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

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: January 12, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 9)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3179-3203]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12ja01-16]

[[Page 3179]]

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

Part IV

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

[[Page 3180]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6919-9]
RIN 2060-AI34

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 promulgates national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing sources used in
chemical recovery processes at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone
semichemical pulp mills. Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) that are
regulated by this final rule include gaseous organic HAP and HAP
metals. The adverse health effects of exposure to these HAP can include
cancer, reproductive and developmental effects, gastrointestinal
effects, damage to the nervous system, and irritation to the eyes,
skin, and respiratory system. Emissions of other pollutants from these
sources include particulate matter (PM), volatile organic compounds
(VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and
nitrogen oxides (NOX).
This final rule implements section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) and is based on the Administrator's determination that chemical
recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone
semichemical pulp mills are major sources of HAP emissions. The final
rule is intended to protect public health by requiring chemical
recovery combustion sources to meet standards reflecting the
application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) to
control HAP emissions from these sources. Implementation of this rule
will reduce emissions of HAP by approximately 2,500 megagrams per year
(Mg/yr) (2,700 tons per year (tpy)) and emissions of other pollutants
by approximately 107,900 Mg/yr (118,900 tpy).

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 13, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-94-67, containing information considered by EPA
in developing the promulgated standards, is available for public
inspection between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding Federal holidays, at the following address: U.S. EPA, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102), 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 260-7548. The docket is located
at the above address in room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information concerning
applicability and rule determinations, contact the appropriate State or
local agency representative. If no State or local representative is
available, contact the EPA Regional Office staff listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble. For information
concerning the analyses performed in developing this rule, contact Mr.
Jeff Telander, Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone number (919) 541-5427, facsimile number (919) 541-5600,
electronic mail address telander.jeff@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

Categories and entities potentially regulated by this action are
those kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills
with chemical recovery processes that involve the combustion of spent
pulping liquor. Categories and entities potentially regulated by this
action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category SIC code NAICS code entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry........................... 2611, 2621, 2631...... 32211, 32212, 32213... Kraft, soda, sulfite, and
stand-alone semichemical
pulp mills.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action,
you should examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.860 of the
final rule. If you have questions regarding the applicability of this
action to a particular entity, consult the appropriate EPA Regional
Office representative listed below:

U.S. EPA Region I--Director, Air Compliance Program; 1 Congress
Street; Suite 1100 (SEA); Boston, MA 02114-2023; Phone: (617) 918-
1650; Fax: (617) 918-1505.
U.S. EPA Region II--Air Compliance Branch; 290 Broadway; New
York, NY 10007; Phone: (212) 637-4080; Fax: (212) 637-3998.
U.S. EPA Region III--Chief, Air Enforcement Branch (3AP12); 1650
Arch Street; Philadelphia, PA 19103-2029; Phone: (215) 814-3438;
Fax: (215) 814-2134; Region III Office Website: http://www.epa.gov/
reg3artd/.
U.S. EPA Region IV--Air and Radiation Technology Branch; Atlanta
Federal Center; 61 Forsyth Street; Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3104;
Phone: (404) 562-9105; Fax: (404) 562-9095.
U.S. EPA Region V--Air Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Branch (AE-17J); 77 West Jackson Boulevard; Chicago, IL 60604-3590;
Phone: (312) 353-2088; Fax: (312) 353-8289.
U.S. EPA Region VI--Chief, Toxics Enforcement Section (6EN-AT);
1445 Ross Avenue; Dallas, TX 75202-2733; Phone: (214) 665-7224; Fax:
(214) 665-7446; Region VI Office Website: www.epa.gov/region6.
U.S. EPA Region VII--901 N. 5th Street; Kansas City, KS 66101;
Phone: (913) 551-7020; Fax: (913) 551-7844; http://www.epa.gov/
region07/programs/artd/air/toxics/airtox1.htm.
U.S. EPA Region VIII--Air Enforcement Program (8ENF-T); 999 18th
Street Suite 500; Denver, CO 80202; Phone: (303) 312-6312; Fax:
(303) 312-6409.
U.S. EPA Region IX--Air Division; 75 Hawthorne Street; San
Francisco, CA 94105; Phone: (415) 744-1219; Fax: (415) 744-1076.
U.S. EPA Region X--Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107); 1200 Sixth
Avenue; Seattle, WA 98101; Phone: (206) 553-4273; Fax: (206) 553-
0110.

Judicial Review

The NESHAP for chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda,
sulfite, and semichemical pulp mills was proposed on April 15, 1998 (63
FR 18783). Today's action announces EPA's final decisions on the rule.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the final rule
is available by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by March 13, 2001. Only
those objections to this rule which were raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment may be raised during
judicial review. Under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements
that are the subject of today's final rule may not be challenged later
in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these
requirements.

[[Page 3181]]

World Wide Web (WWW)

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
today's final rule will also be available on the WWW through the
Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the Administrator's
signature, a copy of the rule will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or final rules at http://www.epa.gov/
ttn/oarpg/t3pfpr.html. The TTN provides information and technology
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.

Outline

The following outline is provided to aid in reading this preamble
to the final rule.

I. Background and Public Participation
II. Summary of Final Rule
A. Applicability
B. Standards
C. Performance Test Requirements
D. Monitoring Requirements
E. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability
B. Definitions
C. Standards
D. Performance Test Requirements
E. Monitoring Requirements
F. Reporting Requirements
G. Delegation of Authority
IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments
V. Summary of Impacts
A. Air Quality Impacts
B. Cost Impacts
C. Economic Impacts
D. Benefits Analysis
E. Non-Air Environmental Impacts
F. Energy Impacts
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
I. Congressional Review Act

I. Background and Public Participation

Section 112 of the CAA requires EPA to list categories and
subcategories of major sources and area sources of HAP and to establish
NESHAP for the listed source categories and subcategories. Major
sources of HAP are those that have the potential to emit greater than
9.07 Mg/yr (10 tpy) of any one HAP or 22.68 Mg/yr (25 tpy) of any
combination of HAP.
Section 112 of the CAA requires that we establish NESHAP for the
control of HAP from both new and existing major sources. The CAA
requires the NESHAP to reflect the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of HAP that is achievable. This level of control is commonly
referred to as MACT.
The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and
is defined under section 112(d)(3) of the CAA. In essence, the MACT
floor ensures that the standard is set at a level that assures that all
major sources achieve the level of control at least as stringent as
that already achieved by the better-controlled and lower-emitting
sources in each source category or subcategory. For new sources, the
MACT floor cannot be less stringent than the emission control that is
achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar source. The MACT
standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards 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)
(CAA section 112(d)(3)).
In developing MACT, we also consider control options that are more
stringent than the floor. 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 (CAA section 112(d)(2)).
On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), we published a list of source
categories slated for regulation under section 112(c). That list
included the pulp and paper production source category regulated by the
standards being promulgated today. We proposed standards for chemical
recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone
semichemical pulp mills covered by this rule on April 15, 1998 (63 FR
18783).
As in the proposal, the final standards give existing sources 3
years from the date of promulgation to comply. Sources that begin
construction or reconstruction after April 15, 1998 must comply with
the standards for new sources by March 13, 2001 or upon startup,
whichever is later. We believe these standards to be achievable by
affected sources within the time provided.
Emissions limits, as well as monitoring, performance testing,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements are included in the final
rule. All of these components are necessary to ensure that sources
comply with the standards both initially and over time. However, we
have made every effort to simplify the requirements in the rule.
The preamble for the proposed standards described the rationale for
the proposed standards. Public comments were solicited at the time of
proposal. The public comment period lasted from April 15, 1998 to June
15, 1998. Industry representatives, regulatory agencies, environmental
groups, and the general public were given the opportunity to comment on
the proposed rule and to provide additional information during and
after the public comment period. Although we offered at proposal the
opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments
concerning the proposed rule, no one requested a hearing, and a hearing
was not held.
We received a total of 35 letters containing comments on the
proposed rule during and after the public comment period. Commenters
included individual pulp and paper companies, an industry trade
association, an environmental group, a local regulatory agency, an
association of State and local regulatory agencies, and an association
of air pollution control vendors. Today's final rule reflects our full
consideration of all of the comments received. Major public comments on
the proposed rule, along with our responses to those comments, are
summarized in this preamble. See the Summary of Public Comments and
Responses memorandum for a more detailed discussion of public comments
and our responses (docket No. A-94-67).

II. Summary of Final Rule

A. Applicability

The final rule applies to all existing and new kraft, soda,
sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills with chemical recovery
processes that involve the combustion of spent pulping liquor.
Specifically, the affected sources that are regulated by today's final
rule are each new nondirect contact evaporator (NDCE) recovery furnace
and associated smelt dissolving tank (SDT) located at a kraft or soda
pulp mill, each new direct contact evaporator (DCE) recovery furnace
system and associated SDT located at a kraft or soda pulp mill, each
new lime kiln located at a kraft or

[[Page 3182]]

soda pulp mill, each new or existing sulfite combustion unit located at
a sulfite pulp mill, each new or existing semichemical combustion unit
located at a stand-alone semichemical pulp mill, and each existing
chemical recovery system located at a kraft or soda pulp mill. The
chemical recovery system is defined as all existing DCE and NDCE
recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
All existing kraft and soda pulp mills have chemical recovery
processes that involve the combustion of spent pulping liquor. However,
several existing sulfite and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills do not
recover pulping chemicals by combusting spent liquor. Three of the 11
sulfite mills use a calcium-based sulfite process and do not have
chemical recovery combustion units and, thus, are not impacted by this
final rule. One of the 13 stand-alone semichemical pulp mills burns
spent liquor in a power boiler and does not have chemical recovery;
therefore, that mill also is not impacted by this final rule.

B. Standards

Today's final rule regulates HAP metals emissions and/or gaseous
organic HAP emissions for chemical recovery combustion sources in the
pulp and paper production source category. The promulgated standards
are summarized in Table 1.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 3183]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.000

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 3184]]

The standards for each subcategory are discussed in the following
sections by the pollutant regulated.
1. HAP Metals Standards for Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
Today's rule promulgates PM emissions limits as a surrogate for HAP
metals for new and existing recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns at
kraft and soda pulp mills. The PM emissions limits are established at
the MACT floor level. For existing kraft and soda recovery furnaces and
SDT, the MACT floor level corresponds (coincidentally) to the
promulgated PM emissions limits in the new source performance standards
(NSPS) for kraft pulp mills (43 FR 7568, February 23, 1978). We believe
this level best represents the level of performance achievable by the
average of the best-performing 12 percent of sources, considering
normal process and operating variability. For existing kraft and soda
lime kilns, the MACT floor level is more stringent than the NSPS
because data indicate that the average of the best-performing 12
percent of sources can achieve a more stringent level.
The final rule also allows the use of a ``bubble compliance
alternative'' for determining compliance with the HAP metals standards
for existing process units (i.e., recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime
kilns) in the chemical recovery system at kraft and soda pulp mills.
The bubble compliance alternative allows mills to set PM emissions
limits for each existing process unit in the chemical recovery system
at the mill such that, if these limits are met, the total emissions
from all existing process units are less than or equal to a mill-
specific bubble limit. This mill-specific bubble limit is calculated
based on the promulgated emissions standards (referred to in the rule
as reference concentrations or reference emissions rates) for each
process unit and mill-specific gas flow rates and process rates.
Equation 1 in Sec. 63.865(a)(1) of the final rule will be used to
calculate the bubble limit based on PM emissions.
As in the proposed rule, the bubble compliance alternative is not
applicable to new affected sources under this rulemaking. Thus, all new
affected sources at kraft and soda pulp mills are required to meet the
individual emissions limitations set for those sources. Also, owners or
operators of existing process units subject to the NSPS for kraft pulp
mills are required to continue to meet the PM emissions standards of
that rule, regardless of which option they choose for complying with
today's HAP metals standards (because that standard is a separate
regulatory requirement which remains in place).
Owners or operators that choose to comply with the HAP metals
standards using the bubble compliance alternative are required to
submit PM emissions limits to the Administrator for approval for each
existing kraft or soda recovery furnace, SDT, and lime kiln at the
mill. Before the PM emissions limits are approved, the owner or
operator must submit documentation demonstrating that if the PM
emissions limits for each emission source are met, the entire group of
process units in the chemical recovery system are in compliance with
the millwide allowable PM emission level. The allowable PM emission
level is determined from the applicable bubble equation using the
reference PM concentrations and reference PM emissions rates for each
process unit and source-specific factors for exhaust gas flow rates and
process rates. Once approved by the Administrator, the PM emissions
limits are incorporated in the operating permit for the mill.
Thereafter, the owner or operator of the kraft or soda pulp mill
demonstrates compliance with the standards by demonstrating that each
recovery furnace, SDT, and lime kiln emits less than or equal to the
approved PM emission limit for that process unit. In addition, the PM
emissions limits for any existing recovery furnace, SDT, or lime kiln
subject to the 1978 NSPS for kraft pulp mills must be at least as
stringent as the PM emissions limits established in the NSPS. An
example of how the bubble compliance alternative can be used to
establish PM emissions limits for process units in a chemical recovery
system at an example mill is provided in the administrative record
(Docket No. A-94-67).
With one exception, owners or operators that choose to comply with
the HAP metals standards using the bubble compliance alternative must
include all existing process units in a chemical recovery system in the
bubble. Any existing process unit that can be classified as a stand-by
unit (i.e., a process unit that operates for less than 6,300 hours
during any calendar year) cannot be included as part of a bubble.
Owners or operators of stand-by units must accept the promulgated PM
emissions limits shown in Table 1 for those units.
2. Gaseous Organic HAP Standards for Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
Today's rule promulgates a gaseous organic HAP standard for new
recovery furnaces using methanol as a surrogate for gaseous organic
HAP. All new recovery furnaces at kraft and soda pulp mills must meet a
gaseous organic HAP limit, as measured by methanol, of 0.012 kilogram
per megagram (kg/Mg) (0.025 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of black liquor
solids (BLS) fired. There are no gaseous organic HAP standards under
today's rule for existing NDCE recovery furnaces or DCE recovery
furnace systems.
3. HAP Metals Standards for Sulfite Pulp Mills
Today's rule promulgates PM emissions limits as a surrogate for HAP
metals for new and existing sulfite combustion units. Existing sulfite
combustion units must meet a PM emission limit of 0.092 gram per dry
standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.040 grain per dry standard cubic foot
(gr/dscf)) corrected to 8 percent oxygen. New sulfite combustion units
must meet a PM emission limit of 0.046 g/dscm (0.020 gr/dscf) corrected
to 8 percent oxygen.
4. Gaseous Organic HAP Standards for Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp
Mills
Today's rule promulgates gaseous organic HAP standards for existing
and new semichemical combustion units using total hydrocarbon (THC) as
a surrogate for gaseous organic HAP. All stand-alone semichemical pulp
mills with existing or new chemical recovery combustion units must
reduce gaseous organic HAP emissions (as measured by THC reported as
carbon) from these units by 90 percent, or meet a gaseous organic HAP
emission limit (as measured by THC reported as carbon) of 1.49 kg/Mg
(2.97 lb/ton) of BLS fired.

