[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 11, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47328-47357]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21799]

Vol. 82

Wednesday,

No. 195

October 11, 2017

Part II

 Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 63

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical
Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone
Semichemical Pulp Mills; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 82 , No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 /
Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741; FRL-9969-06-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS46

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and
Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action finalizes the residual risk and technology review
(RTR) conducted for the chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft,
soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills regulated under
the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP).
We are finalizing our proposed determination that risks from the source
category are acceptable and that the standards provide an ample margin
of safety to protect public health. We are also finalizing amendments
to the NESHAP based on developments in practices, processes, and
control technologies identified as part of the technology review. These
final amendments include revisions to the opacity monitoring provisions
and the addition of requirements to maintain proper operation of the
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) automatic voltage control (AVC).
Additional amendments are also being finalized including the
requirement to conduct 5-year periodic emissions testing, and submit
electronic reports; revisions to provisions addressing periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); and technical and editorial
changes. These amendments are made under the authority of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and will improve the effectiveness of the rule.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 11, 2017. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of October 11,
2017]

ADDRESSES: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741. All
documents in the docket are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov
Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not
publicly available, e.g., confidential business information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
through http://www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the EPA Docket
Center, EPA WJC West Building, Room Number 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave.
NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room hours of operation are
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST), Monday through
Friday. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-
1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions about this final action,
contact Dr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies and Programs Division (Mail
Code: E143-03), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For specific information
regarding the risk modeling methodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz,
Health and Environmental Impacts Division (Mail Code: C539-02), Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711; telephone number:
(919) 541-0881; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
about the applicability of the NESHAP to a particular entity, contact
Ms. Sara Ayres, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA Region 5 (Mail Code: E-19J), 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604; telephone number:
(312) 353-6266; and email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Preamble acronyms and abbreviations. We use multiple acronyms and
terms in this preamble. While this list may not be exhaustive, to ease
the reading of this preamble and for reference purposes, the EPA
defines the following terms and acronyms here:

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
AVC automatic voltage control
BLO black liquor oxidation
CAA Clean Air Act
CBI confidential business information
CDX Central Data Exchange
CEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting Interface
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHIEF Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions Factors
CMS continuous monitoring system
COMS continuous opacity monitoring system
CPMS continuous parameter monitoring system
CRA Congressional Review Act
DAS data acquisition system
D.C. Cir. United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit
DCE direct contact evaporator
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
ERT Electronic Reporting Tool
ESP electrostatic precipitator
EST Eastern Standard Time
FR Federal Register
HAP hazardous air pollutant
HI hazard index
HQ hazard quotient
IBR incorporation by reference
ICR Information Collection Request
km kilometer
MACT maximum achievable control technology
MIR maximum individual risk
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAICS North American Industry Classification System
NAS National Academy of Sciences
NDCE nondirect contact evaporator
NESHAP national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants
No. number
NRDC Natural Resources Defense Council
NSPS new source performance standards
NTTAA National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
OAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
OEHHA Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PAH polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
PB-HAP hazardous air pollutant known to be persistent and bio-
accumulative in the environment
PM particulate matter
PRA Paperwork Reduction Act
PS-1 Performance Specification 1
QA quality assurance
REL reference exposure level
RFA Regulatory Flexibility Act
RIN Regulatory Information Number
RTO regenerative thermal oxidizer
RTR residual risk and technology review
SAB Science Advisory Board
SDT smelt dissolving tank
SSM startup, shutdown, and malfunction
THC total hydrocarbons
TOSHI target organ-specific hazard index
tpy tons per year
TRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated Methodology.Fate, Transport, and
Ecological Exposure model
UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
U.S. United States
U.S.C. United States Code
v. versus
WebFIRE Web Factor Information Retrieval System
XML extensible markup language

    Background information. On December 30, 2016, the EPA proposed
revisions to the NESHAP for Chemical

Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone
Semichemical Pulp Mills based on our RTR. In this action, we are
finalizing amendments to the rule based on public comment and updated
analyses. We summarize comments that the EPA received regarding the
proposed rule that resulted in changes in the final rulemaking package
and provide our responses in this preamble. A summary of all other
public comments on the proposal and the EPA's responses to those
comments is available in the document titled, National Emissions
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion
Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp
Mills (40 CFR part 63, subpart MM)--Residual Risk and Technology
Review, Final Amendments: Response to Public Comments on December 30,
2016 Proposal, in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2014-0741). A ``track changes'' version of the regulatory language that
incorporates the changes in this action is also available in the
docket.
    Organization of this document. The information in this preamble is
organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration
II. Background
    A. What is the statutory authority for this action?
    B. What is the subpart MM source category and how does the
NESHAP regulate HAP emissions from the source category?
    C. What changes did we propose for the subpart MM source
category in our December 30, 2016, proposal?
III. What is included in this final rule?
    A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review
for the subpart MM source category?
    B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology
review for the subpart MM source category?
    C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions
during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction?
    D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?
    E. What are the effective and compliance dates of the standards?
    F. What are the requirements for submission of performance test
data to the EPA?
IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the subpart MM source category?
    A. Residual Risk Review for the Subpart MM Source Category
    B. Technology Review for the Subpart MM Source Category
    C. Changes to SSM Provisions
    D. Emissions Testing
    E. CPMS Operating Limits
    F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
    G. Technical and Editorial Changes
V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and
Additional Analyses Conducted
    A. What are the affected sources?
    B. What are the air quality impacts?
    C. What are the cost impacts?
    D. What are the economic impacts?
    E. What are the benefits?
    F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?
    G. What analysis of children's environmental health did we
conduct?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B: Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and
1 CFR Part 51
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Regulated entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated
by this action are shown in Table 1 of this preamble.

 Table 1--NESHAP and Industrial Source Categories Affected by This Final
                                 Action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Source category               NESHAP            NAICS \1\ code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pulp and Paper Production...  Chemical Recovery     32211, 32212, 32213.
                               Combustion Sources
                               at Kraft, Soda,
                               Sulfite, and Stand-
                               Alone Semichemical
                               Pulp Mills.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ North American Industry Classification System.

    Table 1 of this preamble is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather to provide a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by the final action for the source category listed. To
determine whether your facility is affected, you should examine the
applicability criteria in the appropriate NESHAP. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of any aspect of this NESHAP,
please contact the appropriate person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Internet. Following
signature by the EPA Administrator, the EPA will post a copy of this
final action at: https://www.epa.gov/stationary-sources-air-pollution/kraft-soda-sulfite-and-stand-alone-semichemical-pulp-mills-mact-ii.
Following publication in the Federal Register, the EPA will post the
Federal Register version and key technical documents at this same Web
site.
    Additional information is available on the RTR Web site at https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.html. This information includes an
overview of the RTR program, links to project Web sites for the RTR
source categories, and detailed emissions and other data we used as
inputs to the risk assessments.

C. Judicial Review and Administrative Reconsideration

    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), judicial review of this final action
is available only by filing a petition for review in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by December 11,
2017. Under CAA section 307(b)(2), the requirements established by this
final rule may not be challenged separately in any civil or criminal

proceedings brought by the EPA to enforce the requirements.
    Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that only an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review. This section also
provides a mechanism for the EPA to reconsider the rule if the person
raising an objection can demonstrate to the Administrator that it was
impracticable to raise such objection within the period for public
comment or if the grounds for such objection arose after the period for
public comment (but within the time specified for judicial review) and
if such objection is of central relevance to the outcome of the rule.
Any person seeking to make such a demonstration should submit a
Petition for Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator, U.S.
EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC South Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, with a copy to both the person(s) listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate
General Counsel for the Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code: 2344A), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for this action?

    Section 112 of the CAA establishes a two-stage regulatory process
to address emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from stationary
sources. In the first stage, the EPA must identify categories of
sources emitting one or more of the HAPs listed in CAA section 112(b)
and then promulgate technology-based NESHAP for those sources. ``Major
sources'' are those that emit, or have the potential to emit, any
single HAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy) or more, or 25 tpy or
more of any combination of HAPs. For major sources, these standards are
commonly referred to as maximum achievable control technology (MACT)
standards and must reflect the maximum degree of emission reductions of
HAPs achievable (after considering cost, energy requirements, and non-
air quality health and environmental impacts). In developing MACT
standards, CAA section 112(d)(2) directs the EPA to consider the
application of measures, processes, methods, systems or techniques,
including, but not limited to, those that reduce the volume of or
eliminate HAP emissions through process changes, substitution of
materials, or other modifications; enclose systems or processes to
eliminate emissions; collect, capture, or treat HAPs when released from
a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point; are design,
equipment, work practice, or operational standards; or any combination
of the above.
    For these MACT standards, the statute specifies certain minimum
stringency requirements, which are referred to as MACT floor
requirements, and which may not be based on cost considerations. See
CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACT floor cannot be less
stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the best-
controlled similar source. The MACT standards for existing sources can
be less stringent than floors for new sources, but they cannot be less
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or
subcategory (or the best-performing 5 sources for categories or
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources). In developing MACT
standards, we must also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor under CAA section 112(d)(2). We may establish
standards more stringent than the floor, based on the consideration of
the cost of achieving the emissions reductions, any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts, and energy requirements.
    In the second stage of the regulatory process, the CAA requires the
EPA to undertake two different analyses, which we refer to as the
technology review and the residual risk review. Under the technology
review, we must review the technology-based standards and revise them
``as necessary (taking into account developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies)'' no less frequently than every 8
years, pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6). Under the residual risk
review, we must evaluate the risk to public health remaining after
application of the technology-based standards and revise the standards,
if necessary, to provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health or to prevent, taking into consideration costs, energy, safety,
and other relevant factors, an adverse environmental effect. The
residual risk review is required within 8 years after promulgation of
the technology-based standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(f). In
conducting the residual risk review, if the EPA determines that the
current standards provide an ample margin of safety to protect public
health, it is not necessary to revise the MACT standards pursuant to
CAA section 112(f).\1\ For more information on the statutory authority
for this rule, see 81 FR 97049-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
Circuit has affirmed this approach of implementing CAA section
112(f)(2)(A): NRDC v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2008)
(``If EPA determines that the existing technology-based standards
provide an `ample margin of safety,' then the Agency is free to
readopt those standards during the residual risk rulemaking.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. What is the subpart MM source category and how does the NESHAP
regulate HAP emissions from the source category?

