subpart MM) requirements for these sources. The impacts are presented
for emission units at kraft pulp mills that commence construction,
reconstruction or modification over the 5 years following proposal of
the revised NSPS (subpart BBa). Costs are based on the third quarter of
2012. The analyses and the documents referenced below can be found in
the docket for this proposed rulemaking.
    In order to determine the incremental impacts of this proposed
rule, the EPA first projected the number of new, modified, or
reconstructed emission units that would become subject to

regulation during the 5-year period after proposal of subpart BBa.
Extrapolating from the number of recovery furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns
that have been constructed, modified, or reconstructed during the 10-
year period preceding the base-year 2009 pulp and paper ICR conducted
in 2011 (1999 to 2009), an estimated 19 emission units (8 recovery
furnaces, 8 SDTs and 3 lime kilns) at 10 kraft pulp mills are expected
to be constructed, modified, or reconstructed in the 5-year period
after proposal of subpart BBa (2013 to 2018). For further detail on the
methodology of these calculations, see the memorandum, Projections of
the Number of New, Modified, and Reconstructed Emission Units for the
Kraft Pulp Mill NSPS Review, in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
    The proposed subpart BBa emission limits reflect the performance of
control technologies currently in use by the industry. The proposed
NSPS PM and TRS limits under subpart BBa for modified emission units
and the proposed NSPS TRS limits under subpart BBa for new and
reconstructed emission units are the same as the subpart BB limits.
Consequently, there are no emission control costs or emissions
reductions associated with these proposed requirements. The proposed
NSPS PM limits under subpart BBa for new and reconstructed emission
units are the same as the PM limits under the NESHAP (subpart MM) for
new sources. As a result, the air pollution control systems that these
sources would install to meet the NESHAP (subpart MM) limits could be
used to meet the proposed NSPS PM limits, with no additional emission
control cost or emissions reduction.
    There are differences in the testing, monitoring, reporting and
recordkeeping requirements under subpart BB and the proposed subpart
BBa that would result in increased costs. The additional testing
requirements for recovery furnaces, SDTs and lime kilns under subpart
BBa include initial testing for condensable PM and 5-year repeat
testing for filterable PM, condensable PM and TRS, and sources would
need to submit documentation of these additional tests. While the
continuous monitoring requirements for opacity and wet scrubbers in
subpart BBa are already incurred at baseline (resulting in zero
incremental cost), subpart BBa would restrict use of the TRS monitoring
allowances to an upper ppmdv limit which would have an associated cost.
Additional monitoring costs would also be incurred for ESP parameter
monitoring. The recordkeeping and reporting requirements for subpart
BBa would include records of the occurrence and duration of startup and
shutdown and the inclusion of records of a failure to meet a standard
in otherwise required periodic reports.
    The EPA estimates that the total increase in nationwide annual cost
associated with this proposed rule is $389,900 for the emission units
projected to be constructed, modified, or reconstructed between 2013
and 2018. The methodology is detailed in the memorandum, Emissions
Inventory for Kraft Pulp Mills and Costs/Impacts of the Section 111(b)
Review of the Kraft Pulp Mills NSPS, in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.

B. What are the secondary impacts for new, modified, and reconstructed
emission units at kraft pulp mills?

    Indirect or secondary air emissions impacts are impacts that would
result from the increased electricity usage associated with the
operation of control devices (i.e., increased secondary emissions of
criteria pollutants from power plants). Energy impacts consist of the
electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment that would be required under this proposed rule. No
additional control devices or other equipment are expected to be needed
to meet the proposed NSPS requirements beyond those that would already
be installed to meet the baseline requirements for these emission
units. Thus, no secondary impacts are expected.

C. What are the economic impacts for new, modified, and reconstructed
emission units at kraft pulp mills?

    The EPA performed an economic impact analysis that estimates
changes in prices and output for emission units nationally using the
annual compliance costs estimated for this proposed rule. All estimates
are for the fifth year after proposal since this is the year for which
the compliance cost impacts are estimated. The proposed action is not
expected to induce measurable changes in the average national price and
production of pulp and paper products. Hence, the overall economic
impact of this NSPS should be minimal on the affected industries and
their consumers. For more information, please refer to the memorandum,
Economic Impact Analysis for the Section 111(b) Review of the Kraft
Pulp Mills New Source Performance Standards Subpart BB, in the docket
for this proposed rulemaking.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
(76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
    The EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits
associated with this action. This analysis is contained in the
memorandum, Economic Impact Analysis for the Section 111(b) Review of
the Kraft Pulp Mills New Source Performance Standards Subpart BB. A
copy of the analysis is available in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act,
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The ICR document prepared by the EPA has been
assigned the EPA ICR number 2485.01.
    These proposed revisions to the NSPS for kraft pulp mills for
future affected sources include different emission limits and
continuous monitoring requirements and additional performance testing
from what is in subpart BB. The additional performance testing
requirements for recovery furnaces, SDTs, and lime kilns include
initial testing for condensable PM, and 5-year repeat testing for
filterable PM, condensable PM and TRS. The proposed monitoring
requirements include a different opacity limit and monitoring allowance
for recovery furnaces, restriction of the monitoring allowances for TRS
to an upper concentration limit, continuous opacity monitoring for lime
kilns equipped with ESPs and continuous ESP parameter monitoring for
recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs. These testing and
monitoring requirements are in addition to the initial performance
testing and continuous monitoring requirements described in section
III.B of this preamble which are required under the current subpart BB.
    The recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated with these
testing and monitoring provisions are specifically authorized by CAA
section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA
pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a
claim of

confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to the EPA policies
set forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    When a malfunction occurs, sources must report it according to the
applicable reporting requirements of 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa. An
affirmative defense to civil penalties for violations of emission
standard that are caused by malfunctions is available to a source if it
can demonstrate that certain criteria and requirements are satisfied.
In addition, the source must meet certain notification and reporting
requirements. For example, the source must prepare a written root cause
analysis and submit a written report to the Administrator documenting
that it has met the conditions and requirements for assertion of the
affirmative defense.
    For this rule, the EPA is considering the affirmative defense in
its estimate of burden in the ICR. To provide the public with an
estimate of the relative magnitude of the burden associated with an
assertion of the affirmative defense position adopted by a source, the
EPA has provided administrative adjustments to the ICR that shows what
the notification, recordkeeping and reporting requirements associated