[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 18754-18793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9614]



[[Page 18753]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Part 63



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

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 18754]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-5925-1]
RIN 2060-AD03


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for the pulp and paper production source 
category under section 112 of the Clean Air Act as amended (CAA). The 
proposed standards focus on reducing hazardous air pollutants (HAP's) 
from new and existing sources used in chemical recovery processes at 
kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. The 
intent of the proposed standards is to protect the public health and 
the environment by reducing HAP emissions to the level corresponding to 
the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The proposed 
standards would reduce HAP emissions by about 2,600 megagrams per year 
(Mg/yr) (2,800 tons per year [tons/yr]). In addition, emissions of 
criteria pollutants such as particulate matter (PM) and volatile 
organic compounds (VOC's) would be reduced by about 56,400 Mg/yr 
(62,100 tons/yr).

DATES: Comments. The EPA will accept written comments on the proposed 
rule until June 15, 1998.
    Public Hearing. If requested, EPA will hold a public hearing 
concerning the proposed rule beginning at 10 a.m. on May 15, 1998 at 
the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, 
North Carolina. Requests to present oral testimony must be made by May 
6, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Requests to Speak at Hearing. Requests to present oral 
testimony at the public hearing should be submitted to Ms. Cathy Coats, 
Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group (MD-13), Emission Standards 
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, 
NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5422. Persons interested in 
attending the hearing should call Ms. Coats to verify that a hearing 
will be held.
    Comments. Interested parties may submit written comments (in 
duplicate, if possible) to Public Docket No. A-94-67 at the following 
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket 
and Information Center, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The 
EPA requests that a separate copy of the comments also be sent to the 
contact person listed below in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.
    Comments may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic 
mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic comments 
must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special 
characters and any form of encryption. Comments will also be accepted 
on diskette in WordPerfect 5.1 or ASCII file format. All comments in 
electronic form must be identified by the docket number (No. A-94-67). 
No confidential business information should be submitted through e-
mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many Federal 
Depository Libraries.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Telander, Minerals and 
Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emissions Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5427.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities

    Entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule are those 
kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills with 
chemical recovery processes that involve the combustion of spent 
pulping liquor. Regulated categories and entities are listed below in 
Table 1.

               Table 1.--Regulated Categories and Entities              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Category                  Examples of regulated entities   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..........................  Kraft pulp mills, soda pulp mills,  
                                     sulfite pulp mills, stand-alone    
                                     semichemical pulp mills.           
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. Table 1 lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware could 
potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities not 
listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether your 
facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine the 
applicability criteria in Sec. 63.860. If you have questions regarding 
the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the 
person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Electronically Available Information

    The preamble and the regulatory text for this proposed NESHAP for 
chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and 
stand-alone semichemical pulp mills are available on the Technology 
Transfer Network (TTN), one of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The 
TTN provides a forum for technological and regulatory exchange in 
various areas of air pollution control. The service is free, except for 
the cost of a phone call. Dial (919) 541-5742 for up to a 14,400 baud 
rate modem. If more information on the TTN is needed, call the TTN help 
line at (919) 541-5384.

Docket

    The docket (No. A-94-67) is available for public inspection and 
copying from 8:30 a.m. to noon and from 1 to 3 p.m., Monday through 
Friday at EPA's Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, 
Waterside Mall, Room M-1500 (ground floor), 401 M Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
    The following documents and other supporting materials related to 
this rulemaking are available for review in the docket center: 
Technical Support Document: Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at 
Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills (docket entry No. II-A-31); Technical Support 
Document: Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Sulfite Pulp Mills 
(docket entry No. II-A-28); Profile of U.S. Stand-Alone Semichemical 
Pulp Mills Memo (docket entry No. II-B-70); Nationwide Baseline HAP 
Emissions for Combustion Sources at Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills 
Memo (docket entry No. II-B-67); Nationwide Costs, Environmental 
Impacts and Cost-Effectiveness of HAP Control Options for Combustion 
Sources at Stand-Alone Semichemical Mills Memo (docket entry No. II-B-
69); the Nationwide Costs, Environmental Impacts, and Cost-
Effectiveness of Regulatory Alternatives for Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and 
Semichemical Combustion Sources Memo (docket entry No. II-B-63); 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 I 
(docket entry No. II-A-32); the State of Washington PM Data for Kraft 
Recovery Furnaces, Smelt Dissolving Tanks, and Lime Kilns Memo (docket 
entry No. II-B-59); and the State of

[[Page 18755]]

Washington PM Data for Sulfite Combustion Units Memo (docket entry No. 
II-B-40). Also, copies of this information may be obtained from the Air 
Docket upon request by calling (202) 260-7548 or sending a FAX to (202) 
260-4000. A reasonable fee may be charged for copies of docket 
materials.
    The information presented in the remainder of this preamble is 
organized as follows:

I. Statutory Authority
II. Introduction
    A. Background
    B. NESHAP for Source Categories
    C. Health Effects of Pollutants
    D. Industry Profile
III. Summary of Proposed Standards
    A. Applicability
    B. Emission Limits and Requirements
    1. PM HAP Standards for Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
    2. Total Gaseous Organic HAP Standards for Kraft and Soda Pulp 
Mills
    3. PM Standards for Sulfite Pulp Mills
    4. Total Gaseous Organic HAP Standards for Stand-Alone 
Semichemical Pulp Mills
    C. Performance Test Requirements
    D. Monitoring Requirements and Compliance Provisions
    E. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
IV. Rationale
    A. Selection of Source Category
    B. Selection of Emission Points
    1. Emission Points--Kraft Pulp Mills
    2. Emission Points--Soda Pulp Mills
    3. Emission Points--Sulfite Pulp Mills
    4. Emission Points--Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills
    C. Selection of Definition of Affected Source
    D. Selection of Pollutants
    1. PM HAP's
    2. Total Gaseous Organic HAP's
    3. Hydrochloric Acid (HCl)
    E. Determination of Subcategories and MACT Floors
    1. MACT Floors--Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
    2. MACT Floors--Sulfite Pulp Mills
    3. MACT Floors--Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills
    F. Discussion of Regulatory Alternatives
    1. Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
    2. Sulfite Pulp Mills
    3. Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills
    G. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources
    1. Existing Sources
    2. New Sources
    H. Selection of Format of the Standards
    1. PM HAP Standards for Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
    2. PM Standards for Sulfite Pulp Mills
    3. Total Gaseous Organic HAP Standard for Kraft and Soda Pulp 
Mills
    4. Total Gaseous Organic HAP Standard for Stand-Alone 
Semichemical Pulp Mills
    I. Selection of Monitoring Requirements
    J. Selection of Test Methods
    K. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements
    L. Relationship to Other Regulations
    1. Noncombustion Source Rule and Chemical Recovery Combustion 
Source Rule
    2. NSPS (subpart BB of part 60) and Chemical Recovery Combustion 
Source Rule
    3. New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Applicability
    M. Solicitation of Comments
V. Impacts of Proposed Standards
    A. Number of Impacted Sources
    B. Environmental Impacts
    C. Energy Impacts
    D. Cost Impacts
    E. Economic Impacts
    F. Benefits Analysis
VI. Administrative Requirements
    A. Docket
    B. Public Hearing
    C. Executive Order 12866
    D. Enhancing the Interdepartmental Partnership Under Executive 
Order 12875
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Regulatory Flexibility
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. Clean Air Act

I. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this proposal is provided by sections 
101, 112, 114, 116, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 
7401, 7412, 7414, 7416, and 7601).

II. Introduction

A. Background

    On February 23, 1978, EPA promulgated new source performance 
standards (NSPS) to limit emissions of PM and total reduced sulfur 
(TRS) compounds from new, modified, and reconstructed kraft pulp mills 
under authority of section 111 of the Act (43 FR 7568). In addition, 
EPA issued retrofit guidelines in 1979 for control of TRS emissions at 
existing kraft pulp mills not subject to the NSPS. The NSPS for kraft 
pulp mills limit TRS emissions from recovery furnaces, smelt dissolving 
tanks (SDT's), lime kilns, digesters, multiple effect evaporators, 
black liquor oxidation (BLO) systems, brownstock washers, and 
condensate strippers that were constructed, modified, or reconstructed 
after September 24, 1976. The standards also limit PM emissions from 
recovery furnaces, SDT's, and lime kilns that were constructed, 
modified, or reconstructed after September 24, 1976. As required under 
section 111(a) of the Act, these standards reflected the application of 
the best technological system of continuous emission reduction that the 
Administrator determined had been adequately demonstrated (taking into 
consideration the cost of achieving such emission reduction, and any 
nonair quality health and environmental impacts and energy 
requirements).
    Revisions to these standards were promulgated on May 20, 1986 (51 
FR 18538). The revisions exempted BLO systems from the TRS standards; 
revised the existing TRS limit and format of the standard for SDT's; 
deleted the requirement to monitor the combustion temperature in lime 
kilns, power boilers, and recovery furnaces; changed the frequency of 
excess emission reports from quarterly to semiannually; and exempted 
diffusion washers from the TRS standard for brownstock washers. The 
revisions also required that monitored emissions be recorded and 
specified the conditions [Sec. 60.284(e)] under which excess emissions 
would not be deemed a violation of Sec. 60.11(d). Today's action does 
not revise or change the TRS requirements of the NSPS. However, today's 
standards do include PM emission limits, as a surrogate for measuring 
PM HAP emissions, for combustion sources (existing and new) in the 
chemical recovery area of the mill.
    On December 17, 1993, EPA proposed (1) effluent limitations 
guidelines and standards for the control of wastewater pollutants for 
the pulp and paper industry and (2) NESHAP for noncombustion sources in 
the pulp and paper industry (58 FR 66078), otherwise referred to as 
``MACT I.'' The emission points covered in the proposed NESHAP for 
noncombustion sources were limited to process units in the pulping and 
bleaching processes (e.g., digesters, bleaching towers, and associated 
tanks) and in the associated wastewater collection and treatment 
systems at mills that chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft, sulfite, 
soda, or semichemical methods. In March 1996, EPA proposed to include 
for regulation additional noncombustion operations and mills not 
covered under the December 17, 1993 proposal (e.g., mechanical pulping, 
pulping of secondary fiber by nonchemical means, nonwood pulping, and 
paper machines), otherwise referred to as ``MACT III'' (61 FR 9383). 
The NESHAP for noncombustion sources and the effluent guidelines are 
being promulgated as part of today's integrated rule, ``NESHAP for 
Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance 
Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category.'' This proposed NESHAP 
for chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite and 
stand-alone semichemical pulp mills, otherwise referred to as ``MACT 
II,'' does not revise or change the requirements of the

[[Page 18756]]

NESHAP for noncombustion sources that is being promulgated today.

B. NESHAP for Source Categories

    Section 112 of the Act provides a list of 189 HAP's and directs EPA 
to develop rules to control HAP emissions from both new and existing 
major sources. The Act requires that the rules be established by 
categories of emission sources considering all HAP's emitted, rather 
than establishing rules based on the emission of a single pollutant 
from a source category. The statute also requires that the standards 
reflect the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of HAP's that is 
achievable, taking into consideration the cost of achieving such 
emission reduction and any nonair quality health and environmental 
impacts and energy requirements. This level of control is commonly 
referred to as MACT.
    In addition, the Act sets out specific criteria to be considered 
for establishing a minimum level of control and criteria (incremental 
cost, energy impacts, etc.) for evaluating control options more 
stringent than the minimum level of control. This minimum level of 
control is commonly referred to as the MACT ``floor.'' The MACT floor 
for new sources, as specified by the Act, is ``the emission control 
that is achieved in practice by the best controlled similar source.'' 
The MACT floor for existing sources, as specified by the Act, is the 
average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent 
of existing sources in each category or subcategory of 30 or more 
sources (CAA section 112(d)(3)). For smaller categories or 
subcategories, the Act specifies that standards shall not be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best 
performing five sources in the category or subcategory. These floor 
determinations are based on data available to the Administrator at the 
time the standards are developed. The statutory provisions do not limit 
how the standard is set, beyond requiring that it be applicable to all 
sources in a category or subcategory and at least as stringent as the 
MACT floor. The emission standards are to be reviewed and revised as 
necessary no less often than every 8 years. Also, EPA may later 
promulgate more stringent standards to address any unacceptable health 
or environmental risk that remains after the imposition of controls 
resulting from today's standards (CAA section 112(f)).

C. Health Effects of Pollutants

    The Clean Air Act was created in part ``to protect and enhance the 
quality of the nation's air resources so as to promote the public 
health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population'' (CAA 
section 101(b)(1)). Title III of the Act establishes a technology-based 
control program to reduce stationary source emissions of HAP's. The 
goal of section 112(d) is to apply such control technology to reduce 
emissions and thereby reduce the hazard of HAP's emitted from 
stationary sources.
    This proposed rule is technology-based (i.e., based on MACT). The 
MACT strategy avoids dependence on a risk-based approach as a pre-
requisite for regulating air toxics. Such risk assessments are limited 
by incomplete information on what HAP's are emitted, what level of 
emissions is occurring, what health and safety benchmarks are available 
to assess risk, what health effects may be caused by certain 
pollutants, and how best to model these effects, among other things. 
Because of these issues, a quantitative risk assessment of potential 
effects from all of the HAP's emitted from pulp and paper combustion 
sources is not included in this rulemaking. However, as described in 
section IV.D.3.d of this preamble, an exposure assessment was conducted 
to determine if current emissions of hydrogen chloride (HCl) from pulp 
and paper combustion sources result in exposures that provide an ample 
margin of safety.
    The EPA does recognize that the degree of adverse effects to health 
can range from mild to severe. The extent and degree to which health 
effects may be experienced is dependent upon (1) ambient concentrations 
observed in the area, (2) duration of exposures, and (3) 
characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., genetics, age, pre-
existing health conditions, and lifestyle) which vary significantly 
with the population. Some of these factors are also influenced by 
source-specific characteristics (e.g., emission rates and local 
meteorological conditions) as well as pollutant-specific 
characteristics.
    Available emission data, collected during development of this 
proposed rule, show that metals, various organic compounds, and HCl are 
the most significant HAP's emitted from pulp and paper combustion 
sources. Following is a summary of the potential health and 
environmental effects associated with exposures, at some level, to 
these emitted pollutants.
    Almost all metals appearing on the section 112(b) list are emitted 
from pulp and paper combustion sources. These metals can cause a range 
of effects, including mucous membrane effects (e.g., bronchitis, 
decreased lung function), gastrointestinal effects, nervous system 
disorders (from cognitive effects to coma or even death), skin 
irritation, and reproductive and developmental disorders. Additionally, 
several of the metals accumulate in the environment and in the human 
body. Cadmium, for example, is a cumulative pollutant that can cause 
kidney effects after cessation of exposure. Similarly, the onset of 
effects from beryllium exposure may be delayed by months to years. 
Further, some of the metal compounds have been classified by EPA as 
known (e.g., arsenic and chromium (VI)) or probable (e.g., cadmium and 
beryllium) human carcinogens.
    All forms of mercury, a volatile metal, may be characterized as 
quite toxic, with different health effects associated with different 
forms of the pollutant. Methyl mercury is the most toxic form of 
mercury to which humans and wildlife generally are exposed. Exposure to 
methyl mercury occurs primarily through the aquatic food chain. The 
target organ for methyl mercury toxicity in humans is the nervous 
system. The range of neurotoxic effects can vary from subtle decrements 
in motor skills and sensory ability to tremors, inability to walk, 
convulsions, and death. Exposure to inorganic mercury is associated 
with renal impairment. Some forms of mercury have also been classified 
as possible human carcinogens. Exposure to mercury compounds can also 
cause effects in plants, birds, and nonhuman mammals. Reproductive 
effects are the primary concern for avian mercury poisoning.
    Organic compounds emitted from pulp and paper combustion sources 
include acetaldehyde, benzene, formaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, 
methyl isobutyl ketone, methanol, phenol, styrene, toluene, and 
xylenes. These organic compounds have a range of potential health 
effects associated with exposure at some level. Some of the effects 
associated with short-term inhalation exposure to these pollutants are 
similar and include irritation of the eyes, skin, and respiratory tract 
in humans; central nervous system effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness, 
headaches, depression, nausea, irregular heartbeat); reproductive and 
developmental effects; and neurological effects. Exposure to benzene 
and methyl isobutyl ketone at extremely high concentrations may lead to 
respiratory paralysis, coma, or death. Human health effects associated 
with long-term inhalation exposure to the organic compounds listed 
above may include mild symptoms such as nausea, headache, weakness, 
insomnia, intestinal pain, and burning eyes; effects on the central 
nervous system; disorders of the blood; toxicity to the immune

[[Page 18757]]

system; reproductive disorders in women (e.g., increased risk of 
spontaneous abortion); developmental effects; gastrointestinal 
irritation; liver injury; and muscular effects.
    In addition to the noncancer effects described above, some of the 
organic HAP's emitted from pulp and paper combustion sources have been 
classified by EPA as either known (e.g., benzene) or probable (e.g., 
acetaldehyde and formaldehyde) human carcinogens.
    Hydrogen chloride is an inorganic HAP which is highly corrosive to 
the eyes, skin, and mucous membranes. Short-term inhalation of HCl by 
humans may cause coughing, hoarseness, inflammation and ulceration of 
the respiratory tract, as well as chest pain and pulmonary edema if 
exposure exceeds threshold concentrations. Long-term occupational 
exposure of humans to HCl has been reported to cause inflammation of 
the stomach, skin, and lungs, and photosensitization.
    The health and environmental effects associated with exposure to PM 
and ozone are described in EPA's Criteria Documents, which support the 
national ambient air quality standards (EPA 1996, ``Air Quality 
Criteria for Ozone and Related Photochemical Oxidants,'' EPA-600/P-93-
004, RTP, NC; EPA 1996, ``Air Quality Criteria for Particulate 
Matter,'' EPA-600/P-95-001, RTP, NC). Briefly, PM emissions have been 
associated with aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular 
disease and increased risk of premature death. Volatile organic 
compounds are precursors to the formation of ozone in the ambient air. 
At ambient levels, human laboratory and community studies have shown 
that ozone is responsible for the reduction of lung function, 
respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, chest pain, throat and nose 
irritation), increased hospital admissions for respiratory causes, and 
increased lung inflammation. Animal studies have shown increased 
susceptibility to respiratory infection and lung structure changes.
    Studies have shown that exposure to ozone can cause foliar injury 
and disrupt carbohydrate production and distribution in plants. The 
reduction in carbohydrate production and allocation can lead to reduced 
root growth, reduced biomass or yield production, reduced plant vigor 
(which can increase susceptibility to attack from insects and disease 
and damage from cold), and diminished ability to successfully compete 
with more tolerant species. These effects have been observed in native 
vegetation in natural ecosystems and in a selected number of commercial 
trees and agricultural crops.

D. Industry Profile

    There are currently 122 kraft, 2 soda, 15 sulfite, and 14 stand-
alone semichemical pulp mills in the United States. The majority (52 
percent) of kraft mills are located in the Southeastern United States. 
The two soda pulp mills are located in Tennessee and Pennsylvania. The 
majority of sulfite mills (67 percent) are located in Washington and 
Wisconsin. Half of all stand-alone semichemical pulp mills are located 
in the Midwestern United States.
    The kraft process is the dominant pulping process in the United 
States. The kraft and soda processes account for approximately 82 
percent of all domestic pulp production; sulfite and stand-alone 
semichemical processes account for approximately 2 and 6 percent of the 
domestic pulp production, respectively.
    Numerous HAP compounds are emitted from combustion sources in the 
chemical recovery area at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills. The HAP compounds emitted in the largest 
quantities are methanol and HCl. Methanol and HCl account for 
approximately 70 percent of the total HAP's emitted from the chemical 
recovery area.
    All of the kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp 
mills are believed to be major HAP emission sources (i.e., emissions 
greater than or equal to 9.1 Mg/yr [10 tons/yr] for an individual HAP 
or 23 Mg/yr [25 tons/yr] for total HAP's). In most cases, HAP emissions 
from combustion sources in the chemical recovery area alone are 
sufficient to characterize these mills as major sources.

III. Summary of Proposed Standards

A. Applicability

    The proposed standards apply 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 sources that are regulated by today's proposed 
standards are--
    (1) Nondirect contact evaporator (NDCE) recovery furnaces, direct 
contact evaporator (DCE) recovery furnace systems, SDT's, and lime 
kilns at kraft and soda pulp mills;
    (2) Sulfite combustion units at sulfite pulp mills; and
    (3) Semichemical combustion units at stand-alone semichemical pulp 
mills.
    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 15 
sulfite mills use a calcium-based sulfite process and do not have 
chemical recovery combustion units and, thus, would not be impacted by 
this proposed rule. One of the 14 stand-alone semichemical pulp mills 
burns spent liquor in a power boiler and does not have chemical 
recovery; therefore, that mill also would not be impacted by this 
proposed rule.

B. Emission Limits and Requirements

    Today's proposed standards would regulate PM HAP emissions and/or 
total gaseous organic HAP emissions for chemical recovery combustion 
sources in the pulp and paper source category. The proposed emission 
standards are summarized in Table 2.

[[Page 18758]]



                                                   Table 2.--Summary of Proposed Emission Standards a                                                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           PM HAP standard               Alternate PM HAP standard          Total gaseous organic HAP   
                                                ------------------------------------            (``bubble'')                        standard            
         Subcategory            Emission  point                                     --------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Existing             New            Existing            New            Existing           New      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kraft and soda...............  Recovery          PM     PM     Mill-specific PM  No ``bubble''    No standard....  Total gaseous  
                                furnaces (NDCE    0.10 gr/dscm      0.034 g/dscm      or PM HAP         alternate       No standard b..   organic HAP   
                                and DCE).         (0.044 gr/dscf)   (0.015 gr/dscf)   emission limit    standard for    No standard b..      
                               Smelt dissolving   at 8% O2 OR PM    at 8% O2.         [kg/Mg (lb/ton)   new sources.                      0.012 kg/Mg   
                                tanks.            HAP   PM      BLS] based on                                       (0.025 lb/ton)
                               Lime kilns......   1.00E-03 kg/Mg    0.06 kg/Mg        calculated                                          BLS (as       
                                                  (2.01E-03 lb/     (0.12 lb/ton)     value of the                                        measured by   
                                                  ton) BLS.         BLS.              sum of the                                          methanol).    
                                                 PM     PM      individual                                         No standard b. 
                                                  0.10 kg/Mg        0.023 g/dscm      emission limits                                    No standard b. 
                                                  (0.20 lb/ton)     (0.010 gr/dscf)   for recovery                                                      
                                                  BLS OR PM HAP     at 10% O2.        furnaces, smelt                                                   
                                                                           dissolving                                                        
                                                  6.20E-05 kg/Mg                      tanks, and lime                                                   
                                                  (1.24E-04 lb/                       kilns. See                                                        
                                                  ton) BLS.                           equations 1 and                                                   
                                                 PM                        2 in section                                                      
                                                  0.15 g/dscm                         III.B.1.                                                          
                                                  (0.067 gr/dscf)                                                                                       
                                                  at 10% O2 OR PM                                                                                       
                                                  HAP                                                                                        
                                                  6.33E-03 kg/Mg                                                                                        
                                                  (1.27E-02 lb/                                                                                         
                                                  ton) CaO.                                                                                             
Sulfite......................  Sulfite           PM     PM     Not applicable..  Not applicable.  No standard b..  No standard b. 
                                combustion        0.092 g/dscm      0.046 g/dscm                                                                        
                                units.            (0.040 gr/dscf)   (0.020 gr/dscf)                                                                     
                                                  at 8% O2.         at 8% O2.                                                                           
Stand-alone semi-chemical....  Semichemical      No standard.....  No standard.....  Not applicable..  Not applicable.  Total gaseous    Total gaseous  
                                combustion                                                                               organic HAP      organic HAP   
                                units recovery                                                                                    
                                combustion                                                                               1.49 kg/Mg       1.49 kg/Mg    
                                units.                                                                                   (2.97 lb/ton)    (2.97 lb/ton) 
                                                                                                                         BLS (as          BLS (as       
                                                                                                                         measured by      measured by   
                                                                                                                         THC) OR 90%      THC) OR 90%   
                                                                                                                         reduction.       reduction.    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a BLS = black liquor solids; CaO = calcium oxide (lime); THC = total hydrocarbons; gr/dscf = grains per dry standard cubic foot; g/dscm = grams per dry 
  standard cubic meter; kg/Mg = kilograms per megagram; lb/ton = pounds per ton; O2 = oxygen.                                                           
b Emissions of total gaseous organic HAP's from these sources are regulated as part of the NESHAP for noncombustion sources at pulp and paper mills.    