    As defined in the Initial List of Categories of Sources Under
Section 112(c)(1) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (see 57 FR
31576, July 16, 1992), the ``Pulp and Paper Production'' source
category is any facility engaged in the production of pulp and/or
paper. The EPA developed the NESHAPs for the source category in two
phases. The first phase, 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, regulates non-
combustion processes at mills that (1) chemically pulp wood fiber
(using kraft, sulfite, soda, and semichemical methods), (2)
mechanically pulp wood fiber (e.g., groundwood, thermomechanical,
pressurized), (3) pulp secondary fibers (deinked and non-deinked), (4)
pulp non-wood material, and (5) manufacture paper. Subpart S was
originally promulgated on April 15, 1998, (63 FR 18504). The second
phase, 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, regulates chemical recovery
combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone
semichemical pulp mills, and was originally promulgated on January 12,
2001 (66 FR 3180). The chemical recovery combustion sources include
kraft and soda recovery furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks (SDTs), and
lime kilns; kraft black liquor oxidation (BLO) units; sulfite
combustion units; and semichemical combustion units. Because subpart MM
sources comprise a subset of the sources at a pulp and paper mill, for
purposes of this preamble, we are referring to the source category for
this NESHAP as the ``subpart MM source category.''
    We already completed the RTR for 40 CFR part 63, subpart S, with
final amendments published in the Federal Register on September 11,
2012 (77 FR 55698). For the 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM RTR, we
published proposed amendments in the Federal Register on December 30,
2016 (81 FR 97046). We conducted a risk assessment and technology
review of the emission sources covered by subpart MM, as well as a risk
assessment of the whole facility. The facility-wide risk

assessment includes emissions from all sources of HAPs at the facility,
including sources covered by other NESHAP (e.g., pulp and paper
production processes covered under subpart S, boilers covered under 40
CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD, and paper and other web coating operations
covered under 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ). This final rule focuses
exclusively on the RTR for subpart MM. The EPA is not amending subpart
S, subpart DDDDD, or subpart JJJJ in this action.
    According to the results of the EPA's 2011 pulp and paper
Information Collection Request (ICR), and updates based on more recent
information, there are a total of 107 major sources in the United
States (U.S.) that conduct chemical recovery combustion operations,
including 97 kraft pulp mills, 1 soda pulp mill, 3 sulfite pulp mills,
and 6 stand-alone semichemical pulp mills.
    Subpart MM of 40 CFR part 63 includes numerical emission limits for
recovery furnaces, SDTs, lime kilns, and sulfite and semichemical
combustion units. The control systems used by most mills to meet the
subpart MM emission limits are as follows:
     Recovery furnaces: ESPs, wet scrubbers, and nondirect
contact evaporator (NDCE) furnace design with dry-bottom ESP and dry
particulate matter (PM) return system.
     Smelt dissolving tanks: Wet scrubbers, mist eliminators,
and venting to recovery furnace.
     Lime kilns: ESPs and wet scrubbers.
     Sulfite combustion units: Wet scrubbers and mist
eliminators.
     Semichemical combustion units: Wet scrubbers, ESPs, and
regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTOs).

C. What changes did we propose for the subpart MM source category in
our December 30, 2016, proposal?

    On December 30, 2016, the EPA published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register for the subpart MM NESHAP for Chemical Recovery
Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone
Semichemical Pulp Mills, which took into consideration the RTR
analyses. In that action, we proposed to:
     Reduce the opacity limits for recovery furnaces;
     Revise the opacity monitoring allowances for recovery
furnaces and lime kilns (i.e., the percentage of the operating time
within a semiannual period below which opacity can exceed the limit
without it being considered a violation);
     Require ESP parameter monitoring for recovery furnaces and
lime kilns equipped with ESPs;
     Clarify the monitoring requirements for combined ESP/wet
scrubber controls;
     Provide alternative monitoring parameters for SDT wet
scrubbers;
     Require periodic air emissions performance testing once
every 5 years as facilities renew their operating permits;
     Eliminate the SSM exemption;
     Provide alternative monitoring parameters for wet
scrubbers and ESPs during SSM periods;
     Specify procedures for establishing continuous parameter
monitoring system (CPMS) operating limits;
     Reduce the reporting frequency and require electronic
submission for excess emissions reports;
     Require mills to submit electronic copies of performance
test reports; and
     Make a number of technical and editorial changes.

III. What is included in this final rule?

    This action finalizes the EPA's determinations pursuant to the RTR
provisions of CAA section 112 for the subpart MM source category and
amends the subpart MM NESHAP based on those determinations. This action
also finalizes other changes to the NESHAP, including a requirement for
5-year periodic emissions testing; electronic reporting; revisions to
provisions addressing periods of SSM; and technical and editorial
changes. This final action is based on the proposed rulemaking
(published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2016) and reflects
refinements made in response to comments received during the public
comment period for that proposal.

A. What are the final rule amendments based on the risk review for the
subpart MM source category?

    The EPA proposed no changes to the subpart MM NESHAP based on the
risk review conducted pursuant to CAA section 112(f). We are finalizing
our proposed determination that risks from the source category are
acceptable, considering all of the health information and factors
evaluated, and also considering risk estimation uncertainty. We are
also finalizing our proposed determination that the current standards
provide an ample margin of safety, as well as our finding regarding the
absence of adverse environmental effects. The EPA received no new data
or other information during the public comment period that affected our
determinations. Therefore, we are not requiring additional controls
and, thus, are not making any revisions to the existing standards under
CAA section 112(f).

B. What are the final rule amendments based on the technology review
for the subpart MM source category?

    We determined that there are developments in practices, processes,
and control technologies that warrant revisions to the NESHAP for this
source category. Therefore, to satisfy the requirements of CAA section
112(d)(6), we are revising the NESHAP as follows:
     Revising the opacity monitoring allowance for all recovery
furnaces equipped with ESPs from 6 percent to 2 percent;
     Revising the opacity monitoring allowance for all lime
kilns equipped with ESPs from 6 percent to 3 percent;
     Adding a requirement for recovery furnaces and lime kilns
equipped with ESPs to maintain proper operation of the ESP AVC;
     Adding the aforementioned ESP requirement and wet scrubber
parameter monitoring for emission units equipped with an ESP followed
by a wet scrubber; and
     Providing alternative monitoring, specifically scrubber
fan amperage, as an alternative to pressure drop measurement, for SDT
dynamic scrubbers operating at ambient pressure and low-pressure
entrainment scrubbers on SDTs where the fan speed does not vary.

C. What are the final rule amendments addressing emissions during
periods of startup, shutdown and malfunction?

    As proposed, we are finalizing amendments to the subpart MM NESHAP
to eliminate the SSM exemption. Consistent with Sierra Club v. EPA, 551
F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), the EPA has established standards in this
rule that apply at all times. We are also revising Table 1 to Subpart
MM of Part 63 (General Provisions applicability table) to change
several references related to requirements that apply during periods of
SSM. We are eliminating or revising certain recordkeeping and reporting
requirements related to the eliminated SSM exemption, including the
requirement for an SSM plan. We are also making changes to the rule to
remove or modify language that is no longer applicable due to the
removal of the SSM exemption. With the final amendments to the 40 CFR
part 63, subpart MM monitoring requirements, we determined that
facilities in this source category can meet the applicable emissions
standards in this NESHAP at

all times, including periods of startup and shutdown; therefore, no
additional standards are needed to address emissions during these
periods.
    The 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM monitoring requirements were
analyzed and adjusted to ensure that continuous compliance can feasibly
be demonstrated during periods of startup and shutdown. Subpart MM
requires continuous opacity monitoring to indicate ongoing compliance
with the PM emission limits. In developing the proposed standards for
the subpart MM RTR, the EPA reviewed numerous continuous opacity
monitoring datasets that included periods of startup and shutdown, and
stated that the affected units would be able to comply with the
proposed standards at all times. Further analysis of the datasets show
that sufficient startup and shutdown data were included in the analyses
to form the basis for our conclusions, even though not all units
provided such data. Subpart MM also requires continuous RTO operating
temperature and wet scrubber parameter monitoring. As proposed, we are
removing the requirement to consider wet scrubber pressure drop during
startup and shutdown because pressure drop is dependent on gas flow,
which is transient (changing) during startup and shutdown. Continuous
compliance is based on scrubber liquid flow rate monitoring during
startup and shutdown instead of both pressure drop and liquid flow
rate. We are also limiting the times when corrective actions are
implemented or violations are recorded to times when spent pulping
liquor or lime mud is fed (as applicable). The final rule specifies
that corrective action can include completion of transient startup and
shutdown conditions as expediently as possible.

D. What other changes have been made to the NESHAP?

    Other changes to the NESHAP that do not fall into the categories in
the previous sections include:
     Requiring facilities to conduct periodic air emissions
performance testing, with the first of the tests to be conducted within
3 years of the effective date of the revised standards, and thereafter
no longer than 5 years following the previous performance test;
     Specifying procedures for establishing operating limits
based on data recorded by CPMS, including the frequency for recording
parameters and the averaging period for reducing the recorded readings;
     Reducing the frequency for submitting excess emissions
reports from quarterly to semiannually in conjunction with requiring
electronic reporting of excess emissions (in the future, as reporting
forms are tested and become available--see section IV.F of this
preamble);
     Requiring facilities to submit electronic copies of
performance test reports;
     Requiring facilities to submit initial notifications and
notifications of compliance status electronically; and
     Making various technical and editorial corrections.

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

    The revisions to the NESHAP being promulgated in this action are
effective on October 11, 2017. The compliance date for existing sources
is October 11, 2019, with the exception of the first periodic
performance test, which must be conducted by October 13, 2020, and the
date to submit performance test data through CEDRI, which is within 60
days of completing the test. Facilities must comply with the changes
set out in this final rule no later than 2 years after the effective
date of the final rule. Section 112(i)(3) of the CAA provides that, for
a standard or other regulation promulgated under CAA section 112, the
Administrator shall establish a compliance date no later than 3 years
after the effective date of the standard, except where otherwise
provided. We conclude that 2 years are necessary to make the system
adjustments needed to demonstrate compliance with the revised
requirements, including adjusting data acquisition systems (DAS) to
include startup and shutdown periods and the revised opacity monitoring
allowances, to transition to electronic excess emissions reporting, and
to comply with revised monitoring requirements.
    As noted in section IV.F of this preamble, the initial compliance
date for electronic excess emissions reporting will be 1 year after the
excess emissions reporting form (i.e., a spreadsheet template) becomes
available in the EPA's Compliance and Emissions Data Reporting
Interface (CEDRI). A compliance date 2 years after promulgation allows
1 year for beta-testing of the e-reporting form before it is placed
into CEDRI, followed by 1 year for facilities to begin using the final
form.\2\ A period of 3 years after promulgation is not needed for
compliance because, as explained in section IV.B of this preamble, the
EPA is not finalizing the proposed revisions to the opacity limits or
ESP parameter monitoring requirements that would involve capital
projects such as an ESP upgrade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A copy of the revised semiannual electronic excess emissions
reporting form (spreadsheet template) incorporating public comments
has been placed in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0741).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New sources must comply with all of the standards by October 11,
2017, or upon startup, whichever is later.