C. Performance Test Requirements

The following discussion identifies the test methods to be used for
compliance determinations.
Test Method 5, ``Determination of Particulate Emissions from
Stationary Sources'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A)--in conjunction with
a measurement of oxygen concentration in the stack gas using either
Test Method 3A, ``Determination of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide
Concentrations in Emissions from Stationary Sources (Instrumental
Analyzer Procedure)'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) or Test Method 3B,
``Gas Analysis for the Determination of Emission Rate Correction Factor
or Excess Air'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A)--is the test method for
determining compliance with the PM emissions limits for new and
existing kraft and soda recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns and for
new and existing sulfite combustion units. Test Method 29,
``Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary Sources'' (40 CFR
part

[[Page 3185]]

60, appendix A) may be used as an alternative to Test Method 5 for
measuring PM emissions. Test Method 17, ``Determination of Particulate
Emissions from Stationary Sources (In-Stack Filtration Method)'' (40
CFR part 60, appendix A) may also be used as an alternative to Test
Method 5 if a constant value of 0.009 g/dscm (0.004 gr/dscf) is added
to the results of Test Method 17, and the stack temperature is no
greater than 205 degrees Centigrade ( deg.C) (400 degrees Fahrenheit
( deg.F)).
Test Method 308, ``Procedure for Determination of Methanol
Emissions from Stationary Sources'' (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) is the
test method for determining compliance with the gaseous organic HAP
emission limit for new kraft and soda NDCE recovery furnaces that are
not equipped with dry electrostatic precipitator (ESP) systems and for
DCE recovery furnace systems.
Test Method 25A, ``Determination of Total Gaseous Organic
Concentration using a Flame Ionization Analyzer'' (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A) is the test method for determining compliance with the
gaseous organic HAP emission limit for new and existing combustion
units at stand-alone semichemical pulp mills.

D. Monitoring Requirements

Each owner or operator of an affected source or process unit must
install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a continuous monitoring
system for each affected source or process unit. The owner or operator
also must establish a range of values for each operating parameter
(associated with a process operation or with an emission control
device) to be monitored based upon values recorded during the initial
performance test or during qualifying previous performance tests using
the required test methods. If values from previous performance tests
are used to establish the operating parameter range, the owner or
operator must certify that the control devices and processes had not
been modified subsequent to the testing upon which the data used to
establish the operating ranges were obtained. The owner or operator may
conduct multiple performance tests to establish ranges of operating
parameters. The owner or operator also may establish expanded or
replacement ranges during subsequent performance tests. An exceedance
of the operating parameters occurs when the measured operating
parameter levels, averaged over a specified time period, are outside
the established range for a predetermined duration. However, with the
exception of opacity exceedances, no more than one exceedance would be
attributed to an affected source or process unit during any given 24-
hour period. The following paragraphs describe the operating parameters
to be monitored, the averaging periods and frequency with which these
parameters should be monitored, when corrective action is required to
return operating parameters to levels that are within the established
range, and when operating parameter exceedances constitute a violation
of the emissions standards.
Owners or operators of existing kraft or soda recovery furnaces
that are equipped with an ESP for PM control must install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS). The
COMS must perform at least one cycle of sampling and analysis for each
successive 10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each
successive 6-minute period. If the average of ten consecutive 6-minute
average values of opacity exceeds 20 percent, the owner or operator
must initiate the corrective actions contained in the mill's startup,
shutdown, and malfunction (SSM) plan. A violation of the applicable
emissions standards would occur when opacity is greater than 35 percent
for 6 percent or more of the operating time during any quarterly
period.
Owners or operators of new kraft or soda recovery furnaces and new
or existing kraft or soda lime kilns that are equipped with ESP for PM
control must also install, calibrate, maintain, and operate COMS. The
COMS must perform at least one cycle of sampling and analysis for each
successive 10-second period and one cycle of data recording for each
successive 6-minute period. If the average of ten consecutive 6-minute
average values of opacity exceeds 20 percent, the owner or operator
must initiate the corrective actions contained in the facility's SSM
plan. A violation of the applicable emissions standards would occur
when opacity is greater than 20 percent for 6 percent or more of the
operating time during any quarterly period.
Owners or operators using wet scrubbers to meet the PM emissions
limits for any kraft or soda recovery furnace, SDT, or lime kiln or any
sulfite combustion unit must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
a continuous monitoring system capable of determining and recording the
pressure drop and scrubbing liquid flow rate at least once for each
successive 15-minute period. If any 3-hour average of the pressure drop
or scrubbing liquid flow rate falls outside the established range, the
owner or operator must initiate the corrective actions included in the
facility's SSM plan. A violation of the applicable emissions standards
occurs when six or more 3-hour average values of either parameter are
outside the established range during any 6-month reporting period.
Owners or operators using regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO) to
comply with the gaseous organic HAP emission standard for chemical
recovery combustion units at stand-alone semichemical mills must
establish a minimum RTO operating temperature that indicates at least a
90 percent reduction in HAP emissions (as measured by THC reported as
carbon), or outlet HAP emissions (as measured by THC reported as
carbon) of less than or equal to 1.49 kg/Mg (2.97 lb/ton) of BLS fired.
To ensure ongoing compliance, the owner or operator must install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a monitoring system to measure and
record the RTO operating temperature for each successive 15-minute
period. If any 1-hour average of the operating temperature falls below
the minimum established temperature, the owner or operator must
initiate the corrective actions contained in the facility's SSM plan. A
violation of the applicable emissions standards occurs when any 3-hour
average of the RTO operating temperature falls below the minimum
established temperature.
The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit that
uses a wet scrubber, ESP, or RTO to comply with today's standards may
monitor alternative operating parameters subject to prior written
approval by the Administrator, as specified in Sec. 63.8(f).
The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit that is
complying with today's standards through operational changes or by a
control device other than those described above must submit a plan
proposing parameters to be monitored, parameter ranges, and monitoring
frequencies to be used to determine ongoing compliance, subject to
approval by the Administrator. If any 3-hour average value of a
monitored parameter falls outside the established range, the owner or
operator must initiate the corrective actions included in the
facility's SSM plan. A violation of the emissions standards occurs when
six or more 3-hour average values of a monitored parameter are outside
the established range during any 6-month reporting period.
Owners or operators complying with the gaseous organic HAP standard
for new kraft and soda recovery furnaces through the use of an NDCE
recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system are not required to
perform any continuous parameter monitoring for

[[Page 3186]]

gaseous organic HAP. However, each owner or operator must maintain
onsite a certification statement signed by a responsible mill official
that an NDCE recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system is in use.

E. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements

In addition to all of the recordkeeping and reporting requirements
outlined in Sec. 63.10, owners or operators of kraft, soda, sulfite,
and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills must maintain the following
records for each affected source or process unit: Records of the BLS
firing rates for all recovery furnaces at kraft and soda pulp mills and
spent liquor solids firing rates for all chemical recovery combustion
units at sulfite and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills, records of
the lime production rates (calculated as calcium oxide) for all kraft
and soda lime kilns, records of all parameter monitoring data, records
and documentation of supporting calculations for compliance
determinations, records of the established monitoring parameter ranges
for each affected source or process unit, and records of all
certifications made in order to determine compliance with the gaseous
organic HAP standards. Consistent with requirements in the NESHAP
General Provisions in subpart A of 40 CFR part 63 and the operating
permit program in 40 CFR part 70, all records must be maintained for a
minimum of 5 years.

III. Summary of Changes Since Proposal

A. Applicability

At proposal, we defined affected source as each kraft and soda NDCE
recovery furnace and associated SDT, each kraft and soda DCE recovery
furnace and associated SDT, each kraft and soda lime kiln, each sulfite
combustion unit, and each semichemical combustion unit. However, this
definition would have prevented mills from averaging emissions of HAP
metals or the PM surrogate for HAP metals across their existing
recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns (a bubble compliance alternative
which we proposed). To allow averaging across these existing emission
points, we have revised the definition of affected source to include
existing NDCE recovery furnaces, DCE recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime
kilns as process units within a chemical recovery system affected
source.
As in the proposed rule, new sources are not eligible for the
bubble compliance alternative under this rulemaking, given that state-
of-the-art equipment design and add-on controls can be integrated and
installed most cost-effectively during construction of new sources. New
sources can be designed and constructed with maximized compliance in
mind. Also, sources classified as new by virtue of being reconstructed
can be reconstructed with maximized compliance in mind. Therefore, we
have not revised the definition of affected source for new sources.
Each new kraft and soda recovery furnace and associated SDT, and each
new kraft and soda lime kiln will continue to be defined as an affected
source by itself.

B. Definitions

Because of the changes in definition of affected source in the
final rule, we have added definitions for ``chemical recovery system''
and ``process unit'' to Sec. 63.861 in the final rule. Chemical
recovery system is defined as all existing DCE and NDCE recovery
furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns at a kraft or soda pulp mill. Process
unit is defined as an existing DCE or NDCE recovery furnace, SDT, or
lime kiln in a chemical recovery system at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
To take into account the development of gasification technology as
a replacement for conventional recovery furnace systems, we have added
a definition for ``black liquor gasification'' to Sec. 63.861 in the
final rule. Black liquor gasification is defined as the thermochemical
conversion of black liquor into a combustible gaseous product. For the
same reason, we also have revised the definitions for ``recovery
furnace,'' ``kraft recovery furnace,'' ``semichemical combustion
unit,'' and ``soda recovery furnace'' to include black liquor
gasification.
In order to eliminate any confusion with the term ``PM,'' we have
replaced the term ``PM HAP'' with ``HAP metals'' throughout the final
rule. Therefore, the definition for ``HAP metals'' in Sec. 63.861 of
today's rule replaces the definition for ``PM HAP.''

C. Standards

In the proposed rule, we included a standard whereby existing kraft
and soda lime kilns must ensure that the concentration of PM in the
exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere is less than or equal to
0.15 g/dscm (0.067 gr/dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen. We have
decided not to promulgate this PM standard because this proposed
standard does not reflect the performance of MACT (i.e., the surrogate
PM emissions levels achievable by the best-performing lime kilns, which
are controlled by ESP). We have revised the PM standard for existing
lime kilns in the final rule to be equivalent to the revised HAP metals
MACT floor PM level of 0.15 g/dscm (0.064 gr/dscf) corrected to 10
percent oxygen. (There is also a bubble compliance alternative,
whereby, as explained earlier, PM emissions from the recovery furnace,
SDT, and lime kiln could in essence be summed so long as the summed
emissions are no greater than the sum of the otherwise-applicable MACT
emission standard for each unit.)
The proposed rule included a compliance option whereby existing
kraft and soda recovery furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns could meet a
standard for individual HAP metals, rather than for the PM surrogate
for HAP metals (63 FR 18758, 18765, and 18769, April 15, 1998; proposed
Sec. 63.862). We have decided not to promulgate this alternative HAP
metals standard because this proposed standard does not reflect the
performance of MACT (i.e., the HAP metals emissions levels achievable
by the best-performing sources) and also because it would have other
significant technical deficiencies. (See docket No. A-94-67.)
(Necessarily, we also are not promulgating the bubble compliance
alternative associated with this HAP metals option.)