    Hazardous air pollutants are proposed only for existing recovery 
furnaces, SDT's, and lime kilns at kraft and soda pulp mills. Limits 
for total gaseous organic HAP emissions are proposed for new kraft and 
soda recovery furnaces and existing and new semichemical combustion 
units. Either methanol or total hydrocarbons (THC), depending on the 
subcategory, is used as a surrogate for total gaseous organic HAP 
emissions. The emission standards for each subcategory are discussed in 
the following sections by the pollutant regulated.
1. PM HAP Standards for Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
    Today's rule proposes PM HAP emission limits for existing recovery 
furnaces, SDT's, and lime kilns at kraft and soda pulp mills. In 
addition, PM emission limits are proposed as a surrogate for PM HAP 
emission limits for both new and existing affected sources at kraft and 
soda pulp mills. The EPA is using the term ``PM HAP'' in this preamble 
to refer to the standards which can be measured either on a total PM 
basis or on a HAP component of PM basis. For existing kraft and soda 
recovery furnaces, SDT's, and gas-fired lime kilns, the proposed PM 
emission limits are the same as the New Source Performance Standards 
for Kraft Pulp Mills (43 FR 7568). Under today's proposed standards, 
existing oil-fired lime kilns would be subject to a more stringent PM 
standard than the NSPS requirements.
    The proposed standards also would allow the use of a ``bubble 
compliance alternative'' for determining compliance with the PM HAP 
standard for existing sources at kraft and soda pulp mills. The bubble 
compliance alternative would allow mills to set PM or PM HAP emission 
limits for each existing affected source at the mill such that, if 
these limits are met, the total emissions from all existing affected 
sources would be less than or equal to a mill-specific bubble limit. 
This mill-specific bubble limit is calculated based on the proposed 
emission limits (referred to as reference concentrations or reference 
emission rates) for each affected source and mill-specific gas flow 
rates and process rates. Equation 1, below, would be used to calculate 
the bubble limit based on PM emissions.

[[Page 18759]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.039


Where:
ELPM=overall PM emission limit for all existing affected 
sources 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 gas flow rates measured 
during the performance test from all existing recovery furnaces 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 (0.067 gr/
dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen for existing kraft or soda lime 
kilns.
QLKtot=sum of the average gas flow rates measured during the 
performance test from all existing lime kilns at the kraft or soda pulp 
mill, dscm/min (dscf/min).
F1=conversion factor, 1.44 minuteskilogram/daygram 
(minkg/dg) (0.206 minutespound/daygrain 
[minlb/dgr]).
BLStot=sum of the average black liquor solids firing rates 
of all existing recovery furnaces 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.

    Equation 2, below, would be used to calculate the total bubble 
limit based on PM HAP emissions.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.040

Where:
ELPMHAP=overall PM HAP emission limit for all existing 
affected sources at the kraft or soda pulp mill, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of 
black liquor solids fired.
ERref,RF=reference emission rate of 1.00E-03 kg/Mg (2.01E-03 
lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired for existing kraft or soda 
recovery furnaces.
ERref,LK=reference emission rate of 6.33E-03 kg/Mg (1.27E-02 
lb/ton) of CaO produced for existing kraft or soda lime kilns.
CaOtot=sum of the average lime production rates for all 
existing lime kilns at the kraft or soda pulp mill measured as CaO 
during the performance test, Mg CaO/d (ton CaO/d).
BLStot=sum of average black liquor solids firing rates of 
all existing recovery furnaces at the kraft or soda pulp mill measured 
during the performance test, Mg/d (ton/d) of black liquor solids fired.
ER2ref,SDT=reference emission rate of 6.20E-05 kg/Mg (1.24E-
04 lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired for existing kraft or soda 
smelt dissolving tanks.

    Owners or operators that choose to comply with the PM HAP standards 
using the proposed bubble compliance alternative would be allowed to 
meet either the PM bubble limit determined in Equation 1 or the PM HAP 
bubble limit determined in Equation 2, but would not be required to 
meet both bubble limits. The proposed bubble compliance alternative 
would not be applicable to new sources. All new affected sources at 
kraft and soda pulp mills would be required to meet the individual 
emission limitations set for those sources. Also, owners or operators 
of existing sources subject to the NSPS for kraft pulp mills would be 
required to continue to meet the PM emission limits of that rule, 
regardless of which option they choose for complying with today's PM 
HAP standard.
    Owners or operators that choose to comply with the PM HAP standards 
using the proposed bubble compliance alternative would be required to 
submit preliminary emission limits to the applicable permitting 
authority for approval for each existing kraft or soda recovery 
furnace, SDT, and lime kiln at the mill. Before the preliminary PM or 
PM HAP emission limits would be approved, the owner or operator would 
be required to submit documentation demonstrating that if the 
preliminary emission limits for each emission source are met, the 
entire group of affected sources would be in compliance with the mill-
wide allowable emission level. The allowable emission level would be 
determined from the applicable bubble equation using the reference 
concentrations and reference emission rates for each emission source 
and source-specific factors for exhaust gas flow rates and process 
rates. Once approved by the applicable permitting authority, the 
emission limits would be incorporated in the operating permit for the 
mill. Thereafter, the owner or operator of the kraft or soda pulp mill 
would demonstrate compliance with the standards by demonstrating that 
each recovery furnace, SDT, and lime kiln emitted less than or equal to 
the approved emission limit for that source. In addition, the PM 
emission limits for any existing recovery furnace, SDT, and lime kiln 
subject to the NSPS for kraft pulp mills must be at least as stringent 
as the PM emission limits established in the NSPS. An example of how 
the bubble compliance alternative can be used to establish emission 
limits for affected sources at an example mill is provided in the 
docket (docket entry No. II-B-75).
    With one exception, owners or operators that choose to comply with 
the PM HAP standards using the proposed bubble compliance alternative 
must include all existing sources in the bubble. Any existing affected 
source that can be classified as a stand-by unit (i.e., a source that 
operates for less than 6,300 hours during any calendar year) could not 
be included as part of a bubble. Owners or operators of stand-by units 
must accept either the proposed PM or proposed PM HAP emission limits 
shown in Table 2 for those units. The EPA requests comments on the 
proposal to exclude stand-by units from the proposed bubble compliance 
alternative. Some have argued that stand-by units--especially units 
operating less than 20 percent of the year--may be relatively expensive 
to control. Thus, inclusion of stand-by units within a compliance 
bubble may yield important cost savings by allowing a more stringent 
control of other units to offset the relatively high cost emissions 
from the stand-by unit. The EPA also requests comment on the proposed 
definition of a stand-by unit as a unit operating less than 6,300 hours 
in a calendar year.
2. Total Gaseous Organic HAP Standards for Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
    There are no standards under the proposed rule for total gaseous 
organic

[[Page 18760]]

HAP's for existing NDCE recovery furnaces or DCE recovery furnace 
systems. All new recovery furnaces at kraft and soda pulp mills would 
be required to meet a total gaseous organic HAP limit, as measured by 
methanol, of 0.012 kg/Mg (0.025 lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
3. PM Standards for Sulfite Pulp Mills
    Existing sulfite combustion units would be required to meet a PM 
emission limit of 0.092 g/dscm (0.040 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent 
oxygen. New sulfite combustion units would be required to meet a PM 
emission limit of 0.046 g/dscm (0.020 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent 
oxygen.
4. Total Gaseous Organic HAP Standards for Stand-Alone Semichemical 
Pulp Mills
    All existing and new stand-alone semichemical pulp mills with 
chemical recovery combustion units would be required to reduce total 
gaseous organic HAP emissions (measured as THC) from these units by 90 
percent, or meet a total gaseous organic HAP emission limit (measured 
as THC) of 1.49 kg/Mg (2.97 lb/ton) of black liquor solids 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 
either the integrated sampling techniques of Test Method 3, ``Gas 
Analysis for the Determination of Dry Molecular Weight'' (40 CFR part 
60, appendix A) or Test Method 3A, ``Determination of Oxygen and Carbon 
Dioxide Concentrations in Emissions from Stationary Sources'' (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A)--is the test method for determining compliance 
with the PM emission standards for new and existing kraft and soda 
recovery furnaces, SDT's, and lime kilns and for new and existing 
sulfite combustion units. Test Method 17, ``Determination of 
Particulate Emissions from Stationary Sources (In-Stack Filtration 
Method)'' may 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 29, ``Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary 
Sources'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) is the test method for 
determining compliance with the PM HAP emission standards for existing 
kraft and soda recovery furnaces, SDT's, and lime kilns. Test Method 29 
also may be used as an alternative to Test Method 5 for measuring PM 
emissions. The Agency also will allow operators or owners the option of 
measuring all of the PM HAP's (except mercury) with Test Method 29 and 
making a separate measurement of the mercury using Test Method 101A, 
``Determination of Particulate and Gaseous Mercury Emissions from 
Sewage Sludge Incinerators'' (40 CFR part 61, appendix A).
    Test Method 308, ``Procedure for Determination of Methanol 
Emissions from Stationary Sources'' is being promulgated today as part 
of the final NESHAP for noncombustion sources at pulp and paper mills 
and is the test method for determining compliance with the total 
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 
total gaseous organic HAP emission limit for new and existing 
combustion sources at stand-alone semichemical pulp mills.

D. Monitoring Requirements and Compliance Provisions

    Each owner or operator of an affected source would be required to 
install, operate, calibrate, and maintain a continuous monitoring 
system for each affected source. The owner or operator also would be 
required to 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 would be required to 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 could conduct multiple performance tests to establish 
ranges of operating parameters. The owner or operator also could 
establish expanded or replacement ranges during subsequent performance 
tests. An exceedance of the operating parameters would occur 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 during any given 
24-hour period. The following paragraphs describe: (1) The operating 
parameters to be monitored, (2) the averaging periods and frequency 
with which these parameters should be monitored, (3) when corrective 
action is required to return operating parameters to levels that are 
within the established range, and (4) when operating parameter 
exceedances constitute a violation of the standards.
    Owners or operators of existing kraft or soda recovery furnaces 
that are equipped with an ESP for PM or PM HAP control would be 
required to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate continuous 
opacity monitoring systems (COMS). The COMS would be required to 
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 10 consecutive 6-minute average values of opacity 
exceed 20 percent, the owner or operator would be required to initiate 
the corrective actions contained in the mill's startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction (SSM) plan. A violation would occur when 6 percent of the 
6-minute average opacity values recorded during any 6-month reporting 
period are greater than 35 percent.
    Owners or operators of new kraft or soda recovery furnaces and new 
or existing kraft or soda lime kilns that are equipped with ESP's for 
PM or PM HAP control would also be required to install, calibrate, 
maintain, and operate COMS. The COMS would be required to 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 10 consecutive 6-minute average values of opacity are 
greater than 20 percent, the owner or operator would be required to 
initiate the corrective actions contained in the facility's SSM plan. A 
violation would occur when 6 percent of the 6-minute average opacity 
values within any 6-month reporting period are greater than 20 percent.
    Owners or operators using wet scrubbers to meet the PM or PM HAP 
emission limits for any kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt 
dissolving tank, or lime kiln or the PM limit for sulfite combustion 
units would be required to install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 
continuous monitoring system capable of determining and permanently 
recording the pressure drop and

[[Page 18761]]

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 
would be required to initiate the corrective actions included in the 
facility's SSM plan. A violation would occur when six 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's) to 
comply with the total gaseous organic HAP emission standard for 
chemical recovery combustion units at stand-alone semichemical mills 
would be required to establish a minimum RTO operating temperature that 
indicates (1) at least a 90 percent reduction in HAP emissions 
(measured as THC) or (2) outlet HAP emissions (measured as THC) of less 
than or equal to 1.49 kg/Mg (2.97 lb/ton) of black liquor solids. To 
ensure ongoing compliance, the owner or operator would be required to 
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 
would be required to initiate the corrective actions contained in the 
facility's SSM plan. A violation would occur when any 3-hour average of 
the RTO operating temperature falls below the minimum established 
temperature.
    The owner or operator of an affected source 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 applicable permitting authority.
    The owner or operator of an affected source that is complying with 
today's proposed standards through operational changes or by a control 
device other than those described above would be required to 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 applicable permitting authority. If any 3-
hour average value of a monitored parameter falls outside the 
established range, the owner or operator would be required to initiate 
the corrective actions included in the facility's SSM plan. A violation 
would occur when six 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 total 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 would not be 
required to perform any continuous parameter monitoring for gaseous 
organic HAP's; however, each owner or operator would be required to 
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 of the General Provisions (subpart A of 40 CFR 
part 63), owners or operators of kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills would be required to maintain the following 
records for each affected source: (1) Records of the black liquor 
solids 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; 
(2) records of the lime production rates, calculated as CaO, for all 
kraft and soda lime kilns; (3) records of all parameter monitoring 
data; (4) records and documentation of supporting calculations for 
compliance determinations; (5) records of the established monitoring 
parameter ranges for each affected source; and (6) records of all 
certifications made in order to determine compliance with the total 
gaseous organic HAP standards. All records would have to be maintained 
for a minimum of 5 years.

IV. Rationale

    This section describes the rationale for the decisions made by the 
Administrator in determining the proposed MACT floors for each source 
category and in selecting the proposed standards.

A. Selection of Source Category

    The list of source categories was published in the Federal Register 
on July 16, 1992 and includes pulp and paper mills as major sources of 
HAP's (57 FR 31576). Standards for the pulp and paper production source 
category are being developed in phases. In December 1993, EPA proposed 
the first set of emission standards for the source category (i.e., a 
proposed NESHAP for noncombustion sources in the pulp and paper 
industry, otherwise referred to as MACT I) as part of a ``cluster 
rule'' that also included proposed effluent guidelines and standards 
for the control of wastewater pollutants (58 FR 66078). In March 1996, 
EPA proposed to include for regulation additional noncombustion 
operations and mills not covered under the December 1993 proposal 
(i.e., MACT III) (61 FR 9383). The NESHAP for noncombustion sources, as 
well as the effluent guidelines and standards, are being promulgated as 
part of today's cluster rule. An additional set of standards for the 
source category is covered by today's proposed NESHAP for chemical 
recovery combustion sources (i.e., MACT II). Today's proposed 
``combustion sources'' NESHAP covers (1) combustion units in the 
chemical recovery area at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills, (2) SDT's at kraft and soda pulp mills, and 
(3) BLO systems at kraft pulp mills. Although kraft and soda SDT's and 
kraft BLO systems are not combustion sources, these equipment are 
included in today's proposed ``combustion sources'' NESHAP because they 
are closely associated with the chemical recovery combustion equipment. 
For the purposes of today's proposed standards, the combustion units, 
SDT's, and BLO systems are collectively referred to as ``chemical 
recovery combustion sources.'' Specifically, the chemical recovery 
combustion sources are defined as (1) kraft and soda NDCE recovery 
furnaces and DCE recovery furnace systems (which include BLO systems), 
(2) kraft and soda SDT's, (3) kraft and soda lime kilns, (4) sulfite 
combustion units, and (5) semichemical combustion units.

B. Selection of Emission Points

    The following section identifies the HAP emission points for kraft, 
soda, sulfite and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills that were 
examined by the Agency for control under the proposed rule. General 
descriptions of the chemical recovery process and equipment also are 
included in this section. More detailed information on the emission 
points and chemical recovery process can be found in the technical 
support documents listed under the ADDRESSES section.
1. Emission Points--Kraft Pulp Mills
    Emission points at kraft pulp mills that were examined by the 
Agency for control under the proposed standards are NDCE recovery 
furnaces and DCE recovery furnace systems, SDT's, and lime kilns. These 
emission points are integral parts of the kraft chemical recovery 
process, in which cooking liquor chemicals (i.e., sodium hydroxide 
[NaOH] and sodium sulfide [Na2S]) are recovered from spent 
cooking liquor. Cooking liquor, which is used in the pulping process, 
is commonly referred

[[Page 18762]]

to as white liquor; spent cooking liquor is commonly referred to as 
black liquor.
    a. NDCE Recovery Furnaces and DCE Recovery Furnace Systems. There 
are an estimated 209 recovery furnaces operating at U.S. kraft pulp 
mills. The kraft recovery furnace is essentially a chemical recovery 
unit and steam generator that uses black liquor as its fuel. More 
specifically, the kraft recovery furnace (1) recovers inorganic pulping 
chemicals from black liquor as smelt by reducing sodium sulfate 
(Na2SO4) to Na2S and (2) combusts 
organic compounds in black liquor to produce steam for mill processes.
    Kraft recovery furnaces can be classified based on the type of 
final-stage evaporator used to increase the solids content of black 
liquor prior to firing in the furnace. The final-stage evaporator, 
which follows the multiple-effect evaporator (MEE), may be either an 
NDCE or DCE. Direct contact evaporators use flue gases from the 
recovery furnace to concentrate the black liquor. In the 1970's, as 
energy costs increased and Federal and State regulations were passed 
that limited TRS emissions from kraft pulp mills, the use of NDCE's (or 
concentrators) became more prevalent. By using an NDCE, the heat that 
was formerly used to concentrate black liquor in the DCE can be used to 
produce steam by extending the economizer section of the furnace, and 
the TRS emissions (associated with the DCE) will be decreased. For 
newer recovery furnaces, all of which use NDCE's, the NDCE is often 
considered an integral part of the MEE. Approximately 61 percent of 
kraft recovery furnaces are NDCE recovery furnaces, and 39 percent are 
DCE recovery furnace systems. For the purposes of today's proposed 
rule, an ``NDCE recovery furnace'' is defined as a recovery furnace 
that is equipped with an NDCE that concentrates black liquor by 
indirect contact with steam. A ``DCE recovery furnace system'' is 
defined to include a DCE recovery furnace and any BLO system, if 
present, at the pulp mill; a ``DCE recovery furnace'' is defined as a 
recovery furnace that is equipped with a DCE that concentrates strong 
black liquor by direct contact between the hot recovery furnace exhaust 
gases and the strong black liquor.
    All kraft recovery furnaces have a PM control device, typically an 
ESP. The PM collected in the ESP, which is predominantly 
Na2SO4, is returned to the concentrated black 
liquor that is fired in the recovery furnace. The mechanism for 
returning the PM to the black liquor may be a dry system or may use 
either black liquor or process water.
    In DCE recovery furnace systems, black liquor is oxidized prior to 
evaporation in the DCE. Black liquor oxidation reduces emissions of TRS 
compounds, which are stripped from black liquor in the DCE when the 
black liquor contacts hot flue gases from the recovery furnace. Black 
liquor can be oxidized using either air or pure (molecular) oxygen. 
Air-sparging units operate by bubbling air through the black liquor 
using multiple diffuser nozzles. Air-sparging units have from one to 
three tanks (or stages) that operate in series and a corresponding 
number of emission points. At two mills, vent gases from air-sparging 
BLO units are routed to a power boiler to reduce TRS emissions via 
incineration. Molecular oxygen BLO systems resemble pipeline reactors 
and require relatively short residence times (i.e., 30 seconds to 5 
minutes compared to 1 or more hours for air-sparging units). Because 
all of the oxygen is consumed in the reaction, no system vent is 
required with molecular oxygen BLO in-line reactors, and therefore, no 
emission point is associated with these systems. There are an estimated 
46 BLO systems operating at kraft pulp mills. Mills with multiple DCE 
recovery furnaces have one BLO system. At present, only four mills 
(with seven DCE recovery furnaces) use a molecular oxygen BLO system.
    The emission potential for DCE recovery furnace systems is higher 
than that for NDCE recovery furnaces because of the increased 
opportunity to strip HAP compounds from the black liquor in the process 
equipment. In the DCE recovery furnace system, gaseous organic HAP 
compounds can be stripped from the black liquor in the air-sparging BLO 
system and in the DCE. Similarly, the emission potential for NDCE 
recovery furnaces with ESP's that use black liquor or HAP-contaminated 
process water in the ESP bottom or PM return system is higher than that 
for NDCE recovery furnaces that have dry ESP systems (i.e., dry-bottom 
ESP's and dry PM return systems). As with the air-sparging BLO systems 
and DCE's, stripping of gaseous organic HAP compounds can occur if 
black liquor or HAP-contaminated process water is used in the bottom of 
the ESP or in the PM return system.
    In addition to the criteria pollutants (i.e., PM, NOX, 
SO2, CO, and VOC [ozone precursor]) and TRS, the compounds 
emitted in the largest quantities from NDCE recovery furnaces and DCE 
recovery furnace systems are methanol and HCl. For a given process 
emission rate, the total gaseous organic HAP emissions from DCE 
recovery furnace systems are, on average, approximately 14 times higher 
than NDCE recovery furnaces with dry ESP systems. Also, for a given 
process emission rate, the total gaseous organic HAP emissions from 
NDCE recovery furnaces with wet ESP systems (i.e., ESP's that use black 
liquor or HAP-contaminated process water in the ESP bottom or PM return 
system) are, on average, approximately 3.5 times higher than NDCE 
recovery furnaces with dry ESP systems. Of the total gaseous organic 
HAP's emitted, methanol emissions account for approximately 67 percent 
of emissions from DCE recovery furnace systems and 13 percent of 
emissions from NDCE recovery furnaces with dry ESP systems.
    For a given process emission rate, HCl emissions are approximately 
equivalent for both NDCE recovery furnaces and DCE recovery furnace 
systems. Hydrogen chloride emissions account for approximately 19 
percent of the total gaseous HAP emissions from DCE recovery furnace 
systems and 76 percent of the total gaseous HAP emissions from NDCE 
recovery furnaces with dry ESP systems.
    Particulate matter HAP's account for approximately 0.2 percent of 
the PM emissions and 0.3 percent of the total HAP emissions from 
recovery furnaces. Although the PM inlet loadings to the PM control 
devices for NDCE recovery furnaces are higher than for DCE recovery 
furnaces due to removal of 20 to 40 percent of the PM in the DCE unit, 
equivalent outlet PM emissions can be achieved with the use of add-on 
controls.
    b. Smelt Dissolving Tanks. There are an estimated 227 SDT's at U.S. 
kraft pulp mills. This estimate is higher than the estimated number of 
recovery furnaces because some furnaces have two SDT's. The SDT is a 
large, covered vessel located below the recovery furnace and is the 
discharge point for molten smelt, which is the main product from the 
combustion of black liquor. Smelt, which is predominantly sodium 
carbonate (Na2CO3) and Na2S, filters 
through the char bed at the bottom of the recovery furnace and is 
continuously discharged through water-cooled spouts into the SDT. As 
the smelt exits the water-cooled spouts, the smelt stream is shattered 
with medium-pressure steam so that it can be safely dissolved in the 
SDT. In the SDT, smelt is dissolved in weak wash water from the 
recausticizing area to form unclarified green liquor, an aqueous 
solution of Na2CO3 and Na2S.
    Large volumes of steam are generated when the smelt is quenched in 
the SDT. Residual water vapor and PM generated