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

    The EPA is requiring owners and operators of pulp and paper
production facilities to submit electronic copies of certain required
performance test reports to the EPA's Central Data Exchange (CDX) using
the CEDRI. The electronic submittal of the reports addressed in this
rulemaking will increase the usefulness of the data contained in those
reports, is in keeping with current trends in data availability and
transparency, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, will improve compliance by facilitating the
ability of regulated facilities to demonstrate compliance with
requirements and by facilitating the ability of delegated state, local,
tribal, and territorial air agencies and the EPA to assess and
determine compliance, and will ultimately reduce burden on regulated
facilities, delegated air agencies, and the EPA. Electronic reporting
also eliminates paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors, and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA, and the public.
    The EPA Web site that stores the submitted electronic data,
WebFIRE, is easily accessible and provides a user-friendly interface.
By making the records, data, and reports addressed in this rulemaking
readily available, the EPA, the regulated community, and the public
will benefit when the EPA conducts future CAA-required technology
reviews. As a result of having reports readily accessible, our ability
to carry out timely comprehensive reviews will be increased.
    We anticipate that fewer or less substantial ICRs in conjunction
with prospective CAA-required technology reviews may be needed, which
results in a decrease in time spent by industry to respond to data
collection requests. We also expect the ICRs to contain less extensive
stack testing provisions, as we will already have stack test data
electronically. Reduced testing requirements would be a cost savings to

industry. The EPA should also be able to conduct these required reviews
more efficiently. While the regulated community may benefit from a
reduced burden of ICRs, the general public benefits from the Agency's
ability to provide these required reviews more efficiently, resulting
in increased public health and environmental protection.
    State, local, and tribal air agencies, as well as the EPA, can
benefit from more streamlined and automated review of the
electronically submitted data. Standardizing report formats allows air
agencies to review reports and data more quickly. Having reports and
associated data in electronic format will facilitate review through the
use of software ``search'' options, as well as the downloading and
analyzing of data in spreadsheet format. Additionally, air agencies and
the EPA can access reports wherever and whenever they want or need, as
long as they have access to the Internet. The ability to access and
review air emission report information electronically will assist air
agencies to more quickly and accurately determine compliance with the
applicable regulations, potentially allowing a faster response to
violations which could minimize harmful air emissions. This benefits
both air agencies and the general public.
    For a more thorough discussion of electronic reporting required by
this rule, see the discussion in the preamble of the proposal (81 FR
97079-81). 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 will save industry, air agencies, and the EPA
significant time, money, and effort while improving the quality of
emission inventories and air quality regulations and enhancing the
public's access to this important information.

IV. What is the rationale for our final decisions and amendments for
the subpart MM source category?

    For each action, this section provides a description of what we
proposed and what we are finalizing, the EPA's rationale for the final
decisions and amendments, and a summary of key comments and responses.
A thorough discussion of all comments received on the proposed
rulemaking and EPA's corresponding responses can be found in the
comment summary and response document available in the docket (Docket
ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).

A. Residual Risk Review for the Subpart MM Source Category

    Results of residual risk review. Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), we
conducted a residual risk review and presented the results for the
review, along with our proposed decisions regarding risk acceptability
and ample margin of safety, in the December 30, 2016, proposed rule for
the subpart MM source category (81 FR 97046). The results of the risk
assessment are presented briefly in Table 2 of this preamble, and in
more detail in a document titled, Residual Risk Assessment for Pulp
Mill Combustion Sources in Support of the October 2017 Risk and
Technology Review Final Rule, available in the docket for this
rulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741). Based on both actual
and allowable emissions for the source category, the estimated maximum
individual risk (MIR) \3\ was 4-in-1 million, with emissions of gaseous
organic HAPs acetaldehyde and naphthalene from the BLO process
accounting for the majority of the risk. The total estimated national
cancer incidence for this source category, based on actual emission
levels, was 0.01 excess cancer cases per year, or one case in 100
years. The total estimated national cancer incidence for this source
category, based on allowable emission levels, was 0.02 excess cancer
cases per year, or one case in 50 years. The estimated maximum chronic
non-cancer target organ specific hazard index (TOSHI) value for this
source category was 0.3, based on both actual and allowable emissions
and driven by acrolein emissions from lime kilns.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Although defined as ``maximum individual risk,'' MIR refers
only to cancer risk. MIR, one metric for assessing cancer risk, is
the estimated risk were an individual exposed to the maximum level
of a pollutant for a lifetime.

                   Table 2--Pulp Mill Combustion Sources (Subpart MM) Inhalation Risk Assessment Results in the December 2016 Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Cancer MIR (in-1-million)                          Population      Population
                                 ----------------------------------------     Cancer       with risk of    with risk of     Max chronic     Max chronic
                                                                             incidence        1-in-1          10-in-1      non-cancer HI   non-cancer HI
                                    Based on actual   Based on allowable    (cases per      million or      million or     \1\ (actuals)        \1\
                                       emissions          emmissions           year)           more            more                        (allowables)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source category.................  4 (naphthalene,     4 (naphthalene,               0.01           7,600               0          HI < 1          HI < 1
                                   acetaldehyde).      acetaldehyde).
Whole facility..................  20 (arsenic,        ..................            0.05         440,000             280          HI = 1          HI = 1
                                   chromium VI).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hazard index.

    The multi-pathway screening analysis, based on actual emissions,
indicates the excess cancer risk from this source category is less than
10-in-1 million, based on dioxins/furans and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) emissions, with PAH emissions accounting for 99
percent of these potential risks from the fisher and the farmer
scenarios considered for multi-pathway modeling. There were no
facilities within this source category with a final multi-pathway non-
cancer screen value greater than 1 for cadmium or mercury.
    To put the risks from the source category in context, we also
evaluated facility-wide risk. Our facility-wide risk assessment, based
on actual emissions, estimated the MIR to be 20-in-1 million driven by
arsenic and chromium VI emissions, and estimated the chronic non-cancer
TOSHI value to be 1, driven by emissions of acrolein. We estimated
approximately 440,000 people to have cancer risks greater than or equal
to 1-in-1 million considering facility-wide emissions from the pulp and
paper production source category (see Table 2). The facility-wide
cancer and non-cancer risks are driven by emissions from industrial
boilers, representing 62 percent of the cancer risks and 95 percent of
the non-cancer risks. Emissions from 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM sources
represent only 6 percent of the total facility-wide cancer risk of 20-
in-1 million.
    The screening assessment of worst-case acute inhalation impacts
indicates no pollutants exceeding a hazard quotient (HQ) value of 1
based on the reference exposure level (REL), with an estimated worst-
case maximum acute HQ of 0.3 for acrolein based on the 1-hour REL.

    A review of the uncertainties in the risk assessment identified one
additional key consideration, and that is the quality of data
associated with the facility-wide emissions. The data provided from the
power boilers (i.e., sources covered under Boiler MACT, 40 CFR part 63,
subpart DDDDD) were collected in 2009 and represent pre-MACT emissions
before any controls were implemented. The uncertainty introduced by
using pre-MACT boiler emissions data may result in an overestimated
risk estimate for the facility-wide analysis for both cancer and non-
cancer impacts.
    We weighed all health risk factors in our risk acceptability
determination, and we proposed that the residual risks from this source
category are acceptable. We then considered whether the NESHAP provides
an ample margin of safety to protect public health and whether more
stringent standards were necessary to prevent an adverse environmental
effect by taking into consideration costs, energy, safety, and other
relevant factors. In determining whether the standards provide an ample
margin of safety to protect public health, we examined the same risk
factors that we investigated for our acceptability determination and
also considered the costs, technological feasibility, and other
relevant factors related to emissions control options that might reduce
risk associated with emissions from the source category. As noted in
the discussion of the ample margin of safety analysis in the preamble
to the proposed rule (81 FR 97069-70), we considered options for
further reducing gaseous organic HAP emissions from recovery furnace
systems. We considered the reduction in HAP emissions that could be
achieved by converting or replacing direct contact evaporator (DCE)
recovery furnaces (which include BLO systems) with NDCE recovery
furnaces. We also considered conversion of wet ESP systems to dry ESP
systems for NDCE recovery furnaces. The overall cost of these options
is an estimated $1.4 billion to $3.7 billion in capital cost and $120
million to $440 million in annualized cost. Application of these
options would achieve an estimated emission reduction of 2,920 tpy of
gaseous organic HAPs (including risk drivers and other gaseous organic
HAPs), with a corresponding cost effectiveness of $45,000 to $153,000
per ton of emissions reduced. Due to the low level of current risk and
the costs associated with these options, we proposed that additional
HAP emission reductions from the source category are not necessary to
provide an ample margin of safety. Based on the results of our
environmental risk screening assessment,\4\ we also proposed that more
stringent standards are not necessary to prevent an adverse
environmental effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The environmental screening analysis is documented in
Residual Risk Assessment for Pulp Mill Combustion Sources in Support
of the October 2017 Risk and Technology Review Final Rule, available
in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Public comments and final approach. Most of the commenters
providing input on the proposed risk review supported our determination
of risk acceptability and ample margin of safety analysis for 40 CFR
part 63, subpart MM.
    We evaluated all of the comments on EPA's risk review and
determined that no changes to the review are needed. A summary of these
comments and our responses is located in the comment summary and
response document, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).
    For the reasons explained in the proposed rule, we determined that
the risks from the 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM source category are
acceptable, and the current standards provide an ample margin of safety
to protect public health and prevent an adverse environmental effect.
Since proposal, neither the risk assessment nor our determinations
regarding risk acceptability, ample margin of safety or adverse
environmental effects have changed. Therefore, pursuant to CAA section
112(f)(2), we are finalizing our residual risk review as proposed.

B. Technology Review for the Subpart MM Source Category

    Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), we conducted a technology
review, which focused on identifying and evaluating developments in
practices, processes, and control technologies for the emission sources
in the source category. The following paragraphs discuss what we
proposed pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), changes to the technology
review since proposal, the key comments we received on the technology
review and our responses, and the rationale for our final approach for
the technology review. For an in-depth account of the comments and
responses, see the comment summary and response document in the docket
for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).
    Emissions standards. At proposal, we focused our CAA section
112(d)(6) review of 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM on the emissions
standards currently established in subpart MM. No cost-effective
developments in practices, processes, or control technologies were
identified in our technology review to warrant revisions to the gaseous
organic HAP standards for recovery furnaces and semichemical combustion
units, or to the HAP metal standards for recovery furnaces, lime kilns,
SDTs, and sulfite combustion units. More information concerning our
technology review is in the memorandum titled, Section 112(d)(6)
Technology Review for the NESHAP for Chemical Recovery Combustion
Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp
Mills, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2014-0741), and in the preamble to the proposed rule (81 FR 97070-
75).
    Multiple commenters concurred with the EPA that the results of the
technology review supported the conclusion that there should be no
changes to the emissions standards. One commenter objected and argued
that the current MACT standards for HAP metals from recovery furnaces,
SDTs, lime kilns, and sulfite combustion units did not meet the
requirements of CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) when originally
promulgated. The commenter stated that each of the emissions standards
must receive a proper CAA section 112(d)(6) review to evaluate whether
there is an emissions standard in place that met the CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3) test. According to the commenter, the EPA must set
emissions standards on each of these emission units to satisfy the CAA,
by establishing a proper floor for the first time, and performing a
beyond-the-floor analysis. The commenter argued that the EPA is not
authorized by CAA section 112(d)(6) to leave in place errors made when
performing the originally-required MACT rulemaking under CAA section
112(d)(2) and (3).
    In addition to commenting on the current 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM
standards, commenters offered opposing opinions regarding whether the
EPA should have expanded the scope of sources and/or pollutants covered
by subpart MM as part of the technology review. One commenter argued
that the EPA has no obligation to expand the scope of the existing
standards, and does not in fact have statutory authority to do so. The
commenter stated that there is neither legal nor technical
justification for considering limitations for new pollutants or for new
sources as part of the CAA section 112(d)(6) review of the subpart MM
standards. The commenter also stated that the EPA's residual risk
review, which included the major processes and pollutants, did not

