ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION ) CITIZENS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ...

uNftç1HLri uirrt jiutp niui I UNITE) STATS OOURT OF APPEALS

FOR QTh1QI OF cQIVMBIA QIRQUIT

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE iiij I I NI?RECEIVED FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRC JH{

) CLERKCROSSETT CONCERNED )CITIZENS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL )JUSTICE, LOUISIANA )ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION )NETWORK, PT AIRWATCHERS, )

and SIERRA CLUB,

)Petitioners, )

) No. 1—1257v.

)

U.S. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY and SCOTT)PRUITT, Administrator, U.S. )Environmental Protection Agency, )

)Respondents.

PETITION FOR REVIEW

Pursuant to Clean Air Act § 307(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. § 7607(b)(1), Rule 15 of

the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and D.C. Circuit Rule 15, Crossett

Concerned Citizens for Environmental Justice, Louisiana Environmental Action

Network, PT AirWatchers, and Sierra Club (collectively, “Petitioners”) hereby

petition this Court for review of the final action of Respondents U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency and Administrator Scott Pruitt, which

Respondents announced in a Federal Register notice published at $2 Fed. Reg.

47,3 2$ (Oct. 11, 2017) and titled “National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air

USCA Case #17-1257 Document #1708861 Filed: 12/11/2017 Page 1 of 38

Pollutants for Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Krafi, Soda, Sulfite, and

Stand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills; Final rule.” (Attachment 1).

DATED: December 11, 2017 Respe%fu1ly submt9d,

/ Emma C.tuseEarthjustice1625 Massachusetts Ave., NWSuite 702Washington, DC 20036(202) 667-4500jpewearthjustice.orgecheuseearthjustice.org

Counselfor Crossett ConcernedCitizens for Environmental Justice,Louisiana Environmental ActionNetwork, PTAir Watchers, and SierraClub

2


j 1j17IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

RCEIVED’°’THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIR

CROSSETT CONCERNEDCITIZENS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL )JUSTICE, LOUISIANA )ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION )NETWORK, PT AIRWATCRERS, )

and SIERRA CLUB,

)Petitioners )

) No. ;—i25?v.

)

U.S. ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY and SCOTTPRUITT, Administrator, U.S. )Environmental Protection Agency, )

)Respondents.

RULE 26.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 26.1 and 28(a)(1) and

D.C. Circuit Rule 26.1, Crossett Concerned Citizens for Environmental Justice,

Louisiana Environmental Action Network, PT AirWatchers, and Sierra Club

(collectively, “Petitioners”) make the following disclosures:

CROSSETT CONCERNED CITIZENS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Non-Governmental Corporate Party to this Action: Crossett Concerned Citizens for

Environmental Justice

Parent Corporations: None.


Publicly Held Company that Owns 10% or More of Party’s Stock: None.

Party’s General Nature and Purpose: Crossett Concerned Citizens for

Environmental Justice is a nonprofit organization organized and existing under the

laws for the State of Arkansas. Its mission is to seek to improve the quality of life

of low-income residents in the Crossett area by encouraging active civic

participation and to make sure safety precautions are being taken to effectively

keep the environment clean.

LOUISIANA ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION NETWORK

Non-Governmental Corporate Party to this Action: Louisiana Environmental

Action Network.



Party’s General Nature and Purpose: Louisiana Environmental Action Network is a

corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Louisiana.

Louisiana Environmental Action Network is a nonprofit organization which works

with its members and citizens’ groups, including throughout the state of Louisiana,

to develop, implement, protect, and enforce legislative and regulatory

environmental safeguards.

2


PT AIRWATCHERS

Non-Governmental Corporate Party to this Action: PT AirWatchers.


Public1y Held Company that Owns 10% or More of Party’s Stock: None.

Party’s General Nature and Purpose: PT AirWatchers’ mission is to improve air

quality in and around Port Townsend, WA through true grassroots work: citizen

science community education, networking, learning, and action.

SIERRA CLUB

Non-Governmental Corporate Party to this Action: Sierra Club.



Party’s General Nature and Purpose: Sierra Club, a corporation organized and

existing under the ‘aws of the State of California, is a national nonprofit

organization dedicated to the protection and enjoyment of the environment.