[[Page 18763]]

during quenching are drawn off the tank through a venturi scrubber or 
other PM control device using an induced-draft fan. Particulate matter 
HAP's account for approximately 0.06 percent of the PM emissions from 
SDT's. The water used in the scrubber, which is typically weak wash, 
drains directly into the SDT. Gaseous organic HAP compounds (primarily 
methanol) also are emitted from SDT's as a result of the use of weak 
wash in the SDT and PM control device. Because of the elevated 
operating temperature of the SDT, gaseous organic HAP compounds present 
in the weak wash can volatilize and subsequently be released to the 
atmosphere.
    c. Lime Kilns. An estimated 190 lime kilns operate at U.S. kraft 
pulp mills. The lime kiln is part of the recausticizing process in 
which green liquor from the SDT is converted to white liquor. 
Specifically, Na2CO3 in the green liquor is 
converted to NaOH, a main constituent of white liquor, by adding 
reburned lime (CaO) from the lime kiln. The resulting white liquor 
solution contains NaOH, Na2S, and calcium carbonate 
(Ca2CO3) precipitate (referred to as ``lime 
mud''). Lime mud is removed from this solution in a white liquor 
clarifier. The lime mud is then washed, dewatered, and calcined in a 
lime kiln to produce reburned lime, which is recycled back to the green 
liquor.
    Most kilns in use at kraft pulp mills are large rotary kilns (98 
percent); a few fluidized-bed calciners are also used. Natural gas or 
fuel oil typically provides the energy for the calcining process. The 
majority of lime kilns at kraft pulp mills also burn noncondensible gas 
streams (NCG's) from various process vents, such as digester and 
evaporator vents.
    Lime kiln exhaust gases consist of combustion products, carbon 
dioxide released during calcination, water vapor evaporated from the 
mud, and entrained lime dust. Particulate in the exhaust gases is 
mainly CaO, Ca2CO3, and sodium salts. 
Approximately 1.4 percent of the PM emissions from lime kilns is PM 
HAP's. Exhaust gases are routed through a PM control device prior to 
being discharged to the atmosphere. Venturi scrubbers and ESP's are the 
two most common types of PM control devices used to control PM 
emissions from lime kilns.
    As with SDT's, gaseous organic HAP compounds (primarily methanol) 
also are emitted from lime kilns due primarily to the use of weak wash 
as the scrubbing liquor in the PM control device and lime mud washer. 
Because of the elevated gas stream temperature, gaseous organic HAP 
compounds present in the weak wash can volatilize and subsequently be 
released to the atmosphere.
2. Emission Points--Soda Pulp Mills
    Emission points at soda pulp mills that were examined by the Agency 
for control under today's proposed standards are recovery furnaces, 
SDT's, and lime kilns. The processes and equipment used in the chemical 
recovery areas of soda and kraft pulp mills are similar, except that 
the soda process, because it is a nonsulfur process, does not require 
black liquor oxidation. With the exception of sulfur-containing 
compounds, the types and quantities of compounds emitted from soda pulp 
mills are comparable to the types and quantities of compounds emitted 
from kraft pulp mills. There are only two soda pulp mills in the United 
States, and no new soda mills are expected to be constructed. There are 
a total of two recovery furnaces (one NDCE and one DCE), two SDT's, and 
two lime kilns at the soda mills.
3. Emission Points--Sulfite Pulp Mills
    The emission point at sulfite pulp mills that was examined by the 
Agency for control under the proposed standard is the chemical recovery 
combustion unit. The chemical recovery combustion unit is an integral 
part of the chemical recovery process, which recovers cooking liquor 
chemicals from spent cooking liquor (also called red liquor). The types 
of chemical recovery combustion units used at sulfite mills are 
recovery furnaces, fluidized-bed reactors, and combustors. There are 18 
recovery furnaces, 2 fluidized-bed reactors, and 1 combustor operating 
at sulfite pulp mills. For the purposes of today's proposed rule, these 
various combustion units are collectively referred to as ``sulfite 
combustion units.''
    The process and equipment used to recover sulfite cooking liquor 
chemicals depend on the chemical base of the cooking liquor. Sulfite 
cooking liquors use one of four chemical bases--magnesium (Mg), ammonia 
(NH3), calcium (Ca), or sodium (Na). Cooking liquor 
chemicals can be recovered for the Mg-, NH3-, and Na-based 
sulfite processes. Recovery of cooking liquor chemicals is not 
practical for the Ca-based sulfite process, and, therefore, no sulfite 
combustion units are used at the existing Ca-based sulfite mills. 
Additionally, there are currently no operating Na-based sulfite mills. 
There are currently six Mg-based sulfite mills and six NH3-
based sulfite mills. Information on the sulfite combustion units at Mg- 
and NH3-based sulfite pulp mills follows.
    At the six Mg-based sulfite mills, red liquor is fired in a 
recovery furnace or fluidized-bed reactor. There are nine recovery 
furnaces and two fluidized-bed reactors. Multiple-effect evaporators, 
which may be followed by a DCE or NDCE, are used to increase the solids 
content of the red liquor prior to firing in the combustion unit. 
Magnesium-based sulfite combustion units differ from kraft recovery 
furnaces in that there are no smelt beds. Combustion of the spent 
liquor produces both heat for steam generation and exhaust gases that 
contain magnesium oxide (MgO) particulate and SO2 gas. When 
a recovery furnace is used, the major portion of the MgO is recovered 
as a fine white powder from the exhaust gases using multiple cyclones. 
When a fluidized-bed reactor is used, MgO from the exhaust gases is 
collected in a cyclone and from the bed of the reactor as pulverized 
bed material. The MgO from the recovery furnace or fluidized-bed 
reactor is then slaked with water to form magnesium hydroxide 
(Mg(OH)2), which is used as circulating liquid in a series 
of absorption towers and/or venturi scrubbers designed to recover 
SO2 from combustion gases. In the absorption towers/venturi 
scrubbers, SO2 is recovered by reaction with 
Mg(OH)2 to form a magnesium bisulfite solution. The 
magnesium bisulfite solution is then fortified with makeup 
SO2 and subsequently used as cooking liquor. Some mills have 
installed air pollution control devices, such as a fiber-bed demister 
system or an educted venturi scrubber, downstream of the SO2 
absorption equipment, to further reduce PM and/or SO2 
emissions.
    At the six NH3-based sulfite pulp mills, red liquor is 
fired in a recovery furnace or combustor. There are nine recovery 
furnaces and one combustor. The solids content of the red liquor is 
increased using MEE's, which may be followed by a DCE or NDCE. 
Combustion of the spent liquor produces both heat for steam generation 
and combustion gases that contain recoverable SO2. The 
ammonia base is consumed during combustion, forming nitrogen and water. 
A small amount of ash is produced and periodically removed from the 
furnace bottom. (There are no smelt beds.) Sulfur dioxide is recovered 
from cooled flue gas in an acid-gas absorption tower to form an 
ammonium bisulfite solution. Fresh aqueous NH3 is used as 
the circulating liquor in the absorption system. The ammonium bisulfite 
solution is fortified with makeup SO2 and used as cooking 
liquor. Exit gases from the absorption system are typically

[[Page 18764]]

routed to a fiber-bed demister system for PM removal and mist 
elimination prior to being discharged to the atmosphere. Some mills 
have installed a scrubber or mesh-pad mist eliminator upstream of the 
fiber-bed demister system for additional PM and SO2 emission 
control and to improve the efficiency and operation of the fiber-bed 
demister system.
4. Emission Points--Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills
    The emission point at stand-alone semichemical pulp mills that was 
examined for control under today's proposed standards is the chemical 
recovery combustion unit. The combustion unit is used in the chemical 
recovery process to recover the inorganic cooking chemicals, produce 
steam, and remove the organic compounds in the black liquor by 
combustion. Cooking liquor chemicals are recovered as either smelt or 
ash, which is dissolved in water and mixed with make-up cooking 
chemicals to form white liquor.
    There are 14 chemical recovery combustion units currently operating 
at stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. Five different types of 
chemical recovery combustion units are in operation: fluidized-bed 
reactors, recovery furnaces, smelters, rotary liquor kilns, and 
pyrolysis reactors. For the purposes of today's standards, these 
various combustion units are collectively referred to as ``semichemical 
combustion units.''
    a. Fluidized-Bed Reactors. Seven fluidized-bed reactors are 
currently in use at seven stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. 
Fluidized-bed reactors are used extensively because the recovered 
chemicals are in the form of solid pellets, which can be stored in 
silos until the chemicals are needed to make fresh cooking liquor. This 
practice requires less storage space than when recovered chemicals are 
routed directly to a dissolving tank and stored in solution.
    In the fluidized-bed reactor, concentrated black liquor is fired 
from a single spray gun located at the top of the reactor. As the 
liquor falls towards the bed, evaporation and some combustion occurs, 
causing the liquor to pelletize. Fluidizing gas rises through the bed 
of solid pellets, setting the bed in fluid motion. The soda ash 
(Na2CO3) pellets are recovered from the reactor 
and stored in silos.
    b. Recovery Furnaces. Two NDCE recovery furnaces are currently in 
use at two stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. Semichemical recovery 
furnaces, like kraft recovery furnaces, are used to recover cooking 
liquor chemicals by burning concentrated black liquor and to produce 
process steam with the heat of combustion. Semichemical and kraft 
recovery furnaces are similar in design.
    c. Smelters. Two smelters are currently in use at a nonsulfur-
based, stand-alone semichemical pulp mill. Smelters operate in a manner 
similar to recovery furnaces, except that smelters do not produce 
excess steam for mill processes and are actually net users of heat. The 
units currently in use are actually converted small kraft recovery 
furnaces.
    d. Rotary Liquor Kilns. Two rotary liquor kilns are currently in 
use at two nonsulfur-based, stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. Unlike 
lime kilns used in the kraft chemical recovery process, rotary liquor 
kilns are used for the combustion of black liquor at semichemical pulp 
mills. In the kiln, fuel oil is burned in the lower end. An induced-
draft fan at the upper end draws combustion air into the lower end and 
draws combustion gases through the kiln. Approximately halfway between 
the lower and upper ends, black liquor is fired into the kiln. Sodium 
carbonate ash created from contact between black liquor and combustion 
gases falls to the lower end of the kiln, then is routed to an ash 
dissolving tank. The combustion gases are routed to a waste heat boiler 
to produce steam.
    e. Pyrolysis Reactor. One pyrolysis reactor is currently in use at 
a stand-alone semichemical pulp mill. ``Pyrolysis'' means chemical 
change caused by heat, not by combustion. In the pyrolysis reactor, 
fuel oil or propane is burned to provide the heat for pyrolysis. Black 
liquor is injected under high pressure in a finely atomized spray 
through several nozzles arranged around the wall of the pyrolysis 
chamber. The hot combustion gases travel downward at high velocity and 
contact the liquor sprays at high turbulence and rapid mixing.
    Pyrolysis reactions occur, converting the sodium in the liquor into 
a solid ash powder composed mainly of soda ash 
(Na2CO3), and the other constituents into a 
gaseous mixture of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) mixed with CO, 
carbon dioxide (CO2), hydrogen (H2), methane 
(CH4), nitrogen (N2), and water vapor.
    f. HAP Emissions from Semichemical Combustion Sources. Test data 
indicate that chemical recovery combustion units at stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills are significant sources of gaseous organic HAP 
emissions. The major HAP compounds emitted from chemical recovery 
combustion units are methanol, benzene, methyl ethyl ketone, 
formaldehyde, and toluene. The fluidized-bed reactors emit the highest 
quantities of HAP's, while emissions from other semichemical combustion 
unit types (e.g., recovery furnaces and rotary liquor kilns) are much 
lower. For example, based on available HAP emissions data, the 
fluidized-bed reactors have total HAP emissions approximately 20 to 75 
times higher per ton of black liquor solids fired than the other 
semichemical combustion unit types. Some of the other semichemical 
combustion unit types (e.g., recovery furnaces and rotary liquor kilns) 
are inherently lower-emitting because they achieve more complete 
combustion of organic compounds. (No HAP emission data were available 
for the pyrolysis unit; however, that unit is scheduled to be 
decommissioned by 1998 due to operational difficulties, and no more 
pyrolysis units are expected to be installed at stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills.) Unlike kraft recovery furnaces, most of the 
HAP's emitted from fluidized-bed reactors at stand-alone semichemical 
pulp mills are formed in the reactor due to incomplete combustion, not 
from contact of the exhaust stream with black liquor or HAP-
contaminated water in the DCE or wet ESP systems. Carbon monoxide 
emissions, an indicator of combustion efficiency, have been measured 
from fluidized-bed reactors at levels as high as 50,000 parts per 
million by volume (ppmv); by contrast, kraft recovery 
furnaces typically emit less than 1,000 ppmv of CO. No add-
on control devices are currently being used to control total gaseous 
organic HAP emissions from combustion sources at stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills; however, at least one RTO will be installed to 
control emissions from a fluidized-bed reactor at a semichemical mill 
by the end of 1997.

C. Selection of Definition of Affected Source

    Most industrial plants consist of numerous pieces or groups of 
equipment that emit HAP and that may be viewed as emission ``sources.'' 
The Agency, therefore, uses the term ``affected source'' to designate 
the equipment within a particular kind of plant that is chosen as the 
``source'' covered by a given standard. For today's rulemaking, EPA is 
proposing to define the affected source as each individual process unit 
within the chemical recovery area at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-
alone semichemical pulp mills. For kraft and soda pulp mills, each 
recovery furnace and its associated SDT('s) are considered together as 
an affected source. The Agency decided to

[[Page 18765]]

consider these emission points as one source because recovery furnaces 
and SDT's are generally sold as one unit, although the emissions from 
the recovery furnace and the SDT are treated separately in nearly all 
cases. In today's proposed rulemaking, five process units are examined: 
(1) Kraft and soda NDCE recovery furnaces (and associated SDT's), (2) 
kraft and soda DCE recovery furnace systems (and associated SDT's), (3) 
kraft and soda lime kilns, (4) sulfite combustion units, and (5) 
semichemical combustion units.

D. Selection of Pollutants

    For purposes of this rule, the HAP's emitted from combustion 
sources at pulp mills have been divided into three categories: (1) PM 
HAP's, (2) total gaseous organic HAP's, and (3) HCl. The EPA proposes 
to regulate emissions of PM HAP's and gaseous organic HAP's.
1. PM HAP's
    Available emission data indicate that PM HAP's are emitted from 
kraft and soda recovery furnaces, SDT's, and lime kilns and sulfite 
combustion units. Particulate matter HAP's represent approximately 0.2 
percent of the PM emitted from these combustion sources. Particulate 
matter was selected as a surrogate for HAP metals emitted in the form 
of particulate. Available data on PM control device performance 
indicate that control systems that control PM also control the HAP 
portion of the PM. (See Technical Support Document: Chemical Recovery 
Combustion Sources at Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills, Chapter 3; docket 
entry No. II-A-31.) However, as a means of maximizing compliance 
flexibility, the proposed rule also includes a PM HAP emission limit 
for existing affected sources at kraft and soda mills that choose to 
measure PM HAP's directly, as opposed to measuring PM.
2. Total Gaseous Organic HAP's
    Available emission data indicate that the following gaseous organic 
HAP's are emitted from kraft and soda NDCE recovery furnaces and DCE 
recovery furnace systems and semichemical combustion units: 
acetaldehyde, benzene, formaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, methyl 
isobutyl ketone, methanol, phenol, styrene, toluene, and xylenes. 
Methanol is the predominant gaseous organic HAP emitted from kraft and 
soda NDCE recovery furnaces and DCE recovery furnace systems.
    Methanol was selected as a surrogate for gaseous organic HAP 
compounds for demonstrating compliance with the total gaseous organic 
HAP limits for new kraft and soda NDCE recovery furnaces and DCE 
recovery furnace systems because methanol is the predominant HAP 
emitted from these sources, and controls in place for methanol also 
would result in the control of other gaseous organic HAP compounds. 
(See Technical Support Document: Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources 
at Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills, Chapter 2; docket entry No. II-A-31.) For 
example, the major emission mechanism for the release of gaseous 
organic HAP compounds is the stripping of the compounds from the black 
liquor in the BLO unit, the DCE, and some ESP systems. Reducing contact 
between the gas streams and the black liquor in these units reduces not 
only methanol emissions but also emissions of other gaseous organic 
HAP's. In addition, performance tests are more expensive when a range 
of organic compounds must be measured. The measurement of methanol as a 
surrogate for gaseous organic HAP's reduces compliance costs. 
Therefore, the Agency selected methanol as a surrogate for total 
gaseous organic HAP emissions for new kraft and soda NDCE recovery 
furnaces and DCE recovery furnace systems.
    For new and existing semichemical combustion units, THC emissions 
were selected as a surrogate for total gaseous organic HAP emissions. 
Emissions from semichemical combustion units are primarily the result 
of incomplete combustion, and THC emissions were found to correlate 
with HAP emissions. (See Correlation of THC Emissions with HAP 
Emissions Memo; docket entry No. II-B-71.)
3. Hydrochloric Acid (HCl)
    The Agency proposes not to regulate HCl emissions from recovery 
furnaces. Under the authority of section 112(d)(4), the Agency has 
determined that no further control is necessary because HCl is a 
``health threshold pollutant,'' and HCl levels emitted from recovery 
furnaces are below the threshold value within an ample margin of 
safety. The following discussion provides the basis for the Agency's 
decision not to regulate HCl emissions from recovery furnaces. 
Specifically, this section discusses (1) the statutory authority for 
considering the health threshold when establishing standards, (2) the 
determination of HCl as a threshold pollutant, (3) the exposure 
assessment modeling of HCl emissions from recovery furnaces, (4) an 
ecological assessment of HCl, and (5) the Agency's conclusions.
    a. Statutory Authority. The Act includes certain exceptions to the 
general statutory requirement to establish emission standards based on 
the performance of MACT. Of relevance here, section 112(d)(4) provides 
EPA with authority, at its discretion, to develop risk-based standards 
for HAP's ``for which a health threshold has been established'', 
provided that the standard achieves an ``ample margin of safety.'' (The 
full text of the section 112(d)(4): ``[w]ith respect to pollutants for 
which a health threshold has been established, the Administrator may 
consider such threshold level, within an ample margin of safety, when 
establishing emission standards under this subsection.'')
    The EPA presumptively applies section 112(d)(4) only to HAP's that 
are not carcinogens because Congress clearly intended that carcinogens 
be considered nonthreshold pollutants. (Staff of the Senate Committee 
on Environment and Public Works, A Legislative History of the Clean Air 
Act Amendments of 1990, Vol. 1 at 876, statement of Senator Durenberger 
during Senate Debate of October 27, 1990: ``With respect to the 
pollutants for which a safe threshold can be set, the authority to set 
a standard less stringent than maximum achievable control technology is 
contained in subsection (d)(4). With respect to carcinogens and other 
non-threshold pollutants, no such authority exists in subsection (d) or 
in any other provision of the Act.'') The legislative history further 
indicates that if EPA invokes this provision, it must assure that any 
emission standard results in ambient concentrations less than the 
health threshold, with an ample margin of safety, and that the 
standards must also be sufficient to protect against adverse 
environmental effects (S. Rep. No. 228, 101st Cong. at 171). Costs are 
not to be considered in establishing a standard pursuant to section 
112(d)(4) (Ibid.).
    Therefore, EPA believes it has the discretion under section 
112(d)(4) to develop risk-based standards for some categories emitting 
threshold pollutants, which may be less stringent than the 
corresponding ``floor''-based MACT standard would be. If EPA decided to 
develop standards under this provision, it would seek to assure that 
emissions from every source in the category or subcategory are less 
than the threshold level to an individual exposed at the upper end of 
the exposure distribution. The upper end of the exposure distribution 
is calculated using the ``high end exposure estimate,'' defined as ``a 
plausible estimate of individual exposure for those persons at the 
upper end of the exposure distribution, conceptually above the 90th 
percentile, but not higher than the individual in the population who 
has the highest exposure'' (EPA Exposure Assessment Guidelines, 57 FR 
22888, May 29, 1992).

[[Page 18766]]

The EPA believes that assuring protection to persons at the upper end 
of the exposure distribution is consistent with the ``ample margin of 
safety'' requirement in section 112(d)(4).
    The EPA emphasizes that use of section 112(d)(4) authority is 
wholly discretionary. As the legislative history described above 
indicates, cases may arise in which other considerations dictate that 
the Agency should not invoke this authority to establish less stringent 
standards, despite the existence of a health effects threshold that is 
not jeopardized. For instance, EPA does not anticipate that it would 
set less stringent standards where evidence indicates a threat of 
significant or widespread environmental effects, although it may be 
shown that emissions from a particular source category do not approach 
or exceed a level requisite to protect public health with an ample 
margin of safety. The EPA may also elect not to set less stringent 
standards where the estimated health threshold for a contaminant is 
subject to large uncertainty. Thus, in considering appropriate uses of 
its discretionary authority under section 112(d)(4), EPA intends to 
consider other factors in addition to health thresholds, including 
uncertainty and potential ``adverse environmental effects,'' as that 
phrase is defined in section 112(a)(7).
    b. Health Effects Assessment. Several factors are considered in the 
Agency's decision of whether a pollutant should be categorized as a 
health threshold pollutant for the purposes of section 112(d)(4). These 
factors include evidence and classification of carcinogenic risk and 
evidence of noncarcinogenic effects. The following discussion focuses 
on these factors.
    Consideration is given to any evidence of human carcinogenic risk 
associated with the pollutant. Based on Congress's intent, for the 
purposes of section 112(d)(4), the Administrator presumptively 
concludes that HAP's classified as either Group A (known carcinogen), 
Group B (probable carcinogen), or Group C (possible carcinogen) (as 
defined under the EPA's 1986 Carcinogen Risk Assessment Guidelines (51 
FR 33992; September 24, 1986)) should not be categorized as threshold 
pollutants (as per section 112(f)(2)(A) of the Act, which requires EPA 
to consider residual risk standards for pollutants classified as 
``known, probable, or possible human carcinogens''). The EPA recognizes 
that advances in risk assessment science and policy, as incorporated in 
future EPA risk assessment guidelines, may affect the way EPA 
differentiates between threshold and non-threshold HAP's. The EPA's 
draft Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment (public review draft, 
April, 1996) suggest that carcinogens be assigned non-linear dose-
response relationships where data warrant. It is possible that dose-
response curves for some substances may reach zero risk at a dose 
greater than zero, creating a threshold for carcinogenic effects. The 
EPA will consider both the state of the science and legislative intent 
in future rulemaking under section 112(d)(4). Under EPA's current 
guidelines, the Agency considers the data on carcinogenicity in humans 
and/or animals for pollutants with A, B, or C classifications adequate 
support for consideration of a HAP as a nonthreshold pollutant.
    By definition, the Agency does not have enough evidence available 
to conclude whether HAP's with the weight of evidence classification of 
Group D (as defined under the EPA's 1986 Carcinogen Risk Assessment 
Guidelines [51 FR 33992; September 24, 1986]) pose a human cancer risk. 
Thus, the Agency will determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether the 
available evidence is sufficient to conclude whether a ``safety 
threshold for exposure'' exists for each HAP that is classified as a 
Group D pollutant. For the purposes of this action, the Agency believes 
it is reasonable to classify HCl as a Group D pollutant (see Health 
Assessment Document for Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride, Review Draft; 
EPA-600/8-87/041A, August 1994). This classification is based on only 
one animal study, and no human data are available for review. In the 
animal study, no carcinogenic response was observed in rats exposed via 
inhalation. Based on the limited negative carcinogenicity data, and on 
EPA's knowledge of how HCl reacts in the body and its likely mechanism 
of action (discussed further below), the Agency presumptively considers 
HCl to be a threshold pollutant.
    Under current EPA science policy, HAP's classified as Group E 
pollutants (evidence of noncarcinogenicity for humans) are 
presumptively considered by the Agency, for the purposes of section 
112(d)(4), to have a ``safety threshold of exposure.'' Therefore, Group 
E pollutants are considered threshold pollutants, unless there is 
adequate evidence to the contrary. The EPA has developed new risk 
assessment guidelines for reproductive effects (see http://www.epa.gov/
ORD/WebPubs/repro), and is in the process of developing others (e.g., 
developmental effects and neurotoxicity) that may influence 
determinations of thresholds for specific pollutants.
    For pollutants such as HCl that are considered to have a 
``threshold of safety'' below which adverse effects are not expected, 
the information on noncarcinogenic effects must be evaluated to 
determine the potential hazards associated with exposure to the 
pollutant. One approach for determining potential hazards of a 
pollutant is to use its Inhalation Reference Concentration (RfC). The 
RfC is defined as an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an 
order of magnitude) of a daily inhalation exposure that, over a 
lifetime, would not likely result in the occurrence of noncancer health 
effects in humans. A health benchmark such as the RfC can be 
established by applying uncertainty factors to the critical toxic 
effect derived from the lowest or no-adverse-effect level of a 
pollutant (see EPA-600/8-90-066F, October 1994, Methods for Derivation 
of Inhalation Reference Concentrations and Applications of Inhalation 
Dosimetry). The confidence in the RfC (which is given a qualitative 
ranking of either high, medium, or low) is based on the number of 
studies available and the quality of the data base, among other things.
    The RfC for HCl is based on a single animal study, which used only 
one dose and had limited toxicological measurements. In that study, 
laboratory rats exposed to 15,000 g/m3 HCl for 6 
hours per day, 5 days per week for life, developed an increased 
incidence of hyperplasia of the larynx and trachea, compared to 
controls (Health Assessment Document for Chlorine and Hydrogen 
Chloride, Review Draft; EPA-600/8-87/041A, August 1994). Effects on 
laboratory animals exposed to even higher concentrations of HCl for 90 
days included damage to the organs of the respiratory system, but not 
to more distant organs. Chronic exposure studies involving lower 
concentrations (less than 15,000 g/m3) have not 
been done, nor have comprehensive epidemiological studies of humans 
(Health Assessment Document for Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride, Review 
Draft; EPA-600/8-87/041A, August 1994).
    The RfC for HCl is 20 g/m3 (EPA, 1995, 
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), Reference Concentration 
(RfC) for Inhalation Exposure for Hydrogen Chloride. National Center 
for Environmental Assessment, Cincinnati, OH. On-Line). This 
concentration is a low confidence RfC with an uncertainty factor of 300 
applied to the lowest adverse effect level noted in animals (Ibid).
    Generally, information on developmental and reproductive effects 
would provide additional confidence in