identify any reason for expanding the emission units covered or the
pollutants limited in the subpart MM standards.
    Another commenter argued that the EPA must set emissions standards
for all emitted HAPs from all emission units. The commenter stated
that, currently, there are uncontrolled HAPs emitted by pulp mills,
including mercury, dioxins/furans, and hydrochloric acid. The commenter
also stated that the gaseous organic HAPs emitted from existing
recovery furnaces and from new and existing lime kilns and SDTs have no
applicable emission limit. The commenter also noted that the EPA failed
to set any standard for HAP metals emissions from new and existing
chemical recovery combustion units at stand-alone semichemical pulp
mills. The commenter indicated that the CAA section 112(d)(6) review
has brought the problem of currently unregulated HAPs to the EPA's
attention, and it is now ``necessary'' under CAA section 112(d)(6) to
set emissions standards that control these pollutants, as the CAA
directs. The commenter also asserted that, under CAA section 112(d)(6),
the D.C. Circuit Court legal decisions governing the EPA's regulatory
responsibility are ``developments'' that define proper pollution
controls, practices, and technologies, and the EPA is legally required
to account for them and set standards to limit these pollutants in the
review rulemaking.
    Regarding our review of the current 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM
standards, we disagree with the commenter that implied the EPA must
recalculate or reanalyze the validity of MACT floors previously
established under CAA sections 112(d)(2) and (3) as part of the
technology review under CAA section 112(d)(6). As explained in prior
RTR rulemakings, the EPA does not read CAA section 112(d)(6) as
requiring a reanalysis or recalculation of MACT floors. See National
Emissions Standards for Coke Oven Batteries (70 FR 19992, 20008 (April
15, 2005)). We read CAA section 112(d)(6) as providing the EPA with
substantial latitude in weighing a variety of factors and arriving at
an appropriate balance in considering revisions to standards
promulgated under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). Nothing in CAA section
112(d)(6) expressly or implicitly requires that the EPA recalculate the
MACT floor as part of the CAA section 112(d)(6) review. The EPA's
interpretation on this point has been upheld by the D.C. Circuit. Nat'l
Ass'n for Surface Finishing v. EPA, 795 F.3d 1, 7-9 (D.C. Cir. 2015);
Ass'n of Battery Recyclers v. EPA, 716 F. 3d 667, 673 (D.C. Cir. 2013);
Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. EPA, 529 F.3d 1077, 1084
(D.C. Cir. 2008). Further, CAA section 112(d)(6) provides that the
``developments'' the EPA must take into account when conducting
technology reviews are specifically ``developments in practices,
processes, and control technologies.'' See 81 FR 79066 (December 30,
2016) (describing the developments the EPA considers when conducting
CAA section 112(d)(6) reviews). The EPA interprets the term
``developments'' to include technological improvements that could
result in significant additional emission reduction as well as wholly
new methods of emission reduction. See, e.g., 75 FR 65083; see also
Nat'l Ass'n Surface Finishing v. EPA, 795 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2015)
(upholding the EPA's conclusion that developments include changes that
indicate that a previously considered option for reducing emissions may
now be cost-effective or technologically feasible and concluding that
it is sufficient for the EPA ``to assess and discuss the collective
impact of the developments it has identified, and to revise standards
appropriately in light thereof.''). The EPA does not, however,
interpret the term ``development'' as used in CAA section 112(d)(6) to
include intervening case law. An intervening decision by a court
regarding other CAA section 112 requirements does not constitute a
development in a practice, process or control technology. As such, the
EPA has no obligation to consider intervening case law as a
``development'' when identifying developments for purposes of the
section 112(d)(6) review.
    Regarding the scope of the subpart MM technology review, the EPA
acknowledges that standards for certain combinations of pollutants and
processes in the subpart MM source category have not been promulgated
according to CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). We agree that the EPA does
not have any obligation to expand the scope of the existing standards
under CAA section 112(d)(6), and we do not look to CAA section
112(d)(6) for authority to set additional standards within a source
category. The authority to set additional standards within a source
category comes from CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3). Though the EPA has
discretion to develop standards under CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3) for
previously unregulated pollutants at the same time as the Agency
completes the CAA section 112(d)(6) review, nothing in CAA section
112(d)(6) expressly requires the EPA to do so as part of that review.
The compressed schedule for this rulemaking, due to the court-ordered
deadline, did not make it reasonable to appropriately evaluate new
standards for unregulated pollutants and processes. This issue is
discussed further in the comment summary and response document that is
available in the docket. The EPA is not taking any action at this time
with respect to the unregulated pollutants or processes, though the EPA
might choose to do so in the future after assembling the data and
information needed to conduct the CAA section 112(d)(2) and (3)
analyses.
    Continuous opacity monitoring. Based on our analysis of continuous
opacity monitoring system (COMS) data for kraft and soda recovery
furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs \5\ and our consideration of
the costs and impacts of various opacity monitoring options for these
sources,\6\ we stated at proposal that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, Review of the
Continuous Opacity Monitoring Data from the Pulp and Paper ICR
Responses for Subpart MM Sources.
    \6\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, Costs/Impacts of
the Subpart MM Residual Risk and Technology Review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     There had been a development in existing recovery furnace
operating practices that supported reducing the existing source opacity
limit from 35 percent to 20 percent and revising the monitoring
allowance for the 20 percent opacity limit from 6 percent to a 2
percent monitoring allowance as part of the subpart MM technology
review process; and
     There had been a development in existing lime kiln
operating practices that supported revising the monitoring allowance
from 6 percent to a 1 percent monitoring allowance for opacity as part
of the subpart MM technology review process.
    The estimated cost effectiveness of the proposed recovery furnace
option, $36,800 per ton PM, was within the range of other recent EPA
regulations. There was no cost-effectiveness value for the proposed
lime kiln option because there were no estimated incremental HAP
reductions (81 FR 97072-73).
    Multiple commenters objected to the proposed changes to the opacity
requirements for recovery furnaces and lime kilns, questioning the cost
effectiveness and stating that the technology review should not result
in changing the opacity requirements. The commenters argued that the
EPA's assumption for ``improving maintenance'' to reduce the number of
exceedances of the recovery furnace and lime kiln opacity limits was
incorrect,

and stated that facilities would incur emission unit shutdown (and
resulting lost production) and potential capital costs in order to meet
the reduced opacity limits and monitoring allowances. Commenters stated
that facilities would need to make ESP upgrades to meet the proposed
limits and they provided cost estimates for these upgrades, based on
their experiences. In response to these comments, we conducted further
analysis, based on the assumption that ESP upgrades (but not
maintenance) would be needed to meet the proposed standard and revised
the cost estimates considering the cost data provided.\7\ In this
further analysis considering new information, we estimated costs that
are significantly higher than what we estimated at proposal. For
recovery furnaces, we estimated annual ESP upgrade costs of $21 million
v. $8.7 million at proposal; for lime kilns, we estimated annual ESP
upgrade costs of $0.87 million v. $0.068 million at proposal. For PM,
the surrogate for HAP metals, we estimated the cost effectiveness for
recovery furnace ESP upgrades to increase from $36,800 to $91,400 per
ton. For HAP metals specifically, the cost effectiveness exceeds $250
million per ton.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, Revised Costs/
Impacts of the Subpart MM Residual Risk and Technology Review for
Promulgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commenters also stated that examination of only 1 year of COMS data
for 2009 from the 2011 pulp and paper ICR was not adequate to fully
determine the impacts of the proposed change or to demonstrate that
there has been a change in operating practice. Commenters further
stated that the COMS data for recovery furnaces and lime kilns that the
EPA used in its analysis did not include periods of startup and
shutdown in all instances, and that the EPA's analysis of existing
performance relative to the proposed opacity limits and monitoring
allowances was, therefore, incomplete. The EPA acknowledges that 2009
data may not be representative of current operation, as suggested by
the commenters, and that the number of startup and shutdown events
likely vary from year to year. Considering this information and the
analyses performed for the final action,\8\ we are not finalizing the
recovery furnace and lime kiln opacity requirements as proposed.
Instead, we are finalizing an opacity limit of 35 percent for existing
recovery furnaces, with a corrective action level of 20 percent and a 2
percent monitoring allowance. A 2 percent monitoring allowance reflects
improvements in operating practices from the previous 6 percent
allowance, but allows sufficient flexibility for periods of startup and
shutdown. We are finalizing, as proposed, an opacity limit of 20
percent for new recovery furnaces, with a corrective action level of 20
percent and a 2 percent monitoring allowance. For lime kilns, we are
finalizing an opacity limit of 20 percent, with a 3 percent monitoring
allowance. A 3 percent monitoring allowance reflects improvements in
operating practices from the previous 6 percent allowance, but allows
sufficient flexibility for periods of startup and shutdown as compared
to the proposed 1 percent allowance. Our review of available COMS data
indicates that all recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs
can meet these limits, so we do not expect any costs associated with
these requirements, which addresses commenters' concerns about the cost
of the proposed opacity options.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ See the memoranda in the docket titled, Addendum to the
Review of the Continuous Opacity Monitoring Data from the Pulp and
Paper ICR Responses for Subpart MM Sources, and Revised Costs/
Impacts of the Subpart MM Residual Risk and Technology Review for
Promulgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ESP parameter monitoring. We proposed an ESP parameter monitoring
requirement for recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESPs. We
proposed that these sources monitor the secondary voltage and secondary
current (or, alternatively, total secondary power) of each ESP
collection field. These proposed ESP parameter monitoring requirements
were in addition to opacity monitoring for recovery furnaces equipped
with ESPs alone. The purpose of this proposed requirement was to
provide an additional indicator of ESP performance and enable affected
sources to show continuous compliance with the HAP metal standards
(surrogate PM emission limits) at all times, including periods when the
opacity monitoring allowance is used (81 FR 97073). For example, these
requirements were proposed to provide an indicator that the ESP was
efficiently operated and properly maintained for the duration of the
semiannual reporting period, including during periods of startup and
shutdown. At the time of the proposed rule, we estimated that the
nationwide costs associated with adding the proposed ESP parameter
monitoring requirements would be $5.7 million capital and $1.4 million
annualized for ESP parameter monitors, and that all mills with ESP-
controlled recovery furnaces and lime kilns would be impacted (81 FR
97073).
    Multiple commenters stated that the ESP total power monitoring
provisions should be removed or revised. Instead of adding an
additional monitoring requirement that they believed would be
burdensome and duplicative of the opacity monitoring already being
conducted, commenters suggested that the EPA should instead require
proper operation of the ESP's AVC or power management system, which
would achieve the same goal of ensuring the ESP performance. Commenters
provided information suggesting that we underestimated the ESP
parameter monitoring costs, specifically that EPA incorrectly assumed
that all ESPs were equipped with the ability to record the parameters.
Based on our review of this cost information, we conducted a reanalysis
and estimated revised costs of $16 million in capital costs and $4
million in annualized costs associated with adding ESP parameter
monitoring for existing sources.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See the memorandum in the docket titled, Revised Costs/
Impacts of the Subpart MM Residual Risk and Technology Review for
Promulgation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given that the intent of the proposed additional ESP monitoring was
to ensure efficient operation and proper maintenance of the ESP, see 81
FR 97073 (December 30, 2016), and that commenters suggested that the
use of the AVC ensures efficient operation and notifies operators of
issues requiring maintenance, and that the costs were significantly
higher than EPA estimated at proposal, we are not finalizing the
proposed ESP parameter monitoring requirements. The EPA is instead
finalizing a requirement for recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped
with ESPs to maintain proper operation of the ESP's AVC. This
requirement applies at all times, including times when the opacity
monitoring allowance is used. Because existing ESPs already have AVC,
there is no need to estimate equipment cost. We have only estimated
recordkeeping costs for this requirement.\11\ The final rule also
clarifies that the requirement to maintain proper operation of the
ESP's AVC does not apply to recovery furnaces and lime kilns subject to
the 40 CFR part 60, subpart BBa New Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for Kraft Pulp Mills, because the NSPS requires ESP parameter
monitoring for these units.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Monitoring of ESPs followed by wet scrubbers. Because moisture in
wet stacks interferes with opacity readings, opacity is not a suitable
monitoring requirement for recovery furnaces or lime kilns with wet
scrubber stacks.

