[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