[[Page 18767]]

the adequacy of the health benchmark for characterizing health risk. No 
information is available on the developmental or reproductive effects 
associated with HCl exposure in humans or animals. However, no 
additional uncertainty is applied for the lack of these studies because 
HCl that deposits in the lung is not expected to have any effects at 
sites distant from the lung. Hydrogen chloride, in solution, quickly 
dissociates to H+ (which, in small doses, is buffered in the 
tissue or blood) and Cl- (which is ubiquitous in the body). 
Therefore, HCl is expected to have only local effects at the site of 
initial deposition. Furthermore, HCl is not thought to be directly 
genotoxic (Health Assessment Document for Chlorine and Hydrogen 
Chloride, Review Draft; EPA-600/8-87/041A, August 1994).
    Based on the information presented above, the Administrator has 
determined that HCl is a health threshold pollutant for the purpose of 
section 112(d)(4) of the Act. The Administrator also concludes that, in 
this case, the RfC is an appropriate threshold value for assessing risk 
to humans associated with exposure to this pollutant through 
inhalation.
    c. Exposure Assessment. Based on emission tests of 14 kraft 
recovery furnaces, uncontrolled HCl emissions from DCE and NDCE 
recovery furnaces range from 0 to 923 Mg/yr (0 to 1,016 tons/yr); 
however, the concentrations of HCl in recovery furnace exhaust gases 
(0.3 to 95.6 ppmv) are relatively low due to the high volume 
of the exhaust gases. Chlorides enter the liquor cycle primarily 
through the wood used for pulping and the caustic used as makeup 
chemical during white liquor preparation, although mill process water 
can also be a significant contributor. A small portion of the chlorides 
in the black liquor fed to the recovery furnace can be emitted from the 
furnace as HCl gas. The remaining chlorides in the black liquor exit 
the recovery furnace as inorganic alkali salts, either as particulate 
in the exhaust gases or as a constituent of the smelt.
    For sulfite combustion units, HCl emissions are negligible because 
acid-gas absorption systems are an integral part of the sulfite 
chemical recovery process. Hydrochloric acid emissions data are 
available for only one sulfite combustion unit; HCl emissions from this 
unit were approximately 1 ppmv following the acid-gas 
absorption system. No data are available on HCl emissions prior to the 
acid-gas absorption systems. No HCl emission data are available for 
semichemical combustion units. However, neither process nor technical 
considerations indicate that HCl emissions would be significant.
    Inputs for the exposure assessment model were developed for kraft 
and soda recovery furnaces, which have the higher HCl emissions. The 
inputs were developed using available test data and mill-specific 
process data. Estimated HCl emission rates were based on the highest 
available HCl emission factors (in units of kilograms [kg] of HCl per 
kg of black liquor solids fired) for both NDCE and DCE recovery 
furnaces. Because the HCl emission rates were based on mill-specific 
process data (e.g., black liquor solids firing rate), each recovery 
furnace type at each mill had a unique set of emissions estimates. 
Stack parameters (i.e., height, diameter, temperature and velocity) 
were based on information obtained from the AIRS data base; average 
values from AIRS were assigned to those sources for which AIRS data 
were not available. For mills with multiple recovery furnaces (e.g., 
two NDCE recovery furnaces), HCl emissions from the furnaces were 
summed, and the stack parameters for those recovery furnaces were 
averaged.
    This exposure assessment was conducted following the principles 
described in the Agency's Exposure Assessment Guidelines (57 FR 22888, 
May 29, 1992). There is no expectation that the population will be 
exposed to higher long-term levels of HCl than those predicted by the 
model. In this case, a screening analysis was used to determine if 
emissions of HCl could result in exposures above Agency-established 
health threshold concentrations. The assessment was conducted for 106 
mills. The applied approach incorporates into the analysis ranges of 
values for those variables meeting the following criteria: where 
mathematical distributions are available; where the variables are 
independent; and, most importantly, where the variables are believed to 
significantly influence the results of the analysis. This probabilistic 
procedure uses Monte Carlo simulation to produce distributions with 
associated probability estimations (e.g., there is a 95 percent 
probability that the estimated exposure to the most exposed population 
group (census block) is less than the RfC for HCl).
    The distributions used in the Monte Carlo analysis were taken 
primarily from EPA sources (such as the Exposure Factors Handbook; EPA/
600/8-89/043, July 1989) and the literature. Best judgments were used 
in selecting the distributions and, in some cases, in using only 
portions of the distributions that are provided in the Handbook. Use of 
other distributions may result in different final outcomes for the 
Monte Carlo analysis.
    The results of this analysis show that, at the 95 percent 
confidence interval, the maximum concentration predicted to which 
people are estimated to be exposed is 0.3 g/m \3\, 60 times 
less than the inhalation reference concentration.
    In addition, terrain (e.g., hills and valleys) is known to affect 
concentration estimates predicted near facilities with elevated 
pollutant releases (e.g., stacks). The effect of terrain on estimated 
HCl concentrations was investigated by including terrain in the 
modeling of the ten recovery furnaces that produced the highest 
estimated HCl concentrations at census blocks in the exposure 
assessment described above. The terrain analysis and a Monte Carlo 
assessment similar to that described above resulted, at the 95 percent 
confidence interval, in a maximum concentration to which people are 
expected to be exposed of 2 g/m \3\, which is 10 times less 
than the inhalation reference concentration.
    d. Ecological Assessment. The standards for emissions must also 
protect against significant and widespread adverse environmental 
effects to wildlife, aquatic life, and other natural resources. 
Approaches to ecological risk assessments are being developed and 
applied by EPA for several areas of concern regarding the effects of 
pollutants. For HCl emitted by these source categories, a formal 
ecological risk assessment as such has not been made. However, 
publications in the literature have been reviewed to determine if there 
would be reasonable expectation for serious or widespread adverse 
effects to natural resources.
    Aspects of pollutant exposure and effects that should be considered 
are: toxicity effects from acute and chronic exposures to expected 
concentrations around the source (as measured or modeled), persistence 
in the environment, local and long-range transport, and tendency for 
bio-magnification with toxic effects manifest at higher trophic levels.
    No research has been identified for effects on terrestrial animal 
species beyond that cited in the development of the RfC. The evidence 
available to date, discussed in section IV.D.3.b of this preamble, 
indicates that HCl is a threshold pollutant for the purposes of section 
112(d)(4) of the Act. Modeling calculations indicate that there is 
little likelihood of chronic or widespread exposure to HCl at 
concentrations above the threshold around pulp and paper mills. Based 
on these considerations, EPA believes that the RfC can reasonably be 
expected to protect

[[Page 18768]]

against widespread adverse effects in other animal species as well.
    Plants also respond to airborne HCl levels. Chronic exposure to 
about 600 g/m \3\, can be expected to result in discernible 
effects, depending on the plant species. Plants respond differently to 
HCl as an anhydrous gas than to HCl aerosols. Relative humidity is 
important in plant response; there appears to be a threshold of 
relative humidity above which plants will incur twice as much damage at 
a given dose (Medical and Biological Effects of Environmental 
Pollutants: Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride, National Academy of 
Sciences, 1976). Effects include leaf injury and decrease in 
chlorophyll levels in various species given acute, 20-minute exposures 
of 6,500 to 27,000 g/m \3\ (Health Assessment Document for 
Chlorine and Hydrogen Chloride, Review Draft; EPA-600/8-87/041A, August 
1994). A field study reports different sensitivity to damage of foliage 
in 50 species growing in the vicinity of an anhydrous aluminum chloride 
manufacturer. American elm, bur oak, eastern white pine, basswood, red 
ash and several bean species were observed to be most sensitive. 
Concentrations of HCl in the air were not reported. Chloride ion in 
whole leaves was 0.2 to 0.5 percent of dry weight; sensitive species 
showed damage at the lower value, but tolerant species displayed no 
injury at the higher value. Injury declined with distance from the 
source with no effects observed beyond 300 meters (Harper and Jones, 
1982, ``The Relative Sensitivity of Fifty Plant Species to Chronic 
Doses of Hydrogen Chloride,'' Phytopathology 72: 261-262).
    Prevailing meteorology strongly determines the fate of HCl in the 
atmosphere (Health Assessment Document for Chlorine and Hydrogen 
Chloride, Review Draft; EPA-600/8-87/041A, August 1994). However, HCl 
is not considered a strongly persistent pollutant, or one where long 
range transport is important in predicting its ecological effects. In 
the atmosphere, HCl can be expected to be absorbed into aqueous 
aerosols, due to its great affinity for water, and removed from the 
troposphere by rainfall. In addition, HCl will react with hydroxy ions 
to yield water plus chloride ions. However, the concentration of 
hydroxy ions in the troposphere is low, so HCl may have a relatively 
long residence time in areas of low humidity. No studies are reported 
of HCl levels in ponds or other small water bodies or soils near major 
sources of HCl emissions. Toxic effects of HCl to aquatic organisms 
would likely be due to the hydronium ion, or acidity. Aquatic organisms 
in their natural environments often exhibit a broad range of pH 
tolerance. Effects of HCl deposition to small water bodies and to soils 
will primarily depend on the extent of neutralizing by carbonates or 
other buffering compounds (Health Assessment Document for Chlorine and 
Hydrogen Chloride, Review Draft; EPA-600/8-87/041A, August 1994). 
Chloride ions are essentially ubiquitous in natural waters and soils, 
so minor increases due to deposition of dissolved HCl will have much 
less effect than the deposited hydronium ions. Deleterious effects of 
HCl on ponds and soils, where such effects might be found near a major 
source emitting to the atmosphere, likely will be local rather than 
widespread, as observed in plant foliage.
    Effects of HCl on tissues are generally restricted to those 
immediately impacted and are essentially acidic effects. The rapid 
solubility of HCl in aqueous media releases hydronium ions, which can 
be corrosive to tissue when above a threshold concentration. The 
chloride ions may be concentrated in some plant tissues, but may be 
distributed throughout the organism, as most organisms have chloride 
ions in their fluids. Leaves or other tissues exposed to HCl may show 
some concentration above that of their immediate environment; that is, 
some degree of bioconcentration can occur. However, long-term storage 
in specific organs and biomagnification of concentrations of HCl in 
trophic levels of a food chain would not be expected. Thus, the 
chemical nature of HCl results in deleterious effects, that when 
present, are local rather than widespread.
    e. Conclusions. The results of the exposure assessment modelling 
showed exposure levels to HCl emissions from kraft and soda recovery 
furnaces below the health threshold value. Furthermore, the threshold 
value, for which the RfC was determined to be an appropriate value, was 
not exceeded when taking into account an ample margin of safety. 
Finally, no significant or widespread adverse environmental effects 
from HCl are anticipated. Therefore, the Agency, under authority of 
section 112(d)(4), has determined that further control of HCl emissions 
from kraft and soda recovery furnaces and sulfite and semichemical 
combustion units is not necessary.

E. Determination of Subcategories and MACT Floors

    The first step in establishing MACT floors is to determine whether 
the source category warrants subcategorization. In evaluating the 
chemical recovery process for subcategorization, the Agency took into 
consideration the type of equipment used in the process, the emission 
potential of each emission point, and any variations in the process due 
to pulp type. The Agency determined that the chemical recovery areas at 
kraft and soda pulp mills do not warrant subcategorization because the 
recovery areas are comparable in processes, equipment, and HAP 
emissions. The Agency determined that separate subcategories are 
warranted for sulfite and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills because 
the recovery processes used at sulfite and stand-alone semichemical 
pulp mills are specifically different from each other and from those 
used at kraft and soda pulp mills.
    The proposed MACT floors for each category were established on an 
emission point basis. For existing sources at kraft and soda pulp 
mills, the MACT floor was established by examining the emission level 
achievable by the control technology used by the source at the 94th 
percentile (i.e., the median emission limitation achieved by the top 12 
percent of sources). Because there are fewer than 30 sulfite combustion 
units nationwide, the proposed MACT floor for existing sources at 
sulfite pulp mills was established by examining the emission level 
achieved by the control technology used by the best-performing five 
existing sources at sulfite pulp mills. The MACT floor approach used 
for existing sources at sulfite pulp mills was also used for existing 
sources at stand-alone semichemical pulp mills because there are fewer 
than 30 semichemical combustion sources. The MACT floor technologies 
for new sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical 
pulp mills are based on the best-performing similar source for each 
subcategory. The control technologies and corresponding emission levels 
that represent the proposed MACT floors were determined based on 
technology and emission data that were available to the Administrator.
1. MACT Floors--Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
    This section provides a brief description of the MACT floor 
determinations for kraft and soda NDCE recovery furnaces, DCE recovery 
furnace systems, lime kilns, and SDT's.
    a. NDCE Recovery Furnaces. An estimated 128 NDCE recovery furnaces 
operate at 96 U.S. kraft and soda pulp mills. Information regarding the 
furnace type, size, and add-on control devices is available for 
approximately 88 percent of these recovery furnaces. Ninety-seven 
percent of NDCE recovery furnaces are

[[Page 18769]]

equipped with an ESP, 2 percent are equipped with an ESP followed by a 
wet scrubber, and the remaining 1 percent are equipped with two wet 
scrubbers in series. The add-on control devices were installed 
primarily for control of PM emissions.
    The following paragraphs describe the proposed MACT floor control 
technologies for new and existing kraft and soda NDCE recovery furnaces 
for both PM/PM HAP and total gaseous organic HAP control and the 
emission levels achievable with each proposed MACT floor technology.
    (1) PM and PM HAP MACT Floors. Properly designed and operated ESP's 
used on kraft recovery furnaces routinely achieve PM removal 
efficiencies of 99 percent or greater. Although emission test data from 
recovery furnace ESP's on PM HAP performance are limited, available 
data on ESP performance indicate that those systems that achieve the 
greatest PM removal show the best performance for the HAP portion of 
the PM. (See Technical Support Document: Chemical Recovery Combustion 
Sources at Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills, Chapter 3; docket entry No. II-A-
31.) Therefore, PM can be used as a surrogate for PM HAP's.
    The NSPS for kraft pulp mills requires that PM emissions from 
recovery furnaces constructed, reconstructed, or modified after 
September 24, 1976 be less than or equal to 0.10 g/dscm (0.044 gr/dscf) 
of flue gas corrected to 8 percent oxygen. Approximately 39 percent of 
NDCE recovery furnaces are subject to the NSPS, and even more (80 
percent) reportedly achieve the NSPS limit.
    Long-term (monthly) PM emission data are available for eight NDCE 
recovery furnaces. Particulate matter emissions from each of these 
eight NDCE recovery furnaces varied significantly from month to month; 
however, PM emissions from seven of the eight NDCE recovery furnaces 
consistently met the NSPS limit of 0.10 g/dscm (0.044 gr/dscf) 
corrected to 8 percent oxygen over a 4- to 6-year period. Collectively, 
emissions from these seven NDCE recovery furnaces ranged from 0.002 to 
0.10 g/dscm (0.001 to 0.044 gr/dscf), corrected to 8 percent oxygen. 
(See State of Washington Data Memo, docket entry No. II-B-59.) Thus, 
the long-term data demonstrate that NDCE recovery furnaces equipped 
with ESP's can meet the NSPS level of 0.10 g/dscm (0.044 gr/dscf) 
corrected to 8 percent oxygen on a long-term basis. Because greater 
than 6 percent of NDCE recovery furnaces are capable of meeting the 
NSPS limit on a long-term basis with ESP's, the proposed MACT floor PM 
control technology for existing kraft and soda NDCE recovery furnaces 
is an ESP capable of meeting the NSPS, which typically has a specific 
collecting area (SCA) of 100 m2/(m3/sec) (530 
ft2/1,000 acfm). The application of the proposed MACT floor 
PM control technology is represented by a PM emission level of 0.10 g/
dscm (0.044 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
    The proposed MACT floor control technology for PM HAP is the same 
as the proposed MACT floor control technology for PM and is represented 
by a PM HAP emission level of 1.00E-03 kg/Mg (2.01E-03 lb/ton) of black 
liquor solids fired. The proposed MACT floor PM HAP emission level is 
based on available test data and is equivalent to the average PM HAP 
emission factor for recovery furnaces with PM emissions that achieve 
the NSPS level of 0.10 g/dscm (0.044 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent 
oxygen.
    With respect to MACT for new sources, the best-performing PM 
control system of the eight NDCE recovery furnaces for which long-term 
PM emission data are available is an ESP with an operating SCA between 
110 and 130 m2/(m3/sec) (570 and 670 
ft2/1,000 acfm) followed by a cross-flow, packed-bed 
scrubber. Monthly PM emissions data from the NDCE recovery furnace with 
this control system varied from 0.002 to 0.025 g/dscm (0.001 to 0.011 
gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen over a 6-year period. Taking the 
variability of the data into consideration, a PM emission level of 
0.034 g/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) was selected to represent the MACT floor 
PM emission level for new NDCE recovery furnaces. Therefore, the 
proposed MACT floor PM control technology for new kraft and soda NDCE 
recovery furnaces is an ESP capable of achieving a PM emission level of 
0.034 g/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen (i.e., an 
ESP with a typical SCA between 110 and 130 m2/
[m3/sec] [570 and 670 ft2/1,000 acfm]) followed 
by a packed-bed scrubber.
    Although the proposed MACT floor PM control technology for new NDCE 
recovery furnaces includes both the ESP and the cross-flow, packed-bed 
scrubber, the scrubber was installed as a heat recovery device and for 
SO2 control and is not expected to provide much, if any, 
additional PM control. Because of the high PM removal efficiencies 
achievable with newer ESP's, the proposed MACT floor PM emission level 
of 0.034 g/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen for new 
NDCE recovery furnaces could be achieved with the application of the 
ESP alone.
    A PM HAP emission level was not established for new NDCE recovery 
furnaces because insufficient PM HAP data are available from NDCE 
recovery furnaces representing MACT for new sources.
    (2) Total Gaseous Organic HAP MACT Floors. The ESP systems applied 
to existing NDCE recovery furnaces conform to one of two designs: wet 
ESP systems or dry ESP systems. A wet ESP system uses unoxidized black 
liquor or water in the ESP bottom or in the PM return system. A dry ESP 
system includes both a dry-bottom ESP and a dry PM return system. Wet 
ESP systems that use black liquor or HAP-contaminated water emit higher 
levels of gaseous organic HAP's than dry ESP systems due to the 
stripping of gaseous organic HAP's from the black liquor or HAP-
contaminated water in the ESP bottom or PM return system. Based on the 
available emission data, NDCE recovery furnaces with dry ESP systems 
emit, on average, approximately 72 percent less total gaseous organic 
HAP's than NDCE recovery furnaces with wet ESP systems.
    Although information is available to classify almost all (99 
percent) of NDCE recovery furnace ESP's as wet- or dry-bottom, little 
information is available regarding the use of black liquor or HAP-
contaminated water in the recovery furnace ESP PM return systems. Based 
on the limited available information on ESP return systems, 
approximately 5 percent of NDCE recovery furnaces are estimated to be 
equipped with dry ESP systems. Because the estimated percentage of NDCE 
recovery furnaces equipped with dry ESP systems is less than 6 percent, 
the proposed MACT floor control technology for total gaseous organic 
HAP emissions from existing kraft and soda NDCE recovery furnaces is a 
wet ESP system, and, thus, no control of total gaseous organic HAP's is 
achieved at the floor. However, because NDCE recovery furnaces equipped 
with dry ESP systems represent the best-controlled source for total 
gaseous organic HAP emissions, the proposed MACT floor total gaseous 
organic HAP control technology for new kraft and soda NDCE recovery 
furnaces is a dry ESP system. Emission data from three NDCE recovery 
furnaces equipped with dry ESP systems indicate that a total gaseous 
organic HAP emission level, as measured by methanol, of 0.012 kg/Mg 
(0.025 lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired or less is achievable. The 
methanol emission level corresponds to the highest three-run average 
obtained for a dry ESP system on an NDCE recovery furnace plus an 
additional amount to

[[Page 18770]]

account for the variability in the dry ESP system data set and the lack 
of long-term data. Therefore, the total gaseous organic HAP emission 
level, as measured by methanol, associated with the proposed MACT floor 
control technology (i.e., a dry ESP system) is 0.012 kg/Mg (0.025 lb/
ton) of black liquor solids fired.
    b. DCE Recovery Furnace Systems. The DCE recovery furnace system 
includes the recovery furnace, DCE, and the BLO system. An estimated 83 
DCE recovery furnaces are in operation at 48 U.S. kraft and soda pulp 
mills. An estimated 46 BLO systems are in operation at these 48 pulp 
mills. Of the two mills without BLO systems, one is a soda pulp mill, 
and the other is a kraft pulp mill. Information regarding the furnace 
type, size, and add-on control devices and the associated BLO systems 
is available for approximately 93 percent of DCE recovery furnace 
systems.
    Like NDCE recovery furnaces, all DCE recovery furnaces are equipped 
with some type of add-on control device to reduce PM emissions from the 
furnace. In the case of DCE units, 90 percent are controlled with an 
ESP, 8 percent are controlled with an ESP followed by a wet scrubber, 
and the remaining 2 percent are controlled with two ESP's in series. As 
with NDCE recovery furnaces, MACT floor control technologies for DCE 
recovery furnace systems were selected for both PM/PM HAP and total 
gaseous organic HAP emissions. The following paragraphs describe the 
proposed MACT floor control technologies for new and existing kraft and 
soda DCE recovery furnace systems and the emission levels achievable 
with each proposed MACT floor technology.
    (1) PM and PM HAP MACT Floors. As discussed above for NDCE recovery 
furnaces, properly designed and operated ESP's used on kraft recovery 
furnaces routinely achieve PM removal efficiencies of 99 percent or 
greater. Using installation dates to determine NSPS applicability, 
three DCE recovery furnaces (i.e., 4 percent of the DCE recovery 
furnace population) are subject to the NSPS emission limit of 0.10 g/
dscm (0.044 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen for kraft recovery 
furnaces. Long-term (monthly) PM emission data are available for an 
additional four DCE recovery furnaces that are not subject to the NSPS 
but have consistently met the NSPS emission level of 0.10 g/dscm (0.044 
gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen over a 3- to 6-year period, even 
though PM emissions from each of these four DCE recovery furnaces 
varied significantly from month to month. Collectively, the PM 
emissions from these four DCE recovery furnaces varied from 0.011 to 
0.10 g/dscm (0.005 to 0.044 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen over 
the 3- to 6-year period. (See State of Washington Data Memo; docket 
entry No. II-B-59.) The combination of those DCE recovery furnaces 
subject to the NSPS and those for which data show an ability to achieve 
the NSPS level on a long-term basis represent a total of seven DCE 
recovery furnaces, or 9 percent of the DCE recovery furnace population.
    Because greater than 6 percent of DCE recovery furnaces are capable 
of meeting the NSPS PM limit on a long-term basis with ESP's, the 
proposed MACT floor PM control technology for existing kraft and soda 
DCE recovery furnace systems is an ESP capable of meeting the NSPS, 
which typically has an SCA of 90 m2/(m3/sec) (430 
ft 2/1,000 acfm). The application of the proposed MACT floor 
PM control technology is represented by a PM emission level of 0.10 g/
dscm (0.044 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
    The proposed MACT floor control technology for PM HAP is the same 
as the proposed MACT floor control technology for PM and is represented 
by a PM HAP emission level of 1.00E-03 kg/Mg (2.01E-03 lb/ton) of black 
liquor solids fired. As with existing NDCE recovery furnaces, the 
proposed MACT floor PM HAP emission level is equivalent to the average 
PM HAP emission factor for kraft and soda recovery furnaces with PM 
emissions that achieve the NSPS level of 0.10 g/dscm (0.044 gr/dscf) 
corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
    The best-performing PM control system for both NDCE and DCE 
recovery furnaces is an ESP with an operating SCA between 110 and 130 
m2/(m3/sec) (570 and 670 ft 2/1,000 
acfm) followed by a cross-flow, packed-bed scrubber. Monthly PM 
emissions data from the recovery furnace with this control system 
varied from 0.002 to 0.025 g/dscm (0.001 to 0.011 gr/dscf) corrected to 
8 percent oxygen over a 6-year period. Taking the variability of the 
data into consideration, a PM emission level of 0.034 g/dscm (0.015 gr/
dscf) was selected to represent the MACT floor PM emission level for 
new DCE recovery furnaces. Therefore, the proposed MACT floor PM 
control technology for all new kraft and soda DCE recovery furnaces is 
an ESP capable of achieving a PM emission level of 0.034 g/dscm (0.015 
gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen (i.e., an ESP with a typical SCA 
between 110 and 130 m2/[m3/sec] [570 and 670 ft 
2/1,000 acfm]) followed by a packed-bed scrubber.
    Although the proposed MACT floor PM control technology for new 
kraft and soda DCE recovery furnaces includes both the ESP and the 
cross-flow, packed-bed scrubber, the scrubber was installed as a heat 
recovery device and for SO2 control and is not expected to 
provide much, if any, additional PM control. Because of the high PM 
removal efficiencies achievable with newer ESP's, the proposed MACT 
floor PM emission level of 0.034 g/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 
percent oxygen for new DCE recovery furnaces could be achieved with the 
application of the ESP alone.
    The EPA is not proposing a MACT floor PM HAP emission level for new 
kraft and soda DCE recovery furnaces for the same reason stated above 
for new NDCE recovery furnaces.
    (2) Total Gaseous Organic HAP MACT Floors. Four of the estimated 46 
BLO systems in operation are pipeline molecular oxygen-based systems, 
which have no emission points. No emission data are available from DCE 
recovery furnaces with molecular oxygen BLO systems for comparison with 
DCE recovery furnaces with air-based BLO systems. Therefore, the effect 
of molecular oxygen BLO systems on total emissions from the DCE 
recovery furnace system is uncertain. With air-based BLO systems, 
gaseous organic HAP's are stripped from the black liquor and emitted to 
the atmosphere as the air bubbles and black liquor make contact. Unlike 
air-based systems, molecular oxygen systems use pure oxygen, and, thus, 
no diluents are introduced that could strip organic compounds from the 
black liquor; consequently, organic compounds not released from the 
black liquor during the oxidation process could be subsequently 
stripped, in theory, from the oxidized black liquor when the black 
liquor enters the direct contact evaporator. For this reason, molecular 
oxygen BLO systems are not viewed by the Agency as a control option for 
DCE recovery furnace systems.
    The gaseous organic HAP emissions from 2 of the estimated 42 air-
based BLO systems are controlled via incineration in power boilers; the 
remainder are uncontrolled. However, the two air-based BLO units with 
controlled emissions represent less than 6 percent of DCE recovery 
furnace systems. Therefore, the proposed MACT floor for total gaseous 
organic HAP control for existing kraft and soda DCE recovery furnace 
systems is no control.
    The DCE recovery furnace systems emit more gaseous organic HAP's 
than