Therefore, we proposed to require ESP and wet scrubber parameter
monitoring for emission units equipped with an ESP followed by a wet
scrubber. The ESP parameters proposed to be monitored were secondary
voltage and secondary current (or, alternatively, total secondary
power), and the wet scrubber parameters were pressure drop and scrubber
liquid flow rate (81 FR 97073-74). As noted in the previous paragraph,
for the final rule, we are replacing the proposed ESP parameter
monitoring requirement with a requirement to maintain proper operation
of the ESP's AVC based on public comment, except for recovery furnaces
and lime kilns subject to the subpart BBa NSPS, because ESP parameter
monitoring is already required for these units. We are finalizing the
rest of these monitoring requirements as proposed.
    Wet scrubber parameter monitoring. Subpart MM of 40 CFR part 63
specifies monitoring of scrubber liquid flow rate and pressure drop for
kraft and soda SDTs and sulfite combustion units equipped with wet
scrubbers. Facilities may 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 these
periods. We proposed revising the monitoring requirements to address
startup and shutdown periods when certain parameters could be difficult
to achieve. Specifically, we proposed to consider only scrubber liquid
flow rate during these periods (i.e., excess emissions would include
any 3-hour period when black liquor solids (BLS) are fired that the
scrubber flow rate does not meet the minimum parameter limits set in
the initial performance test). Based on previous alternative monitoring
requests for SDTs, we also proposed to allow operators to use SDT
scrubber fan amperage 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
(81 FR 97074-75). We received no public comments on the proposed
changes in wet scrubber parameter monitoring and, therefore, are
finalizing these monitoring requirements as proposed.

C. Changes to SSM Provisions

    We received several comments on our proposal to remove exemptions
for SSM events. See the comment summary and response document available
in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741) for
public comments and our responses relating to our proposal to remove
the SSM exemption from 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM. An overview of our
rationale for removing this exemption is provided below.
    In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v. EPA, 551 F.3d 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit vacated portions of two provisions in the EPA's CAA
section 112 regulations governing the emissions of HAP during periods
of SSM. Specifically, the Court vacated the SSM exemption contained in
40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1), holding that under section
302(k) of the CAA, emissions standards or limitations must be
continuous in nature and that the SSM exemption violates the CAA's
requirement that some CAA section 112 standards apply continuously.
    We have eliminated the SSM exemption in this rule. Consistent with
Sierra Club v. EPA, the EPA has established standards in this rule that
apply at all times. We have also revised Table 1 (the General
Provisions applicability table) in several respects as is explained in
more detail below. For example, we have eliminated the incorporation of
the General Provisions' requirement that the source develop an SSM
plan. We have also eliminated and revised certain recordkeeping and
reporting that is related to the SSM exemption as described in detail
in the proposed rule and summarized again here.
    In establishing the standards in this rule, the EPA has taken into
account startup and shutdown periods and, for the reasons explained
below, has not established alternate emissions standards for those
periods.
    Periods of startup, normal operations, and shutdown are all
predictable and routine aspects of a source's operations. Malfunctions,
in contrast, are neither predictable nor routine. Instead they are, by
definition, sudden, infrequent and not reasonably preventable failures
of emissions control, process or monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2)
(definition of malfunction). The EPA interprets CAA section 112 as not
requiring emissions that occur during periods of malfunction to be
factored into development of CAA section 112 standards and this reading
has been upheld as reasonable by the D.C. Circuit in U.S. Sugar Corp.
v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016). Under CAA section 112, emissions
standards for new sources must be no less stringent than the level
``achieved'' by the best controlled similar source, and for existing
sources, generally must be no less stringent than the average emission
limitation ``achieved'' by the best performing 12 percent of sources in
the category. There is nothing in CAA section 112 that directs the
Agency to consider malfunctions in determining the level ``achieved''
by the best performing sources when setting emissions standards. As the
D.C. Circuit has recognized, the phrase ``average emissions limitation
achieved by the best performing 12 percent of'' sources ``says nothing
about how the performance of the best units is to be calculated.''
Nat'l Ass'n of Clean Water Agencies v. EPA, 734 F.3d 1115, 1141 (D.C.
Cir. 2013). While the EPA accounts for variability in setting emissions
standards, nothing in CAA section 112 requires the Agency to consider
malfunctions as part of that analysis. A malfunction should not be
treated in the same manner as the type of variation in performance that
occurs during routine operations of a source. A malfunction is a
failure of the source to perform in a ``normal or usual manner'' and no
statutory language compels the EPA to consider such events in setting
CAA section 112 standards.
    As the D.C. Circuit recognized in U.S. Sugar Corp., accounting for
malfunctions in setting emissions standards 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. Id. at 608 (``the
EPA would have to conceive of a standard that could apply equally to
the wide range of possible boiler malfunctions, ranging from an
explosion to minor mechanical defects. Any possible standard is likely
to be hopelessly generic to govern such a wide array of
circumstances.'') 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, emissions during a
malfunction event can be significantly higher than emissions at any
other time of source operation. For example, if an air pollution
control device with 99 percent removal goes off-line as a result of a
malfunction (as might happen if, for example, the bags in a baghouse
catch fire) and the emission unit is a steady state type unit that
would take days to shut down, the source would go from 99 percent
control to zero control until the control device was repaired. The
source's emissions during the malfunction would be 100 times higher
than during normal operations. As such, the emissions over a 4-day
malfunction period would exceed the annual emissions of the source
during normal operations. As this example illustrates, accounting for
malfunctions could lead to standards that are not reflective of (and
significantly less stringent than) levels that are achieved by a well-
performing non-malfunctioning source. It is reasonable to interpret CAA
section 112 to avoid such a result. The EPA's approach to malfunctions
is consistent with CAA section 112 and is a reasonable interpretation
of the statute.
    In the event that a source fails to comply with the applicable CAA
section 112(d) standards as a result of a malfunction event, the EPA
would determine an appropriate response based on, among other things,
the good faith efforts of the source to minimize emissions during
malfunction periods, including preventative and corrective actions, as
well as root cause analyses to ascertain and rectify excess emissions.
The EPA would also consider whether the source's failure to comply with
the CAA section 112(d) standard was, in fact, sudden, infrequent, not
reasonably preventable, and was not instead caused in part by poor
maintenance or careless operation. 40 CFR 63.2 (definition of
malfunction).
    If the EPA determines in a particular case that an enforcement
action against a source for violation of an emissions standard is
warranted, the source can raise any and all defenses in that
enforcement action and the federal district court will determine what,
if any, relief is appropriate. The same is true for citizen enforcement
actions. Similarly, the presiding officer in an administrative
proceeding can consider any defense raised and determine whether
administrative penalties are appropriate.
    In summary, the EPA interpretation of the CAA and, in particular,
CAA section 112 is reasonable and encourages practices that will avoid
malfunctions. Administrative and judicial procedures for addressing
exceedances of the standards fully recognize that violations may occur
despite good faith efforts to comply and can accommodate those
situations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 606-610 (2016).
    40 CFR 63.860(d) General duty. We are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 1) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by re-designating
it as 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in column 3 to a
``no.'' Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes the general duty to minimize
emissions. Some of the language in that section is no longer necessary
or appropriate in light of the elimination of the SSM exemption. We are
instead adding general duty regulatory text at 40 CFR 63.860(d) that
reflects the general duty to minimize emissions while eliminating the
reference to periods covered by an SSM exemption. The current language
in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) characterizes what the general duty entails
during periods of SSM. With the elimination of the SSM exemption, there
is no need to differentiate between normal operations, startup and
shutdown, and malfunction events in describing the general duty.
Therefore, the language the EPA is promulgating for 40 CFR 63.860(d)
does not include that language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).
    We are also revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) to add
an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii) and include a ``no'' in column 3.
Section 63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements that are not necessary with
the elimination of the SSM exemption or are redundant with the general
duty requirement being added at 40 CFR 63.860(d).
    SSM plan. We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) to
add an entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and include a ``no'' in column 3.
Generally, these paragraphs require development of an SSM plan and
specify SSM recordkeeping and reporting requirements related to the SSM
plan. As noted, the EPA is removing the SSM exemptions. Therefore,
affected units will be subject to an emissions standard during such
events. The applicability of a standard during such events will ensure
that sources have ample incentive to plan for and achieve compliance
and, thus, the SSM plan requirements are no longer necessary.
    Compliance with standards. We are revising the General Provisions
table (Table 1) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f) by re-designating this section
as 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) and including a ``no'' in column 3. The current
language of 40 CFR 63.6(f)(1) exempts sources from non-opacity
standards during periods of SSM. As discussed above, the Court in
Sierra Club vacated the exemptions contained in this provision and held
that the CAA requires that some CAA section 112 standard apply
continuously. Consistent with Sierra Club, the EPA is revising
standards in this rule to apply at all times.
    We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) entry for 40
CFR 63.6(h) by re-designating this section as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) and
including a ``no'' in column 3. The current language of 40 CFR
63.6(h)(1) exempts sources from opacity standards during periods of
SSM. As discussed above, the Court in Sierra Club vacated the
exemptions contained in this provision and held that the CAA requires
that some CAA section 112 standard apply continuously. Consistent with
Sierra Club, the EPA is revising standards in this rule to apply at all
times.
    40 CFR 63.865 Performance test requirements and test methods. We
are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) entry for 40 CFR
63.7(e) by re-designating it as 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) and including a
``no'' in column 3. Section 63.7(e)(1) describes performance testing
requirements. The EPA is instead adding a performance testing
requirement at 40 CFR 63.865. The performance testing requirements we
are adding differ from the General Provisions performance testing
provisions in several respects. The regulatory text does not include
the language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that restated the SSM exemption and
language that precluded startup and shutdown periods from being
considered ``representative'' for purposes of performance testing. The
revised performance testing provisions require testing under
representative operating conditions, excluding periods of startup and
shutdown. As in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1), performance tests conducted under
this subpart should not be conducted during malfunctions because
conditions during malfunctions are often not representative of normal
operating conditions. The EPA is adding language that requires the
owner or operator to record the process information that is necessary
to document operating conditions during the test and include in such
record an explanation to support that such conditions represent normal
operation. Section 63.7(e) requires that the owner or operator make
available records ``as