D. Performance Test Requirements

To correct an oversight in the proposed rule, we have added an
oxygen correction equation for volumetric gas flow rates to the final
rule under new Sec. 63.865(b)(4). The equation will be used to correct
gas streams to the same oxygen content as the associated emission limit
(e.g., 8 percent oxygen for recovery furnaces, 10 percent oxygen for
lime kilns). For the same reason, we also revised the PM emission limit
equations for the bubble compliance alternative in paragraphs (a)(1),
(2)(i), and (2)(iii) of Sec. 63.865 for the final rule to reflect the
oxygen correction for volumetric gas flow rates. Because SDT exhaust
conditions already approximate ambient air conditions, we have removed
the oxygen correction in the PM emission limit equation for SDT in
Sec. 63.865(a)(2)(ii) from the final rule. We have also clarified the
oxygen correction equation in Sec. 63.865(b)(2), which is used to
correct PM concentrations, for the final rule.

E. Monitoring Requirements

In order to account for any recovery furnaces that might use a wet
scrubber, we have revised the wet scrubber monitoring provisions in
Sec. 63.864(a)(2), (c)(1)(ii), and (c)(2)(ii) for the final rule

[[Page 3187]]

to include kraft or soda recovery furnaces. We have clarified the
opacity corrective action provisions in Sec. 63.864(c)(1)(i) of the
final rule to state that affected sources or process units are required
to implement corrective action when the average of ten consecutive 6-
minute averages results in a measurement greater than 20 percent
opacity. We also have revised the opacity violation provisions in
Sec. 63.864(c)(2)(i) and (ii) to clarify in the final rule that a
violation of the applicable emission standard would occur when the
opacity is greater than the specified level for 6 percent or more of
the operating time in any quarterly period.

F. Reporting Requirements

We have revised the excess emissions reporting provisions of
Sec. 63.867(c) for the final rule to clarify that reporting excess
emissions below the violation thresholds of Sec. 63.864(c) does not
constitute a violation of the applicable standard.

G. Delegation of Authority

We have revised the delegation of authority provisions in
Sec. 63.868 for the final rule to include the following authorities
which will be retained by the Administrator and not transferred to a
State: Approval of alternatives to standards in Sec. 63.862 under
Sec. 63.6(g), approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90, approval of
major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) and as defined in
Sec. 63.90, and approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and
reporting under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90. These
authorities are retained because any requests by sources for
alternative standards must be considered by EPA and acted upon in a
notice and comment rulemaking. We cannot delegate authorities that may
alter the stringency of the standard, that require Federal oversight
for national consistency, or that may require Federal rulemaking.
Requests to revise standards for the source category (or portions
thereof) must be addressed through the subpart E rulemaking process for
alternative standards.

IV. Summary of Responses to Major Comments

This section summarizes the major comments we received on the
proposed rule and our responses to those comments. A more comprehensive
summary of comments and responses can be found in docket No. A-94-67.
Comment: Commenters questioned the proposed MACT floor of ``no
control'' for gaseous organic HAP emissions from existing NDCE recovery
furnaces and stated that the performance of dry ESP systems should be
the basis of the MACT floor for gaseous organic HAP emissions from
existing NDCE recovery furnaces. One commenter provided a list of 13
NDCE recovery furnaces equipped with dry ESP systems, which is a
sufficient number of recovery furnaces to define the MACT floor. A
commenter also noted that wet to dry ESP system conversion is a cost-
effective control option.
Response: We are not basing the MACT floor for existing NDCE
recovery furnaces on this technology for the following reasons. We have
concluded that existing NDCE recovery furnaces do not represent the
``best'' or ``maximum achievable'' technology. It is possible that
black liquor gasification is a means of reducing gaseous organic HAP
emissions from chemical recovery operations that provides environmental
benefits (notably energy savings) which are superior to those provided
by NDCE recovery furnaces (whether equipped with wet or dry ESP
systems). Compared with NDCE recovery furnace performance, development
of the proposed gasification technology promises reduced consumption of
fossil fuel, increased efficiency in energy conversion and chemical
recovery, elimination of the smelt-water explosion hazard (inherent to
the operation of conventional recovery furnaces), reduced maintenance
costs, and significantly lower environmental emissions of criteria
pollutants (PM, SO2, NOX, VOC precursors to
ozone, and CO) and greenhouse gases (63 FR 26607, May 8, 2000, Proposed
Final Project Agreement for Georgia-Pacific XL Project).
Because gasification systems do not require the use of an ESP, the
costs that would be incurred by converting a wet ESP system to a dry
ESP system are not recoverable if the NDCE recovery furnace is replaced
with a gasification system. Therefore, if we require existing NDCE
recovery furnaces with wet ESP systems by virtue of a MACT floor to
retrofit to dry ESP systems, we would tend to eliminate the incentive
for the industry to replace the NDCE recovery furnaces with
gasification systems before the end of the useful life of the dry ESP
systems. Thus, it is our view that a MACT floor requirement which
results in retrofitting to dry ESP systems would create disincentives
that would discourage possible conversion to the even more promising
gasification technology, so that such a requirement need not be
considered to be ``MACT.'' See Portland Cement Ass'n v. EPA, 486 F.2d
375, 385 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Essex Chemical Corp. v. Ruckelshaus, 486
F.2d 427, 439 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (in establishing technology-based
standards, EPA must consider counter-productive effects of a control
technology in determining whether it is a ``best'' technology).
In a related matter, there is a further question as to whether
existing DCE recovery furnaces should be subject to MACT floor or
beyond-the-floor standards for gaseous organic HAP. We considered
whether to require conversion of DCE recovery furnace systems to NDCE
recovery furnaces with dry ESP systems as a beyond-the-floor standard.
The capital costs of this retrofitting would be in the billions of
dollars and would not be justified by the amount of HAP removed.
Moreover, we do not view NDCE recovery furnaces with dry ESP systems as
MACT for existing DCE recovery furnaces because it would create the
same disincentives for conversion to gasification just discussed,
including potentially foregoing significant energy-saving
opportunities. (See CAA section 112(d)(2), which includes energy
impacts as a relevant consideration in beyond-the-floor
determinations.) Consequently, we are not adopting a beyond-the-floor
standard for DCE recovery furnaces.
It would also be highly anomalous to adopt a MACT floor based on
the performance of NDCE recovery furnaces with dry ESP systems, for the
following reason. As explained above, we are not adopting a beyond-the-
floor standard for existing DCE recovery furnaces, and the MACT floor
for existing DCE recovery furnaces is ``no control.'' This would yield
the result that a MACT floor determination would apply only to NDCE
recovery furnaces--the better-performing furnace type. Hence the
anomaly--the only type of existing recovery furnace to incur regulatory
costs would be the better-performing NDCE recovery furnaces. Although,
as also explained above, we currently do not view gaseous organic HAP
control of existing NDCE or DCE recovery furnaces as MACT in order to
preserve incentives for conversion of the furnaces to gasification
systems, in determining that there should be no further control of
these units under CAA section 112(d) at the present time, we are also
swayed by avoiding the anomaly of controlling only NDCE recovery
furnaces.
We also note that the new source standard for recovery furnaces
reflects the performance of NDCE recovery furnaces equipped with dry
ESP systems. We could not base the standard

[[Page 3188]]

on the performance of gasification at this time because accurate data
documenting performance on pulp and paper combustion sources do not yet
exist. Obtaining accurate performance data on gasification systems is
one of the purposes of the proposed Final Project Agreement for the
Georgia-Pacific XL Project (63 FR 26607, May 8, 2000). In any case, we
also do not believe that this standard poses the same potential to
discourage use of gasification. First, we expect that sources using
gasification technology will be able to meet the standard. Second, we
are prepared to exercise flexibility as to compliance dates for any new
source basing its compliance on use of gasification technology,
consistent with the statute (63 FR 26607, May 8, 2000).
Comment: Several commenters objected to the proposed beyond-the-
floor MACT standard for gaseous organic HAP emissions from existing
semichemical combustion units that are not fluidized-bed reactors.
Commenters also claimed that the proposed emission limit is not
supportable for some types of chemical recovery combustion units, such
as recovery furnaces.
Response: We disagree with the commenters. Based on available
emissions data and our RTO cost estimates, RTO represent a cost-
effective control strategy for meeting the proposed gaseous organic HAP
emissions limits. (See docket No. A-94-67.)
Comment: A commenter provided data for kraft and soda recovery
furnaces, SDT, and lime kilns which the commenter believes show a lack
of correlation between outlet emissions of PM and outlet emissions of
HAP metals. According to the commenter, variations in raw materials and
processes have a greater effect on uncontrolled HAP metals emissions,
and, therefore, controlled emissions, than the type of control device
used. According to the commenter, there is not a straight correlation
between reducing PM and reducing HAP metals.
Response: Regarding the commenter's suggestion that there is a lack
of statistical correlation between HAP metals emissions and PM
emissions, we agree that the ratio of the mass of HAP metals to the
total mass of PM emitted varies from source to source. Additionally,
the amount of HAP metals in PM at each source varies. We do not agree
with the commenters' assertion that PM is an inappropriate surrogate
for particulate HAP metals emissions. Hazardous air pollutant metals
are a component of PM, and control devices designed for PM removal also
remove particulate HAP metals at a similar rate. Therefore, emission
control efficiencies, determined by measuring emissions at both the
inlet and the outlet of the control device, are similar for both PM and
particulate HAP metals. Outlet PM emissions are a good indicator of the
performance of the control device, and there is no doubt that PM is an
appropriate surrogate for particulate HAP metals.
Also, after reviewing available HAP metals emissions data, we
conclude that there are insufficient data to establish numerical HAP
metals emissions limits that reflect MACT. Consequently, we have chosen
not to promulgate the proposed numerical HAP metals emissions limits
and the associated HAP metals bubble compliance alternative.
Comment: A number of commenters objected to the proposed emissions
limits for PM (as a surrogate for HAP metals) for existing sources.
Commenters suggested that the PM emissions limits be recalculated using
additional PM emissions data because they believe that many units
operate well below the emissions levels selected for the proposed MACT
floors. Commenters also took issue with our using the PM standards in
the NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills as the basis for the HAP metals MACT
floors for existing kraft and soda combustion sources and noted that we
failed to account for the fact that the technology reflected in the
NSPS for Kraft Pulp Mills is an old technology and that numerous
sources are achieving emissions reductions well beyond the NSPS.
Response: We disagree with the commenters regarding their
objections to the proposed PM emissions limits for existing kraft and
soda recovery furnaces and SDT. We believe that the MACT floor PM
emissions limits for recovery furnaces and SDT are justified due to the
variability in PM emissions from these sources and the uncertainties
about why the same types of control equipment perform at different
levels under comparable circumstances. Therefore, we believe that the
standards in the final rule reasonably reflect the level of performance
achievable in practice by the average of the best-performing 12 percent
of sources.
For existing lime kilns, the control devices that we thought were
representative of the HAP metals MACT floor were ESP, high-efficiency
venturi scrubbers, and ESP and scrubbers in combination. However, lime
kilns equipped with ESP consistently show lower PM emissions than lime
kilns equipped with scrubbers, and it is apparent that there are a
sufficient number of lime kilns equipped with ESP to be representative
of the HAP metals MACT floor. (That is, sufficient numbers of sources
are equipped with ESP such that the level of performance of a lime kiln
equipped with an ESP represents the level of performance achievable by
the average of the best-performing 12 percent of existing kraft and
soda lime kilns.) Therefore, today's action corrects that error and
recalculates the PM emission limitation achievable by the technology
that represents the MACT floor for existing lime kilns based on the
performance of a lime kiln equipped with a properly designed and
operated ESP.
Based on available data from monthly and annual compliance tests,
lime kilns equipped with ESP can achieve PM emissions as low as 0.0023
g/dscm (0.001 gr/dscf) and as high as 0.15 g/dscm (0.064 gr/dscf) at 10
percent oxygen. To account for this variability in PM emissions from
lime kiln ESP, we are setting the HAP metals MACT floor for existing
lime kilns at 0.15 g/dscm (0.064 gr/dscf) at 10 percent oxygen, which
is slightly less than the proposed HAP metals MACT floor of 0.15 g/dscm
(0.067 gr/dscf) at 10 percent oxygen.
The best-performing lime kiln ESP (which represents MACT for HAP
metals for new lime kilns) is more than twice the size (i.e., has twice
the specific collecting area) of typical lime kiln ESP, and its
performance remains the basis for the new source MACT standard.
Therefore, today's action does not differ from the proposed standard
for HAP metals for new lime kilns.

V. Summary of Impacts

A. Air Quality Impacts

At the current level of control, emissions of HAP (HAP metals and
gaseous organic HAP) are approximately 20,400 Mg/yr (22,500 tpy), and
emissions of other pollutants (PM, VOC, CO, SO2,
NOX) are approximately 507,100 Mg/yr (559,000 tpy).
Implementation of today's final rule is expected to reduce emissions of
HAP, PM, VOC, CO, and SO2, and slightly increase emissions
of NOX. The EPA estimates that emissions of HAP will be
reduced by approximately 2,500 Mg/yr (2,700 tpy) and emissions of other
pollutants by approximately 107,900 Mg/yr (118,900 tpy).

