[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7706-7718]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-3702]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[OAR-2002-0045; AD-FRL-7446-6]
RIN 2060-AK53


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action on amendments to the 
national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for 
chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and 
stand-alone semichemical pulp mills, which were issued on January 12, 
2001 under section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The amendments 
clarify and consolidate the monitoring and testing requirements and add 
a site-specific alternative standard for one pulp mill. We are issuing 
these amendments as a direct final rule, without prior proposal, 
because we view the revisions as noncontroversial and anticipate no 
significant adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of 
this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to amend the national emission standards for 
chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and 
stand-alone semichemical pulp mills if significant adverse comments are 
filed.

DATES: The direct final rule is effective on May 19, 2003, without 
further notice, unless EPA receives significant adverse comments by 
March 20, 2003. If significant adverse comments are received, EPA will 
publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the 
public that the rule will not take effect. The incorporation by 
reference of certain publications in the rule is approved by the 
Director of the Office of the Federal Register as of May 19, 2003.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail (in duplicate, if 
possible) to EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), U.S. EPA West (MD-6102T), 
Room B-108, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460, 
Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0045. By hand delivery/courier, 
comments may be submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to EPA Docket 
Center, Room B-108, U.S. EPA West, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20460, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0045.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Jeff Telander, Minerals and 
Inorganic Chemicals Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-C504-05), 
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5427, facsimile 
number (919) 541-5600, electronic mail (e-mail) address 
[email protected].

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

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             NAICS  code
                  Category                        *                                       Examples of regulated entities
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................        32211  Kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills.
                                                   32212
                                                   32213
Federal government.........................  ...........  Not affected.
State/local/tribal government..............  ...........  Not affected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ North American Industrial Classification System.


[[Page 7707]]

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, 
you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in Sec.  63.860 
of the national emission standards. 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 of this 
document.
    Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this 
action under Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0045. The official public docket is 
the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the 
EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), EPA West, Room B-108, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 2004. The Docket Center is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The 
telephone number for the Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the 
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
    Electronic Access. An electronic version of the public docket is 
available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, 
EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to 
submit or view public comments, access the index of the contents of the 
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket 
that are available electronically. Once in the system, select 
``search'' and key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. 
Information claimed as confidential business information and other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which are not 
included in the official public docket, will not be available for 
public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. The EPA's policy is 
that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public 
docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the 
official public docket. Although not all docket materials may be 
available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly 
available docket materials through the docket facility identified in 
this document.
    Direct Final Rule. We are publishing the direct final rule without 
prior proposal because we view the amendments as noncontroversial and 
do not anticipate significant adverse comments. We anticipate no 
significant adverse comments because EPA received no adverse comments 
when we published similar amendments during 2001. Furthermore, with 
respect to the amendment regarding an individual sulfite pulp mill 
located in Cosmopolis, Washington, EPA has already received favorable 
comments on the amendment from the State of Washington. The EPA 
received one adverse comment during the CAA section 113(g) comment 
period on the draft settlement agreement between EPA and Weyerhaeuser 
Paper Company, which described the amendment at issue, which comment is 
being addressed directly in this notice (although this response does 
not bar further comment). However, in the Proposed Rules section of 
this Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to amend the national emission standards for 
chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and 
stand-alone semichemical pulp mills if significant adverse comments are 
filed.
    If we receive any significant adverse comments on one or more 
distinct amendments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register informing the public which provisions will become effective 
and which provisions are being withdrawn due to adverse comment. We 
will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule, should the 
Agency determine to issue one. Any of the distinct amendments in 
today's rule for which we do not receive significant adverse comment 
will become effective on the date set out above. We will not institute 
a second comment period on the direct final rule. Any parties 
interested in commenting must do so at this time.
    Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's document will also be available on the 
WWW through EPA's Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following the 
Administrator's signature, a copy of this action will be posted on the 
TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules 
at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and 
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more 
information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at 
(919) 541-5384.
    Judicial Review. Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial 
review of the direct final rule is available only by filing a petition 
for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit by April 21, 2003. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only 
an objection to the direct final rule which was raised with reasonable 
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during 
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the 
requirements established by the direct final rule may not be challenged 
separately in any civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to 
enforce these requirements.
    Outline. The following outline is provided to aid in reading the 
preamble to the direct final rule.

I. Background
    A. Site-Specific Alternative Standard
    B. Technical Corrections
II. Amendments to Subpart MM
III. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. et seq.
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations that 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

    The EPA promulgated national emission standards for hazardous air 
pollutants for chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, 
sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills on January 12, 2001 
(66 FR 3180). The final rule (40 CFR part 63, subpart MM) includes 
standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP), as well as monitoring, 
performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The EPA 
established a site-specific potential compliance date under subpart MM 
for Georgia-Pacific Corporation's stand-alone semichemical pulp mill in 
Big Island, Virginia (66 FR 16400, March 26, 2001). The EPA published 
technical corrections to subpart MM on July 19, 2001 (66 FR 37591), 
which corrected the compliance date and oxygen correction equations and 
clarified the performance testing requirements to account for all 
applicable test methods and sources. Today's action includes amendments 
to clarify and consolidate the monitoring and testing requirements and 
adds a site-specific alternative standard for HAP metals for 
Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's sulfite pulp mill in Cosmopolis, 
Washington.

[[Page 7708]]