[[Page 18771]]

NDCE recovery furnaces because more opportunities exist for gaseous 
organic HAP compounds to be stripped from the black liquor. In DCE 
systems, gaseous organic HAP compounds can be stripped from the black 
liquor in the BLO system, the DCE, and the ESP system. Based on the 
available emission data, NDCE recovery furnaces with dry ESP systems 
emit approximately 93 percent less total gaseous organic HAP's than DCE 
recovery furnace systems.
    The NDCE recovery furnaces with dry ESP systems also have lower TRS 
emissions compared to DCE recovery furnace systems. The need for TRS 
emission reductions and the need for additional recovery furnace 
capacity have resulted in mills converting older and smaller DCE units 
into larger NDCE units. Approximately 24 percent of the existing NDCE 
recovery furnaces are converted DCE recovery furnaces. For these 
reasons, and also because NDCE recovery furnaces are more energy 
efficient than DCE recovery furnaces, all new recovery furnace 
installations are of the NDCE design. Because of its lower HAP emission 
potential, an NDCE recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system was 
selected as the MACT floor total gaseous organic HAP control technology 
for all new kraft and soda NDCE recovery furnaces and DCE recovery 
furnace systems. This proposed MACT floor control technology is capable 
of achieving a total gaseous organic HAP emission level, as measured by 
methanol, of 0.012 kg/Mg (0.025 lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
    c. Lime Kilns. An estimated 192 lime kilns operate at 124 U.S. 
kraft and soda pulp mills. Information regarding the lime kiln type, 
size, and add-on control devices is available for approximately 85 
percent of these lime kilns. All of the add-on control systems in place 
on lime kilns are for the control of PM or TRS emissions. No add-on 
controls designed to remove gaseous organic HAP's are applied to lime 
kilns.
    Gaseous organic HAP emissions from lime kilns are primarily 
attributable to the use of HAP-contaminated process waters in the lime 
mud washers and lime kiln scrubbers. Therefore, gaseous organic HAP 
emissions from lime kilns can be minimized by reducing the HAP content 
of process waters used in the lime mud washers and scrubbers. These 
process waters are being regulated as part of the final NESHAP for 
noncombustion sources at pulp and paper mills. Therefore, no MACT floor 
has been established for total gaseous organic HAP's for new and 
existing kraft and soda lime kilns as part of this proposed NESHAP. The 
following paragraphs describe the proposed MACT floor PM/PM HAP control 
technologies and the associated emission levels for existing and new 
kraft and soda lime kilns.
    Particulate matter emissions from most (90 percent) of the lime 
kilns are controlled by wet scrubbers. Venturi scrubbers are the most 
common type of wet scrubber in use on lime kilns. Particulate matter 
emissions from the remaining 10 percent of lime kilns are controlled by 
ESP's (9 percent) or the combination of an ESP and wet scrubber (1 
percent). Properly designed and operated venturi scrubbers and ESP's 
used on kraft lime kilns are capable of reducing PM emissions by 
greater than 99 percent.
    The NSPS for kraft pulp mills requires that PM emissions from gas-
fired lime kilns constructed, reconstructed, or modified after 
September 24, 1976 be less than or equal to 0.15 g/dscm (0.067 gr/dscf) 
of flue gas corrected to 10 percent oxygen. Approximately 19 percent of 
lime kilns are subject to the NSPS limit for gas-fired lime kilns, and 
even more (i.e., 64 percent of all lime kilns, including oil-fired lime 
kilns) have reported average PM emissions less than the gas-fired NSPS 
limit.
    Long-term (monthly) PM emission data are available for four gas-
fired lime kilns that are subject to the NSPS PM limit for gas-fired 
lime kilns. No long-term data are available for oil-fired lime kilns. 
Two of the four lime kilns for which long-term PM emission data are 
available are equipped with venturi scrubbers, and two are equipped 
with ESP's. Particulate matter emissions from the four lime kilns 
varied from 0.002 to 0.15 g/dscm (0.001 to 0.067 gr/dscf) corrected to 
10 percent oxygen over a 4-to 7-year period. The long-term data 
demonstrate that existing lime kilns equipped with either venturi 
scrubbers or ESP's can meet an emission level of 0.15 g/dscm (0.067 gr/
dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a long-term basis. Because 
greater than 6 percent of lime kilns are capable of meeting the gas-
fired NSPS limit on a long-term basis with venturi scrubbers or ESP's, 
the proposed MACT floor control technology for existing kraft and soda 
lime kilns is either a venturi scrubber or an ESP. The application of 
these proposed MACT floor PM control technologies is represented by a 
PM emission level of 0.15 g/dscm (0.067 gr/dscf) corrected to 10 
percent oxygen. The proposed MACT floor control technology for PM HAP 
is the same as the proposed MACT floor control technology for PM and is 
represented by a PM HAP emission level of 6.33E-03 kg/Mg (1.27E-02 lb/
ton) of CaO produced. The proposed MACT floor PM HAP emission level is 
equivalent to the average PM HAP emission factor for lime kilns with 
outlet PM emissions that achieve the NSPS level of 0.15 g/dscm (0.067 
gr/dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen.
    Of the four lime kilns for which long-term PM emission data are 
available, the best-performing PM control system is an ESP with an 
operating SCA of 220 m2/(m3/sec) (1,120 
ft2/1,000 acfm), which is substantially higher than the 
typical SCA for an ESP designed to meet the NSPS (i.e., 90 
m2/[m3/sec] [460 ft2/1,000 acfm]). The 
monthly PM emissions from the best-performing lime kiln varied from 
0.002 to 0.018 g/dscm (0.001 to 0.008 gr/dscf) corrected to 10 percent 
oxygen over a 7-year period. To account for the variability in the 
data, a PM emission level of 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) was selected 
to represent the MACT floor PM emission level for new lime kilns. 
Therefore, the proposed MACT floor PM HAP control technology for new 
kraft and soda lime kilns is an ESP capable of achieving a PM emission 
level of 0.023 g/dscm (0.010 gr/dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen 
(i.e., an ESP with a typical SCA of 220 m2/[m3/
sec] [1,120 ft\2\/1,000 acfm]).
    A MACT floor PM HAP emission level was not established for new lime 
kilns for the same reasons stated above for new NDCE recovery furnaces.
    d. Smelt Dissolving Tanks. An estimated 227 SDT's operate at 124 
U.S. kraft and soda pulp mills. Information regarding the SDT size and 
add-on control devices is available for approximately 83 percent of the 
SDT's. The add-on control systems in place on SDT's are for control of 
PM emissions. No add-on controls designed to remove gaseous organic 
HAP's are applied to SDT's.
    As discussed above for lime kilns, gaseous organic HAP emissions 
from SDT's are primarily the result of the use of HAP-contaminated 
process waters. The HAP-contaminated process waters are typically used 
in the SDT scrubbers as makeup water to the SDT. Therefore, gaseous 
organic HAP emissions from SDT's can be minimized by reducing the HAP 
content of process waters used in the SDT and SDT scrubber. However, as 
stated above for lime kilns, the control of HAP emissions from process 
waters is being regulated as part of the final NESHAP for noncombustion 
sources at pulp and paper mills. Therefore, no MACT floor has been 
established for total gaseous organic HAP emissions for new and 
existing kraft and soda SDT's as part of this proposed NESHAP.
    Particulate matter emissions from most (87 percent) of the SDT's 
are

[[Page 18772]]

controlled by wet scrubbers. Particulate matter emissions from the 
majority of the remaining SDT's are controlled by mist eliminators. 
Based on the available performance data for wet scrubbers and mist 
eliminators installed on SDT's, wet scrubbers are more effective at 
controlling PM emissions from SDT's than mist eliminators. (See 
Technical Support Document: Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at 
Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills, Chapter 3; docket entry No. II-A-31.) 
Properly designed wet scrubbers used on kraft SDT's are capable of 
reducing PM emissions by greater than 99 percent.
    The NSPS for kraft pulp mills require that PM emissions from SDT's 
that are constructed, modified, or reconstructed after September 24, 
1976 be less than 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of black liquor solids 
fired. Approximately 29 percent of SDT's are subject to the NSPS PM 
limit, and even more (75 percent) have reported average PM emissions 
less than the NSPS PM limit. Although no long-term PM emission data are 
available for SDT's equipped with wet scrubbers that are subject to the 
NSPS limit of 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired, 
the prevalence of wet scrubbers on SDT's and the high PM removal 
efficiencies achieved with this technology are sufficient to establish 
wet scrubbers as the proposed MACT floor PM control technology for 
existing kraft and soda SDT's. The application of this control 
technology is represented by a PM emission level of 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 
lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired. The proposed MACT floor control 
technology for PM HAP is the same as the proposed MACT floor control 
technology for PM and is represented by a PM HAP emission level of 
6.20E-05 kg/Mg (1.24E-04 lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired. The 
proposed MACT floor PM HAP emission level is equivalent to the average 
PM HAP emission factor for SDT's with outlet PM emissions that achieve 
the NSPS PM level of 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/ton) of black liquor solids 
fired.
    Long-term (monthly) PM emission data are available for three SDT's 
equipped with wet scrubbers designed to meet a PM permit limit (0.06 
kg/Mg [0.12 lb/ton] of black liquor solids fired) that is more 
stringent than the NSPS. The high-efficiency wet scrubbers installed on 
these three SDT's represent the best-performing PM control systems 
installed on kraft and soda SDT's. Collectively, monthly PM emissions 
from these three SDT's varied from 0.0045 to 0.055 kg/Mg (0.009 to 0.11 
lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired over a 2- to 6-year period. (See 
State of Washington Data Memo, docket entry No. II--B-59.) The long-
term data demonstrate that SDT's equipped with high-efficiency wet 
scrubbers can achieve a maximum outlet PM level of 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/
ton) of black liquor solids fired on a long-term basis. Therefore, the 
proposed MACT floor PM HAP control technology for new kraft and soda 
SDT's is a high-efficiency wet scrubber capable of achieving a PM 
emission level of 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/ton) of black liquor solids 
fired.
2. MACT Floors--Sulfite Pulp Mills
    An estimated 21 combustion units operate at sulfite pulp mills. 
Information regarding the chemical recovery equipment and add-on 
control devices is available for approximately 95 percent of these 
combustion units. Because there are less than 30 sulfite combustion 
units, the MACT floor for existing sources is based on the 5 best-
performing sources. Thirteen of the 21 sulfite combustion units (62 
percent) are equipped with fiber-bed demister systems. The remainder of 
the combustion units are equipped with venturi scrubbers or packed-bed 
scrubbers. These add-on control devices were installed on sulfite 
combustion units for PM control and additional SO2 control. 
All sulfite combustion units are equipped with absorption towers prior 
to the PM control device to recover SO2  for reuse in the 
pulping process.
    Long-term PM emission data are available for two sulfite combustion 
units equipped with fiber-bed demister systems. Based on these long-
term data and additional long-term data for sulfite combustion units 
equipped with wet scrubbers, fiber-bed demister systems are more 
effective than wet scrubbers at controlling PM emissions from sulfite 
combustion units. Monthly PM emission data from the two sulfite 
combustion units equipped with fiber-bed demister systems ranged from 
0.005 to 0.088 g/dscm (0.002 to 0.038 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent 
oxygen over a 6-to 7-year period. Because the fiber-bed demister system 
represents the best-performing control technology and at least five 
sources are equipped with fiber-bed demister systems, this technology 
was selected to represent the proposed MACT floor control technology 
for existing sulfite combustion units. To account for variability in 
the data, a PM emission level of 0.092 g/dscm (0.040 gr/dscf) corrected 
to 8 percent oxygen was selected to represent the MACT floor PM 
emission level for existing sulfite combustion units.
    Monthly PM emission data from the best-performing sulfite 
combustion unit equipped with a fiber-bed demister system ranged from 
0.009 to 0.039 g/dscm (0.004 to 0.017 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent 
oxygen over a 6-year period. This sulfite combustion unit also is 
equipped with a wet scrubber between the SO2 absorption 
towers and the fiber-bed demister system. The scrubber was added to the 
system for additional PM and SO2 control. Because the best-
performing source is equipped with a wet scrubber and fiber-bed 
demister system, the combination of these technologies was selected to 
represent the proposed MACT floor control technology for new sulfite 
combustion units. To account for the variability in the data, a PM 
emission level of 0.046 g/dscm (0.020 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 percent 
oxygen was selected to represent the MACT floor PM emission level for 
new sulfite combustion units.
3. MACT Floors--Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills
    An estimated 14 chemical recovery combustion units operate at 13 
U.S. stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. Information regarding the 
design and operation of chemical recovery combustion units is available 
for all of these units. Although chemical recovery combustion units at 
stand-alone semichemical pulp mills are equipped with a variety of PM 
control devices, insufficient PM data and no PM HAP data are available 
to establish MACT floors for PM or PM HAP. In addition, none of the 
existing semichemical mills are currently controlling gaseous organic 
HAP emissions from semichemical combustion sources. Therefore, no 
control of total gaseous organic HAP emissions is achieved at the MACT 
floor for existing or new sources.
    However, the Agency has selected a beyond-the-floor option to 
represent MACT for gaseous organic HAP control for existing and new 
semichemical combustion sources. The beyond-the-floor option is based 
on the use of an RTO preceded by a wet ESP. (A wet ESP or other PM 
control device is necessary because the RTO requires a high degree of 
PM control for proper operation.) Pilot study results at a stand-alone 
semichemical mill indicate that an RTO is well-suited to reducing 
gaseous organic HAP emissions from fluidized-bed reactors, which emit 
the highest known quantities of HAP's of the combustion technologies 
currently in use at semichemical pulp mills. The semichemical mill that 
conducted the pilot study is currently installing a full-scale RTO 
based on the results of the pilot study.

[[Page 18773]]

    During the pilot study, the RTO reduced THC emissions from the 
mill's fluidized-bed reactor by an average of 97 percent. However, 
because the RTO has not yet been demonstrated full-scale at a 
semichemical mill, EPA estimated the total gaseous organic HAP emission 
level that corresponds to MACT using the average THC emission reduction 
(90 percent) achieved during the pilot study test run with the lowest 
level of control. The estimated 90 percent THC emission reduction was 
applied to the average uncontrolled THC emissions (measured as carbon) 
from a fluidized-bed reactor. Based on the results of the calculation, 
the application of an RTO preceded by a wet ESP is estimated to be 
representative of either a total gaseous organic HAP emission level of 
1.49 kg/Mg (2.97 lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired, or a 90 percent 
reduction in total gaseous organic HAP emissions. (Total gaseous 
organic HAP's are measured as THC, as carbon, in both cases.)

F. Discussion of Regulatory Alternatives

    The proposed standards were selected based on a review of the 
regulatory alternatives developed for the affected sources. Table 3 
presents the regulatory alternatives examined for existing affected 
sources at kraft and soda pulp mills; Tables 4 and 5 present the 
regulatory alternatives for existing affected sources at sulfite and 
stand-alone semichemical pulp mills, respectively. For existing 
affected sources, regulatory alternative I (RA I) represents the 
proposed MACT floor, and additional regulatory alternatives represent 
beyond-the-MACT-floor options. The regulatory alternatives are 
increasingly more stringent in terms of total HAP emission reduction 
requirements. The most stringent regulatory alternative examined for 
existing sources is representative of MACT for new sources. A 
discussion of the regulatory alternatives is provided below.

          Table 3.--Regulatory Alternatives for Existing Affected Sources at Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Basis of alternative                                              
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Recovery furnace systems                                              
 Regulatory alternatives (RA)  ---------------------------------------------- Smelt dissolving     Lime kilns   
                                         NDCE                   DCE                 tanks                       
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RAI (MACT floor for existing    NDCE recovery furnace  DCE recovery furnace   Wet scrubber 1..  ESP 1 or wet    
 sources).                       with ESP 1.            with ESP 1.                              scrubber 1     
  RA II.......................  NDCE recovery furnace  DCE recovery furnace   Wet scrubber 1..  ESP 1 or wet    
                                 with ESP 1.            with ESP 1 plus BLO                      scrubber 1     
                                                        vent controlled by                                      
                                                        incineration.                                           
RA III........................  NDCE recovery furnace  NDCE recovery furnace  Wet scrubber 1..  ESP 1 or wet    
                                 with dry ESP 1         with dry ESP 1                           scrubber 1     
                                 system.                system.                                                 
RA IV (MACT floor for new       NDCE recovery furnace  NDCE recovery furnace  Wet scrubber 2..  ESP 2           
 sources)a.                      with dry ESP2 system   with dry ESP 2                                          
                                 and packed-bed         system and packed-                                      
                                 scrubber.              bed scrubber.                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Tighter PM control is achieved for new sources through the use of a more efficient ESP design (ESP 2) or      
  scrubber design (wet scrubber 2) than that used under regulatory alternatives I through III (ESP 1 or wet     
  scrubber 1) for existing sources.                                                                             


   Table 4.--Regulatory Alternatives for Existing Affected Sources at   
                           Sulfite Pulp Mills                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Regulatory alternatives (RA)             Basis of alternative     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RA I (MACT floor for existing sources).  Fiber-bed demister system.     
RA II (MACT floor for new sources).....  Wet scrubber followed by fiber-
                                          bed demister system.          
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table 5.--Regulatory Alternatives for Existing Affected Sources at   
                         Semichemical Pulp Mills                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Regulatory alternatives (RA)             Basis of alternative     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RA I (MACT floor for existing and new    No control.                    
 sources).                                                              
RA II (Beyond-the-MACT floor for         Wet ESP followed by            
 existing and new sources).               regenerative thermal oxidizer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
    As shown in Table 5, four regulatory alternatives were considered 
for MACT selection for affected sources at kraft and soda pulp mills. 
The first regulatory alternative (RA I) represents the proposed MACT 
floor for existing affected sources, and the other three alternatives 
(RA II, RA III, and RA IV) represent beyond-the-MACT-floor options. 
Each of these regulatory alternatives is discussed below by emission 
point.
    a. NDCE Recovery Furnaces. For NDCE recovery furnaces, the 
regulatory alternatives are based on two levels of PM HAP control and 
two levels of total gaseous organic HAP control, as measured by 
methanol. Under RA I (proposed MACT floor for existing sources), PM HAP 
emissions would be controlled through the application of an ESP with a 
typical operating SCA of 100 m\2\/(m\3\/sec) (530 ft\2\/1,000 acfm); 
the ESP would reduce PM HAP emissions by greater than 99 percent.
    The regulatory alternatives RA II and RA III are based on the same 
PM HAP control equipment specifications for the NDCE recovery furnace 
as RA I (the proposed MACT floor); therefore, no further reduction in 
PM HAP emissions would be achieved under RA II and RA III than that 
achieved at the floor. However, under RA III, total gaseous organic HAP 
emissions would be controlled to levels beyond the proposed MACT floor 
through the application of a dry ESP system (i.e., a dry-bottom ESP 
with a dry PM return system). The use of a dry ESP system would result 
in a reduction in total gaseous organic HAP emissions from those mills 
currently using wet ESP systems (i.e., wet-bottom ESP's or dry-bottom 
ESP's with wet PM return systems). Wet ESP systems emit greater 
quantities of gaseous organic HAP's because these compounds are 
stripped from the black liquor in the bottom of the ESP and in the PM 
return system.

[[Page 18774]]

    The most stringent beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative (RA IV) 
combines the conversion of the ESP system with more stringent PM HAP 
control requirements for the furnace. The more stringent PM HAP control 
would be obtained through the application of an ESP followed by a 
packed-bed scrubber; the typical operating SCA of the ESP would be 
between 110 and 130 m\2\/(m\3\/sec) (570 and 670 ft\2\/1,000 acfm). 
Although the packed-bed scrubber is capable of reducing HCl emissions 
from the NDCE recovery furnace by as much as 99 percent, as stated in 
section IV.E.1.a of this preamble, the ESP could be used alone to meet 
the PM emission limit for new NDCE recovery furnaces because the 
scrubber removes little, if any, of the PM remaining in the gas stream 
exiting the ESP. Because the PM HAP control costs for RA IV are based 
on an ESP followed by a packed-bed scrubber, those costs are 
overstated. Regulatory alternative IV is representative of the best-
controlled similar source for NDCE recovery furnaces.
    b. DCE Recovery Furnace Systems. For DCE recovery furnace systems, 
the regulatory alternatives are based on two levels of PM HAP control 
and three levels of total gaseous organic HAP control, as measured by 
methanol. Under the proposed MACT floor regulatory alternative RA I, PM 
HAP emissions would be reduced through the application of an ESP with a 
typical operating SCA of 90 m\2\/(m\3\/sec) (430 ft\2\/1,000 acfm).
    The beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative RA II is based on the 
same PM HAP control equipment specifications for the DCE recovery 
furnace as RA I; however, total gaseous organic HAP emissions also 
would be reduced by controlling the vent gases from air-based BLO 
systems to a beyond-the-floor level via incineration. The use of an 
incineration device such as a power boiler or thermal oxidizer could 
achieve total gaseous organic HAP emission reductions of 98 percent or 
greater from air-based BLO systems, which would translate to a 38 
percent reduction of total gaseous organic HAP emissions from the 
entire DCE recovery furnace system.
    The beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative RA III is based on the 
conversion of the DCE recovery furnace to an NDCE recovery furnace 
equipped with a dry ESP system with a typical operating SCA of 100 
m\2\/(m\3\/sec) (530 ft\2\/1,000 acfm). The conversion of the DCE 
recovery furnace would reduce total gaseous organic HAP emissions from 
the DCE recovery furnace system by approximately 93 percent. No further 
reduction in PM HAP emissions would be achieved under RA III than that 
achieved at the floor (RA I) for DCE recovery furnaces.
    The most stringent beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative (RA IV) 
combines the conversion of the DCE recovery furnace with more stringent 
PM HAP control requirements for the furnace. The more stringent PM HAP 
control requirements are based on an ESP with a typical operating SCA 
between 110 and 130 m\2\/(m\3\/sec) (570 and 670 ft\2\/1,000 acfm) 
followed by a packed-bed scrubber. Although the packed-bed scrubber is 
capable of reducing HCl emissions from the DCE recovery furnace by as 
much as 99 percent, as stated in section IV.E.1.a of this preamble, the 
ESP could be used alone to meet the PM emission limit for new recovery 
furnaces because the scrubber removes little, if any, of the PM 
remaining in the gas stream exiting the ESP. Because the PM HAP control 
costs for RA IV are based on an ESP followed by a packed-bed scrubber, 
those costs are overstated. Regulatory alternative IV is representative 
of the best-controlled similar source for DCE recovery furnace systems.
    c. Smelt Dissolving Tanks. For SDT's, the regulatory alternatives 
are based on two levels of PM HAP control. Regulatory alternatives I 
through III are based on the use of a wet scrubber designed to meet the 
NSPS PM emission level. The beyond-the-floor regulatory alternative RA 
IV is based on the use of a high-efficiency wet scrubber designed to 
reduce PM emissions from SDT's. Based on current information, no 
controls more stringent than the use of high-efficiency wet scrubbers 
are being applied to SDT's.
    d. Lime Kilns. Two PM HAP control levels were considered for lime 
kilns. Under regulatory alternatives I through III, the PM control 
level is based on the level achievable with a wet scrubber or an ESP 
designed to meet the NSPS. Under the beyond-the-floor regulatory 
alternative RA IV, increased PM control is obtained through the 
application of an ESP with a typical operating SCA of 220 m\2\/(m\3\/
sec) (1,120 ft\2\/1,000 acfm).
2. Sulfite Pulp Mills
    As shown in Table 4, two regulatory alternatives were considered 
for sulfite combustion units. Both of these alternatives would reduce 
PM HAP emissions from the sulfite combustion unit. Regulatory 
alternative I represents the proposed MACT floor for existing sulfite 
combustion units and is based on the use of a fiber-bed demister 
system. Regulatory alternative II is more stringent than the proposed 
MACT floor option and is based on the use of a wet scrubber followed by 
a fiber-bed demister system.
3. Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills
    As shown in Table 5, two regulatory alternatives for total gaseous 
organic HAP's were considered for combustion sources at stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills. Regulatory alternative I represents the MACT 
floor for existing sources, which is no control. Regulatory alternative 
II is more stringent than the MACT floor option and is based on the use 
of a wet ESP followed by an RTO to reduce HAP emissions from the 
semichemical combustion units.