B. Cost Impacts

The estimated capital cost of control for today's final rule is
$241 million (1997$) and includes the cost to purchase and install both
the control equipment and monitoring equipment. Most (89 percent) of
the capital cost can be attributed to the PM controls for

[[Page 3189]]

kraft, soda, and sulfite combustion units.
The estimated annual cost of the rule is $32.2 million/yr (1997$)
and accounts for the year-to-year operating expenses associated with
the control equipment and the monitoring equipment, in addition to the
capital recovery expense associated with the equipment purchases. Most
(79 percent) of the annual cost can be attributed to the PM controls
for kraft, soda, and sulfite combustion units.
The total average costs for annual recordkeeping and reporting
activities required by the final rule are estimated to be $962,600/yr
(1997$) through the third year after the effective date and $5.4
million/yr (1997$) through the third year after the compliance date.
These capital and annualized cost estimates are intended to
represent the maximum expected costs of the NESHAP and do not account
for the potential cost savings achieved by mills that will successfully
use the bubble compliance alternative.

C. Economic Impacts

This section presents a summary of EPA's evaluation of the economic
impacts of today's final rule. A more detailed analysis of the economic
impacts of this rule, as well as the recently promulgated NESHAP for
noncombustion pulp and paper sources (i.e., MACT I and MACT III) and
promulgated effluent limitation guidelines, is discussed in the
Economic Analysis for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category--Phase 1
(DCN 14649; hereafter, the Economic Analysis, or EA). The EPA estimates
that the pulp and paper industry will incur total capital costs of $240
million (1997$) under the final rule. Overall, EPA projects total
annualized compliance expenditures of $30 million (1997$).
Price increases of less than 0.5 percent are anticipated for
bleached papergrade kraft and soda, dissolving kraft, dissolving
sulfite, papergrade sulfite, and semichemical pulps and products. A
price increase of 1.4 percent is expected for unbleached kraft pulps.
Based on our economic modeling of the impacts of such changes, we do
not anticipate any facility closures nor firm failures as a result of
compliance with this final rule. In addition, we expect that production
decreases, employment changes, and impacts on international trade will
be minimal.

D. Benefits Analysis

Implementation of today's final rule is expected to reduce
emissions of HAP, PM, VOC, CO, and SO2, while it is expected
to slightly increase emissions of NOX. Such pollutants can
potentially cause adverse health effects and can have welfare effects,
such as impaired visibility and reduced crop yields. In the benefits
analysis, we have not conducted detailed air quality modeling to
evaluate the magnitude and extent of the potential impacts from
individual pulp and paper facilities. Nevertheless, to the extent that
emissions from these facilities cause adverse effects, this final rule
would mitigate such impacts.
1. Qualitative Description of Pollutant Effects
This final rule is designed to reduce the emissions of HAP, as
defined in section 112 of the CAA. Several of these HAP are classified
as known, probable, or possible human carcinogens. They have also been
shown to cause other adverse health effects, such as damage to the eye,
central nervous system, liver, kidney, and respiratory system depending
upon the exposures to these emissions. The types of studies in which
these various effects have been reported include: (1) Epidemiological
studies of health effects occurring in human populations (e.g., the
general population, or workers exposed in the workplace), (2) case
reports that document human exposure incidents (e.g., accidental
releases or poisonings), (3) carefully controlled laboratory exposures
of volunteer human subjects, and (4) laboratory studies on animals.
Emissions of VOC and NOX interact in the presence of
sunlight to create ground-level ozone. Recent scientific evidence shows
an association between elevated ozone concentrations and increases in
hospital admissions for a variety of respiratory illnesses and
indicates that ground-level ozone not only affects people with impaired
respiratory systems (such as asthmatics), but healthy adults and
children as well. Adverse welfare effects of ozone exposure include
damage to crops, tree seedlings, ornamentals (shrubs, grass, etc.), and
forested ecosystems.
The reactions between VOC and NOX to form ozone depend
on the balance in concentrations of each pollutant found in the ambient
air. For example, when the concentration of NOX is high
relative to the concentration of VOC, VOC reductions are effective in
limiting ozone formation, while NOX reductions in that
situation are ineffective. This rule is expected to increase
NOX emissions slightly, but also decrease VOC emissions. The
increase in NOX under this rule is not expected to cause
significant adverse health or welfare impacts because the magnitude of
the NOX increase (less than 500 Mg/yr) is very small
relative to the total NOX inventory.
The VOC emission reductions from this rule occur primarily in rural
attainment areas. These areas tend to be NOX limited;
therefore, VOC reductions are not expected to affect ozone
concentrations. The low-end estimate of VOC benefits relates to
emissions reductions (3,400 Mg/yr) occurring in ozone nonattainment
areas. Since ozone nonattainment areas are typically urban areas that
are VOC limited, these emissions reductions are likely to be effective
in limiting ozone formation. The high-end of the range of VOC benefits
includes all VOC emissions reductions (31,000 Mg/yr) expected to occur
for this rule. This estimate is included to account for the uncertainty
as to whether specific rural areas are NOX limited.
Exposure to PM has been associated with the following adverse human
health effects: Premature mortality, aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, changes in lung function and increased
respiratory symptoms, alterations in lung tissue and structure, and
altered respiratory tract defense mechanisms. In general, exposed
populations at greater risk from these effects are the following:
individuals with respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease,
individuals with infectious disease, elderly individuals, asthmatic
individuals, and children. Reduced welfare is associated with elevated
concentrations of fine particles, which reduce visibility, damage
materials, and cause soiling. The reductions in PM emissions under this
rule (approximately 21,000 Mg/yr) are intended to decrease the adverse
effects of PM, to the extent that populations or scenic destinations
are located within pollutant transport distance of pulp and paper
facilities.
Carbon monoxide is a colorless, odorless gas that is toxic to
mammals. When inhaled, it combines with hemoglobin, which reduces the
oxygen-carrying capacity of blood and results in less oxygen being
transported to vital organs of the body. This can have detrimental
effects on the cardiovascular and central nervous systems. There are
numerous studies that support the association between ambient CO levels
and adverse health effects which have been cited in the Air Quality
Criteria Document for Carbon Monoxide (EPA Document No. 600/P-99/001F,
June 2000). The reduction of

[[Page 3190]]

CO emissions under this rule is intended to diminish these potential
effects.
Sulfur dioxide oxidizes in water to form both sulfurous and
sulfuric acids. When SO2 dissolves in the atmosphere in
rain, fog, or snow, the acidity of the deposition can corrode various
materials and cause damage to both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Sulfur dioxide can also transform into PM2.5, (i.e.,
particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to
2.5 micrometers). Emissions of SO2 are reduced slightly (20
Mg/yr) under this rule.
2. Monetized Air Quality Benefits
We used a benefit transfer method to value a subset of the
emissions reductions for the MACT II rule. Monetized benefit values are
estimated for only VOC, SO2, and PM emissions reductions
expected to result from this rule. This method relies on a benefits
analysis conducted for the Ozone and PM national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). The benefits analysis conducted for the NAAQS
involves the same pollutants that are impacted by this pulp and paper
rulemaking, and we assume the values from the NAAQS analysis are
applicable to this final rule. The NAAQS analysis valued the national-
level benefits achieved from a single, ``representative'' year under a
new set of standards. The benefits (in dollars) per ton of reduction of
each pollutant were then applied to the projected reductions of the
same pollutants under this final rule.
We assume that the relationship of emission changes with the health
and welfare effects associated with the NAAQS-estimated ozone and PM
concentrations correspond to the projected changes in emissions from
pulp and paper mills. No air quality modeling was conducted to evaluate
potential changes in human exposure under the rule, so the actual
magnitude and timing of human health benefits are unknown.
In some cases, we did consider the location of mills when applying
the NAAQS benefits per ton figures. For VOC monetized benefits, a low-
end estimate included emissions only in ozone nonattainment areas,
which was compared to a high-end estimate that used all VOC emissions.
For SO2, the benefit transfer values differed between mills
located in the eastern and western portions of the United States. Some
benefit categories were not monetized at all, due to a lack of
sufficient data. Nevertheless, the largest monetized benefits are
derived from PM reductions, for which we used nationwide emission
estimates and assume that the distributions of exposed populations from
the ozone and PM studies are similar to those exposed to pulp and paper
mill emissions.
The EPA estimates that the rule would reduce HAP emissions by
approximately 2,500 Mg/yr; VOC emissions by approximately 31,000 Mg/yr
(3,400 Mg/yr in ozone nonattainment areas); CO emissions by 56,000 Mg/
yr; PM emissions by approximately 21,000 Mg/yr; and SO2
emissions by 20 Mg/yr; and increase NOX emissions by
approximately 500 Mg/yr. Based upon the previously discussed emissions
reductions, we estimate that the monetary benefits of the rule range
between $280 million and $370 million (1997$) for a representative
year.
This rule is expected to result in reductions in PM emissions for
particles of varying sizes. We expect most PM reductions to be in the
size range of PM10 and below. This assumption is based upon
the fact that existing chemical recovery process sources typically have
PM controls in place which have removed most of the large particles
associated with uncontrolled emissions. However, it is likely that a
small fraction of emissions reductions will be for particles above
PM10. Reductions in emissions of particle sizes greater than
10 micrometers may not result in the same benefits as particles of
sizes less than 10 micrometers. As such, PM-related benefits reported
for this rule represent an upper-bound estimate on the applicable PM
emissions reductions.
These figures suggest that the benefits of today's final rule may
be significantly greater than the projected costs. Chapter 4 of the EA
presents a detailed description of the methodology used to monetize the
benefits of the rule.

E. Non-Air Environmental Impacts

The quantity of PM collected will increase when recovery furnace PM
control devices are upgraded or replaced to comply with today's final
HAP metals standards. However, no increases in solid waste disposal are
expected because existing mills have sufficient capacity within the
chemical recovery process to recycle the additional PM collected.
If owners or operators choose to replace wet scrubbers with ESP to
comply with the HAP metals standard for lime kilns, the generation of
wastewater will be reduced. The significance of the reduction in
wastewater will depend on whether the scrubber discharge had previously
been recycled and reused. If wet scrubbers are replaced by ESP (and
there was no prior recycle or reuse of scrubber discharge), EPA
estimates that wastewater discharge will decrease nationwide by about
35 billion liters per year (9.3 billion gallons per year) following
implementation of the rule.

F. Energy Impacts

The overall energy demand (i.e., electricity plus natural gas) is
expected to decrease by about 13,700 megawatt-hours per year (MWh/yr)
nationwide under today's final rule. Electricity requirements are
expected to decrease by about 17,800 MWh/yr under the final rule. This
net decrease in electricity requirements includes an expected increase
of about 39,600 MWh/yr when PM control devices on kraft and soda
recovery furnaces and SDT and sulfite combustion units are upgraded or
replaced, an expected increase of 18,400 MWh/yr when gaseous organic
HAP controls (i.e., RTO) are added to semichemical combustion units,
and an expected decrease of about 75,900 MWh/yr if wet scrubbers are
replaced by ESP to provide increased control of PM emissions from kraft
and soda lime kilns. Natural gas requirements are expected to increase
by about 4,100 MWh/yr when gaseous organic HAP controls are added to
semichemical combustion units. This estimate is based on an increase of
0.4 million cubic meters per year (14 million cubic feet per year) of
natural gas, assuming 1,024 British thermal units per cubic foot of
natural gas.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51736, October 4, 1993), EPA
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and,
therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or

[[Page 3191]]

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, OMB has notified
EPA that this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it
will have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
Consequently, this action was submitted to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12866. Any written comments from OMB and written EPA
responses are available in the docket (see ADDRESSES section of this
preamble).

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism
implications and that preempts State law unless EPA consults with State
and local officials early in the process of developing the regulation.
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. Thus, the requirements of
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of
the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments to
``provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.'' Today's final rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal
governments own or operate kraft, soda, sulfite, or stand-alone
semichemical pulp mills. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b)
of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
rule is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives that EPA considered.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has
the potential to influence the rule. This final rule is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it is based on technology performance and
not on health or safety risks.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost effective, or least-burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
The EPA has determined that this rule (in conjunction with the MACT
I and MACT III rules and the effluent guidelines recently promulgated
for the pulp and paper industry) contains a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private
sector in any 1 year. According, EPA has prepared under section 202 of
the UMRA a written statement, which is summarized below.
1. Statutory Authority
The statutory authority for this rulemaking is section 112 of the
CAA.