A. Site-Specific Alternative Standard

    The NESHAP for chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, 
sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills includes a HAP metals 
standard for existing sulfite combustion units, using particulate 
matter (PM) emissions as a surrogate for HAP metals emissions. The 
final rule requires existing sulfite combustion units to reduce HAP 
metals emissions, measured as PM, to a level less than or equal to 
0.040 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf), corrected to 8 
percent oxygen (Sec.  63.862(a)(2)).
    Following promulgation of the rule, Weyerhaeuser Paper Company 
requested that EPA issue a site-specific alternative standard under 
subpart MM for Weyerhaeuser's Cosmopolis, Washington sulfite pulp mill. 
The alternative standard would allow Weyerhaeuser to reduce HAP metals 
emissions from an onsite emission source called a hog fuel dryer in 
lieu of complying with the HAP metals standard for existing sulfite 
combustion units. The hog fuel dryer at the Cosmopolis mill is used to 
dry solid fuel, such as bark, prior to combustion of the fuel in an 
onsite boiler. The hog fuel dryer is not regulated under a NESHAP and 
appears to be unique. Compliance with the alternative standard will 
result in greater annual HAP metals emissions reductions, lower annual 
energy utilization, and lower compliance costs at the Cosmopolis mill 
than would have been achieved through compliance with the HAP metals 
standard for sulfite combustion units.
    Weyerhaeuser's Cosmopolis, Washington mill is a magnesium-based 
sulfite mill with three chemical recovery furnaces. These three 
recovery furnaces are subject to the HAP metals standard in subpart MM 
for existing sulfite combustion units. The emissions from each recovery 
furnace are first routed through a multiclone to recover magnesium 
oxide (particulate) and then through a cooling tower followed by 
absorption towers to recover sulfur dioxide. Following the absorption 
towers, the emissions from the three recovery furnaces are combined and 
treated in an educted venturi scrubber before being emitted to the 
atmosphere through a common stack.
    The recovery furnaces are subject to a Washington State permit PM 
limit of 0.1 gr/dscf. The applicable NESHAP limit of 0.040 gr/dscf, 
corrected to 8 percent oxygen, is more stringent and would supersede 
the State limit. The hog fuel dryer is also subject to a State permit 
PM limit of 0.1 gr/dscf. However, the hog fuel dryer is not subject to 
any NESHAP. The hog fuel dryer is equipped with cyclones to reduce PM 
emissions. The alternative standard probably cannot be achieved without 
installation of a fabric filter, and Weyerhaeuser intends to replace 
the existing cyclones on the hog fuel dryer with a fabric filter after 
promulgation of the site-specific alternative standard.
    Environmentally beneficial practices at the Cosmopolis mill include 
the use of oxygen delignification and elemental chlorine-free and 
oxygen bleaching. The load on the recovery furnaces has increased as a 
result of oxygen delignification and a decision by the mill to burn 
sludge from onsite wastewater treatment in the recovery furnaces. 
Although the mill recovers energy from burning the biosolids, this 
practice has resulted in an increase in PM emissions from the recovery 
furnaces. However, the mill is still able to consistently meet its 
State permit PM limit.
    The sulfite recovery furnaces at the Cosmopolis mill are tested 
monthly for PM. Based on the monthly data collected during the past 12 
years, the mill cannot consistently meet EPA's NESHAP standard for HAP 
metals from existing sulfite recovery furnaces (0.040 gr/dscf at 8 
percent oxygen, measured as PM) without a significant investment in a 
new emission control device. Because the exhaust gas volume from the 
hog fuel dryer is much smaller than the exhaust gas volume from the 
recovery furnaces, Weyerhaeuser determined that it would be much less 
costly for the Cosmopolis mill to install more efficient controls to 
reduce HAP metals emissions from the hog fuel dryer than from the 
recovery furnaces. Weyerhaeuser estimates that the capital cost of 
controlling the emissions from the recovery furnaces would be 
approximately $4 million (based on installation of a wet electrostatic 
precipitator) versus approximately $1.3 million to control emissions 
from the hog fuel dryer (based on installation of a fabric filter). The 
operating cost of the fabric filter for control of hog fuel dryer 
emissions would be about the same as the operating costs of the 
existing mechanical cyclone, which the fabric filter would replace. 
Weyerhaeuser also estimates that the operating costs of the wet 
electrostatic precipitator for control of recovery furnace emissions 
would be approximately $60,000 per year.
    Weyerhaeuser conducted HAP emission tests to determine and compare 
the quantity of HAP metals emitted from the recovery furnaces (combined 
stack) versus the hog fuel dryer under current operating conditions. 
The recovery furnaces and hog fuel dryer were tested for the following 
11 HAP metals: antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, cobalt, 
mercury, manganese, nickel, lead, and selenium. Based on the results of 
the emission tests, the sulfite recovery furnaces collectively emit 
approximately 212 pounds per year (lb/yr) of HAP metals, and the hog 
fuel dryer emits approximately 441 lb/yr. (See Docket ID No. OAR-2002-
0045.) Both the recovery furnaces and hog fuel dryer emit very similar 
types of HAP metals. For both emission sources, the top four HAP metals 
emitted were manganese, lead, chromium, and nickel, accounting for 98.5 
percent of the recovery furnace HAP metals emissions and 98.9 percent 
of the hog fuel dryer HAP metals emissions. Manganese was the 
predominant HAP metal emitted from both sources. The recovery furnaces 
emitted 0.025 pounds per hour (lb/hr) of manganese, accounting for 86 
percent of the recovery furnace HAP metals emissions. The hog fuel 
dryer emitted 0.10 lb/hr of manganese, accounting for 97 percent of the 
hog fuel dryer HAP metals emissions. (See Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0045.) 
None of these metals are added to the mill's manufacturing process but 
are naturally occurring metals present in the wood chips and hog fuel 
processed at the mill.
    Compliance with EPA's HAP metals standard for existing sulfite 
combustion units would reduce HAP metals emissions from the recovery 
furnaces by about 30 percent using PM as a surrogate for HAP metals. 
Assuming the same emissions reductions are achieved for HAP metals as 
for PM, compliance with the HAP metals standard for existing sulfite 
combustion units would reduce HAP metals emissions from the recovery 
furnaces by approximately 64 lb/yr. As an alternative to controlling 
HAP metals emissions from the recovery furnace, Weyerhaeuser proposes 
that the hog fuel dryer at their Cosmopolis, Washington mill meet a PM 
emission limit of 10.0 lb/hr (with PM serving as a surrogate for HAP 
metals emissions), which is equivalent to a PM emissions concentration 
of 0.030 gr/dscf. The hog fuel dryer's current PM emissions 
concentration is 0.081 gr/dscf. Weyerhaeuser's proposed PM emission 
limit for the hog fuel dryer would require that the mill reduce PM 
emissions from the hog fuel dryer by approximately 63 percent. Assuming 
the same emissions reductions are achieved for HAP metals as for PM, 
the total HAP metals emission reduction for the alternative standard 
would be approximately 278 lb/yr, which is more than four times the HAP 
metals

[[Page 7709]]

emissions reductions that would be achieved through compliance with the 
HAP metals standard for existing sulfite combustion units.
    After reviewing the test reports and other documentation provided 
by Weyerhaeuser, we agree with Weyerhaeuser's request to include an 
alternative standard in subpart MM because the alternative achieves 
greater emissions reductions of the same HAP metals and does so by 
controlling a source otherwise unregulated under subpart MM or any 
other NESHAP. The emission test reports and other documents related to 
the alternative standard are provided in the project docket. (See 
Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0045.)
    The EPA received one adverse comment on the proposed settlement 
agreement. The commenter maintained that once EPA learned that there 
was an unregulated emission point at the Cosmopolis mill, the Agency 
had no choice but to develop a maximum achievable control technology 
(MACT) standard for that emission point in addition to the MACT 
standard for all other emission points. The commenter further suggested 
that the unregulated emission point would be subject to case-by-case 
MACT (under section 112(j) of the Act).
    The EPA appreciates this thoughtful comment, but does not agree 
with it. First, although the commenter's approach is permissible, it is 
not compelled. The EPA typically develops MACT standards for a series 
of aggregated plant operations, not for individual emission points, in 
keeping with the requirement in section 112(d)(2) to develop emission 
standards applicable to new or existing ``sources''. A ``source'' can 
include an entire facility. See sections 112(a)(3) and 111(a)(3). In 
this case, EPA has determined that MACT for the aggregated unit 
operations involved in black liquor recovery (the source category 
subject to this rule) is a given amount of HAP emissions. Indeed, the 
standard for HAP metals in the existing rule (the HAP also emitted by 
the hog fuel dryer) is expressed as an aggregated limit (along with an 
alternative standard expressing the standard on an emission point by 
emission point basis). See section 63.862(a)(1)(ii)(A). In this rule, 
EPA is providing an alternative means of complying with that MACT limit 
(a means which, as explained above, results in more HAP reduction than 
otherwise provided for in the rule). The EPA notes further that it has 
pursued this same approach to compliance in a number of Project XL 
applications. See, e.g. 66 FR 34119, 34120 (June 27, 2001) (final rule) 
and 66 FR 16637, 16640 (March 27, 2001) (proposed rule).
    The commenter's further point regarding use of 112(j) to develop 
case-by-case MACT for the single emission point also is not compelled 
(and probably is not permissible). Once EPA promulgates a valid MACT 
standard for a source category, the Agency has fulfilled its statutory 
obligation and no case-by-case limitation may issue.
    Finally, even if one were to accept the commenter's argument that 
MACT must be developed on an emission point by emission point basis, a 
standard for a hog fuel dryer would likely be some type of beyond-the-
floor, given the absence of this emission point at other facilities and 
absence of controls at the one facility operating this type of unit. 
The EPA thus would be compelled to consider the cost, non-air quality 
environmental and health impacts and energy requirements of a standard 
(as required by section 112(d)(2)), and would not be obligated to 
promulgate a standard based upon consideration of those factors. Thus, 
even under the commenter's approach, it would not follow that a 
standard would result.