may be necessary to determine the condition of the performance test''
to the Administrator upon request, but does not specifically require
the information to be recorded. The regulatory text the EPA is adding
to this provision builds on that requirement and makes explicit the
requirement to record the information.
    40 CFR 63.864 Monitoring requirements. We are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 1) by re-designating 40 CFR 63.8(c) as 40 CFR
63.8(c)(1), adding entries for 40 CFR 63.8(c)(1)(i) through (iii) and
including ``no'' in column 3 for paragraphs (i) and (iii). The cross-
references to the general duty and SSM plan requirements in those
subparagraphs are not necessary in light of other requirements of 40
CFR 63.8 that require good air pollution control practices (40 CFR
63.8(c)(1)) and that set out the requirements of a quality control
program for monitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).
    We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an
entry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) and including a ``no'' in column 3. The
final sentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers to the General Provisions'
SSM plan requirement which is no longer applicable. The EPA is adding
to the rule at 40 CFR 63.864(f) text that is identical to 40 CFR
63.8(d)(3) except that the final sentence is replaced with the
following sentence: ``The program of corrective action should be
included in the plan required under 40 CFR 63.8(d)(2).''
    40 CFR 63.866 Recordkeeping requirements. We are revising the
General Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an entry for 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(i) and including a ``no'' in column 3. Section
63.10(b)(2)(i) describes the recordkeeping requirements during startup
and shutdown. These recording provisions are no longer necessary
because the EPA is promulgating that recordkeeping and reporting
applicable to normal operations applies to startup and shutdown. In the
absence of special provisions applicable to startup and shutdown, such
as a startup and shutdown plan, there is no reason to retain additional
recordkeeping for startup and shutdown periods.
    We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(ii) and including a ``no'' in column 3.
Section 63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes the recordkeeping requirements during
a malfunction. The EPA is adding such requirements to 40 CFR 63.866(d).
The regulatory text we are adding differs from the General Provisions
it is replacing in that the General Provisions requires the creation
and retention of a record of the occurrence and duration of each
malfunction of process, air pollution control, and monitoring
equipment. The EPA is applying the requirement to any failure to meet
an applicable standard and is requiring that the source record the
date, time, and duration of the failure rather than the ``occurrence.''
The EPA is also adding to 40 CFR 63.866(d) a requirement that sources
keep records that include a list of the affected source or equipment
and actions taken to minimize emissions, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit the source
failed to meet, and a description of the method used to estimate the
emissions. Examples of such methods could include mass balance
calculations, measurements when available, or engineering judgment
based on known process parameters. The EPA is requiring that sources
keep records of this information to ensure that there is adequate
information to allow the EPA to determine the severity of any failure
to meet a standard, and to provide data that may document how the
source met the general duty to minimize emissions when the source has
failed to meet an applicable standard.
    We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) and including a ``no'' in column 3.
When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken
during SSM events when actions were inconsistent with their SSM plan.
The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans will no
longer be required. The requirement previously applicable under 40 CFR
63.10(b)(2)(iv)(B) to record actions to minimize emissions and record
corrective actions is now applicable by reference to 40 CFR 63.866(d).
    We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v) and including a ``no'' in column 3.
When applicable, the provision requires sources to record actions taken
during SSM events to show that actions taken were consistent with their
SSM plan. The requirement is no longer appropriate because SSM plans
will no longer be required.
    We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) by adding an
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) and including a ``no'' in column 3. The
EPA is promulgating that 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer applies. When
applicable, the provision allows an owner or operator to use the
affected source's SSM plan or records kept to satisfy the recordkeeping
requirements of the SSM plan, specified in 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also
satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10) through (12). The EPA
is eliminating this requirement because SSM plans will no longer be
required, and, therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) no longer serves any
useful purpose for affected units.
    40 CFR 63.867 Reporting requirements. We are revising the General
Provisions table (Table 1) entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5) by re-
designating it as 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) and changing the ``yes'' in
column 3 to a ``no.'' Section 63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the periodic
reporting requirements for startups, shutdowns, and malfunctions. To
replace the General Provisions reporting requirement, the EPA is adding
reporting requirements to 40 CFR 63.867(c). The replacement language
differs from the General Provisions requirement in that it eliminates
periodic SSM reports as a stand-alone report. We are promulgating
language that requires sources that fail to meet an applicable standard
at any time to report the information concerning such events in the
semiannual report already required under this rule. We are promulgating
that the report must contain the number, date, time, duration, and the
cause of such events (including unknown cause, if applicable), a list
of the affected source or equipment, an estimate of the quantity of
each regulated pollutant emitted over any emission limit, and a
description of the method used to estimate the emissions.
    We will no longer require owners or operators to determine whether
actions taken to correct a malfunction are consistent with an SSM plan,
because plans will no longer be required. The final amendments,
therefore, eliminate the cross reference to 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(i) that
contains the description of the previously required SSM report format
and submittal schedule from this section. These specifications are no
longer necessary because the events will be reported in otherwise
required reports with similar format and submittal requirements.
    We are revising the General Provisions table (Table 1) to add an
entry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) and include a ``no'' in column 3.
Section 63.10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediate report for startups,
shutdown, and malfunctions when a source failed to meet an applicable
standard, but did not follow the SSM plan. We will no longer require
owners and operators to report when actions taken during a startup,
shutdown, or malfunction were not

consistent with an SSM plan, because plans will no longer be required.

D. Emissions Testing

    Periodic testing. As part of an ongoing effort to improve
compliance with various federal air emission regulations, we reviewed
the 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM emissions testing and monitoring
requirements and proposed to require periodic emissions testing every 5
years. We proposed that the first of the periodic performance tests be
conducted within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards
and, thereafter, before the facilities renew their 40 CFR part 70
operating permits, but no longer than 5 years following the previous
performance test. The proposal required periodic filterable PM testing
for existing and new kraft and soda recovery furnaces, SDTs, and lime
kilns and sulfite combustion units; periodic methanol testing for new
kraft and soda recovery furnaces; and periodic total hydrocarbon (THC)
testing for existing and new semichemical combustion units (81 FR
97078).
    Multiple commenters expressed concern about the proposed
requirement for facilities to conduct periodic tests ``before renewing
their 40 CFR part 70 operating permit,'' arguing that the phrase was
confusing and unnecessary, and they recommended that the wording
linking periodic testing to permit renewal should be struck. We have
reviewed these comments and agree that tying the timing for periodic
testing to title V permit renewal could be considered confusing and
could unnecessarily complicate the rule. Therefore, we are finalizing
(as proposed) the requirement to conduct the first of the periodic
tests within 3 years of the effective date of the revised standards
and, thereafter, no longer than 5 years following the previous test,
without reference to permit renewal. For more information, see the
comment summary and response document available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Test conditions. We also proposed to revise the performance test
requirements to specify that ``performance tests shall be conducted
under such conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or
operator based on representative performance of the affected source for
the period being tested'' (81 FR 97081). The proposed rule language was
included in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM as a replacement for similar
language in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that is no longer entirely applicable
because it stated that periods of SSM would not be considered a
violation.
    A commenter objected to the proposed language, stating that,
depending on what ``conditions'' the Administrator specifies, it may be
impossible to conduct performance testing in the time frame required,
while simultaneously meeting all the conditions the Administrator or
their designee may specify. The commenter suggested that the rule
should simply require that performance tests be conducted under normal
operating conditions. We agree that the proposed rule language needs
clarification and have revised the language for the final rule to refer
to ``normal operating conditions'' and eliminate the phrase ``such
conditions as the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator.''

E. CPMS Operating Limits

    We proposed specific changes regarding the establishment and
enforcement of CPMS operating limits. A discussion of the proposed
changes, the public comments received, and the changes made for
promulgation is provided in the following paragraphs and presented in
greater detail in the comment summary and response document available
in the docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Procedures for establishing operating limits. We proposed
procedures for establishing operating limits based on data recorded by
CPMS. The 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM emissions standards include
numerical emission limits, with compliance demonstrated through the
proposed periodic performance tests, and operating limits (e.g.,
opacity limits or continuously monitored parameter limits) used to
demonstrate ongoing compliance in between performance tests. The
original subpart MM regulatory text referred extensively to operating
parameter ranges and is not as specific as more recent NESHAPs in
specifying how operating limits are to be determined. Therefore, we
proposed language to clarify the procedures for establishing parameter
limits, beginning with the first periodic performance test proposed to
be required under 40 CFR 63.865. We proposed that the operating limits
be established as the average of the parameter values associated with
each performance test run in 40 CFR 63.864(j). Wet scrubbers and RTOs
have minimum operating limits, such that the EPA would consider 3-hour
average values below the minimum operating limit to be a monitoring
exceedance to be reported under 40 CFR 63.867(c) (81 FR 97078-79).
    Multiple commenters objected to the proposed provisions in 40 CFR
63.864(j) that specify how operating parameter limits are established.
The commenters argued that use of the test average conflicts with the
language in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM that allows the operating
parameter limits to be expanded based on additional test data and
limits the flexibility facilities need to establish an operating limit
that allows for the full range of process operation. Commenters argued
that the proposed methodology also conflicts with recent MACT rules
such as the Boiler MACT rule (subpart DDDDD) that allows use of the
lowest or highest individual test run to be used. Commenters concluded
that flexibility in use of the hourly average value obtained during a
test run and not the test average is important to establishing
operating parameter limits that allow for a compliance demonstration at
operating conditions below full load. Commenters stated that the
ability to confirm the established operating limit during subsequent
testing is another important element of flexibility needed in subpart
MM. Commenters also recommended that subpart MM should allow operating
parameter limits to be adjusted to a level that is 90 percent of the
value during the test to allow for operational flexibility.
    In response to these comments, we have revised the rule from
proposal to allow minimum operating parameter limits to be established
based on the lowest 1-hour average value recorded during a performance
test that demonstrates compliance. We have also revised the rule from
proposal to allow facilities to confirm the established operating
limits during subsequent testing instead of requiring the operating
limits to be reestablished during each repeat test. With these added
flexibilities, in addition to provisions included in 40 CFR 63.864(k)
that specify corrective actions before an operating parameter violation
is incurred, we did not include the commenter's suggested 90 percent
adjustment for minimum operating parameter limits. Facilities may
establish a range of parameter values by conducting multiple
performance tests.
    Exceedances of operating limits. We proposed to eliminate the
language in 40 CFR 63.864(k)(3) providing that no more than one non-
opacity monitoring exceedance will be attributed in any 24-hour period
(81 FR 97079). Multiple commenters argued that the EPA should not
delete 40 CFR 63.864(k)(3), noting

that facilities may experience consecutive 3-hour periods where
operating parameter values (e.g., concurrent scrubber flow and pressure
drop) are out of range as part of the same event, despite a facility's
best efforts to take corrective action as soon as possible. With the
removal of the 24-hour defined period, commenters indicated it is
unclear how to count concurrent parameter events for the purposes of
determining a noncompliance count. Commenters also noted that 40 CFR
part 63, subpart MM does not currently specify that the 3-hour wet
scrubber continuous monitoring systems (CMS) are averaged over 3-hour
blocks or 3-hour rolling periods and that states have not been
consistent in applying this averaging period, so a facility with a 3-
hour rolling average would consume the five allowed 3-hour averages in
as little as 7 hours.
    In response to these comments, we are not taking any final action
to eliminate or in any way revise 40 CFR 63.864(k)(3). We recognize
that one event could trigger multiple 3-hour exceedances in a 24-hour
period, especially for facilities using a 3-hour rolling average. As
originally promulgated, 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM did not specify
whether 3-hours averages were to be reduced to 3-hour block or 3-hour
rolling averages. As a result, commenters brought to our attention that
some facilities are currently using block averages, while others are
using rolling averages. Keeping in place the current provision in 40
CFR 63.864(k)(3) that no more than one exceedance will be attributed in
any given 24-hour period avoids creating a difference in the compliance
obligation between the two monitoring approaches.

F. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

    We proposed specific changes to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements. Major public comments on the proposed amendments to these
requirements and the EPA's responses are discussed in the paragraphs
below and presented in greater detail in the comment summary and
response document, available in the docket for this action (Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reporting frequency and electronic reporting. As originally
promulgated, 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM requires that owners and
operators of facilities submit quarterly excess emissions reports for
monitoring exceedances and periods of noncompliance and semiannual
reports when no excess emissions have occurred during the reporting
period. These excess emission reports are typically submitted as a hard
copy to the delegated authority, and reports in this form usually are
not readily available for the EPA and the public to analyze. We
proposed that semiannual electronic reporting would provide ample data
to assess a facility's performance with regard to the emissions
standards in subpart MM. We proposed that all excess emissions reports
be submitted on a semiannual basis in conjunction with requiring
electronic reporting as discussed below (81 FR 97079). We received
public comments supporting the reduction in reporting frequency and no
comments disagreeing with this change. Therefore, we are finalizing
this provision as proposed.
    We proposed that owners and operators of 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM
facilities submit performance test reports, semiannual reports, and
notifications through CEDRI. The EPA believes that the electronic
submittal of these reports will increase the usefulness of the data
contained in the reports, is consistent with current trends in data
availability, will further assist in the protection of public health
and the environment, and will ultimately result in less burden on the
regulated community (81 FR 97079).
    Multiple commenters stated that the EPA's proposed new electronic
reporting requirement in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM will be excessively
burdensome to industry and is not justified. We disagree with these
comments. Based on the analysis performed for the proposed Electronic
Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements for the New Source Performance
Standards (i.e., the NSPS electronic reporting rule) (80 FR 15100),
electronic reporting results in an overall cost savings to industry
when annualized over a 20-year period, although there are some initial
costs in the short term (80 FR 15111). The cost savings is achieved
through means such as standardization of data, embedded quality
assurance (QA) checks, automatic calculation routines, and reduced data
entry through the ability to reuse data in files instead of starting
anew with each report. As outlined in the NSPS electronic reporting
rule, there are many benefits to electronic reporting spanning all
users of the data--the EPA, state and local regulators, the regulated
entities, and the public. In the preamble to this proposed rule (81 FR
97079-80), we provided a number of reasons why the electronic reporting
required by the amendments will provide benefits going forward and that
most of the benefits we outlined were longer-term benefits (e.g.,
eliminating ``paper-based, manual processes, thereby saving time and
resources, simplifying data entry, eliminating redundancies, minimizing
data reporting errors and providing data quickly and accurately to the
affected facilities, air agencies, the EPA and the public.''). For
these reasons, we are finalizing the requirement to electronically
report test results through CEDRI using the Electronic Reporting Tool
(ERT).
    One commenter noted that the EPA's ERT, which is used to generate
the test data files uploaded to the EPA's CDX through CEDRI, continues
to be revised and updated due to various flaws. The commenter argued
that it is unreasonable to put sources at risk of violations (due to
late or inaccurate reporting) because of EPA reporting tool issues or
availability. At a minimum, the commenter suggested that the
requirement to use a particular CEDRI form should stipulate that the
form has been available for 1 year, per the recently signed final, but
not published NSPS electronic reporting rule. According to the
commenter, that rule also provides for a reporting extension in the
event of an outage of the EPA's CDX or CEDRI the week prior to a
report's due date. The commenter suggested that this same allowance
should be provided in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM if the electronic
reporting requirement is finalized.
    We agree that it is unreasonable to put sources at risk of
violations because of EPA reporting tool issues or availability. Based
on commenter input and our consideration of the tasks that facilities
must conduct prior to initial compliance, we have determined 1 year
from the posting of the reporting form (i.e., a spreadsheet template)
on the CEDRI Web site will provide for a more efficient transition to
electronic reporting of semiannual reports. For these reports, the
initial compliance date for electronic reporting will be 1 year from
the date the form is posted on the CEDRI Web site. We have also added
language to the final rule to provide facilities with the ability to
seek electronic reporting extensions for circumstances beyond the
control of the facility, i.e., for a possible outage in the CDX or
CEDRI or for a force majeure event in the time just prior to a report's
due date. If either the CDX or CEDRI is unavailable at any time
beginning 5 business days prior to the date that the submission is due,
and the unavailability prevents the submission of a report by the
required date, a

facility may assert a claim of EPA system outage. We consider 5
business days prior to the reporting deadline to be an appropriate
timeframe because if the system is down prior to this time, facilities
will have 1 week to complete reporting once the system is back online.
We will provide notification of known outages as far in advance as
possible by the EPA's Clearinghouse for Inventories and Emissions
Factors (CHIEF) Listserv notice, posting on the CEDRI Web site and
posting on the CDX Web site to enable facilities to plan accordingly.
However, if a planned or unplanned outage occurs and a facility
believes that it will affect or it has affected compliance with an
electronic reporting requirement, we have provided a process to assert
such a claim. A force majeure event is an event that will be or has
been caused by circumstances beyond the control of the affected
facility, its contractors, or any entity controlled by the affected
facility that prevents you from complying with the requirement to
submit a report electronically as required by this rule. Examples of
such events are acts of nature, acts of war or terrorism, or equipment
failure or safety hazards beyond the control of the facility. If such
an event occurs or is still occurring or if there are still lingering
effects of the event in the 5 business days prior to a submission
deadline, we have provided a process to assert a claim of force
majeure. In both circumstances, reporting should occur as soon as
possible once the situation has been resolved. We are providing these
potential extensions to protect facilities from noncompliance in cases
when a facility cannot successfully submit a report by the reporting
deadline for reasons outside of its control, as described above. We are
not providing an extension for other instances. You should register for
CEDRI far in advance of the initial compliance date, in order to make
sure that you can complete the identity proofing process prior to the
initial compliance date. Additionally, we recommend you start
developing reports early, in case any questions arise during the
reporting process.
    While we do agree that more time is necessary to comply with
electronic reporting requirements for semiannual reports, we do not
agree that more time is necessary to comply with electronic reporting
requirements for performance test reports and performance evaluation
reports, which are uploads of ERT files. The allotted 60 days should be
ample time to determine whether reports using the ERT need to be
uploaded to the CDX through CEDRI. We also disagree that the ERT
continues to be revised and updated due to various flaws. We
acknowledge that, in early versions of the ERT, there were some issues,
particularly related to rounding results. However, we have diligently
worked to address issues as they have been brought to our attention. We
have also added many improvements to the ERT based on feedback from
users. We are finalizing the requirement to submit reports
electronically to the EPA through CEDRI.
    If the requirement for using CEDRI for electronic reporting remains
in the final rule, commenters stated they would prefer filling and
uploading the spreadsheet to fulfill the reporting requirements rather
than entering the required information into a fillable CEDRI web form
and increasing the chances of transcription errors, if they must choose
between approaches. However, the commenters indicated their ultimate
preference would be for facilities to upload their own already-
formatted reports generated from their DAS, rather than reformatting
the current information to fit the EPA's reporting form.
    We acknowledge the commenter's support for the use of the
spreadsheet style form for fulfilling reporting requirements. We intend
to solely use the spreadsheet-style form for this rule in lieu of a
fillable web form or extensible markup language (XML) submittal.
Commenters provided a variety of detailed comments on the semiannual
compliance reporting spreadsheet for 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM, which
have resulted in a number of changes to the spreadsheet reporting form
(template) for the final rule. For more information, see the comment
summary and response document, available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).\15\ We have also placed a copy of
the revised electronic reporting spreadsheet template incorporating
public comments in the docket. The spreadsheet template includes tabs
for excess emissions summary reports and excess emissions detailed
reports (if required). We are not allowing free-form excess emissions
summary reports because this does not allow for efficient electronic
compilation of the information reported, a key benefit of electronic
reporting. The final rule requires use of the excess emissions summary
report tabs in the spreadsheet template for each semiannual report.
However, when detailed reporting is required (e.g., due to the number
of operating limit exceedances or monitor downtime), facilities would
be allowed to submit detailed reports in either the spreadsheet
template format provided or in an alternative format specifying the
required details (e.g., as a separate file upload into CEDRI) given the
length of detailed reports. Allowing a file upload of detailed reports
in an alternate format allows facilities to provide data generated from
their DAS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As another burden-reducing measure, we have reduced the number of
notifications proposed to be uploaded into CEDRI. As proposed, an
electronic copy of all notifications required under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MM would have been required to be uploaded into CEDRI. Subpart
MM requires numerous notifications listed in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), as specified in Table 1 of
subpart MM. For example, facilities are required to notify their
delegated authority prior to conducting or rescheduling performance
tests, as well as in the event of a CMS performance evaluation.
Considering comments on electronic reporting in general, and after
reviewing the number of notifications, we revised the final rule to
only require upload of initial notifications required in 40 CFR
63.9(b), notifications of compliance status required in 40 CFR 63.9(h),
and the report of PM emission limits required in 40 CFR 63.867(b) to be
included in a notification of compliance status. This change focuses
CEDRI-reporting of notifications for subpart MM on key (non-routine)
notifications that will be the most informative in conjunction with
electronically submitted emissions test reports and semiannual reports.
Any of these notifications required after 2 years following the
effective date of the final rule would be required to be uploaded into
CEDRI in a user-specified file format. No specific form is being
designed for subpart MM notifications at this time.
    Excess emissions recordkeeping and reporting. We proposed
specifying in 40 CFR 63.867(c)(1) and (3) the reporting requirements
from the NESHAP General Provisions for the excess emissions and summary
reports. We believed that specifying the General Provision reporting
requirements for the proposed semiannual reports in 40 CFR part 63,
subpart MM would help eliminate confusion as to which report is
submitted (e.g., full excess emissions report or summary report) and
the content of the required report (81 FR 97080).
    The EPA's intent with the proposed revisions to 40 CFR 63.867(c)(1)
and (3) was to include the relevant language from 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) of
the General