[[Page 3192]]

Title III of the CAA Amendments was enacted to reduce the amount of
nationwide air toxic emissions. Section 112(b) lists the 189 chemicals,
compounds, or groups of chemicals deemed by Congress to be HAP. These
toxic air pollutants are to be regulated by NESHAP. Hazardous air
pollutant emissions from the pulp and paper production source category
are being regulated under section 112(d) of the CAA. The NESHAP
requires existing and new major sources to control emissions of HAP
using MACT.
The pulp and paper production source category includes all mills
that produce pulp and/or paper. The NESHAP for the source category are
being developed in phases. This final NESHAP, referred to as MACT II,
regulates chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite,
and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. The final NESHAP for
noncombustion sources (i.e., MACT I and MACT III) regulates
noncombustion processes at mills that (1) chemically pulp wood fiber
(using kraft, sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical methods) (MACT I), and
(2) mechanically pulp wood fiber (e.g., groundwood, thermomechanical,
pressurized), pulp secondary fibers (deinked and nondeinked), and pulp
nonwood (MACT III).
Regarding EPA's compliance with section 205(a), EPA did identify
and consider a reasonable number of alternatives. A summary of these
alternatives and their costs and environmental impacts is provided in
the preamble to the proposed rule (63 FR 18773, April 15, 1998).
Additional information on the costs and environmental impacts of the
regulatory alternatives is presented in the Revised Nationwide Costs,
Environmental Impacts, and Cost Effectiveness of Regulatory
Alternatives for Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Semichemical Combustion
Sources Memo (docket No. A-94-67).
The chosen alternative represents the MACT floor for chemical
recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, and sulfite pulp mills and
is the least costly and least burdensome alternative for those sources.
The chosen alternative also includes an option more stringent than the
MACT floor for chemical recovery combustion sources at stand-alone
semichemical pulp mills. However, EPA considers the cost effectiveness
of the more stringent option for semichemical chemical recovery
combustion sources (less than $2,900/Mg of HAP reduced) acceptable,
especially when measured against the environmental benefits of reducing
emissions of both HAP and non-HAP. Therefore, EPA concludes that the
chosen alternative is the least costly and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of section 112, as called for in section
205(a).
2. Social Costs and Benefits
The regulatory impact analysis prepared for MACT I, including the
EPA's assessment of costs and environmental benefits, is detailed in
the ``Regulatory Impacts Assessment of Proposed Effluent Guidelines and
NESHAP for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry,'' (EPA-821/R-93-
020). The regulatory impacts assessment document was updated for the
final rule for MACT I and III and the proposed rule for MACT II and is
referred to as the Economic Analysis Document (docket No. A-94-67).
3. Future and Disproportionate Costs
The EPA does not believe that there will be any disproportionate
budgetary effects of the rule on any particular areas of the country,
particular governments or types of communities (e.g., urban, rural), or
particular industry segments.
4. Effects on the National Economy
The estimated direct cost to the pulp and paper industry of
compliance with this rule is approximately $30 million (1997$)
annually. Indirect costs of the rule to industries other than the pulp
and paper industry, governments, tribes, and other affected entities
are expected to be minor. The estimated annual cost of this rule is
minimal when compared to the nominal gross domestic product of $8,318.4
billion reported for the Nation in 1997. This rule is expected to have
little impact on domestic productivity, economic growth, full
employment, creation of productive jobs, and on the international
competitiveness of the U.S. goods and services.
5. Consultation With Government Officials
Although this rule does not affect any State, local, or tribal
governments, EPA has consulted with State and local air pollution
control officials. The EPA also has held numerous meetings on the
proposed integrated rules with many of the stakeholders from the pulp
and paper industry, including the AF&PA, the National Council of the
Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, numerous individual
companies, vendors, and other interested parties. The EPA has added
materials to the docket to document these meetings.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has
fewer than 750 employees for NAICS codes 32211, 32212, and 32213 (pulp,
paper, and paperboard mills), (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or
special district with a population of less than 50,000, and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, it has been determined that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The EPA has determined that three companies met the definition of small
entity at the time of proposal. These three companies own only three of
the 136 mills subject to today's final rule. The small business
analysis reported in the EA shows that the affected mills have costs as
a percentage of sales ratios of less than 1 percent, that these mills
are not expected to close, nor are the owning companies expected to
encounter financial distress as a result of this rule. An analysis of
mergers and acquisitions subsequent to the baseline year of the
analysis indicates that these three companies no longer meet the
definition of small business.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

The information collection requirements in this final rule will be
submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The EPA has prepared an Information Collection
Request (ICR) document (ICR No. 1805.01), and a copy may be obtained
from Sandy Farmer by mail at Office of Environmental Information,
Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, by electronic mail at

[[Page 3193]]

farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be
downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information
requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
The information requirements in the final rule include mandatory
notifications, records, and reports required by the NESHAP General
Provisions. These information requirements are needed to confirm the
compliance status of major sources, to identify any non-major sources
not subject to the standard and any new or reconstructed sources
subject to the standards, to confirm that emission control devices are
being properly operated and maintained, and to ensure that the
standards are being achieved. Based on the recorded and reported
information, EPA can decide which facilities, records, or processes
should be inspected. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are
specifically authorized under section 114 of the CAA. All information
submitted to EPA for which a claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to EPA's policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
The annual public recordkeeping and reporting burden for this
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the
effective date of this rule) is estimated to total 21,500 labor hours
per year, at a total annual cost of $958,300 (1997$). This estimate
includes initial notifications, one-time performance test and report
(with repeat tests where needed), one-time purchase and installation of
monitoring system, one-time preparation of a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan with immediate reports for any event when the
procedures in the plan were not followed, compliance reports, and
recordkeeping. Total capital costs associated with these requirements
over the 3-year period of the ICR are estimated at $14,700, with
annualized capital costs of $1,600 (1997$). Total operation and
maintenance costs associated with these requirements are estimated at
$2,700 (1997$).
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA
to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory and procurement
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices) developed or adopted by one or more
voluntary consensus bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through annual reports to OMB, with explanations when an agency does
not use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
This rulemaking involves the following technical standards: EPA
Methods 1, 2, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 17, 25A, 29, and 308 (40 CFR part 60,
appendix A; 40 CFR part 61, appendix B; 40 CFR part 63, appendix A).
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify voluntary
consensus standards in addition to these EPA methods. For EPA Methods
3B and 308, no applicable voluntary consensus standards have been found
at this time. The search and review results have been documented and
are placed in the docket for this rule (Docket No. A-94-67).
The search for emissions testing procedures identified 19 voluntary
consensus standards. The EPA determined that 15 of these 19 standards
identified for measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to
emissions limits in the rule would not be practical due to lack of
equivalency, detail, and/or quality assurance/quality control
requirements. Therefore, we did not use these voluntary consensus
standards in this rulemaking. Four of the 19 consensus standards
identified are under development or under EPA review. Therefore, we did
not use these voluntary consensus standards in this rulemaking.
Section 63.865 of the rule lists the EPA test methods included in
the rule. Most of these methods have been used by States and industry
for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, under Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and
(f), the rule also allows any State or source to apply to EPA for
permission to use an alternative method in place of any of the EPA test
methods listed in Sec. 63.865.

I. Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective March 13, 2001.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Intergovernmental
relations, Pulp and paper mills, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated: December 15, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part
63 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

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

2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart MM to read as follows:

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

Sec.
63.860 Applicability and designation of affected source.
63.861 Definitions.
63.862 Standards.
63.863 Compliance dates.
63.864 Monitoring requirements.

[[Page 3194]]

63.865 Performance test requirements and test methods.
63.866 Recordkeeping requirements.
63.867 Reporting requirements.
63.868 Delegation of authority.
Table 1 to Subpart MM--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart
MM

Sec. 63.860 Applicability and designation of affected source.

(a) The requirements of this subpart apply to the owner or operator
of each kraft, soda, sulfite, or stand-alone semichemical pulp mill
that is a major source of hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions as
defined in Sec. 63.2.
(b) Affected sources. The requirements of this subpart apply to
each new or existing affected source listed in paragraphs (b)(1)
through (6) of this section:
(1) Each existing chemical recovery system (as defined in
Sec. 63.861) located at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
(2) Each new nondirect contact evaporator (NDCE) recovery furnace
and associated smelt dissolving tank(s) located at a kraft or soda pulp
mill.
(3) Each new direct contact evaporator (DCE) recovery furnace
system (as defined in Sec. 63.861) and associated smelt dissolving
tank(s) located at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
(4) Each new lime kiln located at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
(5) Each new or existing sulfite combustion unit located at a
sulfite pulp mill.
(6) Each new or existing semichemical combustion unit located at a
stand-alone semichemical pulp mill.
(c) The requirements of the General Provisions in subpart A of this
part that apply to the owner or operator subject to the requirements of
this subpart are identified in Table 1 to this subpart.

Sec. 63.861 Definitions.

All terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
subpart A of this part, or in this section. For the purposes of this
subpart, if the same term is defined in subpart A or any other subpart
of this part and in this section, it must have the meaning given in
this section.
Black liquor means spent cooking liquor that has been separated
from the pulp produced by the kraft, soda, or semichemical pulping
process.
Black liquor gasification means the thermochemical conversion of
black liquor into a combustible gaseous product.
Black liquor oxidation (BLO) system means the vessels used to
oxidize the black liquor, with air or oxygen, and the associated
storage tank(s).
Black liquor solids (BLS) means the dry weight of the solids in the
black liquor that enters the recovery furnace or semichemical
combustion unit.
Black liquor solids firing rate means the rate at which black
liquor solids are fed to the recovery furnace or the semichemical
combustion unit.
Chemical recovery combustion source means any source in the
chemical recovery area of a kraft, soda, sulfite or stand-alone
semichemical pulp mill that is an NDCE recovery furnace, a DCE recovery
furnace system, a smelt dissolving tank, a lime kiln, a sulfite
combustion unit, or a semichemical combustion unit.
Chemical recovery system means all existing DCE and NDCE recovery
furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks, and lime kilns at a kraft or soda
pulp mill. Each existing recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or
lime kiln is considered a process unit within a chemical recovery
system.
Direct contact evaporator (DCE) recovery furnace means a kraft or
soda recovery furnace equipped with a direct contact evaporator that
concentrates strong black liquor by direct contact between the hot
recovery furnace exhaust gases and the strong black liquor.
Direct contact evaporator (DCE) recovery furnace system means a
direct contact evaporator recovery furnace and any black liquor
oxidation system, if present, at the pulp mill.
Dry electrostatic precipitator (ESP) system means an electrostatic
precipitator with a dry bottom (i.e., no black liquor, water, or other
fluid is used in the ESP bottom) and a dry particulate matter return
system (i.e., no black liquor, water, or other fluid is used to
transport the collected PM to the mix tank).
Hazardous air pollutants (HAP) metals means the sum of all
emissions of antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt,
lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and selenium as measured by EPA
Method 29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) and with all nondetect data
treated as one-half of the method detection limit.
Kraft pulp mill means any stationary source that produces pulp from
wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips in a solution of sodium
hydroxide and sodium sulfide. The recovery process used to regenerate
cooking chemicals is also considered part of the kraft pulp mill.
Kraft recovery furnace means a recovery furnace that is used to
burn black liquor produced by the kraft pulping process, as well as any
recovery furnace that burns black liquor produced from both the kraft
and semichemical pulping processes, and includes the direct contact
evaporator, if applicable. Includes black liquor gasification.
Lime kiln means the combustion unit (e.g., rotary lime kiln or
fluidized-bed calciner) used at a kraft or soda pulp mill to calcine
lime mud, which consists primarily of calcium carbonate, into
quicklime, which is calcium oxide (CaO).
Lime production rate means the rate at which dry lime, measured as
CaO, is produced in the lime kiln.
Method detection limit means the minimum concentration of an
analyte that can be determined with 99 percent confidence that the true
value is greater than zero.
Modification means, for the purposes of
Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii)(E)(1), any physical change (excluding any routine
part replacement or maintenance) or operational change (excluding any
operational change that occurs during a start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction) that is made to the air pollution control device that
could result in an increase in PM emissions.
Nondetect data means, for the purposes of this subpart, any value
that is below the method detection limit.
Nondirect contact evaporator (NDCE) recovery furnace means a kraft
or soda recovery furnace that burns black liquor that has been
concentrated by indirect contact with steam.
Particulate matter (PM) means total particulate matter as measured
by EPA Method 5, EPA Method 17 (Sec. 63.865(b)(1)), or EPA Method 29
(40 CFR part 60, appendix A).
Process unit means an existing DCE or NDCE recovery furnace, smelt
dissolving tank, or lime kiln in a chemical recovery system at a kraft
or soda mill.
Recovery furnace means an enclosed combustion device where
concentrated black liquor produced by the kraft or soda pulping process
is burned to recover pulping chemicals and produce steam. Includes
black liquor gasification.
Regenerative thermal oxidizer (RTO) means a thermal oxidizer that
transfers heat from the exhaust gas stream to the inlet gas stream by
passing the exhaust stream through a bed of ceramic stoneware or other
heat-absorbing medium before releasing it to the atmosphere, then
reversing the gas flow so the inlet gas stream passes through the
heated bed, raising the temperature of the inlet stream close to or at
its ignition temperature.
Semichemical combustion unit means any equipment used to combust or
pyrolyze black liquor at stand-alone semichemical pulp mills for the
purpose

[[Page 3195]]

of chemical recovery. Includes black liquor gasification.
Similar process units means all existing DCE and NDCE recovery
furnaces, smelt dissolving tanks, or lime kilns at a kraft or soda pulp
mill.
Smelt dissolving tanks (SDT) means vessels used for dissolving the
smelt collected from a kraft or soda recovery furnace.
Soda pulp mill means any stationary source that produces pulp from
wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips in a sodium hydroxide solution.
The recovery process used to regenerate cooking chemicals is also
considered part of the soda pulp mill.
Soda recovery furnace means a recovery furnace used to burn black
liquor produced by the soda pulping process and includes the direct
contact evaporator, if applicable. Includes black liquor gasification.
Stand-alone semichemical pulp mill means any stationary source that
produces pulp from wood by partially digesting wood chips in a chemical
solution followed by mechanical defibrating (grinding), and has an
onsite chemical recovery process that is not integrated with a kraft
pulp mill.
Sulfite combustion unit means a combustion device, such as a
recovery furnace or fluidized-bed reactor, where spent liquor from the
sulfite pulping process (i.e., red liquor) is burned to recover pulping
chemicals.
Sulfite pulp mill means any stationary source that produces pulp
from wood by cooking (digesting) wood chips in a solution of sulfurous
acid and bisulfite ions. The recovery process used to regenerate
cooking chemicals is also considered part of the sulfite pulp mill.
Total hydrocarbons (THC) means the sum of organic compounds
measured as carbon using EPA Method 25A (40 CFR part 60, appendix A).