B. Technical Corrections

    The NESHAP for chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, 
sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills includes standards, as 
well as monitoring, performance testing, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements. Technical corrections to subpart MM were published by EPA 
on July 19, 2001, correcting the compliance date and oxygen 
concentration equations and clarifying the performance testing 
requirements to account for all applicable test methods and sources. 
After these technical corrections were published, it became evident 
that additional technical corrections were needed to provide further 
clarification of the monitoring and testing requirements. Today's 
action includes those technical corrections, which are described 
previously in this preamble.

II. Amendments to Subpart MM

    Today's action includes amendments to clarify and consolidate the 
monitoring and testing requirements and adds a site-specific 
alternative standard for Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's sulfite pulp mill 
in Cosmopolis, Washington.
    As described above, the alternative standard will allow the mill to 
reduce emissions from an onsite hog fuel dryer in lieu of complying 
with the standard for HAP metals for existing sulfite combustion units 
specified in Sec.  63.862(a)(2). The alternative standard will limit 
HAP metals emissions from the hog fuel dryer by limiting PM emissions 
to a level less than or equal to 10.0 lb/hr. Weyerhaeuser will install 
a fabric filter on the hog fuel dryer to achieve compliance with the 
alternative standard and must continuously monitor the performance of 
the fabric filter using a bag leak detection system with an audible 
alarm system. Weyerhaeuser must perform an initial compliance test 
using the test methods specified in the NESHAP to demonstrate that the 
PM emissions from the hog fuel dryer meet the alternative standard. 
Weyerhaeuser also must develop and implement a written startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan that contains specific procedures to be 
followed for operating and maintaining the hog fuel dryer and fabric 
filter during periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction, and a 
program of corrective action if the hog fuel dryer or fabric filter 
malfunctions. Weyerhaeuser must take corrective action as specified in 
its startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan whenever the bag leak 
detection alarm sounds. The Cosmopolis mill will be in violation of the 
alternative standard if corrective action is not initiated within 1 
hour of a bag leak detection alarm, corrective action is not completed 
in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, or the 
alarm is engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time 
during a 6-month block reporting period.
    The EPA is granting Weyerhaeuser's request for an alternative 
standard for its Cosmopolis, Washington sulfite mill because compliance 
with the alternative standard will result in a greater reduction in HAP 
metals emissions than would be achieved through compliance with the HAP 
metals standard for existing sulfite combustion units, and at a lower 
cost to the mill. The HAP metals emissions reductions will be at least 
four times greater under the alternative standard, and energy 
utilization will be lower.
    The changes to subpart MM resulting from inclusion of amendments to 
clarify the monitoring and testing requirements and addition of a site-
specific alternative standard for Weyerhaeuser's Cosmopolis, Washington 
mill are described in Table 1 of this preamble.

[[Page 7710]]