G. Selection of Proposed Standards for Existing and New Sources

1. Existing Sources
    The proposed standards for each emission point are based on the 
emission level achievable when MACT is applied to that source. For 
existing sources, MACT was determined by evaluating the regulatory 
alternatives presented in Tables 3 through 5. The Agency selected RA I, 
or the MACT floor alternative, as MACT for existing sources at kraft, 
soda, and sulfite pulp mills. The decision to select RA I was based on 
a comparison of the costs and benefits of the regulatory alternatives 
for existing sources at kraft, soda, and sulfite pulp mills. The Agency 
concluded that the benefits of additional controls beyond the MACT 
floor for kraft, soda, and sulfite pulp mills do not outweigh the high 
capital costs (shown in Tables 6 and 7).

     Table 6.--Nationwide Costs Associated With Regulatory Alternatives for Kraft and Soda Affected Sources     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total capital                     
                       Regulatory alternatives (RA)                            investment,        Total annual  
                                                                                  dollar        cost, dollar/yr 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RA I (MACT floor for existing sources)....................................        219,000,000         23,000,000

[[Page 18775]]

                                                                                                                
RA II (Beyond the floor for existing sources).............................        343,000,000         57,000,000
RA III (Beyond the floor for existing sources)............................      1,450,000,000         64,400,000
RA IV (Beyond the floor for existing sources; MACT floor for new sources).      2,080,000,000        152,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


         Table 7.--Nationwide Costs Associated With Regulatory Alternatives for Sulfite Affected Sources        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total capital                     
                       Regulatory alternatives (RA)                            investment,        Total annual  
                                                                                  dollar        cost, dollar/yr 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RA I (MACT floor for existing sources)....................................         11,400,000          5,120,000
RA II (Beyond the floor for existing sources; MACT floor for new sources).         19,600,000          8,770,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      Table 8.--Nationwide Costs Associated With Regulatory Alternatives for Semichemical Affected Sources      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total capital                     
                       Regulatory alternatives (RA)                            investment,        Total annual  
                                                                                  dollar        cost, dollar/yr 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RA I (MACT floor for existing and new sources)............................                  0                  0
RA II (Beyond the floor for existing and new sources).....................         28,100,000          6,860,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Agency selected RA II, or the beyond-the-floor alternative, as 
MACT for existing sources at stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. The 
decision to select RA II was based on (1) the suitability of RTO 
technology for use with fluidized-bed reactors, which emit the highest 
quantities of gaseous organic HAP's of the chemical recovery combustion 
technologies currently in use at stand-alone semichemical pulp mills; 
(2) the plans of one semichemical mill to install a full-scale RTO 
system (preceded by a wet ESP) following a successful RTO pilot study; 
and (3) the low cost-effectiveness value associated with a combination 
wet ESP and RTO. (The cost-effectiveness value is less than $2,800/Mg 
HAP's [$2,500/ton HAP's] based on conservative cost estimates.) Table 8 
presents the costs associated with the regulatory alternatives for 
existing sources at stand-alone semichemical pulp mills.
    Information on the costs and environmental impacts of each 
alternative can be found in the memorandum entitled ``Nationwide Costs, 
Environmental Impacts, and Cost-Effectiveness of Regulatory 
Alternatives for Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Semichemical Combustion 
Sources'' (docket entry No. II-B-63). The economic impacts of each 
alternative are discussed in ``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 I'' (docket entry No. II-A-32), 
hereafter referred to as the ``Economic Analysis Document.''
2. New Sources
    The most stringent regulatory alternatives examined for existing 
sources (RA IV for kraft and soda pulp mills; RA II for sulfite pulp 
mills; and RA II for stand-alone semichemical pulp mills) are 
representative of MACT for new sources. The proposed standards are 
equivalent to the emission level achieved by the application of MACT. 
The proposed new source MACT for kraft and soda pulp mills is 
represented by (1) an NDCE recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP 
system with an SCA between 110 and 130 m2/(m3/
sec) (570 and 670 ft2/1,000 acfm) followed by a packed-bed 
scrubber for both NDCE and DCE recovery furnaces, (2) a wet scrubber 
designed to meet a PM emission limit of 0.06 kg/Mg (0.12 lb/ton) of 
black liquor solids fired for SDT's, and (3) an ESP with an SCA of 220 
m2/(m3/sec) (1,120 ft2/1,000 acfm) for 
lime kilns. The proposed new source MACT for sulfite combustion units 
is represented by a wet scrubber followed by a fiber-bed demister 
system. The proposed new source MACT for semichemical combustion units 
is represented by a wet ESP followed by an RTO.

H. Selection of Format of the Standards

1. PM HAP Standards for Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
    In selecting the type and format of the proposed PM HAP standard 
for kraft and soda pulp mills, the Agency took into consideration the 
fact that the HAP fraction of the PM emitted was small (approximately 
0.25 percent). Consequently today's proposed standards provide owners 
and operators of existing affected sources at kraft and soda pulp mills 
several alternatives for meeting the proposed PM HAP standards. Owners 
or operators of existing affected sources would be allowed to comply 
with either the PM or the PM HAP emission limit set for each source. In 
addition, as an alternative to meeting either the PM or PM HAP emission 
limits for each existing affected source, the proposed rule would allow 
owners or operators to comply with the PM HAP standards by using a 
bubble compliance alternative that groups PM or PM HAP emissions from 
all existing sources together. Under the proposed bubble compliance 
alternative, owners or operators could control PM or PM HAP emissions 
more than required at one emission point, where control costs are 
relatively low, in return for a comparable relaxation of controls at a 
second emission point where control costs are higher. This approach 
allows the owner or operator the maximum degree of flexibility in 
developing the PM or PM HAP control strategy for existing sources in 
the chemical recovery area while reducing HAP emissions to the same 
levels that would be achieved through the application of MACT for each 
affected source.
    The proposed bubble compliance alternative only applies to existing 
sources at kraft and soda pulp mills.

[[Page 18776]]

New sources must meet the applicable PM emission limits proposed for 
new sources. The use of the bubble was limited to existing sources 
because (1) new sources historically have been held to stricter 
standards than existing sources, and (2) state-of-the-art equipment 
design and add-on controls can be integrated and installed most cost 
effectively during construction of new sources.
    The PM emission limits are provided in units of g/dscm (gr/dscf) 
for kraft recovery furnaces and lime kilns and units of kg/Mg (lb/ton) 
of black liquor solids fired for SDT's to be consistent with the NSPS 
for kraft pulp mills. The PM HAP emission rates are provided in units 
of kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired because of the low PM 
HAP concentrations present in exhaust gases from affected sources at 
kraft and soda pulp mills.
2. PM Standards for Sulfite Pulp Mills
    In selecting the type and format of the proposed PM standard for 
sulfite pulp mills, the Agency took into consideration the limited 
amount of PM HAP data available for sulfite combustion units. Because 
very little PM HAP data are available from sulfite combustion units, PM 
is used as a surrogate for PM HAP, and an alternate PM HAP standard is 
not provided. In addition, because (1) emissions from multiple sulfite 
combustion units at the same sulfite mill are typically controlled by 
the same equipment and (2) sulfite combustion units are the only 
affected source at sulfite mills, a ``bubble'' equation was not 
developed for sulfite pulp mills. The PM emission limits for both new 
and existing sulfite combustion units are based on available long-term 
PM emission data for sulfite combustion units in the State of 
Washington. The State of Washington data are expressed as PM 
concentrations [e.g., g/dscm (gr/dscf)], corrected to 8 percent oxygen. 
Therefore, the PM emission limits for new and existing sulfite 
combustion units are in concentration units, corrected to 8 percent 
oxygen.
3. Total Gaseous Organic HAP Standard for Kraft and Soda Pulp Mills
    In selecting the type and format of the proposed total gaseous 
organic HAP standard for new kraft and soda NDCE recovery furnaces and 
DCE recovery furnace systems, the Agency considered the following 
facts: (1) Methanol is the primary HAP for which emission data are 
available, (2) the emission mechanism for methanol is the same as for 
other gaseous organic HAP's, and (3) emissions of methanol from well-
controlled sources are low (less than 5 ppmv). Consequently, 
the Agency elected to use methanol as a surrogate for total gaseous 
organic HAP's and establish a methanol emission limit in the form of a 
mass emission rate (i.e., kg/Mg [lb/ton] of black liquor solids fired).
4. Total Gaseous Organic HAP Standard for Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp 
Mills
    In selecting the type and format of the proposed total gaseous 
organic HAP standard for semichemical combustion sources, the Agency 
considered the following facts: (1) Approximately half of the affected 
sources at stand-alone semichemical pulp mills would require add-on 
controls to reduce HAP emissions, while the other half likely could 
meet the total gaseous organic HAP limit without add-on controls and/or 
could reduce HAP emissions through process changes, and (2) emissions 
from semichemical combustion units are highly variable. Therefore, the 
Agency elected to allow affected sources to meet either an emission 
limit (in units of kg/Mg [lb/ton] of black liquor solids fired) or a 
percent reduction to provide flexibility and to accommodate the 
expected differences in emission levels and control strategies at 
stand-alone semichemical pulp mills. The emission limit and percent 
reduction are both based on measurements of THC (measured as carbon) as 
a surrogate for total gaseous organic HAP's because THC data correlate 
with available HAP data.

I. Selection of Monitoring Requirements

    To ensure compliance with today's proposed PM HAP standards, owners 
or operators of recovery furnaces and lime kilns equipped with ESP's 
would be required to maintain opacity levels below a specified level. 
Owners or operators of affected sources equipped with control devices 
other than ESP's would be required to establish control device or 
process operating parameter ranges that indicate the control device or 
process is being operated and maintained in accordance with good air 
pollution control practices. Owners or operators complying with the 
proposed total gaseous organic HAP limit for new kraft and soda 
recovery furnaces that use an NDCE recovery furnace with a dry ESP 
system are exempt from monitoring requirements for gaseous organic 
HAP's because the use of this equipment ensures continuous compliance 
with the emission limit.
    Today's standards include two levels of monitoring. Each monitoring 
level specifies maximum opacities (ESP's only) and a maximum frequency 
with which the opacity or monitored parameters may exceed established 
levels. If the conditions of the first monitoring level are exceeded, 
the owner or operator would be required to implement the corrective 
actions contained in their SSM plan to bring the operating parameter or 
opacity levels back to established levels. Exceedance of the conditions 
of the second level would constitute a violation of the standard. The 
purpose of the two-level monitoring appproach is to prevent a violation 
from occurring by requiring the owner or operator to correct operating 
parameter or opacity excursions before the threat of a violation 
arises.
    Owners or operators of kraft and soda SDT's and lime kilns and 
sulfite combustion units equipped with wet scrubbers would be required 
to establish a range of values for scrubber pressure drop and liquid 
flow rate that indicate compliance with today's PM HAP standards. The 
Agency selected the proposed monitoring parameters for wet scrubbers 
because these parameters are reliable indicators of PM and PM HAP 
control device performance.
    For consistency with the NSPS for kraft pulp mills, the Agency 
adopted the following requirements from the NSPS: (1) The use of 
continuous opacity monitors to monitor PM emissions from ESP's; (2) the 
opacity level (i.e., 35 percent) indicating a violation of PM or PM HAP 
emission limits for existing kraft and soda recovery furnaces equipped 
with ESP's; and (3) the maximum allowable opacity exceedance frequency 
of 6 percent of the semiannual reporting period. For new kraft and soda 
recovery furnaces, a 6-minute average opacity level of 20 percent was 
selected as the opacity level that, if exceeded for 10 consecutive 6-
minute periods, would require corrective action by the owner or 
operator. An opacity level of 20 percent was chosen because the kraft 
recovery furnace that represents the new source MACT floor for PM 
control is subject to a State opacity limit of 20 percent.
    Although the proposed PM emission limit for existing kraft and soda 
lime kilns is equivalent to the NSPS PM emission limit for gas-fired 
lime kilns, the monitoring requirement for determining compliance with 
the proposed PM emission limit is not equivalent to the NSPS monitoring 
requirement. The NSPS does not include an opacity limit for lime kilns. 
Under the proposed rule, the Agency selected 20 percent as the opacity 
level that, if exceeded for 10 consecutive 6-minute periods, would 
require

[[Page 18777]]

corrective action by the owner or operator, and if exceeded for more 
that 6 percent of any semiannual reporting period, would constitute a 
violation of the standard. An opacity level of 20 percent was chosen 
because a number of newer existing lime kilns equipped with ESP's are 
currently subject to State opacity limits of 20 percent.
    The Agency selected temperature as the operating parameter to be 
monitored and recorded for sources complying with the total gaseous 
organic HAP emission standard for semichemical combustion units through 
the use of an RTO because the temperature of the RTO is an indicator of 
total gaseous organic HAP control.
    The Agency selected a 3-hour averaging time for calculating 
monitoring parameter values for the purpose of determining possible 
violations of the standard because (1) EPA test methods referenced in 
today's proposed rule require the owner or operator to perform a 
minimum of three 1-hour test runs, and (2) the limits of the 
established range of parameter values would be based on the average 
values obtained using all test data obtained during the performance 
test.

J. Selection of Test Methods

    The following discussion identifies the test methods that are 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 
either the integrated sampling techniques of Test Method 3, ``Gas 
Analysis for the Determination of Dry Molecular Weight'' (40 CFR part 
60, appendix A) or Test Method 3A, ``Determination of Oxygen and Carbon 
Dioxide Concentrations in Emissions from Stationary Sources'' (40 CFR 
part 60, appendix A)--is the selected test method for determining 
compliance with the PM emission standards for kraft and soda recovery 
furnaces, SDT's, and lime kilns and sulfite combustion units. Test 
Method 5 was used to collect the PM emission data that form the basis 
of the PM standards proposed for kraft, soda, and sulfite combustion 
sources and also is the required test method for measuring PM from 
sources subject to the NSPS for kraft pulp mills.
    Test Method 17, ``Determination of Particulate Matter Emissions 
from Stationary Sources (In-Stack Filtration Method),'' may 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  deg.C (400  deg.F). Owners and 
operators of sources subject to the NSPS for kraft pulp mills are 
allowed to use Test Method 17 as an alternative to Test Method 5 for 
demonstrating compliance with the PM standards of the NSPS, and, 
therefore, today's proposed rule makes the same allowance to be 
consistent with the NSPS.
    Test Method 29, ``Determination of Metals Emissions from Stationary 
Sources'' (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) is the selected test method for 
determining compliance with the PM HAP emission standards for kraft and 
soda recovery furnaces, SDT's, and lime kilns. Test Method 29 can also 
be used as an alternative to Test Method 5 for measuring PM emissions. 
The PM HAP data upon which the PM HAP emission limits for kraft and 
soda combustion sources are based were collected before Test Method 29 
was proposed using a variety of test methods that are similar or 
identical to Test Method 29. Test Method 29 collects mercury in part 
with impingers filled with a solution of potassium permanganate. 
Because manganese, a component of potassium permanganate, is also a 
target analyte for Test Method 29, extreme caution should be used to 
ensure that the potassium permanganate used to collect mercury does not 
contaminate the portions of the sample that will be analyzed for 
manganese. To eliminate the possibility of contamination, the Agency 
will allow operators or owners the option of measuring all of the 
target PM HAP's, except mercury, with Test Method 29 and making a 
separate measurement of the mercury using Test Method 101A, 
``Determination of Particulate and Gaseous Mercury Emissions from 
Sewage Sludge Incinerators'' (40 CFR part 61, appendix A).
    Test Method 308, ``Procedure for Determination of Methanol 
Emissions from Stationary Sources'' (40 CFR part 63, appendix A) is 
being promulgated today as part of the final NESHAP for noncombustion 
sources in the pulp and paper industry and is the test method for 
determining compliance with the total gaseous organic HAP emission 
limit for new kraft and soda NDCE recovery furnaces and any new DCE 
recovery furnace systems. The methanol data upon which the total 
gaseous organic HAP emission limit for new kraft and soda NDCE recovery 
furnaces and new DCE recovery furnace systems is based were collected 
using a test method developed by the National Council of the Paper 
Industry for Air and Stream Improvement that served as the basis for 
Test Method 308. Performance testing using Test Method 308 (or any 
other approved test method for methanol emissions from kraft and soda 
recovery furnaces) would only be required for those new sources that 
choose to comply with total gaseous organic HAP emission limit for new 
kraft and soda recovery furnaces by using equipment other than an NDCE 
recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system.
    Test Method 25A, ``Determination of Total Gaseous Organic 
Concentration using a Flame Ionization Analyzer'' (40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A) is the selected test method for determining compliance with 
the total gaseous organic HAP emission limit for semichemical 
combustion units. The THC data upon which the total gaseous organic HAP 
emission limit for semichemical combustion units is based were 
collected using Test Method 25A.

K. Selection of Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements

    The owner or operator of any kraft, soda, sulfite or stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mill subject to these standards would be required to 
fulfill the reporting and recordkeeping requirements outlined in 
Sec. 63.10 of the General Provisions. These requirements include those 
associated with startup, shutdown, or malfunctions; operation and 
maintenance records; compliance monitoring system records; performance 
test data and reporting; quarterly reports of no excess emissions; and 
quarterly reports of exceedances of the emission limits. The owner or 
operator of any kraft, soda, sulfite or stand-alone semichemical pulp 
mill subject to these standards would be required to submit quarterly 
reports of any exceedances of monitored operating parameter values 
required under the proposed rule. These quarterly reports must contain 
the monitored operating parameter value readings for the periods 
constituting exceedances and a description and timing of steps taken to 
address the cause of the exceedances.

L. Relationship to Other Regulations

    This section of the preamble discusses the interrelationship 
between today's proposed regulation and other federal regulations 
covering pulp mills. The purpose of this section is to document the 
Agency's evaluation of pertinent rules in an effort to minimize the 
burden on the industry and enforcement authorities. The Agency is 
interested in hearing from all interested parties on specific 
suggestions for reducing the overall burden of the rule without 
jeopardizing the enforceability of the rules or the Agency's overall 
emission reduction goals.

[[Page 18778]]

1. Noncombustion Source Rule and Chemical Recovery Combustion Source 
Rule
    As mentioned previously in this notice (See section II-A, 
Background), EPA is promulgating effluent limitations guidelines and 
standards for the control of wastewater pollutants, as well as NESHAP 
for noncombustion sources in the pulp and paper industry as part of 
today's cluster rule. During the development of today's proposed 
chemical recovery combustion source NESHAP, the Agency examined both 
the chemical recovery combustion source rule and the noncombustion 
source rule to identify areas where the reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements of the rules could be minimized. Once the combustion 
source NESHAP has been promulgated, any of the initial notifications 
required by Sec. 63.7(b) of subpart A can be combined for both NESHAP 
and a single notification submitted to the appropriate authority. 
However, some reporting and recordkeeping requirements are specific to 
the individual regulations because the rules cover different emission 
points at the pulp mill. To minimize the overall burden on the 
industry, the Agency made an effort to ensure that today's proposed 
NESHAP for chemical recovery combustion sources contains only the 
minimum amount of recordkeeping necessary to demonstrate compliance 
with the rule.
2. NSPS (subpart BB of part 60) and Chemical Recovery Combustion Source 
Rule
    The NSPS for kraft pulp mills and the chemical recovery combustion 
source rule proposed today are closely related because both rules cover 
some of the same emission points. As noted in section III.B of this 
preamble, today's proposed rule allows the use of PM as a surrogate for 
PM HAP. Both of the rules regulate PM emissions from recovery furnaces, 
lime kilns, and SDT's at kraft pulp mills. In addition, the proposed PM 
emission limits for existing kraft and soda recovery furnaces, SDT's 
and lime kilns are the same as the NSPS limits for kraft recovery 
furnaces, SDT's and gas-fired lime kilns. However, the proposed NESHAP 
regulates emissions from both new and existing affected sources, and, 
therefore, would regulate emissions from affected sources not currently 
impacted by the NSPS.
    The PM emission limits in today's proposed rule for new and 
reconstructed affected sources at kraft pulp mills are more stringent 
than the NSPS PM limits. Also, today's proposed rule provides alternate 
PM HAP standards for existing affected sources. In addition, unlike the 
NSPS, today's proposed rule would allow owners or operators of existing 
kraft or soda pulp mills to meet an overall PM or overall PM HAP 
emission limit that includes all existing affected sources at the mill 
(i.e., the proposed bubble compliance alternative). However, owners or 
operators that choose to comply with the PM HAP standards of this 
proposed NESHAP by using the proposed bubble compliance alternative 
must continue to comply with the NSPS for kraft pulp mills by ensuring 
that existing affected sources subject to the NSPS continue to meet the 
NSPS PM limits specified for those sources.
    Today's proposed rule adopts many of the monitoring requirements in 
the NSPS. (See section III.D, Monitoring Requirements and Compliance 
Provisions.) Requirements adopted from the NSPS include those 
specifying the parameters to be monitored and frequency of monitoring, 
the level of opacity for existing recovery furnaces, and the required 
accuracy of monitoring equipment.
    In addition to requirements adopted from the NSPS, today's proposed 
rule would require owners or operators of control systems other than 
ESP's to establish ranges of monitored parameters during initial 
compliance testing and to operate control systems within the 
established range. Today's proposed rule also sets intermediate opacity 
levels and frequencies of exceedances of established operating 
parameter ranges and opacity levels that would not indicate a violation 
of the standard but that would require the owner or operator to 
initiate the corrective actions identified in their SSM plan. Today's 
proposed rule also would require owners or operators of new recovery 
furnaces or new or existing lime kilns at kraft and soda pulp mills to 
monitor opacity levels and would specify a maximum opacity level of 20 
percent rather than 35 percent, as is specified in the NSPS for kraft 
recovery furnaces.
    The recordkeeping burden is different for the NSPS and today's 
proposed rule. Under the NSPS, the monitored values must be recorded 
once per shift. In today's proposed rule, the monitored values would be 
required to be recorded on a continuous basis, with the possible 
exception of when a source is controlled by a device or system other 
than an ESP, wet scrubber, or RTO. In such cases, the owner or operator 
would be required to obtain approval from the applicable permitting 
authority for a monitoring plan that proposes less frequent monitoring.
    Another area where the two rules differ is the reporting 
requirements. For example, the General Provisions to part 60 (followed 
in the NSPS for kraft pulp mills) require only a 30-day prior notice 
before the performance test date; however the General Provisions to 
part 63 (i.e., the General Provisions for NESHAP) require notification 
60 days prior to the performance test date. Unless stated otherwise, 
today's proposed rule follows the General Provisions to part 63.
3. New Source Review/Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
Applicability
    The proposed level of gaseous organic HAP control for stand-alone 
semichemical combustion sources is based on the use of an RTO. The 
Agency expects that owners or operators of sources that cannot meet the 
total gaseous organic HAP emission limit (as THC) without add-on 
controls would install an RTO to comply with the proposed NESHAP. 
However, as demonstrated during a pilot study, RTO's can generate 
NOX emissions during normal operation. The emission 
increases of NOX may be of such magnitude to trigger the 
need for preconstruction permits under the nonattainment new source 
review (NSR) or prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program 
(hereinafter referred to as major NSR).
    In a similar situation regarding the MACT standards for 
noncombustion sources in the pulp and paper industry that are being 
promulgated today as part of the pulp and paper industry cluster rule, 
industry and some States have commented extensively that in developing 
the proposed rule, EPA did not take into account the impacts that would 
be incurred in triggering major NSR. Commenters indicated that major 
NSR would: (1) Cost the pulp and paper industry significantly more for 
permitting and implementation of additional SO2 or 
NOX controls than predicted by EPA; (2) impose a large 
permitting review burden on State air quality offices; and (3) present 
difficulties for mills to meet the proposed NESHAP compliance schedule 
of 3 years due to the time required to obtain a preconstruction permit. 
Industry commenters have stated that the pollution control project 
(PCP) exemption allowed under the current PSD policy provides 
inadequate relief from these potential impacts and recommended 
including specific language in the proposed rule exempting MACT 
compliance projects from NSR/PSD.