Sec. 63.862 Standards.

(a) Standards for HAP metals: existing sources. (1) Each owner or
operator of an existing kraft or soda pulp mill must comply with the
requirements of either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section.
(i) Each owner or operator of a kraft or soda pulp mill must comply
with the PM emissions limits in paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) through (C) of
this section.
(A) The owner or operator of each existing kraft or soda recovery
furnace must ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases
discharged to the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.10 gram per dry
standard cubic meter (g/dscm) (0.044 grain per dry standard cubic foot
(gr/dscf)) corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
(B) The owner or operator of each existing kraft or soda smelt
dissolving tank must ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust
gases discharged to the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.10 kg/Mg
(0.20 lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
(C) The owner or operator of each existing kraft or soda lime kiln
must ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases
discharged to the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.15 g/dscm
(0.064 gr/dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen.
(ii) As an alternative to meeting the requirements of
Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(i), each owner or operator of a kraft or soda pulp
mill may establish PM emissions limits for each existing kraft or soda
recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, and lime kiln that operates
6,300 hours per year or more by:
(A) Establishing an overall PM emission limit for each existing
process unit in the chemical recovery system at the kraft or soda pulp
mill using the methods in Sec. 63.865(a)(1) and (2).
(B) The emissions limits for each kraft recovery furnace, smelt
dissolving tank, and lime kiln that are used to establish the overall
PM limit in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section must not be less
stringent than the emissions limitations required by Sec. 60.282 of
part 60 of this chapter for any kraft recovery furnace, smelt
dissolving tank, or lime kiln that is subject to the requirements of
Sec. 60.282.
(C) Each owner or operator of an existing kraft or soda recovery
furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or lime kiln must ensure that the PM
emissions discharged to the atmosphere from each of these sources are
less than or equal to the applicable PM emissions limits, established
using the methods in Sec. 63.865(a)(1), that are used to establish the
overall PM emissions limits in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section.
(D) Each owner or operator of an existing kraft or soda recovery
furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or lime kiln must reestablish the
emissions limits determined in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section
if either of the actions in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(D)(1) and (2) of this
section are taken:
(1) The air pollution control system for any existing kraft or soda
recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or lime kiln for which an
emission limit was established in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of this
section is modified (as defined in Sec. 63.861) or replaced; or
(2) Any kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or
lime kiln for which an emission limit was established in paragraph
(a)(1)(ii)(A) of this section is shut down for more than 60 consecutive
days.
(iii) Each owner or operator of an existing kraft or soda recovery
furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or lime kiln that operates less than
6,300 hours per year must comply with the applicable PM emissions
limits for that process unit provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this
section.
(2) The owner or operator of each existing sulfite combustion unit
must ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases
discharged to the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.092 g/dscm
(0.040 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
(b) Standards for HAP metals: new sources. (1) The owner or
operator of any new kraft or soda recovery furnace must ensure that the
concentration of PM in the exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere
is less than or equal to 0.034 g/dscm gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent
oxygen.
(2) The owner or operator of any new kraft or soda smelt dissolving
tank must ensure that the the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases
discharged to the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12
lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
(3) The owner or operator of any new kraft or soda lime kiln must
ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases discharged to
the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf)
corrected to 10 percent oxygen.
(4) The owner or operator of any new sulfite combustion unit must
ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases discharged to
the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.046 g/dscm (O.020 gr/dscf)
corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
(c) Standards for gaseous organic HAP. (1) The owner or operator of
any new recovery furnace at a kraft or soda pulp mill must ensure that
the concentration or gaseous organic HAP, as meauared by methanol,
discharged to the atmosphere is no greater than 0.012 kg/Mg (0.025 lb/
ton) of black liquor solids fired.
(2) The owner or operator of each existing or new semichemical
combustion unit must ensure that:
(i) The concentration of gaseous organic HAP, as measured by total
hydrocarbons reported as carbon, discharged to the atmosphere is less
than or equal to 1.49 kg/Mg (2.97 lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired;
or
(ii) The gaseous organic HAP emissions, as measured by total
hydrocarbons reported as carbon, are reduced by at least 90 percent
prior to

[[Page 3196]]

discharge of the gases to the atmosphere.

Sec. 63.863 Compliance dates.

(a) The owner or operator of an existing affected source or process
unit must comply with the requirements in this subpart no later than
January 12, 2004.
(b) The owner or operator of a new affected source that has an
initial startup date after January 12, 2001, must comply with the
requirements in this subpart immediately upon startup of the affected
source, expect as specified in Sec. 63.6(b).

Sec. 63.864 Monitoring requirements.

(a) General. (1) The owner or operator of each affected kraft or
soda recovery furnace or lime kiln equipped with as ESP must install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous opacity monitoring system
that can be used to determine opacity at least once every successive
10-second period and calculate and record each successive 6-minute
average opacity using the procedures in Secs. 63.6(h) and 63.8.
(2) The owner or operator of each affected kraft or soda recovery
furnace, kraft or soda lime kiln, sulfite combustion unit, or kraft or
soda smelt dissolving tank equipped with a wet scrubber must install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate a continuous monitoring system that
can be used to determine and record the pressure drop across the
scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow rate at least once every
successive 15-minute period using the procedures in Sec. 63.8(c), as
well as the procedures in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this
section:
(i) The monitoring device used for the continuous measurement of
the pressure drop of the gas stream across the scrubber must be
certified by the manufacturer to the accurate to within a gage pressure
of 500 pascals (2 inches of water gage
pressure); and
(ii) The monitoring device used for continuous measurement of the
scrubbing liquid flow rate must be certified by the manufacturer to be
accurate within 5 percent of the design scrubbing liquid
flow rate.
(3) The owner or operator of each affected semichemical combustion
unit equipped with an RTO must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a continuous monitoring system that can be used to determine
and record the operating temperature of the RTO at least once every
successive 15-minute period using the procedures in Sec. 63.8(c). The
monitor must compute and record the operating temperature at the point
of incineration of effluent gases that are emitted using a temperature
monitor accurate to within 1 percent of the temperature
being measured.
(4) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit
that uses a control device listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of
this section may monitor alternative control device operating
parameters subject to prior written approval by the Administrator.
(5) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit
that uses an air pollution control system other than those listed in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section must monitor the
parameters as approved by the Administrator using the methods and
procedures in Sec. 63.865(f).
(6) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit
complying with the gaseous organic HAP emissions limitations of
Sec. 63.862(c)(1) through the use of an NDCE recovery furnace equipped
with a dry ESP system is not required to conduct any performance
testing or any continuous monitoring to demonstrate compliance with the
gaseous organic HAP emission limitation.
(b) Initial compliance determination. (1) The owner or operator of
each affected source or process unit subject to the requirements of
this subpart is required to conduct an initial performance test using
the test methods and procedures listed in Secs. 63.7 and 63.865, except
as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(2) Determination of operating ranges. (i) During the initial
performance test required in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, the
owner or operator of any affected source or process unit must establish
operating ranges for the monitoring parameters in paragraphs (a)(2)
through (5) of this section, as appropriate; or
(ii) The owner or operator may base operating ranges on values
recorded during previous performance tests or conduct additional
performance tests for the specific purpose of establishing operating
ranges, provided that test data used to establish the operating ranges
are or have been obtained using the test methods required in this
subpart. The owner or operator of the affected source or process unit
must certify that all control techniques and processes have not been
modified subsequent to the testing upon which the data used to
establish the operating parameter ranges were obtained.
(iii) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit
may establish expanded or replacement operating ranges for the
monitoring parameter values listed in paragraphs (a)(2) through (5) of
this section and established in paragraph (b)(2)(i) or (ii) of this
section during subsequent performance tests using the test methods in
Sec. 63.865.
(3) An initial performance test is not required to be conducted in
order to determine compliance with the emissions limitations of
Sec. 63.862(c)(1) if the affected source or process unit includes an
NDCE recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system.
(4) After the Administrator has approved the PM emissions limits
for each kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, and
lime kiln, the owner or operator complying with an overall PM emission
limit established in Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) must demonstrate compliance
with the HAP metals standard by demonstrating compliance with the
approved PM emissions limits for each affected kraft or soda recovery
furnace, smelt dissolving tank, and lime kiln, using the test methods
and procedures in Sec. 63.865(b).
(c) On-going compliance provisions. (1) Following the compliance
date, owners or operators of all affected sources or process units are
required to implement corrective action, as specified in the startup,
shutdown, and malfunction plan prepared under Sec. 63.866(a) if the
monitoring exceedances in paragraphs (c)(1)(i) through (v) of this
section occur:
(i) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace or lime
kiln equipped with an ESP, when the average of ten consecutive 6-minute
averages result in a measurement greater than 20 percent opacity;
(ii) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace, kraft or
soda smelt dissolving tank, kraft or soda lime kiln, or sulfite
combustion unit equipped with a wet scrubber, when any 3-hour average
parameter value is outside the range of values established in paragraph
(b)(2) of this section.
(iii) For a new or existing semichemical combustion unit equipped
with an RTO, when any 1-hour average temperature falls below the
temperature established in paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
(iv) For an affected source or process unit equipped with an
alternative emission control system approved by the Administrator, when
any 3-hour average value is outside the range of parameter values
established in paragraph (b)(2) of this section; and
(v) For an affected source or process unit that is monitoring
alternative operating parameters established in paragraph (a)(4) of
this section, when any 3-hour average value is outside the range of
parameter values established in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.

[[Page 3197]]

(2) Following the compliance date, owners or operators of all
affected sources or process units are in violation of the standards of
Sec. 63.862 if the monitoring exceedances in paragraphs (c)(2)(i)
through (vi) of this section occur:
(i) For an existing kraft or soda recovery furnace equipped with an
ESP, when opacity is greater than 35 percent for 6 percent or more of
the operating time within any quarterly period;
(ii) For a new kraft or soda recovery furnace or a new or existing
lime kiln equipped with an ESP, when opacity is greater than 20 percent
for 6 percent or more of the operating time within any quarterly
period;
(iii) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace, kraft
or soda smelt dissolving tank, kraft or soda lime kiln, or sulfite
combustion unit equipped with a wet scrubber, when six or more 3-hour
average parameter values within any 6-month reporting period are
outside the range of values established in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section;
(iv) For a new or existing semichemical combustion unit equipped
with an RTO, when any 3-hour average temperature falls below the
temperature established in paragraph (b)(2) of this section;
(v) For an affected source or process unit equipped with an
alternative air pollution control system approved by the Administrator,
when six or more 3-hour average values within any 6-month reporting
period are outside the range of parameter values established in
paragraph (b)(2) of this section; and
(vi) For an affected source or process unit that is monitoring
alternative operating parameters established in paragraph (a)(4) of
this section, when six or more 3-hour average values within any 6-month
reporting period are outside the range of parameter values established
in paragraph (b)(2) of this section.
(3) For purposes of determining the number of nonopacity monitoring
exceedances, no more than one exceedance will be attributed in any
given 24-hour period.

Sec. 63.865 Performance test requirements and test methods.