              Table 1.--Summary of Amendments to Subpart MM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Citation                              Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   63.860(b)..................  Change the number of referenced
                                     paragraphs from (b)(1) through (6)
                                     to (b)(1) through (7) to reflect
                                     the addition of paragraph (b)(7)
                                     (hog fuel dryer at Weyerhaeuser
                                     Paper Company's Cosmopolis,
                                     Washington mill) to the list of
                                     affected sources.
Sec.   63.860(b)(5)...............  Revise the definition of affected
                                     source for sulfite combustion units
                                     to exclude the units at
                                     Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's
                                     Cosmopolis, Washington mill.
Sec.   63.860(b)(7)...............  Add the hog fuel dryer at
                                     Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's
                                     Cosmopolis, Washington mill to the
                                     list of affected sources.
Sec.   63.861.....................  Add definitions in alphabetical
                                     order for Bag leak detection
                                     system, Fabric filter, and Hog fuel
                                     dryer.
Sec.   63.862(a)(1)(i)(B).........  Introduce the terms kg/Mg and lb/ton
                                     to read kilogram per megagram and
                                     pound per ton, respectively.
Sec.   63.862(a)(2)...............  Specify the alternative standard in
                                     paragraph (d) as an exception to
                                     the HAP metals standard for
                                     existing sulfite combustion units.
Sec.   63.862(d)..................  Add an alternative standard for HAP
                                     metals for the hog fuel dryer at
                                     Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's
                                     Cosmopolis, Washington mill.
Sec.   63.864.....................  Add a site-specific monitoring plan
                                     and monitoring specifications for
                                     continuous opacity monitoring
                                     systems and continuous parameter
                                     monitoring systems to clarify the
                                     monitoring requirements.
                                    Add monitoring specifications,
                                     corrective action provisions, and
                                     violation provisions for bag leak
                                     detection systems for the hog fuel
                                     dryer at Weyerhaeuser Paper
                                     Company's Cosmopolis, Washington
                                     mill.
                                    Allow sources to identify and
                                     exclude periods of no gas flow in
                                     calculating average parameter
                                     values by adding flow monitor
                                     provisions and data availability
                                     restrictions.
                                    Under Sec.   63.7(a), initial
                                     performance tests (and the
                                     establishment of operating
                                     parameter values) are not required
                                     until 180 days after the compliance
                                     date. Enable sources to demonstrate
                                     whether they are in compliance
                                     during the period between the
                                     compliance date and the performance
                                     test date by adding a provision
                                     requiring sources to maintain
                                     during this period a log that
                                     details the operation and
                                     maintenance of the process and
                                     emissions control equipment.
                                    Add two provisions to this section
                                     based on provisions moved from Sec.
                                       63.865(e) and (f). These two
                                     provisions include procedures for
                                     establishing operating parameter
                                     values and procedures for obtaining
                                     approval of operating parameters
                                     for alternative control devices.
                                    Move three provisions in Sec.
                                     63.864(a)(6), (b)(1), and (b)(4) to
                                     Sec.   63.865 so as to consolidate
                                     all performance testing provisions
                                     under Sec.   63.865. These three
                                     provisions include performance test
                                     exemptions for new non-direct
                                     contact evaporator (NDCE) recovery
                                     furnaces equipped with a dry
                                     electrostatic precipitator (ESP)
                                     system and performance test
                                     requirements for all other sources,
                                     including those sources complying
                                     with the overall PM bubble emission
                                     limit.
                                    Delete the performance test
                                     exemption in Sec.   63.864(b)(3)
                                     for new NDCE recovery furnaces
                                     equipped with a dry ESP system as
                                     repetitive of the same provision in
                                     Sec.   63.864(a)(6).
Sec.   63.865.....................  Add an introductory paragraph based
                                     on a provision moved from Sec.
                                     63.864(b)(1). This provision
                                     requires sources to conduct an
                                     initial performance test.
Sec.   63.865(a)(1)...............  Revise the term tons/d to read ton/
                                     d.
Sec.   63.865(a)(2)(vi)...........  Add a new paragraph (a)(2)(iv) based
                                     on a provision moved from Sec.
                                     63.864(b)(4). This provision
                                     requires sources complying with the
                                     overall PM bubble emission limit to
                                     demonstrate compliance with the
                                     approved PM emission limits for the
                                     process units using the referenced
                                     test methods and procedures.
Sec.   63.865(b)..................  Include the alternative standard in
                                     Sec.   63.862(d) in the list of
                                     standards for which sources must
                                     determine compliance using the
                                     referenced test methods and
                                     procedures.
Sec.   63.865(b)(1)...............  Clarify that the sampling time,
                                     sample volume, and cleanup solvent
                                     requirements apply to Methods 5,
                                     29, and 17 (40 CFR part 60,
                                     appendix A). Allow sources to use
                                     the test methods to measure
                                     concentration or mass of PM.
                                     Include the hog fuel dryer at
                                     Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's
                                     Cosmopolis, Washington mill in the
                                     list of units to be tested.
Sec.   63.865(b)(2)...............  Revise the reference paragraph (a)
                                     or (b) of Sec.   63.862 to read
                                     Sec.   63.862(a) or (b).
Sec.   63.865(b)(3)...............  Include the voluntary consensus
                                     standard American National
                                     Standards Institute/American
                                     Society of Mechanical Engineers
                                     (ANSI/ASME) Performance Test Code
                                     (PTC) 19.10-1981-part 10 as an
                                     alternative to Method 3B. Under
                                     section 12(d) of the National
                                     Technology Transfer and Advancement
                                     Act (NTTAA) of 1995, EPA is
                                     directed to use voluntary consensus
                                     standards in its regulatory and
                                     procurement activities, unless to
                                     do so would be inconsistent with
                                     applicable law or otherwise
                                     impractical. The EPA has identified
                                     the voluntary consensus standard
                                     ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981-part 10 as
                                     an acceptable alternative to EPA
                                     Method 3B with regard to the
                                     standard's manual method for
                                     measuring the oxygen, carbon
                                     dioxide, and carbon monoxide
                                     content of exhaust gas.
Sec.   63.865(b)(5)...............  Revise this paragraph and add
                                     paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iv)
                                     to include the alternative EPA
                                     methods to Methods 1, 2, and 3 in
                                     40 CFR part 60, appendix A (i.e.,
                                     Methods 1A, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3A,
                                     and 3B) and the alternative
                                     voluntary consensus standard to
                                     Method 3B (i.e., ANSI/ASME PTC
                                     19.10-1981-part 10).
Sec.   63.865(c), (c)(1), (c)(2)..  Revise paragraph (c) to introduce
                                     the performance and testing
                                     requirements for all new recovery
                                     furnaces.
                                    Revise paragraph (c)(1) based on a
                                     provision moved from Sec.
                                     63.864(a)(6). This provision
                                     exempts new NDCE recovery furnaces
                                     equipped with a dry ESP system from
                                     conducting a performance test.
                                    Revise paragraph (c)(2) and add new
                                     paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (c)(2)(ii)
                                     to provide the required test method
                                     (Method 308 (40 CFR part 63,
                                     appendix A)) and emission rate
                                     equations for new recovery furnaces
                                     not equipped with a dry ESP system.
                                     In paragraph (c)(2), refer to
                                     paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iv)
                                     for additional test methods beyond
                                     Method 308. In paragraph (c)(2)(i),
                                     introduce the terms Mg/hr and ton/
                                     hr to read megagrams per hour and
                                     tons per hour, respectively.
Sec.   63.865(d)..................  Refer to paragraphs (b)(5)(i)
                                     through (iv) for additional test
                                     methods beyond Method 25A in 40 CFR
                                     part 60, appendix A. Specify the
                                     calibration gas as propane for each
                                     Method 25A test run.
Sec.   63.865(d)(1)...............  Revise the list of variables for
                                     Equation 11 to clarify that the THC
                                     emission rate and mass emission
                                     rate must be reported as carbon.

[[Page 7711]]

 
Sec.   63.865(e) and (f)..........  Move two provisions in Sec.
                                     63.865(e) and (f) to Sec.   63.864
                                     so as to consolidate all monitoring
                                     provisions under Sec.   63.864.
                                     These two provisions include
                                     procedures for establishing
                                     operating parameter values and
                                     procedures for obtaining approval
                                     of operating parameters for
                                     alternative control devices.
Sec.   63.866(c)..................  Change the number of referenced
                                     paragraphs from (c)(1) through (6)
                                     to (c)(1) through (7) to reflect
                                     the addition of paragraph (c)(7)
                                     (bag leak detection system records)
                                     to the recordkeeping requirements.
Sec.   63.866(c)(1) and (2).......  Abbreviate the terms megagrams/day
                                     and tons/day to read Mg/d and ton/
                                     d, respectively.
Sec.   63.866(c)(7)...............  Add recordkeeping requirements for
                                     the bag leak detection system for
                                     the hog fuel dryer at Weyerhaeuser
                                     Paper Company's Cosmopolis,
                                     Washington mill.
Sec.   63.867(a)(3)...............  Add a notification of compliance
                                     status requirement for the bag leak
                                     detection system for the hog fuel
                                     dryer at Weyerhaeuser Paper
                                     Company's Cosmopolis, Washington
                                     mill.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 5173, October 4, 1993), EPA must 
determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and, 
therefore, subject to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) review and 
the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in 
standards 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 entitlement, 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, it has been 
determined that these amendments do not constitute a ``significant 
regulatory action'' because they do not meet any of the above criteria. 
Consequently, this action was not submitted to OMB for review under 
Executive Order 12866.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the final rule were 
submitted to and approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and assigned OMB control number 2060-0377. An 
Information Collection Request (ICR) document was prepared by EPA (ICR 
No. 1805.03) and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at 
Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division 
(MD-2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington DC 20460, by e-
mail at [email protected], or by calling (202) 566-1672. A copy may 
also be downloaded from the internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr.
    Today's action makes clarifying changes to the final rule and 
imposes no new information collection requirements on the industry. 
Because there is no additional burden on the industry as a result of 
this direct final rule, the ICR has not been revised.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources; 
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or 
otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

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

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that 
has fewer than 750 employees for NAICS codes 32211, 32212, and 32213 
(pulp, paper, and paperboard mills); (2) a small governmental 
jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school 
district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and 
(3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is 
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. In 
determining whether a rule has a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities, the impact of concern is any 
significant adverse economic impact on small entities, since the 
primary purpose of the regulatory flexibility analyses is to identify 
and address regulatory alternatives which minimize any significant 
economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603-
604). Thus, an agency may certify that a rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
if the rule relieves regulatory burden, or otherwise has a positive 
effect on the small entities subject to the rule. The amendments in 
today's rule make improvements to the emission standards, primarily by 
clarifying issues in the areas of testing and monitoring and add a new 
compliance option. We have, therefore, concluded that today's final 
rule will have no adverse impacts on any small entities and may relieve 
burden in some cases.