[[Page 18779]]

    In a July 1, 1994 guidance memorandum issued by the EPA (available 
on the TTN; see ``Pollution Control Projects and New Source Review 
(NSR) Applicability'' from John S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS, to EPA 
Regional Air Division Directors), the EPA provided guidance for 
permitting authorities on the approvability of PCP exclusions for 
source categories other than electric utilities. In the guidance, the 
EPA indicated that add-on controls and fuel switches to less polluting 
fuels qualify for an exclusion from major NSR. To be eligible to be 
excluded from otherwise applicable major NSR requirements, a PCP must, 
on balance, be ``environmentally beneficial,'' and the permitting 
authority must ensure that the project will not cause or contribute to 
a violation of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or 
PSD increment, or adversely affect visibility or other air quality 
related values (AQRV) in a Class I area, and that offsetting reductions 
are secured in the case of a project which would result in a 
significant increase of a nonattainment pollutant. The permitting 
authority can make these determinations outside of the major NSR 
process. The 1994 guidance did not void or create an exclusion from any 
applicable minor source preconstruction review requirements in an 
approved State Implementation Plan (SIP). Any minor NSR permitting 
requirements in a SIP would continue to apply, regardless of any 
exclusion from major NSR that might be approved for a source under the 
PCP exclusion policy.
    In the July 1, 1994 guidance memorandum, the EPA specifically 
identified the RTO as an example of an add-on control that could be 
considered a PCP and an appropriate candidate for a case-by-case 
exclusion from major NSR. For the purposes of today's proposed 
standards for chemical recovery combustion sources at stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills, the EPA considers the application of the RTO 
to reduce total gaseous organic HAP emissions to be a PCP because the 
RTO is an add-on control device that would be installed specifically to 
comply with MACT and will reduce emissions of hazardous organic air 
pollutants. Furthermore, EPA considers the installation of the RTO to 
be environmentally beneficial because it would significantly reduce 
emissions of VOC's and CO as well as the emissions of the targeted 
pollutants (total gaseous organic HAP's). However, EPA recognizes that 
incidental formation of NOX will occur during operation of 
the RTO. Consistent with the 1994 guidance, the permitting authority 
should confirm that, in each case, the resultant increase in 
NOX emissions would not cause or contribute to a violation 
of a NAAQS, PSD increment, or adversely affect an AQRV.
    The EPA believes that the current guidance on pollution control 
projects adequately provides for the exclusion from major NSR of air 
pollution control projects in the pulp and paper industry resulting 
from today's proposed rule. Such projects would be covered under minor 
source regulations in the applicable SIP, and permitting authorities 
would be expected to provide adequate safeguards against NAAQS and 
increment violations and adverse impacts on AQRV in Federal Class I 
areas. Only in those areas where potential adverse impacts cannot be 
resolved through the minor NSR programs or other mechanisms would major 
NSR apply.
    The EPA recognizes that, where there is a potential for an adverse 
impact, some small percentage of mills located near Class I PSD areas 
might be subject to major NSR, i.e., the permitting authority 
determines that the impact or potential impact cannot be adequately 
addressed by its minor NSR program or other SIP measures. If this 
occurs, there is a question whether MACT and NSR compliance can both be 
done within the respective rule deadlines. Although too speculative to 
warrant disposition in this rule, EPA is alert to this potential 
problem and will attempt to create implementation flexibility on a 
case-by-case basis should a problem actually occur.

M. Solicitation of Comments

    The EPA seeks full public participation in arriving at its final 
decisions and encourages comments on all aspects of this proposal from 
all interested parties. Full supporting data and detailed analyses 
should be submitted with comments to allow EPA to make maximum use of 
the comments. All comments should be directed to the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-94-67 (see ADDRESSES). 
Comments on this notice must be submitted on or before the date 
specified in the DATES section.
    Commentors wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration should clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and clearly label it ``Confidential Business Information'' 
(CBI). Submissions containing such proprietary information should be 
sent directly to the Emission Standards Division CBI Office, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (MD-13), Research Triangle Park, North 
Carolina 27711, with a copy of the cover letter directed to Mr. Jeff 
Telander of the Minerals and Inorganic Chemicals Group (see the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for the address). Confidential 
business information should not be sent to the public docket. 
Information covered by such a claim of confidentiality will be 
disclosed by EPA only to the extent allowed and by the procedures set 
forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality accompanies the 
submission when it is received by EPA, it may be made available to the 
public without further notice to the commentor.

V. Impacts of Proposed Standards

A. Number of Impacted Sources

    An estimated 211 recovery furnaces, 227 SDT's, and 192 lime kilns 
currently operate at kraft and soda pulp mills in the United States and 
would be affected by today's proposed standards. The EPA estimates that 
52 of the recovery furnaces, 56 of the SDT's, and 77 of the lime kilns 
would be required to upgrade or replace add-on controls to reduce 
emissions of PM HAP's under the proposed standards. (These estimates 
and the impacts estimates in the following sections were determined 
based on control of PM or PM HAP emissions without using the proposed 
bubble compliance alternative.)
    An estimated 21 sulfite combustion units and 14 semichemical 
combustion units currently operate in the United States and would be 
affected by today's proposed standards. Under the proposed standards, 
an estimated eight sulfite combustion units would be required to 
upgrade or replace add-on controls to reduce emissions of PM HAP's; an 
estimated seven semichemical combustion units would be required to add 
controls to reduce emissions of total gaseous organic HAP's.

B. Environmental Impacts

    Nationwide HAP emissions from combustion sources at pulp mills are 
estimated to be 32,400 Mg/yr (35,700 tons/yr) at the current level of 
control. The proposed standards are estimated to reduce total HAP 
emissions by about 2,600 Mg/yr (2,800 tons/yr). In addition to the HAP 
reductions, the proposed standards would result in the reduction of 
criteria air pollutants, such as PM and VOC. After implementation of 
the proposed standards, PM emissions from combustion sources at pulp 
mills are estimated to decrease by about 23,800 Mg/yr (26,200 tons/yr) 
from a baseline level of 64,400 Mg/yr (71,000 tons/yr);

[[Page 18780]]

VOC emissions from combustion sources at stand-alone semichemical pulp 
mills are estimated to decrease by about 32,600 Mg/yr (35,900 tons/yr) 
from a baseline level of 36,600 Mg/yr (40,300 tons/yr); carbon monoxide 
(CO) emissions from combustion sources at stand-alone semichemical pulp 
mills are estimated to decrease by about 57,700 Mg/yr (63,600 tons/yr) 
from a baseline level of 62,800 Mg/yr (69,200 tons/yr); and emissions 
of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from combustion sources at stand-
alone semichemical pulp mills are estimated to increase by about 476 
Mg/yr (525 tons/yr) from a baseline level of 278 Mg/yr (306 tons/yr).
    The quantity of PM collected will increase when recovery furnace PM 
control devices are upgraded or replaced to comply with the proposed 
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's 
to comply with the proposed PM HAP standards 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's (and there was no prior recycle or reuse of scrubber 
discharge), EPA estimates that wastewater discharge will decrease 
nationwide by about 36 billion liters per year (L/yr) (9.5 billion 
gallons per year [gal/yr]) following implementation of the proposed 
standards.

C. Energy Impacts

    The overall energy demand (i.e., electricity plus natural gas) is 
expected to decrease by about 46.7 million megajoules per year (MJ/yr) 
(44.3 billion British thermal units per year [Btu/yr]) nationwide under 
the proposed standards. Electricity requirements are expected to 
decrease by about 17,200 megawatt-hours per year (MWh/yr) under the 
proposed standard. This net decrease in electricity requirements 
includes (1) an expected increase of about 41,400 MWh/yr when PM 
control devices on kraft and soda recovery furnaces and SDT's and 
sulfite combustion units are upgraded or replaced, (2) an expected 
increase of 18,900 MWh/yr when total gaseous organic HAP control 
devices are added to semichemical combustion units, and (3) an expected 
decrease of about 77,500 MWh/yr if wet scrubbers are replaced by ESP's 
to provide increased control of PM emissions from lime kilns. Natural 
gas requirements are expected to increase by about 0.4 million cubic 
meters per year (m3/yr) (14 million cubic feet per year 
[ft3/yr]) when total gaseous organic HAP controls are added 
to semichemical combustion units.

D. Cost Impacts

    The estimated capital costs of control for the proposed standards 
are $258 million. The capital costs of the proposed standards include 
the costs to purchase and install both the control equipment and 
monitoring equipment. Most (85 percent) of the capital costs can be 
attributed to PM controls for kraft and soda combustion sources 
(recovery furnaces, lime kilns, and SDT's). The kraft and soda PM 
control costs are estimated based on ESP upgrades for recovery 
furnaces, replacement of existing wet scrubbers with ESP's for lime 
kilns, and replacement of existing wet scrubbers with new wet scrubbers 
for SDT's. The proposed bubble compliance alternative was not 
considered in estimating the capital PM control costs, and, therefore, 
the capital costs may be overstated.
    The incremental annual costs of the proposed standards are $35.2 
million/yr. The annualized costs account 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 (81 percent) of the annual costs can be 
attributed to the PM controls for kraft and soda recovery furnaces and 
SDT's. The annual costs for lime kiln PM controls are cost savings, 
based on the lower operating costs for ESP's compared to wet scrubbers. 
The proposed bubble compliance alternative was not considered in 
estimating the annual PM control costs, and, therefore, the annual 
costs may be overstated. The total average costs for annual 
recordkeeping and reporting required by the proposed standards are $6.8 
million/yr over the first 3 years after implementation of the 
standards.

E. Economic Impacts

    The economic impacts of today's proposed NESHAP (i.e., MACT II) and 
the NESHAP for noncombustion sources (i.e., MACT I and II) and effluent 
limitations guidelines being promulgated today are collectively 
discussed in section VIII of the integrated preamble for ``NESHAP for 
Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations 
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance 
Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category,'' hereafter referred 
to as the integrated preamble.

F. Benefits Analysis

    Implementation of the proposed regulation is expected to reduce 
emissions of HAP's, PM, VOC, SO2, and CO, while it is 
expected to slightly increase emissions of NOx. The air 
quality benefits expected to result from the above emission reductions 
will be a decrease in adverse health effects associated with inhalation 
of the above pollutants as well as improved welfare effects, such as 
improved visibility and crop yields. The benefits analysis is able to 
quantify and monetize the health and welfare benefits associated with 
some of these emission reductions. Total monetized benefits of the 
proposed regulatory alternative for VOC, PM, and SO2 
emission reductions range from approximately $302 million to $384 
million. (Refer to the integrated preamble, and the Economic Analysis 
Document for a detailed description of the methodology used to monetize 
the benefits.)
    Benefit categories that are monetized were compared to annualized 
control costs of the regulatory alternatives to determine net benefits. 
In general, the regulatory alternative with the greatest net benefits 
is optimal from an efficiency standpoint and will be the most 
beneficial to society. Net benefits of the proposed regulatory 
alternative ($270 million to $352 million) are greater than the net 
benefits of all other regulatory alternatives, except those that 
combine the most stringent control options for kraft and soda mills. 
However, economic impact and distributional issues must be considered 
in conjunction with the cost-benefit analysis in the choice of proposed 
regulatory alternative.
    The control costs of the MACT II regulation increase significantly 
between regulatory options one and four for kraft and soda mills (see 
section IV.F of this notice). Capital costs increase approximately 850 
percent and annualized costs 560 percent when comparing the costs of 
option one versus four for kraft and soda mills. The estimated increase 
in the price of unbleached kraft pulp that will result from the MACT II 
rule differs greatly under the different regulatory options as well. 
Specifically, prices for unbleached kraft pulp are estimated to 
increase from 1.4 percent with the least stringent option to 7.4 
percent with the more stringent regulatory option for kraft and soda 
mills.
    Based on the economic impact analysis conducted, the increased

[[Page 18781]]

emission control costs associated with the most stringent kraft and 
soda MACT II option are predicted to result in one or more company 
bankruptcies in the pulp and paper industry. Although the EPA can not 
determine with certainty the economic costs associated if one or more 
large firms experience bankruptcy, the EPA has reason to believe that 
these impacts would likely be significant. Economic impacts and 
distributional effects associated with bankruptcies may include issues 
involving changes in the ownership of the firm, loss in investment 
values for existing investors in the firm, potentially higher financing 
costs, possible mill closures, and probable job losses. These factors 
were not directly considered in the cost-benefit analysis conducted for 
the regulation.
    While the cost-benefit analysis seems to indicate that the net 
benefits of the most stringent regulatory alternative exceed the net 
benefits of the proposed alternative, the economic impact and 
distributional effects associated with the most stringent option for 
kraft and soda mills have not been considered directly in this 
analysis. These economic impact and distributional issues lead to the 
conclusion that the regulatory alternatives involving the most 
stringent option for kraft and soda mills are less than optimal.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all information 
considered by EPA in developing this proposed rule. The principal 
purposes of the docket are (1) to allow interested parties to readily 
identify and locate documents so that they can effectively participate 
in the rulemaking process, and (2) to serve as the record in case of 
judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the CAA).

B. Public Hearing

    A public hearing will be held, if requested, to discuss the 
proposed standards in accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act. 
Persons wishing to make oral presentations on the proposed standards 
should contact the EPA (see DATES for contact person and address). If a 
publice hearing is requested and held, EPA will ask clarifying 
questions during the oral presentation but will not respond to the 
presentation of comments. To provide an opportunity for all who wish to 
speak, oral presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any 
member of the public may file a written statement on or before [insert 
date 60 days from FR publication]. Written statements should be 
addressed to the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (see 
ADDRESSES) and refer to Docket No. A-94-67. Written statements and 
supporting information will be considered with equivalent weight as any 
oral statement and supporting information subsequently presented at a 
public hearing, if held. A verbatim transcript of the hearing and 
written statements will be placed in the docket and will be available 
for public inspection and copying, or will be mailed upon request, at 
the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (see ADDRESSES).

C. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51736, October 4, 1993), the 
Agency 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
    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'' within the 
meaning of the Executive Order. For that reason, this action was 
submitted to OMB for review. The regulatory impact assessment (RIA) is 
detailed in the Economic Analysis Document (docket entry No. II-A-32). 
Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be 
documented in the public record.

D. Enhancing the Interdepartmental Partnership Under Executive Order 
12875

    In compliance with Executive Order 12875, the Agency has involved 
State regulatory experts in the development of this proposed rule. No 
Tribal governments are believed to be affected by this proposed rule. 
State and local governments are not directly impacted by the rule, 
i.e., they are not required to purchase control systems to meet the 
requirements of the rule. However, they will be required to implement 
the rule; e.g., incorporate the rule into permits and enforce the rule. 
They will collect permit fees that will be used to offset the resources 
burden of implementing the rule. Comments have been solicited from 
States and have been carefully considered in the rule development 
process. In addition, all States are encouraged to comment on this 
proposed rule during the public comment period, and the EPA intends to 
fully consider these comments in the development of the final rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.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 to State, local, and tribal governments, in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any 
one 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

[[Page 18782]]

small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this rule contains a Federal mandate 
that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, 
local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector 
in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared under section 202 of the 
UMRA a written statement which is summarized below.
1. Statutory Authority
    As discussed in section I of this preamble, the statutory authority 
for this rulemaking is section 112 of the CAA. 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's. 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's using the maximum achievable 
control technology (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 proposed 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 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).
    Compliance with section 205(a): Regarding the EPA's compliance with 
section 205(a), the EPA did identify and consider a reasonable number 
of alternatives; a summary of these alternatives is provided in section 
IV.F of this preamble. Additional information on the costs and 
environmental impacts of the regulatory alternatives is presented in 
the Nationwide Costs, Environmental Impacts, and Cost-Effectiveness of 
Regulatory Alternatives for Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Semichemical 
Combustion Sources Memo (docket entry No. II-B-63).
    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 semichemical 
pulp mills. However, the EPA considers the cost-effectiveness of the 
more stringent option for semichemical chemical recovery combustion 
sources (less than $2,800/Mg HAP's, based on conservative cost 
estimates) acceptable, especially when measured against the 
environmental benefits of reducing emissions of both HAP's and non-
HAP's. Therefore, the 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 the proposed NESHAP for 
MACT I, including the Agency's assessment of costs and environmental 
benefits, is detailed in the ``Regulatory Impact Assessment of Proposed 
Effluent Guidelines and NESHAP for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard 
Industry,'' (EPA 821-R93-020). The regulatory impact assessment 
document has been 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 entry No. II-A-32). Social costs and benefits also are 
discussed in section V of this preamble.
3. Future and Disproportionate Costs
    The Unfunded Mandates Act requires that EPA estimate, where 
accurate estimation is reasonably feasible, future compliance costs 
imposed by the rule and any disproportionate budgetary effects. The 
EPA's estimates of the future compliance costs of this rule are 
discussed in section V.D of this preamble.
    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 Unfunded Mandates Act requires that EPA estimate the effect of 
this rule on the national economy. To the extent feasible, EPA must 
estimate the effect on productivity, economic growth, full employment, 
creation of productive jobs, and international competitiveness of the 
U.S. goods and services, if and to the extent that the EPA in its sole 
discretion determines that accurate estimates are reasonably feasible 
and that such effect is relevant and material.
    Estimates of the impact of this rule on the national economy are 
described in section VIII of the integrated preamble to the final rule 
for MACT I and III and the effluent guidelines that are being 
promulgated today. The nationwide economic impact of the rule is based 
on the Economic Analysis Document (docket entry No. II-A-32).
5. Consultation With Government Officials
    The Unfunded Mandates Act requires that EPA describe the extent of 
the agency's prior consultation with affected State, local, and tribal 
officials, summarize the officials' comments or concerns, and summarize 
EPA's response to those comments or concerns. In addition, section 203 
of the Act requires that EPA develop a plan for informing and advising 
small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by a 
proposal. Although this rule does not affect any State, local, or 
Tribal governments, EPA has consulted with State and local air 
pollution control officials. The Agency also has held numerous meetings 
on these proposed integrated rules with many of the stakeholders from 
the pulp and paper industry, including the American Forest and Paper 
Association (AF&PA), the National Council of the Paper Industry for Air 
and Stream Improvement (NCASI), numerous individual companies, 
environmental groups, consultants and vendors, labor unions, and other 
interested parties. The EPA has added materials to the Air and Water 
docket to document these meetings.

F. Regulatory Flexibility

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., Pub. L. 
96-354), amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996 (SBREFA), requires the Agency to examine the potential 
economic impact of regulatory action on small entities. The Agency has 
recently established guidelines to help analysts comply with RFA 
requirements, and to determine if a substantial number of small 
businesses are significantly impacted. The Agency has estimated the 
economic impact of the integrated regulatory alternative on small 
companies involved in pulp, paper, and paperboard manufacturing, and 
these impacts are discussed in the integrated preamble to the final 
rule for MACT I and III and the effluent limitations guidelines being 
promulgated today and in the Economic Analysis Document (docket entry 
No.

[[Page 18783]]

II-A-32). As explained there, the CAA rule does not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, within the 
meaning of section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. In making 
this finding, the Agency explicitly considered the potential impacts of 
this proposal in combination with both the final CAA rules, and also 
the final CWA rule. The EPA adopts the same analysis here, and, thus, 
certifies that this proposed rule does not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule have 
been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information Collection Request (ICR) document 
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1805.01), and a copy may be obtained 
from Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division (2136); U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (2136); 401 M Street, SW., Washington, 
D.C. 20460, or by calling (202) 260-2740. The public reporting and 
recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to 
average 1,350 hours per affected pulp mill annually over the first 3 
years after implementation of the standards.
    This includes time for reviewing instructions, searching existing 
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing 
and reviewing the collection of information.
    Send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other aspect of 
this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this 
burden, to Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division (2137), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, D.C. 
20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office 
of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503, marked ``Attention: 
Desk Officer for EPA.'' The final rule will respond to any OMB or 
public comments on the information collection requirements contained in 
this proposal.

H. Clean Air Act

    In accordance with section 117 of the Act, publication of this 
proposal was preceded by consultation with appropriate advisory 
committees, independent experts, and Federal departments and agencies. 
Pursuant to section 112(f), this regulation will be reviewed 8 years 
from the date of promulgation. This review will include an assessment 
of such factors as evaluation of the residual health risks, any overlap 
with other programs, the existence of alternative methods, 
enforceability, improvements in emission control technology and health 
data, and reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous air 
pollutants, Pulp and paper mills, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: November 14, 1997.
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 proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS 
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

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

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

    2. It is proposed that part 63 be amended by adding subpart MM to 
read as follows:
Subpart MM--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants; 
Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From 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.
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

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


Sec. 63.860  Applicability and designation of affected source.

    (a) This subpart applies to the NDCE recovery furnaces, DCE 
recovery furnace systems, smelt dissolving tanks, and lime kilns at 
kraft and soda pulp mills; the sulfite combustion units at sulfite pulp 
mills; and the semichemical combustion units at stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mills.
    (b) Affected sources. The affected sources to which the provisions 
of this subpart apply are:
    (1) Each NDCE recovery furnace and associated smelt dissolving 
tank(s) located at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
    (2) Each DCE recovery furnace system and associated smelt 
dissolving tank(s) located at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
    (3) Each lime kiln located at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
    (4) Each sulfite combustion unit located at a sulfite pulp mill.
    (5) Each semichemical combustion unit located at a stand-alone 
semichemical pulp mill.
    (c) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to the 
provisions of this subpart must also comply with the requirements of 
subpart A of this part, according to the applicability of subpart A to 
such affected sources, as identified in Table 1 of this subpart.


Sec. 63.861  Definitions.

    All terms used in this subpart are defined in the 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 shall 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 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 (SDT), a lime kiln, a sulfite 
combustion unit, or a semichemical combustion unit.
    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

[[Page 18784]]

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 (PM) 
return system (i.e., no black liquor, water, or other fluid is used to 
transport the collected PM to the mix tank).
    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.
    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 CaO.
    Lime production rate means the rate at which dry lime, measured as 
calcium oxide (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 (see Sec. 63.865(b)(1)), or EPA Method 
29.
    PM hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 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 
and with treatment of nondetect data as specified in Sec. 63.865(b)(2).
    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.
    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 of chemical recovery.
    Similar process units means all DCE and NDCE recovery furnaces, all 
smelt dissolving tanks, or all lime kilns at a kraft or soda pulp mill.
    Smelt dissolving tank (SDT) means a vessel 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.
    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.


Sec. 63.862  Standards.

    (a) Standards for PM HAP: existing sources. (1) Each owner or 
operator of an existing kraft or soda pulp mill shall comply with the 
requirements of either paragraph (a)(1)(i) or paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of 
this section.
    (i) Each owner or operator of a kraft or soda pulp mill shall 
comply with either the PM or PM HAP emission 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 shall ensure that:
    (1) The concentration of PM in the exhaust gases discharged to the 
atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.10 g/dscm (0.044 gr/dscf) 
corrected to 8 percent oxygen; or
    (2) The PM HAP emissions discharged to the atmosphere are less than 
or equal to 1.00E-03 kg/Mg (2.01E-03 lb/ton) of black liquor solids 
fired.
    (B) The owner or operator of each existing kraft or soda smelt 
dissolving tank shall ensure that:
    (1) 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; or
    (2) The PM HAP emissions discharged to the atmosphere are less than 
or equal to 6.20E-05 kg/Mg (1.24E-04 lb/ton) of black liquor solids 
fired.
    (C) The owner or operator of each existing kraft or soda lime kiln 
shall ensure that:
    (1) 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; or
    (2) The PM HAP emissions discharged to the atmosphere are less than 
or equal to 6.33E-03 kg/Mg (1.27E-02 lb/ton) of CaO produced.
    (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 or PM HAP emission 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 all affected 
existing sources at the kraft or soda pulp mill using the methods in 
Sec. 63.865(a)(1)(i); or
    (B) Establishing an overall PM HAP emission limit for all affected 
existing sources at the kraft or soda pulp mill using the methods in 
Sec. 63.865(a)(1)(ii).
    (C) The emission limits for each kraft recovery furnace, smelt 
dissolving tank,

[[Page 18785]]

and lime kiln that are used to establish the overall PM limit in 
paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(A) of this section shall not be less stringent 
than the emission limitations required by Sec. 60.282 of part 60 for 
any kraft recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or lime kiln that is 
subject to the requirements of Sec. 60.282.
    (D) Each owner or operator of an existing kraft or soda recovery 
furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or lime kiln shall ensure that the PM 
or PM HAP emissions discharged to the atmosphere from each of these 
sources are less than or equal to the applicable PM or PM HAP limits, 
established using the methods in Sec. 63.865(a)(1) (i) or (ii), that 
are used to establish the overall PM or PM HAP limit in paragraphs 
(a)(2)(ii) (A) or (B) of this section.
    (E) Each owner or operator of an existing kraft or soda recovery 
furnace, smelt dissolving tank or lime kiln must reestablish the 
emission limits determined in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) of this 
section if either of the following actions 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 paragraphs (a)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) 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 paragraphs 
(a)(1)(ii) (A) or (B) 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 shall comply with the applicable PM or PM HAP 
emission limit for that source provided in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this 
section.
    (2) The owner or operator of each existing sulfite combustion unit 
shall 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 PM HAP: new sources. (1) The owner or operator of 
any new kraft or soda recovery furnace shall ensure that the 
concentration of PM in the exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere 
is less than or equal to 0.034 g/dscm (0.015 gr/dscf) corrected to 8 
percent oxygen.
    (2) The owner or operator of any new kraft or soda smelt dissolving 
tank shall ensure that 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 shall 
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 shall 
ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases discharged to 
the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.046 g/dscm (0.020 gr/dscf) 
corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
    (c) Standards for total gaseous organic HAP. (1) The owner or 
operator of any new recovery furnace at a kraft or soda pulp mill shall 
ensure that the concentration of total gaseous organic HAP, as measured 
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 shall ensure that:
    (i) The concentration of total 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 total gaseous organic HAP emissions, as measured by total 
hydrocarbons reported as carbon, are reduced by at least 90 percent 
prior to discharge of the gases to the atmosphere.