(a) The owner or operator of a process unit seeking to comply with
a PM emission limit under Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii)(A) must use the
procedures in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
(1) Determine the overall PM emission limit for the chemical
recovery system at the mill using Equation 1 of this section as
follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.001

Where:
ELPM=overall PM emission limit for all existing process
units in the chemical recovery system at the kraft or soda pulp
mill, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
Cref, RF=reference concentration of 0.10 g/dscm (0.044
gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen for existing kraft or soda
recovery furnaces.
QRFtot=sum of the average volumetric gas flow rates
measured during the performance test and corrected to 8 percent
oxygen for all existing recovery furnaces in the chemical recovery
system at the kraft or soda pulp mill, dry standard cubic meters per
minute (dscm/min) (dry standard cubic feet per minute [dscf/min]).
Cref, LK=reference concentration of 0.15 g/dscm (0.064
gr/dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen for existing kraft or soda
lime kilns.
QLKtot=sum of the average volumetric gas flow rates
measured during the performance test and corrected to 10 percent
oxygen for all existing lime kilns in the chemical recovery system
at the kraft or soda pulp mill, dscm/min (dscf/min).
F1=conversion factor, 1.44 minutes;kilogram/daygram
(minkg/dg) (0.206 minutespound/
daygrain [minlb/dgr]).
BLStot=sum of the average black liquor solids firing
rates of all existing recovery furnaces in the chemical recovery
system at the kraft or soda pulp mill measured during the
performance test, megagrams per day (Mg/d) (tons per day [tons/d])
of black liquor solids fired.
ER1ref, SDT=reference emission rate of 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20
lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired for existing kraft or soda
smelt dissolving tanks.

(2) Establish an emission limit for each kraft or soda recovery
furnace, smelt dissolving tank, and lime kiln; and, using these
emissions limits, determine the overall PM emission rate for the
chemical recovery system at the mill using the procedures in paragraphs
(a)(2)(i) through (v) of this section, such that the overall PM
emission rate calculated in paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this section is less
than or equal to the overall PM emission limit determined in paragraph
(a)(1) of this section, as appropriate.
(i) The PM emission rate from each affected recovery furnace must
be determined using Equation 2 of this section as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.002

Where:
ERRF=emission rate from each recovery furnace, kg/Mg (lb/
ton) of black liquor solids.
F1=conversion factor, 1.44 minkg/dg (0.206
min/dgr).
CEL, RF=PM emission limit proposed by owner or operator
for the recovery furnace, g/dscm (gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent
oxygen.
QRF=average volumetric gas flow rate from the recovery
furnace measured during the performance test and corrected to 8
percent oxygen, dscm/min (dscf/min).
BLS=average black liquor solids firing rate of the recovery furnace
measured during the performance test, Mg/d (ton/d) of black liquor
solids.

(ii) The PM emission rate from each affected smelt dissolving tank
must be determined using Equation 3 of this section as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.003

[[Page 3198]]

Where:
ERSDT=emission rate from each SDT, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of
black liquor solids fired.
F1=conversion factor, 1.44 minkg/dg (0.206
minlb/dgr).
CEL, SDT=PM emission limit proposed by owner or operator
for the smelt dissolving tank, g/dscm (gr/dscf).
QSDT=average volumetric gas flow rate from the smelt
dissolving tank measured during the performance test, dscm/min
(dscf/min).
BLS=average black liquor solids firing rate of the associated
recovery furnace measured during the performance test, Mg/d (ton/d)
of black liquorsolids fired. If more than one SDT is used to
dissolve the smelt from a given recovery furnace, then the black
liquor solids firing rate of the furnace must be proportioned
according to the size of the SDT.

(iii) The PM emission rate from each affected lime kiln must be
determined using Equation 4 of this section as follows:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.004

Where:
ERLK=emission rate from each lime kiln, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of
black liquor solids.
F1=conversion factor, 1.44 minkg/dg (0.206
minlb/dgr).
CEL,LK=PM emission limit proposed by owner or operator
for the lime kiln, g/dscm (gr/dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen.
QLK=average volumetric gas flow rate from the lime kiln
measured during the performance test and corrected to 10 percent
oxygen, dscm/min (dscf/min).
CaOLK=lime production rate of the lime kiln, measured as
CaO during the performance test, Mg/d (ton/d) of CaO.
CaOtot=sum of the average lime production rates for all
existing lime kilns in the chemical recovery system at the mill
measured as CaO during the performance test, Mg/d (ton/d).
BLStot=sum of the average black liquor solids firing
rates of all recovery furnaces in the chemical recovery system at
the mill measured during the performance test, Mg/d (ton/d) of black
liquor solids.

(iv) If more than one similar process unit is operated in the
chemical recovery system at the kraft or soda pulp mill, Equation 5 of
this section must be used to calculate the overall PM emission rate
from all similar process units in the chemical recovery system at the
mill and must be used in determining the overall PM emission rate for
the chemical recovery system at the mill:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.005

Where:
ERPUtot=overall PM emission rate from all similar process
units, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
ERPU1=PM emission rate from process unit No. 1, kg/Mg
(lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired, calculated using Equation 2,
3, or 4 in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section.
PRPU1=black liquor solids firing rate in Mg/d (ton/d) for
process unit No. 1, if process unit is a recovery furnace or SDT.
The CaO production rate in Mg/d (ton/d) for process unit No. 1, if
process unit is a lime kiln.
PRtot=total black liquor solids firing rate in Mg/d (ton/
d) for all recovery furnaces in the chemical recovery system at the
kraft or soda pulp mill if the similar process units are recovery
furnaces or SDT, or the total CaO production rate in Mg/d (ton/d)
for all lime kilns in the chemical recovery system at the mill if
the similar process units are lime kilns.
ERPUi=PM emission rate from process unit No. i, kg/Mg
(lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
PRPUi=black liquor solids firing rate in Mg/d (ton/d) for
process unit No. i, if process unit is a recovery furnace or SDT.
The CaO production rate in Mg/d (ton/d) for process unit No. i, if
process unit is a lime kiln.
i=number of similar process units located in the chemical recovery
system at the kraft or soda pulp mill.

(v) The overall PM emission rate for the chemical recovery system
at the mill must be determined using Equation 6 of this section as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.006

Where:
ERtot=overall PM emission rate for the chemical recovery
system at the mill, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
ERRFtot=PM emission rate from all kraft or soda recovery
furnaces, calculated using Equation 2 or 5 in paragraphs (a)(2)(i)
and (iv) of this section, where applicable, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black
liquor solids fired.
ERSDTtot=PM emission rate from all smelt dissolving
tanks, calculated using Equation 3 or 5 in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii) and
(iv) of this section, where applicable, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black
liquor solids fired.
ERLKtot=PM emission rate from all lime kilns, calculated
using Equation 4 or 5 in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and (iv) of this
section, where applicable, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids
fired.

(3) For purposes of determining the volumetric gas flow rate used
in this section for each kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt
dissolving tank, and lime kiln, Methods 1 through 4 in appendix A of 40
CFR part 60 must be used.
(4) Process data measured during the performance test must be used
to determine the black liquor solids firing rate on a dry basis and the
CaO production rate.
(b) The owner or operator seeking to determine compliance with
Sec. 63.862(a) must use the procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4)
of this section.
(1) For purposes of determining the concentration of PM emitted
from each kraft or soda recovery furnace, sulfite combustion unit,
smelt dissolving tank or lime kiln, Method 5 or 29 in appendix A of 40
CFR part 60 must be used, except that Method 17 in appendix A of 40 CFR
part 60 may be used in lieu of Method 5 or Method 29 if a constant
value of 0.009 g/dscm (0.004 gr/dscf) is added to the results of Method
17, and the stack temperature is no greater than 205 deg.C (400 deg.F).
The sampling time and sample volume for each run must be at least 60
minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8 dscf). Water must be used as the cleanup
solvent instead of acetone in the sample recovery procedure.
(2) For sources complying with paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of
Sec. 63.862, the PM concentration must be corrected to the appropriate
oxygen concentration using Equation 7 of this section as follows:

[[Page 3199]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.007

Where:
Ccorr=the measured concentration corrected for oxygen, g/
dscm (gr/dscf).
Cmeas=the measured concentration uncorrected for oxygen,
g/dscm (gr/dscf).
X=the corrected volumetric oxygen concentration (8 percent for kraft
or soda recovery furnaces and sulfite combustion units and 10
percent for kraft or soda lime kilns).
Y=the measured average volumetric oxygen concentration.

(3) Method 3A or 3B in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 must be used to
determine the oxygen concentration. The gas sample must be taken at the
same time and at the same traverse points as the particulate sample.
(4) For purposes of complying with paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of
Sec. 63.862, the volumetric gas flow rate must be corrected to the
appropriate oxygen concentration using Equation 8 of this section as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.008

Where:
Qcorr = the measured volumetric gas flow rate corrected
for oxygen, dscm/min (dscf/min).
Qmeas = the measured volumetric gas flow rate uncorrected
for oxygen, dscm/min (dscf/min).
X = the corrected volumetric oxygen concentration (8 percent for
kraft or soda recovery furnaces and sulfite combustion units and 10
percent for kraft or soda lime kilns).
Y = the measured average volumetric oxygen concentration.

(c) The owner or operator seeking to determine compliance with the
gaseous organic HAP standard in Sec. 63.862(c)(1) without using an NDCE
recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system must use Method 308 in
appendix A of this part. The sampling time and sample volume for each
run must be at least 60 minutes and 0.014 dscm (0.50 dscf),
respectively.
(1) The emission rate from any new NDCE recovery furnace must be
determined using Equation 9 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.009

Where:
ERNDCE = methanol emission rate from the NDCE recovery
furnace, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
MRmeas = measured methanol mass emission rate from the
NDCE recovery furnace, kg/hr (lb/hr).
BLS = average black liquor solids firing rate of the NDCE recovery
furnace, Mg/hr (ton/hr); determined using process data measured
during the performance test.

(2) The emission rate from any new DCE recovery furnace system must
be determined using Equation 10 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.010

Where:
ERDCE = methanol emission rate from each DCE recovery
furnace system, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
MRmeas,RF = average measured methanol mass emission rate
from each DCE recovery furnace, kg/hr (lb/hr).
MRmeas,BLO = average measured methanol mass emission rate
from the black liquor oxidation system, kg/hr (lb/hr).
BLSRF = average black liquor solids firing rate for each
DCE recovery furnace, Mg/hr (ton/hr); determined using process data
measured during the performance test.

BLSBLO = the average mass rate of black liquor solids
treated in the black liquor oxidation system, Mg/hr (ton/hr);
determined using process data measured during the performance test.
(d) The owner or operator seeking to determine compliance with the
gaseous organic HAP standards in Sec. 63.862(c)(2) for semichemical
combustion units must use Method 25A in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
The sampling time must be at least 60 minutes.
(1) The emission rate from any new or existing semichemical
combustion unit must be determined using Equation 11 of this section as
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.011

Where:
ERSCCU = THC emission rate from each semichemical
combustion unit, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
THCmeas = measured THC mass emission rate, kg/hr (lb/hr).
BLS = average black liquor solids firing rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr);
determined using process data measured during the performance test.

(2) If the owner or operator of the semichemical combustion unit
has selected the percentage reduction standards for THC, under
Sec. 63.862(c)(2)(ii), the percentage reduction in THC emissions is
computed using Equation 12 of this section as follows, provided that Ei
and Eo are measured simultaneously:

[[Page 3200]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12JA01.012

Where:
%RTHC = percentage reduction of total hydrocarbons
emissions achieved.
Ei = measured THC mass emission rate at the THC control
device inlet, kg/hr (lb/hr).
Eo = measured THC mass emission rate at the THC control
device outlet, kg/hr (lb/hr).

(e) The owner or operator seeking to comply with the continuous
parameter monitoring requirements of Sec. 63.864(b)(2) must
continuously monitor each parameter and determine the arithmetic
average value of each parameter during each 3-run performance test.
Multiple 3-run performance tests may be conducted to establish a range
of parameter values.
(f) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit
seeking to demonstrate compliance with the standards in Sec. 63.862
using a control technique other than those listed in Sec. 63.864(a)(1)
through (3) must provide to the Administrator a monitoring plan that
includes a description of the control device, test results verifying
the performance of the control device, the appropriate operating
parameters that will be monitored, and the frequency of measuring and
recording to establish continuous compliance with the standards. The
monitoring plan is subject to the Administrator's approval. The owner
or operator of the affected source or process unit must install,
calibrate, operate, and maintain the monitor(s) in accordance with the
monitoring plan approved by the Administrator. The owner or operator
must include in the information submitted to the Administrator proposed
performance specifications and quality assurance procedures for the
monitors. The Administrator may request further information and will
approve acceptable test methods and procedures.

Sec. 63.866 Recordkeeping requirements.