[[Page 7712]]

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 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, the 
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 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the 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 the 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 the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements 
that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including 
tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the 
UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for 
notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of 
affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the 
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal 
intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising 
small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that the direct final rule does not contain 
a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or 
more for State, local, and tribal governments, in aggregate, or the 
private sector in any 1 year, nor does the direct final rule 
significantly or uniquely impact small governments, because it contains 
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations 
upon them. Thus, the requirements of the UMRA do not apply to the 
direct final rule.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on 
the relationship between the national government and the States, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels 
of government.''
    The direct final rule does not have federalism implications. It 
will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected 
facilities are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to the 
direct final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000) requires EPA 
to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' The final rule does not have tribal 
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175, because tribal 
governments do not own or operate any sources subject to the 
amendments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to the direct 
final rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) 
is ``economically significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, 
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule 
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. The direct final rule is not 
subject to Executive Order 13045, because it is based on technology 
performance and not on health or safety risks.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory and 
procurement activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impractical. One voluntary consensus 
standard, ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (``Flue and Exhaust Gas 
Analysis''), has been identified as an acceptable alternative to EPA 
Method 3B for the purposes of this action. The voluntary consensus 
standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 is cited in today's action 
for its manual method for measuring the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and 
carbon monoxide content of exhaust gas. This part of ANSI/ASME PTC 
19.10-1981--Part 10 is an acceptable alternative to EPA Method 3B. The 
EPA is not proposing/adopting any other voluntary consensus standards 
in this action.

J. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), as added by 
SBREFA of 1996, generally provides that, before a rule may take effect, 
the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which 
includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the 
Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report 
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, 
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the 
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. 
The direct final rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2). The direct final rule will become effective on May 19, 2003, 
unless significant adverse comments are received by March 20, 2003.

[[Page 7713]]

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous 
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Dated: January 27, 2003.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.


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

PART 63--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--[Amended]

    2. Section 63.14 is amended by revising paragraph (i) and removing 
paragraph (j) to read as follows:


Sec.  63.14  Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *
    (i) The following materials are available for purchase from at 
least one of the following addresses: ASME International, Orders/
Inquiries, P.O. Box 2900, Fairfield, NJ 07007-2900; or Global 
Engineering Documents, Sales Department, 15 Inverness Way East, 
Englewood, CO 80112.
    (1) ASME standard number QHO-1-1994, ``Standard for the 
Qualification and Certification of Hazardous Waste Incinerator 
Operators,'' IBR approved for Sec.  63.1206(c)(6)(iii).
    (2) ASME standard number QHO-1a-1996 Addenda to QHO-1-1994, 
``Standard for the Qualification and Certification of Hazardous Waste 
Incinerator Operators,'' IBR approved for Sec.  63.1206(c)(6)(iii).
    (3) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part 
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  
63.865(b), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.4166(a)(3), and 63.5160(d)(1)(iii).
* * * * *

Subpart MM--[Amended]

    3. Section 63.860 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (b) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (b)(5); and
    c. Adding paragraph (b)(7).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.860  Applicability and designation of affected source.

* * * * *
    (b) Affected sources. The requirements of this subpart apply to 
each new or existing affected source listed in paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (7) of this section:
* * * * *
    (5) Each new or existing sulfite combustion unit located at a 
sulfite pulp mill, except such existing units at Weyerhaeuser Paper 
Company's Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit no. AP-10).
* * * * *
    (7) The requirements of the alternative standard in Sec.  63.862(d) 
apply to the hog fuel dryer at Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's Cosmopolis, 
Washington facility (Emission Unit no. HD-14).
* * * * *

    4. Section 63.861 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, 
definitions for the terms Bag leak detection system, Fabric filter, and 
Hog fuel dryer to read as follows:


Sec.  63.861  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Bag leak detection system means an instrument that is capable of 
monitoring PM loadings in the exhaust of a fabric filter in order to 
detect bag failures. A bag leak detection system includes, but is not 
limited to, an instrument that operates on triboelectric, light 
scattering, light transmittance, or other principle to monitor relative 
PM loadings.
* * * * *
    Fabric filter means an air pollution control device used to capture 
PM by filtering a gas stream through filter media; also known as a 
baghouse.
* * * * *
    Hog fuel dryer means the equipment that combusts fine particles of 
wood waste (hog fuel) in a fluidized bed and directs the heated exhaust 
stream to a rotary dryer containing wet hog fuel to be dried prior to 
combustion in the hog fuel boiler at Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's 
Cosmopolis, Washington facility. The hog fuel dryer at Weyerhaeuser 
Paper Company's Cosmopolis, Washington facility is Emission Unit no. 
HD-14.
* * * * *

    5. Section 63.862 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(i)(B);
    b. Revising paragraph (a)(2); and
    c. Adding paragraph (d).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.862  Standards.

    (a) Standards for HAP metals: existing sources.
    (1) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) The owner or operator of each existing kraft or soda smelt 
dissolving tank must ensure that the concentration of PM in the exhaust 
gases discharged to the atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.10 
kilogram per megagram (kg/Mg) (0.20 pound per ton (lb/ton)) of black 
liquor solids fired.
* * * * *
    (2) Except as specified in paragraph (d) of this section, the owner 
or operator of each existing sulfite combustion unit must ensure that 
the concentration of PM in the exhaust gases discharged to the 
atmosphere is less than or equal to 0.092 g/dscm (0.040 gr/dscf) 
corrected to 8 percent oxygen.
* * * * *
    (d) Alternative standard. As an alternative to meeting the 
requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of this section, the owner or operator 
of the existing hog fuel dryer at Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's 
Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit no. HD-14) must ensure 
that the mass of PM in the exhaust gases discharged to the atmosphere 
from the hog fuel dryer is less than or equal to 4.535 kilograms per 
hour (kg/hr) (10.0 pounds per hour (lb/hr)).

    6. Section 63.864 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  63.864  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) General. For each monitoring system required in this section, 
the owner or operator of each affected source or process unit must 
develop and make available for inspection by the Administrator, upon 
request, a site-specific monitoring plan that addresses the provisions 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Installation of the sampling probe or other interface at a 
measurement location relative to each affected source or process unit 
such that the measurement is representative of control of the exhaust 
emissions (e.g., on or downstream of the last control device);
    (2) Performance and equipment specifications for the sample 
interface, the pollutant concentration or parametric signal analyzer, 
and the data collection and reduction system; and
    (3) Performance evaluation procedures and acceptance criteria 
(e.g., calibrations).
    (4) Ongoing operation and maintenance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(c)(1), (3), and (4)(ii);
    (5) Ongoing data quality assurance procedures in accordance with 
the general requirements of Sec.  63.8(d)(2); and

[[Page 7714]]