Sec. 63.863  Compliance dates.

    (a) The owner or operator of an existing affected source shall 
comply with the requirements in this subpart no later than [insert date 
3 years after the effective date of the final rule].
    (b) The owner or operator of a new affected source that has an 
initial startup date after [insert the effective date of these 
standards in the final rule] shall comply with the requirements in this 
subpart immediately upon startup of the affected source, except as 
specified in Sec. 63.6(b) of subpart A of this part.


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 an ESP shall 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 of 
subpart A of this part.
    (2) The owner or operator of each affected kraft or soda lime kiln, 
sulfite recovery furnace, or kraft or soda smelt dissolving tank 
equipped with a wet scrubber shall 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 flowrate at least once every successive 15-minute period using 
the procedures in Sec. 63.8(c) as well as the following:
    (i) The monitoring device used for the continuous measurement of 
the pressure drop of the gas stream across the scrubber shall be 
certified by the manufacturer to be 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 flowrate shall be certified by the manufacturer to be 
accurate within 5 percent of the design scrubbing liquid 
flowrate.
    (3) The owner or operator of each affected semichemical combustion 
unit equipped with an RTO shall 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 shall 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 that uses a 
control device listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(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 that uses an air 
pollution control system other than those listed in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (a)(3) of this section shall 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 complying with 
the total gaseous organic HAP emission 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 total gaseous 
organic HAP emission limitation.

[[Page 18786]]

    (b) Initial compliance determination. (1) The owner or operator of 
each affected source subject to the requirements of this subpart is 
required to conduct an initial performance test using the test methods 
and procedures listed in Sec. 63.7 of subpart A of this part and 
Sec. 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 shall establish operating 
ranges for the monitoring parameters in paragraphs (a)(2) through 
(a)(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 shall 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 may establish 
expanded or replacement operating ranges for the monitoring parameter 
values listed in paragraphs (a)(2) through (a)(5) of this section and 
established in paragraphs (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 emission limitations of 
Sec. 63.862(c)(1) if the affected source includes an NDCE recovery 
furnace equipped with a dry ESP system.
    (4) After the Administrator has approved the PM or PM HAP limits 
for each kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, and 
lime kiln, the owner or operator complying with an overall PM or 
overall PM HAP emission limit established in Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) 
shall demonstrate compliance with the PM HAP standard by demonstrating 
compliance with the approved PM or PM HAP emission 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 are required to 
implement corrective action, as specified in the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan prepared under Sec. 63.866(a) of this subpart if the 
following monitoring exceedances occur:
    (i) For a new or existing kraft recovery furnace or lime kiln 
equipped with an ESP, when 10 consecutive 6-minute averages result in a 
measurement greater than 20 percent opacity;
    (ii) For a new or existing smelt dissolving tank, 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 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 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.
    (2) Following the compliance date, owners or operators of all 
affected sources are in violation of the standards of Sec. 63.862 if 
the following monitoring exceedances 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 time within any 6-month reporting 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 time within any 6-month reporting period;
    (iii) For a new or existing smelt dissolving tank, 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 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 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 shall be attributed in any 
given 24-hour period.


Sec. 63.865  Performance test requirements and test methods.

    (a) The owner or operator of an affected source seeking to comply 
with a PM or PM HAP emission limit under Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) (A) or 
(B) shall use the following procedures:
    (1) Determine either the overall PM limit or overall PM HAP limit 
for the mill.
    (i) The overall PM limit for the mill shall be determined as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.041

Where:

ELPM=overall PM emission limit for all existing affected 
sources 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 gas flow rates measured during 
the performance test from all existing recovery furnaces at the 
kraft or soda pulp mill, dry standard cubic meters per minute (dscm/
min) (dry standard cubic feet per minute [dscf/min]).

[[Page 18787]]

Cref,LK=reference concentration of 0.15 g/dscm (0.067 gr/
dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen for existing kraft or soda lime 
kilns.
QLKtot=sum of the average gas flow rates measured during 
the performance test from all existing lime kilns 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/dr]).
BLStot=sum of the average black liquor solids firing 
rates of all existing recovery furnaces 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; or

    (ii) The overall PM HAP limit for the mill shall be determined as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.042

Where:

ELPMHAP=overall PM HAP emission limit for all existing 
affected sources at the kraft or soda pulp mill, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of 
black liquor solids fired.
ERref,RF=reference emission rate of 1.00E-03 kg/Mg 
(2.01E-03 lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired for existing kraft or 
soda recovery furnaces.
ERref,LK=reference emission rate of 6.33E-03 kg/Mg 
(1.27E-02 lb/ton) of CaO produced for existing kraft or soda lime 
kilns.
CaOtot=sum of the average lime production rates for all 
existing lime kilns at the kraft or soda pulp mill measured as CaO 
during the performance test, Mg CaO/d (ton CaO/d).
BLStot=sum of average black liquor solids firing rates of 
all existing recovery furnaces at the kraft or soda pulp mill 
measured during the performance test, Mg/d (ton/d) of black liquor 
solids fired.
ER2ref,SDT=reference emission rate of 6.20E-05 kg/Mg 
(1.24E-04 lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired for existing kraft or 
soda smelt dissolving tanks.

    (2) Establish a preliminary emission limit for each kraft or soda 
recovery furnace (CEL,RF), smelt dissolving tank 
(CEL,SDT), and lime kiln (CEL,LK); and, using 
these emission limits, determine the overall PM or overall PM HAP 
emission rate for the mill using the procedures in Sec. 63.865(a)(2)(i) 
through (v), such that the overall PM or overall PM HAP emission rate 
calculated in Sec. 63.865(a)(2)(v) is less than or equal to the overall 
PM or overall PM HAP emission limit determined in Sec. 63.865(a)(1), as 
appropriate.
    (i) The following equation shall be used to determine the PM or PM 
HAP emission rate from each affected recovery furnace:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.043

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 
minlb/dgr).
CEL,RF=preliminary PM or PM HAP 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, 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 following equation shall be used to determine the PM or PM 
HAP emission rate from each affected smelt dissolving tank:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.044

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=preliminary PM or PM HAP emission limit proposed 
by owner or operator for the smelt dissolving tank, g/dscm (gr/dscf) 
corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
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 liquor solids 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 shall be proportioned 
according to the size of the SDT's.

    (iii) The following equation shall be used to determine the PM or 
PM HAP emission rate from each affected lime kiln:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.045


[[Page 18788]]


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=preliminary PM or PM HAP 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, 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 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 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 at the kraft 
or soda pulp mill, the following equation shall be used to calculate 
the overall PM or overall PM HAP emission rate from all similar process 
units at the mill and shall be used in determining the overall PM or 
overall PM HAP emission rate for the mill:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.046

Where:

ERPUtot=overall PM or overall PM HAP emission rate from 
all similar process units, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids 
fired.
ERPU1=PM or PM HAP emission rate from process unit No. 1, 
kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired, calculated using 
equation (3), (4), or (5) in paragraphs (a)(2)(i) through 
(a)(2)(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 at the kraft or soda pulp mill if the 
similar process units are recovery furnaces or SDT's, or the total 
CaO production rate in Mg/d (ton/d) for all lime kilns at the mill 
if the similar process units are lime kilns.
ERPUi=PM or PM HAP 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 at the kraft or soda pulp 
mill.

    (v) The following equation shall be used to calculate the overall 
PM or overall PM HAP emission rate at the mill:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.047

Where:

ERtot=overall PM or overall PM HAP emission rate for the 
mill, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
ERRFtot=PM or PM HAP emission rate from all kraft or soda 
recovery furnaces, calculated using equation (3) or (6) in 
paragraphs (a)(2)(i) and (a)(2)(iv) of this section, where 
applicable, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
ERSDTtot=PM or PM HAP emission rate from all smelt 
dissolving tanks, calculated using equation (4) or (6) in paragraphs 
(a)(2)(ii) and (a)(2)(iv) of this section, where applicable, kg/Mg 
(lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
ERLKtot=PM or PM HAP emission rate from all lime kilns, 
calculated using equation (5) or (6) in paragraphs (a)(2)(iii) and 
(a)(2)(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 of appendix A, part 
60 of this chapter shall be used.
    (4) Process data measured during the performance test shall 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) shall use the following procedures:
    (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 
part 60 of this chapter shall be used, except that Method 17 in 
appendix A of 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 shall be 
at least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8 dscf). Water shall be used as 
the cleanup solvent instead of acetone in the sample recovery 
procedure.
    (i) For sources complying with Sec. 63.862(a)(1) or (2), the PM 
concentration shall be corrected to the appropriate oxygen 
concentration using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.048

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 lime kilns).
Y=the measured average volumetric oxygen concentration.

    (ii) The integrated sampling and analysis procedure of Method 3B 
shall be used to determine the oxygen concentration. The gas sample 
shall be taken at the same time and at the same traverse points as the 
particulate sample.
    (2) For purposes of determining the PM HAP emitted from each kraft 
or soda recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or lime kiln, Method 
29 in appendix A of part 60 of this chapter shall be used. Method 101A 
in appendix B of part 61 may be used as an alternative to Method 29 for 
determining mercury emissions. When determining the PM HAP emission 
rate, all nondetect data, as defined in Sec. 63.861, shall be treated 
as one-half of the method detection limit. The sampling time and sample 
volume for each run shall be at least 60 minutes and 1.27 dscm (45 
dscf).

[[Page 18789]]

    (i) The following equation shall be used to determine the PM HAP 
emission rate from each recovery furnace:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.049

Where:

ERRF-PMHAP=PM HAP emission rate from each recovery 
furnace, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
PMHAPmeas=measured PM HAP 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.

    (ii) The following equation shall be used to determine the PM HAP 
emission rate from each smelt dissolving tank:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.050

Where:

ERSDT-PMHAP=PM HAP emission rate from each smelt 
dissolving tank, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
PMHAPmeas=measured PM HAP mass emission rate, kg/hr (lb/
hr).
BLS=average black liquor solids firing rate of the associated 
recovery furnace, Mg/hr (ton/hr); determined using process data 
measured during the performance test.

    (iii) The following equation shall be used to determine the PM HAP 
emission rate from each lime kiln:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.051

Where:

ERLK-PMHAP=PM HAP emission rate from each lime kiln, kg/
Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired.
PMHAPmeas=measured PM HAP mass emission rate, kg/hr (lb/
hr).
CaO=average lime production rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr); measured as CaO 
and determined using process data measured during the performance 
test.

    (c) The owner or operator seeking to determine compliance with the 
total gaseous organic HAP standard in Sec. 63.862(c)(1) without using 
an NDCE recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system shall use 
Method 308 in appendix A of part 63 of this chapter. The sampling time 
and sample volume for each run shall be at least 60 minutes and 0.014 
dscm (0.50 dscf), respectively.
    (1) The following equation shall be used to determine the emission 
rate from any new NDCE recovery furnace:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.052

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 following equation shall be used to determine the emission 
rate from any new DCE recovery furnace system:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.053

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 
total gaseous organic HAP standards in Sec. 63.862(c)(2), (standards 
for semichemical combustion units) shall use Method 25A in appendix A 
of part 60 of this chapter. The sampling time shall be at least 60 
minutes.
    (1) The following equation shall be used to determine the emission 
rate from any new or existing semichemical combustion unit:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.054

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) of this subpart, the percentage reduction in THC 
emissions (%RTHC) is computed using the following formula, 
provided that Ei and Eo are measured 
simultaneously:

[[Page 18790]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP15AP98.055


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) shall 
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 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 
(a)(3) shall 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 shall install, calibrate, operate, 
and maintain the monitor(s) in accordance with the monitoring plan 
approved by the Administrator. The owner or operator shall include in 
the information submitted to the Administrator proposed performance 
specifications and quality assurance procedures for their monitors. The 
Administrator may request further information and shall approve 
acceptable test methods and procedures.


Sec. 63.866  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. The owner or operator 
shall develop and implement a written plan as described in 
Sec. 63.6(e)(3) of this part 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 standard. In addition to the information required in 
Sec. 63.6(e) of this part, the plan shall include the requirements in 
paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
    (1) The startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan shall include 
procedures for responding to any process parameter level that is 
inconsistent with the level(s) established under Sec. 63.864(b)(2), 
including:
    (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 shall include:
    (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 shall 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) 
of this part, the owner or operator shall maintain records of the 
following information:
    (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 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;
    (6) Records certifying that an NDCE recovery furnace equipped with 
a dry ESP system is used to comply with the total 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 
shall submit the applicable notifications from subpart A of this part, 
as specified in Table 1 of this subpart.
    (b) Additional reporting requirements for PM HAP standards. (1) Any 
owner or operator of a group of affected sources at a mill complying 
with the PM HAP standards in Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) shall submit the PM 
or PM HAP emission 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 emission limits shall 
be submitted as part of the notification of compliance status required 
under subpart A of this part.
    (2) Any owner or operator of an affected source complying with the 
PM or PM HAP standards in Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) shall 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 emission limits for 
any affected source, the owner or operator of an affected source must 
notify the Administrator before any of the following actions are taken:
    (i) The air pollution control system for any affected source is 
modified or replaced;
    (ii) Any kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, or 
lime kiln at a kraft or soda pulp mill complying with the PM or PM HAP 
standards 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 affected source is 
changed; or
    (iv) The black liquor solids firing rate for any kraft or soda 
recovery furnace during any 24-hour averaging period is 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 affected sources at a mill 
complying with the PM or PM HAP standards in Sec. 63.862(a)(1)(ii) and 
seeking to perform the actions in paragraphs (b)(3) (i) or (ii) of this 
section shall recalculate the overall PM or overall PM HAP emission 
limit for the group of affected sources and resubmit the documentation 
required in paragraph (b)(2) of this section to the Administrator. All 
modified PM and PM HAP emission

[[Page 18791]]

limits are subject to approval by the Administrator.
    (c) Excess emissions report. The owner or operator shall report 
quarterly if measured parameters meet any of the conditions specified 
in Sec. 63.864(c) (1) or (2). This report shall 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).
    (1) When no exceedances of parameters have occurred, the owner or 
operator shall submit a semiannual report stating that no excess 
emissions occurred during the reporting period.
    (2) The owner or operator of an affected source subject to the 
requirements of this subpart and subpart S of this part may combine 
excess emission 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 Act, the authorities contained in 
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator 
and not transferred to a State.
    (b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States: No 
authorities are retained by the Administrator.

                     Table 1 to Subpart MM.--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart MM                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   General provisions  reference      Summary of requirements   Applies to subpart MM           Comments        
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)........................  General applicability of    Yes..................  Additional terms defined 
                                     the General Provisions.                            in Sec.  63.861; when   
                                                                                        overlap between subparts
                                                                                        A and MM of this part,  
                                                                                        subpart MM takes        
                                                                                        precedence.             
63.1(a)(2)-(14)...................  ..........................  Yes..................  .........................
63.1(b)(1)........................  Initial applicability       No...................  Subpart MM specifies the 
                                     determination.                                     applicability in Sec.   
                                                                                        63.860                  
63.1(b)(2)........................  Title V operating permit--  Yes..................  All major affected       
                                     see part 70.                                       sources are required to 
                                                                                        obtain a title V permit.
63.1(b)(3)........................  Record of the               No...................  All affected sources are 
                                     applicability                                      subject to subpart MM   
                                     determination.                                     according to the        
                                                                                        applicability definition
                                                                                        of subpart MM.          
63.1(c)(1)........................  Applicability of subpart A  Yes..................  Subpart MM clarifies the 
                                     after a relevant standard                          applicability of each   
                                     has been set.                                      paragraph of subpart A  
                                                                                        to sources subject to   
                                                                                        subpart MM.             
63.1(c)(2)........................  Title V permit requirement  Yes..................  All major affected       
                                                                                        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 existing   Yes.                   .........................
                                     source that obtains an                                                     
                                     extension of compliance.                                                   
63.1(c)(5)........................  Notification requirements   Yes.                   .........................
                                     for an area source that                                                    
                                     increases HAP emissions                                                    
                                     to major source levels.                                                    
63.1(d)...........................  [Reserved]................  NA.                    .........................
63.1(e)...........................  Applicability of permit     Yes.                   .........................
                                     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 abbreviations...  Yes.                   .........................
63.4..............................  Prohibited activities and   Yes.                   .........................
                                     circumvention.                                                             
63.5(a)...........................  Construction and            Yes.                   .........................
                                     reconstruction--applicabi                                                  
                                     lity.                                                                      
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 approval    Yes.                   .........................
                                     of construction/                                                           
                                     reconstruction.                                                            
63.5(e)...........................  Construction/               Yes.                   .........................
                                     reconstruction approval.                                                   
63.5(f)...........................  Construction/               Yes.                   .........................
                                     reconstruction approval                                                    
                                     based on prior State                                                       
                                     preconstruction review.                                                    
63.6(a)(1)........................  Compliance with standards   Yes.                   .........................
                                     and maintenance                                                            
                                     requirements--applicabili                                                  
                                     ty.                                                                        
63.6(a)(2)........................  Requirements for area       Yes.                   .........................
                                     source that increases                                                      
                                     emissions to become major.                                                 
63.6(b)...........................  Compliance dates for new    Yes.                   .........................
                                     and reconstructed sources.                                                 
63.6(c)...........................  Compliance dates for        Yes..................  Subpart MM specifically  
                                     existing sources.                                  stipulates the          
                                                                                        compliance schedule for 
                                                                                        existing sources.       
63.6(d)...........................  [Reserved]................  NA.                    .........................
63.6(e)...........................  Operation and maintenance   Yes.                   .........................
                                     requirements.                                                              
63.6(f)...........................  Compliance with nonopacity  Yes.                   .........................
                                     emission standards.                                                        

[[Page 18792]]

                                                                                                                
63.6(g)...........................  Compliance with             Yes.                   .........................
                                     alternative nonopacity                                                     
                                     emission standards.                                                        
63.6(h)...........................  Compliance with opacity     Yes..................  Subpart MM does not      
                                     and visible emission                               contain any opacity or  
                                     (V.E.) standards.                                  V.E. standards; however,
                                                                                        Sec.  63.864 specifies  
                                                                                        opacity monitoring      
                                                                                        requirements.           
63.6(i)...........................  Extension of compliance     Yes.                   .........................
                                     with emission standards.                                                   
63.6(j)...........................  Exemption from compliance   Yes.                   .........................
                                     with emission standards.                                                   
63.7(a)(1)........................  Performance testing         Yes..................  Sec.  63.864(a)(6)       
                                     requirements--applicabili                          specifies the only      
                                     ty.                                                exemption from          
                                                                                        performance testing     
                                                                                        allowed under subpart   
                                                                                        MM.                     
63.7(a)(2)........................  Performance test dates....  Yes.                   .........................
63.7(a)(3)........................  Performance test requests   Yes.                   .........................
                                     by Administrator under                                                     
                                     section 114.                                                               
63.7(b)(1)........................  Notification of             Yes.                   .........................
                                     performance test.                                                          
63.7(b)(2)........................  Notification of delay in    Yes.                   .........................
                                     conducting a scheduled                                                     
                                     performance test.                                                          
63.7(c)...........................  Quality assurance program.  Yes.                   .........................
63.7(d)...........................  Performance testing         Yes.                   .........................
                                     facilities.                                                                
63.7(e)...........................  Conduct of performance      Yes.                   .........................
                                     tests.                                                                     
63.7(f)...........................  Use of an alternative test  Yes.                   .........................
                                     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 requirements--   Yes..................  See Sec.  63.864.        
                                     applicability.                                                             
63.8(b)...........................  Conduct of monitoring.....  Yes.                   .........................
63.8(c)...........................  Operation and maintenance   Yes.                   .........................
                                     of CMS.                                                                    
63.8(d)...........................  Quality control program...  Yes.                   .........................
63.8(e)(1)........................  Performance evaluation of   Yes.                   .........................
                                     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 performance      Yes.                   .........................
                                     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 monitoring     Yes.                   .........................
                                     data.                                                                      
63.9(a)...........................  Notification requirements-- Yes.                   .........................
                                     applicability and general                                                  
                                     information.                                                               
63.9(b)...........................  Initial notifications.....  Yes.                   .........................
63.9(c)...........................  Request for extension of    Yes.                   .........................
                                     compliance.                                                                
63.9(d)...........................  Notification that source    Yes.                   .........................
                                     subject to special                                                         
                                     compliance requirements.                                                   
63.9(e)...........................  Notification of             Yes.                   .........................
                                     performance test.                                                          
63.9(f)...........................  Notification of opacity     Yes..................  Subpart MM does not      
                                     and V.E. observations.                             contain any opacity or  
                                                                                        V.E standards; however, 
                                                                                        Sec.  63.864 specifies  
                                                                                        opacity monitoring      
                                                                                        requirements.           
63.9(g)(1)........................  Additional notification     Yes.                   .........................
                                     requirements for sources                                                   
                                     with CMS.                                                                  
63.9(g)(2)........................  Notification of compliance  Yes..................  Subpart MM does not      
                                     with opacity emission                              contain any opacity or  
                                     standard.                                          V.E. emission 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.                                                         
63.9(h)...........................  Notification of compliance  Yes.                   .........................
                                     status.                                                                    
63.9(i)...........................  Adjustment to time periods  Yes.                   .........................
                                     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--applicabili                                                  
                                     ty 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 to                             requirements are given  
                                     relevant standard.                                 in Sec.  63.860.        
63.10(c)..........................  Additional recordkeeping    Yes.                   .........................
                                     requirements for sources                                                   
                                     with CMS.                                                                  
63.10(d)(1).......................  General reporting           Yes.                   .........................
                                     requirements.                                                              

[[Page 18793]]

                                                                                                                
63.10(d)(2).......................  Reporting results of        Yes.                   .........................
                                     performance tests.                                                         
63.10(d)(3).......................  Reporting results of        Yes..................  Subpart MM does not      
                                     opacity or V.E.                                    include any opacity or  
                                     observations.                                      visible emission        
                                                                                        standards; however, Sec.
                                                                                         63.864 specifies       
                                                                                        opacity monitoring      
                                                                                        requirements.           
63.10(d)(4).......................  Progress reports..........  Yes.                   .........................
63.10(d)(5).......................  Periodic and immediate      Yes.                   .........................
                                     startup, shutdown, and                                                     
                                     malfunction reports.                                                       
63.10(e)..........................  Additional reporting        Yes.                   .........................
                                     requirements for sources                                                   
                                     with CMS.                                                                  
63.10(f)..........................  Waiver of recordkeeping     Yes.                   .........................
                                     and reporting                                                              
                                     requirements.                                                              
63.11.............................  Control device              No...................  The use of flares to meet
                                     requirements for flares.                           the standards in subpart
                                                                                        MM is not anticipated.  
63.12.............................  State authority and         Yes.                   .........................
                                     delegations.                                                               
63.13.............................  Addresses of State air      Yes.                   .........................
                                     pollution control                                                          
                                     agencies and EPA Regional                                                  
                                     Offices.                                                                   
63.14.............................  Incorporations by           Yes.                   .........................
                                     reference.                                                                 
63.15.............................  Availability of             Yes.                   .........................
                                     information and                                                            
                                     confidentiality.                                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 98-9614 Filed 4-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P