(a) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The owner or operator
must develop and implement a written plan as described in
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) that contains specific procedures to be followed for
operating the source and maintaining the source during periods of
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and a program of corrective action
for malfunctioning process and control systems used to comply with the
standards. In addition to the information required in Sec. 63.6(e), the
plan must include the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this
section.
(1) Procedures for responding to any process parameter level that
is inconsistent with the level(s) established under Sec. 63.864(b)(2),
including the procedures in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) and (ii) of this
section:
(i) Procedures to determine and record the cause of an operating
parameter exceedance and the time the exceedance began and ended; and
(ii) Corrective actions to be taken in the event of an operating
parameter exceedance, including procedures for recording the actions
taken to correct the exceedance.
(2) The startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan also must include
the schedules listed in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section:
(i) A maintenance schedule for each control technique that is
consistent with, but not limited to, the manufacturer's instructions
and recommendations for routine and long-term maintenance; and
(ii) An inspection schedule for each continuous monitoring system
required under Sec. 63.864 to ensure, at least once in each 24-hour
period, that each continuous monitoring system is properly functioning.
(b) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit
must maintain records of any occurrence when corrective action is
required under Sec. 63.864(c)(1), and when a violation is noted under
Sec. 63.864(c)(2).
(c) In addition to the general records required by
Sec. 63.10(b)(2), the owner or operator must maintain records of the
information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this section:
(1) Records of black liquor solids firing rates in units of
megagrams/day or tons/day for all recovery furnaces and semichemical
combustion units;
(2) Records of CaO production rates in units of megagrams/day or
tons/day for all lime kilns;
(3) Records of parameter monitoring data required under
Sec. 63.864, including any period when the operating parameter levels
were inconsistent with the levels established during the initial
performance test, with a brief explanation of the cause of the
deviation, the time the deviation occurred, the time corrective action
was initiated and completed, and the corrective action taken;
(4) Records and documentation of supporting calculations for
compliance determinations made under Secs. 63.865(a) through (e);
(5) Records of monitoring parameter ranges established for each
affected source or process unit;
(6) Records certifying that an NDCE recovery furnace equipped with
a dry ESP system is used to comply with the gaseous organic HAP
standard in Sec. 63.862(c)(1).

Sec. 63.867 Reporting requirements.

(a) Notifications. The owner or operator of any affected source or
process unit must submit the applicable notifications from subpart A of
this part, as specified in Table 1 of this subpart.
(b) Additional reporting requirements for HAP metals standards. (1)
Any owner or operator of a group of process units in a chemical
recovery system at a mill complying with the PM emissions limits in
Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) must submit the PM emissions limits determined in
Sec. 63.865(a) for each affected kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt
dissolving tank, and lime kiln to the Administrator for approval. The
emissions limits must be submitted as part of the notification of
compliance status required under subpart A of this part.
(2) Any owner or operator of a group of process units in a chemical
recovery system at a mill complying with the PM emissions limits in
Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) must submit the calculations and supporting
documentation used in Sec. 63.865(a)(1) and (2) to the Administrator as
part of the notification of compliance status required under subpart A
of this part.
(3) After the Administrator has approved the emissions limits for
any process unit, the owner or operator of a process unit must notify
the Administrator before any of the actions in paragraphs (b)(3)(i)
through (iv) of this section are taken:
(i) The air pollution control system for any process unit is
modified or replaced;
(ii) Any kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or
lime kiln in a chemical recovery system at a kraft or soda pulp mill
complying with the PM emissions limits in Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) is shut
down for more than 60 consecutive days;
(iii) A continuous monitoring parameter or the value or range of
values of a continuous monitoring parameter for any process unit is
changed; or
(iv) The black liquor solids firing rate for any kraft or soda
recovery furnace during any 24-hour averaging period is

[[Page 3201]]

increased by more than 10 percent above the level measured during the
most recent performance test.
(4) An owner or operator of a group of process units in a chemical
recovery system at a mill complying with the PM emissions limits in
Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) and seeking to perform the actions in paragraph
(b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section must recalculate the overall PM
emissions limit for the group of process units and resubmit the
documentation required in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to the
Administrator. All modified PM emissions limits are subject to approval
by the Administrator.
(c) Excess emissions report. The owner or operator must report
quarterly if measured parameters meet any of the conditions specified
in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) of Sec. 63.864. This report must contain the
information specified in Sec. 63.10(c) of this part as well as the
number and duration of occurrences when the source met or exceeded the
conditions in Sec. 63.864(c)(1), and the number and duration of
occurrences when the source met or exceeded the conditions in
Sec. 63.864(c)(2). Reporting excess emissions below the violation
thresholds of Sec. 63.864(c) does not constitute a violation of the
applicable standard.
(1) When no exceedances of parameters have occurred, the owner or
operator must submit a semiannual report stating that no excess
emissions occurred during the reporting period.
(2) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit
subject to the requirements of this subpart and subpart S of this part
may combine excess emissions and/or summary reports for the mill.

Sec. 63.868 Delegation of authority.

(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act, the authorities
contained in paragraph (b) of this section must be retained by the
Administrator and not transferred to a State.
(b) The authorities which will not be delegated to States are
listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section:
(1) Approval of alternatives to standards in Sec. 63.862 under
Sec. 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(3) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f)
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
(4) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.

Table 1 to Subpart MM--General Provisions Applicability To Subpart MM
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of
General provisions reference requirements Applies to supbart MM Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)...................... General applicability Yes............................. Additional terms
of the General defined in Sec.
Provisions. 63.861; when overlap
between subparts A
and MM of this part,
subpart MM takes
precedence.
63.1(a)(2)-(14)................. General applicability Yes.............................
of the General
Provisions.
63.1(b)(1)...................... Initial applicability No.............................. Subpart MM specifies
determination.. the applicability in
Sec. 63.860.
63.1(b)(2)...................... Title V operating Yes............................. All major affected
permit--see 40 CFR sources are required
part 70. to obtain a title V
permit.
63.1(b)(3)...................... Record of the No.............................. All affected sources
applicability are subject to
determination. subpart MM according
to the applicability
definition of
subpart MM.
63.1(c)(1)...................... Applicability of Yes............................. Subpart MM clarifies
subpart A of this the applicability of
part after a each paragraph of
relevant standard subpart A of this
has been set. part to sources
subject to subpart
MM.
63.1(c)(2)...................... Title V permit Yes............................. All major affected
requirement. sources are required
to obtain a title V
permit. There are no
area sources in the
pulp and paper mill
source category.
63.1(c)(3)...................... [Reserved]........... NA..............................
63.1(c)(4)...................... Requirements for Yes.............................
existing source that
obtains an extension
of compliance.
63.1(c)(5)...................... Notification Yes.............................
requirements for an
area source that
increases HAP
emissions to major
source levels.
63.1(d)......................... [Reserved]........... NA..............................
63.1(e)......................... Applicability of Yes.............................
permit program
before a relevant
standard has been
set.
63.2............................ Definitions.......... Yes............................. Additional terms
defined in Sec.
63.861; when overlap
between subparts A
and MM of this part
occurs, subpart MM
takes precedence.
63.3............................ Units and Yes.............................
abbreviations.
63.4............................ Prohibited activities Yes.............................
and circumvention.
63.5(a)......................... Construction and Yes.............................
reconstruction--appl
icability.
63.5(b)(1)...................... Upon construction, Yes.............................
relevant standards
for new sources.
63.5(b)(2)...................... [Reserved]........... NA..............................
63.5(b)(3)...................... New construction/ Yes.............................
reconstruction.
63.5(b)(4)...................... Construction/ Yes.............................
reconstruction
notification.
63.5(b)(5)...................... Construction/ Yes.............................
reconstruction
compliance.
63.5(b)(6)...................... Equipment addition or Yes.............................
process change.
63.5(c)......................... [Reserved]........... NA..............................
63.5(d)......................... Application for Yes.............................
approval of
construction/
reconstruction.
63.5(e)......................... Construction/ Yes.............................
reconstruction
approval.

[[Page 3202]]

63.5(f)......................... Construction/ Yes.............................
reconstruction
approval based on
prior State
preconstruction
review.
63.6(a)(1)...................... Compliance with Yes.............................
standards and
maintenance
requirements--applic
ability.
63.6(a)(2)...................... Requirements for area Yes.............................
source that
increases emissions
to become major.
63.6(b)......................... Compliance dates for Yes.............................
new and
reconstructed
sources.
63.6(c)......................... Compliance dates for Yes............................. Subpart MM
existing sources. specifically
stipulates the
compliance schedule
for existing
sources.
63.6(d)......................... [Reserved]........... NA..............................
63.6(e)......................... Operation and Yes.............................
maintenance
requirements.
63.6(f)......................... Compliance with Yes.............................
nonopacity emissions
standards.
63.6(g)......................... Compliance with Yes.............................
alternative
nonopacity emissions
standards.
63.6(h)......................... Compliance with Yes............................. Subpart MM does not
opacity and visible contain any opacity
emissions (VE) or VE standards;
standards. however, Sec.
63.864 specifies
opacity monitoring
requirements.
63.6(i)......................... Extension of Yes.............................
compliance with
emissions standards.
63.6(j)......................... Exemption from Yes.............................
compliance with
emissions standards.
63.7(a)(1)...................... Performance testing Yes............................. Sec. 63.864(a)(6)
requirements--applic specifies the only
ability. exemption from
performance testing
allowed under
subpart MM.
63.7(a)(2)...................... Performance test Yes.............................
dates.
63.7(a)(3)...................... Performance test Yes.............................
requests by
Administrator under
CAA section 114.
63.7(b)(1)...................... Notification of Yes.............................
performance test.
63.7(b)(2)...................... Notification of delay Yes.............................
in conducting a
scheduled
performance test.
63.7(c)......................... Quality assurance Yes.............................
program.
63.7(d)......................... Performance testing Yes.............................
facilities.
63.7(e)......................... Conduct of Yes.............................
performance tests.
63.7(f)......................... Use of an alternative Yes.............................
test method.
63.7(g)......................... Data analysis, Yes.............................
recordkeeping, and
reporting.
63.7(h)......................... Waiver of performance Yes............................. Sec. 63.864(a)(6)
tests. specifies the only
exemption from
performance testing
allowed under
subpart MM.
63.8(a)......................... Monitoring Yes............................. See Sec. 63.864.
requirements--applic
ability.
63.8(b)......................... Conduct of monitoring Yes............................. See Sec. 63.864.
63.8(c)......................... Operation and Yes............................. See Sec. 63.864.
maintenance of CMS.
63.8(d)......................... Quality control Yes............................. See Sec. 63.864.
program.
63.8(e)(1)...................... Performance Yes.............................
evaluation of CMS.
63.8(e)(2)...................... Notification of Yes.............................
performance
evaluation.
63.8(e)(3)...................... Submission of site- Yes.............................
specific performance
evaluation test plan.
63.8(e)(4)...................... Conduct of Yes.............................
performance
evaluation and
performance
evaluation dates.
63.8(e)(5)...................... Reporting performance Yes.............................
evaluation results.
63.8(f)......................... Use of an alternative Yes.............................
monitoring method.
63.8(g)......................... Reduction of Yes.............................
monitoring data.
63.9(a)......................... Notification Yes.............................
requirements--applic
ability and general
information.
63.9(b)......................... Initial notifications Yes.............................
63.9(c)......................... Request for extension Yes.............................
of compliance.
63.9(d)......................... Notification that Yes.............................
source subject to
special compliance
requirements.
63.9(e)......................... Notification of Yes.............................
performance test.
63.9(f)......................... Notification of Yes............................. Subpart MM does not
opacity and VE contain any opacity
observations. or VE standards;
however, Sec.
63.864 specifies
opacity monitoring
requirements.
63.9(g)(1)...................... Additional Yes.............................
notification
requirements for
sources with CMS.
63.9(g)(2)...................... Notification of Yes............................. Subpart MM does not
compliance with contain any opacity
opacity emissions or VE emissions
standard. standards; however,
Sec. 63.864
specifies opacity
monitoring
requirements.
63.9(g)(3)...................... Notification that Yes.............................
criterion to
continue use of
alternative to
relative accuracy
testing has been
exceeded.

[[Page 3203]]

63.9(h)......................... Notification of Yes.............................
compliance status.
63.9(i)......................... Adjustment to time Yes.............................
periods or postmark
deadlines for
submittal and review
of required
communications.
63.9(j)......................... Change in information Yes.............................
already provided.
63.10(a)........................ Recordkeeping Yes............................. See Sec. 63.866.
requirements--applic
ability and general
information.
63.10(b)(1)..................... Records retention.... Yes.............................
63.10(b)(2)..................... Information and Yes.............................
documentation to
support
notifications and
demonstrate
compliance.
63.10(b)(3)..................... Records retention for Yes............................. Applicability
sources not subject requirements are
to relevant standard. given in Sec.
63.860.
63.10(c)........................ Additional Yes.............................
recordkeeping
requirements for
sources with CMS..
63.10(d)(1)..................... General reporting Yes.............................
requirements.
63.10(d)(2)..................... Reporting results of Yes.............................
performance tests.
63.10(d)(3)..................... Reporting results of Yes............................. Subpart MM does not
opacity or VE include any opacity
observations. or VE standards;
however, Sec.
63.864 specifies
opacity monitoring
requirements.
63.10(d)(4)..................... Progress reports..... Yes.............................
63.10(d)(5)..................... Periodic and Yes.............................
immediate startup,
shutdown, and
malfunction reports.
63.10(e)........................ Additional reporting Yes.............................
requirements for
sources with CMS.
63.10(f)........................ Waiver of Yes.............................
recordkeeping and
reporting
requirements.
63.11........................... Control device No.............................. The use of flares to
requirements for meet the standards
flares. in subpart MM is not
anticipated.
63.12........................... State authority and Yes.............................
delegations.
63.13........................... Addresses of State Yes.............................
air pollution
control agencies and
EPA Regional Offices.
63.14........................... Incorporations by Yes.............................
reference.
63.15........................... Availability of Yes.............................
information and
confidentiality.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-65 Filed 1-11-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

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

Related Material

Local Navigation