    (6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance 
with the general requirements of Sec. Sec.  63.10(c), (e)(1), (e)(2)(i) 
and 63.866.
    (b) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit 
must conduct a performance evaluation of each monitoring system in 
accordance with the site-specific monitoring plan.
    (c) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit 
must operate and maintain the monitoring system in continuous operation 
according to the site-specific monitoring plan.
    (d) Continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS). The owner or 
operator of each affected kraft or soda recovery furnace or lime kiln 
equipped with an ESP must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a 
COMS according to the provisions in paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of 
this section.
    (1) Each COMS must be installed, operated, and maintained according 
to Performance Specification 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    (2) A performance evaluation of each COMS must be conducted 
according to the requirements in Sec.  63.8 and according to 
Performance Specification 1 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix B.
    (3) As specified in Sec.  63.8(c)(4)(i), each COMS must complete a 
minimum of one cycle of sampling and analyzing for each successive 10-
second period and one cycle of data recording for each successive 6-
minute period.
    (4) The COMS data must be reduced as specified in Sec.  63.8(g)(2).
    (e) Continuous parameter monitoring system (CPMS). For each CPMS 
required in this section, the owner or operator of each affected source 
or process unit must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(1) through 
(14) of this section.
    (1) Satisfy all requirements of performance specifications for CPMS 
upon promulgation of such performance specifications.
    (2) Satisfy all requirements of quality assurance (QA) procedures 
for CPMS upon promulgation of such QA procedures.
    (3) The CPMS must complete a minimum of one cycle of operation for 
each successive 15-minute period.
    (4) To calculate a valid hourly average, there must be at least 
four equally spaced values for that hour, excluding data collected 
during the periods described in paragraph (e)(6) of this section.
    (5) Have valid hourly data for at least 75 percent of the hours 
during the averaging period.
    (6) The CPMS data taken during periods in which the control devices 
are not functioning in controlling emissions, as indicated by periods 
of no gas flow for all or a portion of an affected source or process 
unit, must not be considered in the averages.
    (7) Calculate 3-hour averages using all of the valid hourly 
averages for each operating day during the semiannual reporting period.
    (8) Record the results of each inspection, calibration, and 
validation check.
    (9) Except for redundant sensors, any device that is used to 
conduct an initial validation or accuracy audit of a CPMS must meet the 
accuracy requirements specified in paragraphs (e)(9)(i) and (ii) of 
this section.
    (i) The device must have an accuracy that is traceable to National 
Institute of Standards and Technology standards.
    (ii) The device must be at least three times as accurate as the 
required accuracy for the CPMS.
    (10) The owner or operator of each affected kraft or soda recovery 
furnace, kraft or soda lime kiln, sulfite combustion unit, or kraft or 
soda smelt dissolving tank equipped with a wet scrubber must install, 
calibrate, maintain, and operate a CPMS that can be used to determine 
and record the pressure drop across the scrubber and the scrubbing 
liquid flow rate using the procedures in Sec.  63.8(c), as well as the 
procedures in paragraphs (e)(10)(i) and (ii) of this section:
    (i) The monitoring device used for the continuous measurement of 
the pressure drop of the gas stream across the scrubber must be 
certified by the manufacturer to 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 flow rate must be certified by the manufacturer to be 
accurate within +/-5 percent of the design scrubbing liquid flow rate.
    (11) The owner or operator of each affected semichemical combustion 
unit equipped with an RTO must install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate a CPMS that can be used to determine and record the operating 
temperature of the RTO using the procedures in Sec.  63.8(c). The 
monitor must compute and record the operating temperature at the point 
of incineration of effluent gases that are emitted using a temperature 
monitor accurate to within +/-1 percent of the temperature being 
measured.
    (12) The owner or operator of the affected hog fuel dryer at 
Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission 
Unit no. HD-14) must meet the requirements in paragraphs (e)(12)(i) 
through (xi) of this section for each bag leak detection system.
    (i) The owner or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and 
operate each triboelectric bag leak detection system according to the 
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' (EPA-454/R-98-015, 
September 1997). This document is available from the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency (U.S. EPA); Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards; Emissions, Monitoring and Analysis Division; Emission 
Measurement Center, MD-D205-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711. This 
document is also available on the Technology Transfer Network under 
Emission Measurement Center Continuous Emission Monitoring. The owner 
or operator must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate other types 
of bag leak detection systems in a manner consistent with the 
manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations.
    (ii) The bag leak detection system must be certified by the 
manufacturer to be capable of detecting PM emissions at concentrations 
of 10 milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic 
foot) or less.
    (iii) The bag leak detection system sensor must provide an output 
of relative PM loadings.
    (iv) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with a device 
to continuously record the output signal from the sensor.
    (v) The bag leak detection system must be equipped with an audible 
alarm system that will sound automatically when an increase in relative 
PM emissions over a preset level is detected. The alarm must be located 
where it is easily heard by plant operating personnel.
    (vi) For positive pressure fabric filter systems, a bag leak 
detector must be installed in each baghouse compartment or cell.
    (vii) For negative pressure or induced air fabric filters, the bag 
leak detector must be installed downstream of the fabric filter.
    (viii) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (ix) The baseline output must be established by adjusting the range 
and the averaging period of the device and establishing the alarm set 
points and the alarm delay time according to section 5.0 of the 
``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance.''
    (x) Following initial adjustment of the system, the sensitivity or 
range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time may not 
be adjusted except as detailed in the site-specific

[[Page 7715]]