Provisions specifying the contents of summary and detailed excess
emissions reports into 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM to improve clarity.
However, we received public comments indicating that duplicating the
relevant portions of 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) as proposed may have caused
some confusion. To remedy this confusion, we are splitting out the
paragraphs of 40 CFR 63.10(e) and 63.10(e)(3) in the General Provisions
applicability table (Table 1 to Subpart MM of Part 63) to more clearly
indicate which sections apply or are replaced by sections in subpart
MM. We are finalizing a revised version of 40 CFR 63.867(c)(1) that
removes the proposed references to paragraphs in 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3),
replaced by 40 CFR 63.867(c)(1). We are also noting in Table 1 that 40
CFR 63.867(c)(1) and (3) specify the contents of the summary and
detailed excess emissions reports. We are finalizing a revised version
of Sec.  63.867(c) that refers to the procedures in 40 CFR 63.867(d)(2)
and 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3)(v) for submittal of the semiannual excess
emission reports and summary reports.
    Section 63.10(e)(3)(v) continues to apply and is not being replaced
with language in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM. This section specifies the
delivery date for the report (i.e., post-marked by the 30th business
day following each calendar half) and general content for the report.
The final rule now relies on 40 CFR 63.10(e)(3)(v) for the requirement:
``When no excess emissions or exceedances of a parameter have occurred,
or a CMS has not been inoperative, out of control, repaired, or
adjusted, such information shall be stated in the report.''
    In addition, we are not finalizing the proposed requirement in 40
CFR 63.867(c)(3)(iii)(A)(2) to include in the detailed excess emissions
report the number of 6-minute opacity averages removed due to invalid
readings, to address a comment that including this provision could
imply that invalid opacity averages are periods of excess emissions.
The CMS performance summary portion of the summary and detail reports
provide sufficient information on the duration of invalid readings.
    We proposed to revise the recordkeeping requirements section in 40
CFR 63.866(d)(2) to require that sources record information on failures
to meet the applicable standard (81 FR 97081). We further proposed in
40 CFR 63.867(c)(4) to require reporting of this information in the
excess emissions report along with an estimate of emissions associated
with the failure. Multiple commenters objected to the proposed
requirement that would have required an emissions estimate in
association with opacity or parameter operating limits. The commenters
argued that attempting to quantify emissions that may theoretically
result from a violation of monitoring requirements would be extremely
burdensome, impracticable, and would result in over-reporting and
inaccurate emissions estimates. The commenters stated that, with a
large margin of compliance, a monitoring violation may not actually
result in emissions in excess of the applicable emission limit. They
recommended that this proposed language be revised.
    In response to this comment, we have revised the language in the
final rulemaking to require emissions estimates to be provided in the
semiannual report only for failures to meet ``emission limits,'' such
as the PM (HAP metal), methanol, or THC limits contained in 40 CFR part
63, subpart MM. Failures to meet emission limits are likely to be
discovered during periodic emissions tests, which provide a
quantitative means for estimating emissions. Failures also include
violations of opacity and parameter operating limits as specified in
Sec.  63.864(k)(2), which are required to be reported with the
corresponding number of failures, and the date, time, and duration of
each failure in the semiannual report. The final rule does not require
reporting of an emissions estimate associated with failure to meet an
opacity or parameter operating limit, but does require facilities to
maintain sufficient information to provide an emissions estimate if
such an estimate was requested by the Administrator.

G. Technical and Editorial Changes

    The EPA is finalizing as proposed (81 FR 97081) several technical
and editorial corrections on which we received no public comments,
including:
     Revisions throughout 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM to clarify
the location in 40 CFR part 60 of applicable EPA test methods;
     Revisions throughout 40 CFR part 63, subpart MM to update
the facility name for Cosmo Specialty Fibers;
     Revisions to the definitions section in 40 CFR 63.861 to:
    [cir] Remove the definition for ``black liquor gasification'' and
remove reference to black liquor gasification in the definitions for
``kraft recovery furnace,'' ``recovery furnace,'' ``semichemical
combustion unit,'' and ``soda recovery furnace'';
    [cir] Remove the SSM exemption from the definition for
``modification'';
    [cir] Clarify that the definition for ``particulate matter (PM)''
refers to filterable PM;
    [cir] Remove reference to use of one-half of the method detection
limit for non-detect Method 29 measurements within the definition of
``hazardous air pollutant (HAP) metals'';
    [cir] Change the definition for ``smelt dissolving tanks (SDT)'' to
refer to the singular ``smelt dissolving tank (SDT)'' to be consistent
with the use of the term in the rule; and
    [cir] Remove the definition for ``startup'' that pertains to the
former black liquor gasification system at Georgia-Pacific's facility
in Big Island, Virginia.
     Correction of a misspelling in 40 CFR 63.862(c).
     Revisions to multiple sections (40 CFR 63.863, 63.866, and
63.867) to remove reference to the former smelters and former black
liquor gasification system at Georgia-Pacific's facility in Big Island,
Virginia.
     Revisions to the monitoring requirements section in 40 CFR
63.864 to add reference to Performance Specification 1 (PS-1) in COMS
monitoring provisions and add incorporation by reference (IBR) for bag
leak detection systems.
     Revisions to the performance test requirements section in
40 CFR 63.865 to change the ambient oxygen concentration in Equations 7
and 8 from 21 percent to 20.9 percent to make subpart MM consistent
with the rest of the NESHAPs.
     Revision to the terminology in the delegation of authority
section in 40 CFR 63.868 to match the definitions in 40 CFR 63.90.
     Revisions to the General Provisions applicability table
(Table 1 to subpart MM of part 63) to align with those sections of the
General Provisions that have been amended or reserved over time.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, and Economic Impacts and Additional
Analyses Conducted

A. What are the affected sources?

    There are currently 107 major source pulp and paper mills operating
in the U.S. that conduct chemical recovery combustion operations,
including 97 kraft pulp mills, 1 soda pulp mill, 3 sulfite pulp mills,
and 6 stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. The existing affected source
regulated at kraft or soda pulp mills is each existing chemical
recovery system, defined as all existing DCE and NDCE recovery
furnaces, SDTs, and lime kilns. A DCE recovery furnace system is
defined to include the DCE recovery furnace and BLO system

at the pulp mill. New affected sources at kraft or soda pulp mills
include each new recovery furnace and associated SDT, and each new lime
kiln. Subpart MM of 40 CFR part 63 affected sources also include each
new or existing chemical recovery combustion unit located at a sulfite
pulp mill or at a stand-alone semichemical pulp mill.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

    At the current level of control, emissions of HAPs (HAP metals,
acid gases, and gaseous organic HAPs) are approximately 11,600 tpy.
Current emissions of PM (a surrogate pollutant for HAP metals) and
total reduced sulfur compounds (emitted by the same mechanism as
gaseous organic HAP) are approximately 23,200 tpy and 3,600 tpy,
respectively.
    The final amendments require all 107 mills subject to 40 CFR part
63, subpart MM to conduct periodic testing for their chemical recovery
combustion operations; 96 mills with recovery furnaces or lime kilns
equipped with ESP controls to meet more stringent opacity monitoring
allowances and comply with a requirement to maintain proper operation
of the ESP's AVC; and all 107 mills to operate without the SSM
exemption. The EPA estimates that the final changes to the opacity
monitoring allowances will result in no emissions reductions. We were
unable to quantify the specific emissions reductions associated with
periodic emissions testing or eliminating the SSM exemption, and we
expect no emissions reductions with the aforementioned ESP requirement.
Periodic testing will help facilities understand the emissions from and
performance of their processes and control systems, and will help to
identify potential issues that may otherwise go unnoticed, and thus,
providing benefit to both the facilities and to surrounding
populations. Eliminating the SSM exemption will reduce emissions by
requiring facilities to meet the applicable standards at all times.
    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, which include PM, carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur dioxide). Energy impacts include
the electricity and steam needed to operate control devices and other
equipment that would be required under this final rule. The EPA
estimates that the final changes to the opacity monitoring allowances
will result in no energy impacts or secondary emissions of criteria
pollutants. The EPA also expects no secondary air emissions impacts or
energy impacts from the other final requirements.
    For further information on these impacts, see the memorandum
titled, Revised Costs/Impacts of the Subpart MM Residual Risk and
Technology Review for Promulgation, available in the docket for this
action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).

C. What are the cost impacts?

    Costs associated with elimination of the startup and shutdown
exemption were estimated as part of the reporting and recordkeeping
costs and include time for re-evaluating previously developed SSM
record systems. Costs to transition to electronic excess emissions
reporting and adjust existing record systems for the revised opacity
monitoring allowances were also estimated as part of the reporting and
recordkeeping costs. Costs associated with periodic testing were
estimated for the 73 mills that do not already conduct periodic testing
and include the costs for EPA Method 5 filterable PM testing for kraft
and soda recovery furnaces, lime kilns, and SDTs and sulfite combustion
units; EPA Method 308 methanol testing for new kraft and soda recovery
furnaces; and EPA Method 25A THC testing for semichemical combustion
units. Costs associated with the requirement to maintain proper
operation of ESP AVC were estimated for the 96 mills with ESP-
controlled recovery furnaces and lime kilns and include only
recordkeeping costs, since existing ESPs are already expected to have
these systems. The EPA estimates the nationwide capital costs
associated with these new requirements to be $3.8 million and the
nationwide annual costs to be $0.97 million to $1.0 million per year at
3 percent and 7 percent interest rates, respectively.
    For further information on these costs, see the memorandum titled,
Revised Costs/Impacts of the Subpart MM Residual Risk and Technology
Review for Promulgation, available in the docket for this action
(Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).

D. What are the economic impacts?

    The economic impact analysis is designed to inform decision makers
about the potential economic consequences of a regulatory action. For
the final rule, the EPA performed a partial-equilibrium analysis of
national pulp and paper product markets to estimate potential paper
product market impacts, as well as consumer and producer welfare
impacts of the regulatory options.
    Across regulatory options, the EPA estimates market-level changes
in the paper and paperboard markets to be insignificant. For the final
rule, the EPA predicts national-level weighted average paper and
paperboard prices to increase about 0.01 percent, while total
production levels decrease less than 0.01 percent on average.
    In addition, the EPA performed a screening analysis for impacts on
small businesses by comparing estimated annualized engineering
compliance costs at the firm-level to firm sales. The screening
analysis found that the ratio of compliance cost to firm revenue falls
below 1 percent for the three small companies likely to be affected by
the final rule. For small firms, the minimum and maximum cost-to-sales
ratios are less than 1 percent.
    More information and details of this analysis are provided in the
technical document, titled Economic Impact Analysis for Final Revisions
to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants,
Subpart MM, for the Pulp and Paper Industry, available in the docket
for this final rule (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0741).

E. What are the benefits?

    We do not estimate any significant reductions in HAP emissions as a
result of these final amendments. However, the amendments will help to
improve the clarity of the rule, which will improve compliance and,
therefore, minimize emissions. Certain provisions also provide
operational flexibility with no increase in HAP emissions.

F. What analysis of environmental justice did we conduct?

    We examined the potential for any environmental justice issues that