monitoring plan. In no case may the sensitivity be increased by more 
than 100 percent or decreased more than 50 percent over a 365-day 
period unless such adjustment follows a complete fabric filter 
inspection which demonstrates that the fabric filter is in good 
operating condition. Record each adjustment.
    (xi) The owner or operator must record the results of each 
inspection, calibration, and validation check.
    (13) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit 
that uses an ESP, wet scrubber, RTO, or fabric filter may monitor 
alternative control device operating parameters subject to prior 
written approval by the Administrator.
    (14) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit 
that uses an air pollution control system other than an ESP, wet 
scrubber, RTO, or fabric filter must provide to the Administrator an 
alternative monitoring request that includes the site-specific 
monitoring plan described in paragraph (a) of this section, 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 alternative 
monitoring request is subject to the Administrator's approval. The 
owner or operator of the affected source or process unit must install, 
calibrate, operate, and maintain the monitor(s) in accordance with the 
alternative monitoring request approved by the Administrator. The owner 
or operator must include in the information submitted to the 
Administrator proposed performance specifications and quality assurance 
procedures for the monitors. The Administrator may request further 
information and will approve acceptable test methods and procedures. 
The owner or operator must monitor the parameters as approved by the 
Administrator using the methods and procedures in the alternative 
monitoring request.
    (f) If flow to a control device could be intermittent, the owner or 
operator must install, calibrate, and operate a flow indicator at the 
inlet or outlet of the control device to identify periods of no gas 
flow.
    (g) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit 
complying with the gaseous organic HAP standard 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 continuous monitoring to 
demonstrate compliance with the gaseous organic HAP standard.
    (h) Except for monitoring malfunctions, associated repairs, and 
required quality assurance or control activities (including, as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
the owner or operator of the affected source or process unit must 
monitor continuously (or collect data at all required intervals) at all 
times that the affected source is operating, including periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (i) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit may 
not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, associated 
repairs, required quality assurance or control activities, and periods 
of no gas flow for all or a portion of an affected source or process 
unit in data averages and calculations used to report emission or 
operating levels, nor may such data be used in fulfilling a minimum 
data availability requirement, if applicable. The owner or operator 
must use all of the data collected during all other periods in 
assessing the operation of the control device and associated control 
system.
    (j) Determination of operating ranges. (1) During the initial 
performance test required in Sec.  63.865, the owner or operator of any 
affected source or process unit must establish operating ranges for the 
monitoring parameters in paragraphs (e)(10) through (14) of this 
section, as appropriate; or
    (2) The owner or operator may base operating ranges on values 
recorded during previous performance tests or conduct additional 
performance tests for the specific purpose of establishing operating 
ranges, provided that test data used to establish the operating ranges 
are or have been obtained using the test methods required in this 
subpart. The owner or operator of the affected source or process unit 
must certify that all control techniques and processes have not been 
modified subsequent to the testing upon which the data used to 
establish the operating parameter ranges were obtained.
    (3) The owner or operator of an affected source or process unit may 
establish expanded or replacement operating ranges for the monitoring 
parameter values listed in paragraphs (e)(10) through (14) of this 
section and established in paragraph (j)(1) or (2) of this section 
during subsequent performance tests using the test methods in Sec.  
63.865.
    (4) The owner or operator of the affected source or process unit 
must continuously monitor each parameter and determine the arithmetic 
average value of each parameter during each performance test. Multiple 
performance tests may be conducted to establish a range of parameter 
values.
    (5) During the period of each performance test, the owner or 
operator of the affected source or process unit must establish the 
operating range for each monitoring parameter according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (j)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (i) For wet scrubbers, the owner or operator must record the 
pressure drop across the scrubber and the scrubbing liquid flow rate 
over the same time period as the performance test while the vent stream 
is routed and constituted normally. The owner or operator must locate 
the pressure and flow monitoring devices in positions that provide 
representative measurements of these parameters.
    (ii) For RTO, the owner or operator must record the operating 
temperature averaged over the same time period as the performance test. 
The owner or operator must locate the temperature monitor in a position 
that provides a representative temperature.
    (6) During the period, if any, between the compliance date 
specified for the affected source in Sec.  63.863 and the date upon 
which monitoring systems have been installed and validated and any 
applicable operating ranges for monitoring parameters have been set, 
the owner or operator of the affected source or process unit must 
maintain a log detailing the operation and maintenance of the process 
and emissions control equipment.
    (k) On-going compliance provisions. (1) Following the compliance 
date, owners or operators of all affected sources or process units are 
required to implement corrective action, as specified in the startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan prepared under Sec.  63.866(a) if the 
monitoring exceedances in paragraphs (k)(1)(i) through (vi) of this 
section occur:
    (i) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace or lime 
kiln equipped with an ESP, when the average of ten consecutive 6-minute 
averages result in a measurement greater than 20 percent opacity;
    (ii) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace, kraft or 
soda smelt dissolving tank, kraft or soda lime kiln, or sulfite 
combustion unit equipped with a wet scrubber, when any 3-hour average 
parameter value is outside the range of values established in paragraph 
(j) of this section.
    (iii) For a new or existing semichemical combustion unit equipped 
with an RTO, when any 1-hour average temperature falls below

[[Page 7716]]

the temperature established in paragraph (j) of this section;
    (iv) For the hog fuel dryer at Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's 
Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit no. HD-14), when the bag 
leak detection system alarm sounds.
    (v) For an affected source or process unit equipped with an ESP, 
wet scrubber, RTO, or fabric filter and monitoring alternative 
operating parameters established in paragraph (e)(13) of this section, 
when any 3-hour average value is outside the range of parameter values 
established in paragraph (j) of this section; and
    (vi) For an affected source or process unit equipped with an 
alternative air pollution control system and monitoring operating 
parameters approved by the Administrator as established in paragraph 
(e)(14) of this section, when any 3-hour average value is outside the 
range of parameter values established in paragraph (j) of this section.
    (2) Following the compliance date, owners or operators of all 
affected sources or process units are in violation of the standards of 
Sec.  63.862 if the monitoring exceedances in paragraphs (k)(2)(i) 
through (vii) of this section occur:
    (i) For an existing kraft or soda recovery furnace equipped with an 
ESP, when opacity is greater than 35 percent for 6 percent or more of 
the operating time within any quarterly period;
    (ii) For a new kraft or soda recovery furnace or a new or existing 
lime kiln equipped with an ESP, when opacity is greater than 20 percent 
for 6 percent or more of the operating time within any quarterly 
period;
    (iii) For a new or existing kraft or soda recovery furnace, kraft 
or soda smelt dissolving tank, kraft or soda lime kiln, or sulfite 
combustion unit equipped with a wet scrubber, when six or more 3-hour 
average parameter values within any 6-month reporting period are 
outside the range of values established in paragraph (j) 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 (j) of this section;
    (v) For the hog fuel dryer at Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's 
Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit no. HD-14), when 
corrective action is not initiated within 1 hour of a bag leak 
detection system alarm, corrective action is not completed in 
accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, and the 
alarm is engaged for more than 5 percent of the total operating time in 
a 6-month block reporting period. In calculating the operating time 
fraction, if inspection of the fabric filter demonstrates that no 
corrective action is required, no alarm time is counted; if corrective 
action is required, each alarm is counted as a minimum of 1 hour; if 
corrective action is not initiated within 1 hour, the alarm time is 
counted as the actual amount of time taken to initiate corrective 
action.
    (vi) For an affected source or process unit equipped with an ESP, 
wet scrubber, RTO, or fabric filter and monitoring alternative 
operating parameters established in paragraph (e)(13) 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 (j) of this section; and
    (vii) For an affected source or process unit equipped with an 
alternative air pollution control system and monitoring operating 
parameters approved by the Administrator as established in paragraph 
(e)(14) 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 (j) of this section.
    (3) For purposes of determining the number of nonopacity monitoring 
exceedances, no more than one exceedance will be attributed in any 
given 24-hour period.

    7. Section 63.865 is amended by:
    a. Adding Sec.  63.865 introductory text, revising paragraph 
(a)(1), and adding paragraph (a)(2)(vi);
    b. Revising paragraphs (b) introductory text, (b)(1), (b)(2), 
(b)(3), and (b)(5), and adding paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iv);
    c. Revising paragraph (c);
    d. Revising paragraphs (d) introductory text and (d)(1); and
    e. Removing paragraphs (e) and (f).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:


Sec.  63.865  Performance test requirements and test methods

    The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit 
subject to the requirements of this subpart is required to conduct an 
initial performance test using the test methods and procedures listed 
in Sec.  63.7 and paragraph (b) of this section, except as provided in 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (a) * * *
    (1) Determine the overall PM emission limit for the chemical 
recovery system at the mill using Equation 1 of this section as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18FE03.008

Where:

ELPM = Overall PM emission limit for all existing process 
units in the chemical recovery system at the kraft or soda pulp mill, 
kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids fired;
Cref,RF = Reference concentration of 0.10 g/dscm (0.044 gr/
dscf) corrected to 8 percent oxygen for existing kraft or soda recovery 
furnaces;
QRFtot = Sum of the average volumetric gas flow rates 
measured during the performance test and corrected to 8 percent oxygen 
for all existing recovery furnaces in the chemical recovery system at 
the kraft or soda pulp mill, dry standard cubic meters per minute 
(dscm/min) (dry standard cubic feet per minute [dscf/min]);
Cref,LK = Reference concentration of 0.15 g/dscm (0.064 gr/
dscf) corrected to 10 percent oxygen for existing kraft or soda lime 
kilns;
QLKtot = Sum of the average volumetric gas flow rates 
measured during the performance test and corrected to 10 percent oxygen 
for all existing lime kilns in the chemical recovery system at the 
kraft or soda pulp mill, dscm/min (dscf/min);
F1 = Conversion factor, 1.44 minutes [sbull] kilogram/day [sbull] gram 
(min [sbull] kg/d [sbull] g) (0.206 minutes [sbull] pound/day [sbull] 
grain [min [sbull] lb/d [sbull] gr]);
BLStot = Sum of the average black liquor solids firing rates 
of all existing recovery furnaces in the chemical recovery system at 
the kraft or soda pulp mill measured during the performance test, 
megagrams per day (Mg/d) (tons per day [ton/d]) of black liquor solids 
fired; and

[[Page 7717]]

ER1ref,SDT = Reference emission rate of 0.10 kg/Mg (0.20 lb/
ton) of black liquor solids fired for existing kraft or soda smelt 
dissolving tanks.

    (2) * * *
    (vi) After the Administrator has approved the PM emissions limits 
for each kraft or soda recovery furnace, smelt dissolving tank, and 
lime kiln, the owner or operator complying with an overall PM emission 
limit established in Sec.  63.862(a)(1)(ii) must demonstrate compliance 
with the HAP metals standard by demonstrating compliance with the 
approved PM emissions limits for each affected kraft or soda recovery 
furnace, smelt dissolving tank, and lime kiln, using the test methods 
and procedures in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) The owner or operator seeking to determine compliance with 
Sec.  63.862(a), (b), or (d) must use the procedures in paragraphs 
(b)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) For purposes of determining the concentration or mass of PM 
emitted from each kraft or soda recovery furnace, sulfite combustion 
unit, smelt dissolving tank, lime kiln, or the hog fuel dryer at 
Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission 
Unit no. HD-14), Method 5 or 29 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 must be 
used, except that Method 17 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 may be used 
in lieu of Method 5 or Method 29 if a constant value of 0.009 g/dscm 
(0.004 gr/dscf) is added to the results of Method 17, and the stack 
temperature is no greater than 205 [deg]C (400 [deg]F). For Methods 5, 
29, and 17, the sampling time and sample volume for each run must be at 
least 60 minutes and 0.90 dscm (31.8 dscf), and water must be used as 
the cleanup solvent instead of acetone in the sample recovery 
procedure.
    (2) For sources complying with Sec.  63.862(a) or (b), the PM 
concentration must be corrected to the appropriate oxygen concentration 
using Equation 7 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18FE03.009

Where:

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

    (3) Method 3A or 3B in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 must be used to 
determine the oxygen concentration. The voluntary consensus standard 
ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by reference--see Sec.  
63.14) may be used as an alternative to using Method 3B. The gas sample 
must be taken at the same time and at the same traverse points as the 
particulate sample.
* * * * *
    (5)(i) For purposes of selecting sampling port location and number 
of traverse points, Method 1 or 1A in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 must 
be used;
    (ii) For purposes of determining stack gas velocity and volumetric 
flow rate, Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G in appendix A of 40 CFR part 
60 must be used;
    (iii) For purposes of conducting gas analysis, Method 3, 3A, or 3B 
in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 must be used. The voluntary consensus 
standard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981--Part 10 (incorporated by reference--
see Sec.  63.14) may be used as an alternative to using Method 3B; and
    (iv) For purposes of determining moisture content of stack gas, 
Method 4 in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 must be used.
* * * * *
    (c) The owner or operator of each affected source or process unit 
complying with the gaseous organic HAP standard in Sec.  63.862(c)(1) 
must demonstrate compliance according to the provisions in paragraphs 
(c)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) The owner or operator complying through the use of an NDCE 
recovery furnace equipped with a dry ESP system is not required to 
conduct any performance testing to demonstrate compliance with the 
gaseous organic HAP standard.
    (2) The owner or operator complying without using an NDCE recovery 
furnace equipped with a dry ESP system must use Method 308 in appendix 
A of this part, as well as the methods listed in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) 
through (iv) of this section. The sampling time and sample volume for 
each Method 308 run must be at least 60 minutes and 0.014 dscm (0.50 
dscf), respectively.
    (i) The emission rate from any new NDCE recovery furnace must be 
determined using Equation 9 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18FE03.010

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); and
BLS = Average black liquor solids firing rate of the NDCE recovery 
furnace, megagrams per hour (Mg/hr) (tons per hour (ton/hr)) determined 
using process data measured during the performance test.

    (ii) The emission rate from any new DCE recovery furnace system 
must be determined using Equation 10 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18FE03.011

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; and
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.


[[Page 7718]]


    (d) The owner or operator seeking to determine compliance with the 
gaseous organic HAP standards in Sec.  63.862(c)(2) for semichemical 
combustion units must use Method 25A in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60, 
as well as the methods listed in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (iv) of 
this section. The sampling time for each Method 25A run must be at 
least 60 minutes. The calibration gas for each Method 25A run must be 
propane.
    (1) The emission rate from any new or existing semichemical 
combustion unit must be determined using Equation 11 of this section as 
follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR18FE03.012

Where:

ERSCCU = THC emission rate reported as carbon from each 
semichemical combustion unit, kg/Mg (lb/ton) of black liquor solids 
fired;
THCmeas = Measured THC mass emission rate reported as 
carbon, kg/hr (lb/hr); and
BLS = Average black liquor solids firing rate, Mg/hr (ton/hr); 
determined using process data measured during the performance test.
* * * * *

    8. Section 63.866 is amended by:
    a. Revising paragraph (c) introductory text;
    b. Revising paragraph (c)(1);
    c. Revising paragraph (c)(2); and
    d. Adding paragraph (c)(7).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  63.866  Recordkeeping requirements.

* * * * *
    (c) In addition to the general records required by Sec.  
63.10(b)(2), the owner or operator must maintain records of the 
information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (7) of this section:
    (1) Records of black liquor solids firing rates in units of Mg/d or 
ton/d for all recovery furnaces and semichemical combustion units;
    (2) Records of CaO production rates in units of Mg/d or ton/d for 
all lime kilns;
* * * * *
    (7) For the bag leak detection system on the hog fuel dryer fabric 
filter at Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's Cosmopolis, Washington facility 
(Emission Unit no. HD-14), records of each alarm, the time of the 
alarm, the time corrective action was initiated and completed, and a 
brief description of the cause of the alarm and the corrective action 
taken.
* * * * *

    9. Section 63.867 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(3) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  63.867  Reporting requirements.

    (a) * * *
    (3) In addition to the requirements in subpart A of this part, the 
owner or operator of the hog fuel dryer at Weyerhaeuser Paper Company's 
Cosmopolis, Washington facility (Emission Unit no. HD-14) must include 
analysis and supporting documentation demonstrating conformance with 
EPA guidance and specifications for bag leak detection systems in Sec.  
63.864(a)(7) in the Notification of Compliance Status.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-3702 Filed 2-14-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P