DATED: December 11, 2017 Respeptfully submit d,

/J,ames S. Pew11/Emma C. Cheuse

Earthjustice1625 Massachusetts Ave., NWSuite 702Washington, DC 20036(202) 667-4500

3


jpewearthjustice.orgecheuseearthjustice.org

Counselfor Crossett ConcernedCitizens for Environmental Justice,Louisiana Environmental ActionNetwork, FTA1r Watchers, and SierraClub

4


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have served the foregoing Petition for Review andRule 26.1 Disclosure Statement on Respondents by sending a copy via First ClassMail to each of the following addresses on this 11th day of December, 2017.

Administrator Scott PruittOffice of the AdministratorEPA Headquarters 1101 AUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyWilliam Jefferson Clinton Federal Building1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20460

Jeff SessionsAttorney GeneralU.S. Department of Justice950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20530

Correspondence Control UnitOffice of General Counsel (23 11)United States Environmental Protection AgencyWilliam Jefferson Clinton Federal Building1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20460

1obyn Winy”Earthjustice


Attachment 1


47328 Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195 /Wednesday, October 11, 2017 /Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[EPA—HO—OAR—201 4—0741; FRL—9969—06—OAR]

RIN 2060—AS46

National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants for ChemicalRecovery Combustion Sources atKraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-AloneSemichemical Pulp Mills

AGENCY: Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA).

ACTION: final rule.

SUMMARY: This action finalizes theresidual risk and technology review(RTR) conducted for the chemicalrecovery combustion sources at kraft,soda, sulfite, and stand-alonesemichemical pulp mills regulatedunder the national emission standardsfor hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP).We are finalizing our proposeddetermination that risks from the sourcecategory are acceptable and that thestandards provide an ample margin ofsafety to protect public health. We arealso finalizing amendments to theNESHAP based on developments inpractices, processes, and controltecimologies identified as part of thetechnology review. These finalamendments include revisions to theopacity monitoring provisions and theaddition of requirements to maintainproper operation of the electrostaticprecipitator (ESP) automatic voltagecontrol (AVC). Additional amendmentsare also being finalized including therequirement to conduct 5-year periodicemissions testing, and submit electronicreports; revisions to provisionsaddressing periods of startup,shutdown, and malfunction (SSM); andtechnical and editorial changes. Theseamendments are made under theauthority of the Clean Air Act (CAA]and will improve the effectiveness ofthe rule.DATES: This final rule is effective onOctober 11, 2017. The incorporation byreference of certain publications listedin the rule is approved by the Directorof the federal Register as of October11,20171ADDRESSES: The EnvironmentalProtection Agency (EPA) has establisheda docket for this action under Docket IDNo. EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741. Altdocuments in the docket are listed onthe h ttp ://www.regtilntions.gov Website. Although listed in the index, someinformation is not publicly available,e.g., confidential business information

(CBI) or other information whosedisclosure is restricted by statute.Certain other material, such ascop vrighted material, is not placed onthe Internet and will be publiclyavailable only in hard copy form.Publicly available docket materials areavailable either electronically throughhttp://www.regulations.gov. or in hardcopy at the EPA Docket Center, EPAWJC West Building, Room Number3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,Washington, DC. The Public ReadingRoom hours of operation are 8:30 am.to 4:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time(EST), Monday through Friday. Thetelephone number for the PublicReading Room is (202) 566—1744, andthe telephone number for the DocketCenter is (202) 566—1742.FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Forquestions about this final action, contactDr. Kelley Spence, Sector Policies andPrograms Division (Mail Code: E143—03), Office of Air Quality Planning andStandards, U.S. EnvironmentalProtection Agency, Research TrianglePark, North Carolina 27711; telephonenumber: (919) 541—3158; fax number:(919) 541—0516; and email address:[email protected]. For specificinformation regarding the risk modelingmethodology, contact Mr. James Hirtz,Health and Environmental ImpactsDivision (Mail Code: C539—02), Office ofAir Quality Planning and Standards,U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,Research Triangle Park, North Carolina27711; telephone number: (919) 541—0881: and email address: [email protected]. For information about theapplicability of the NESHAP to aparticular entity, contact IvIs. SaraAyres, Office of Enforcement andCompliance Assurance, U.S.Environmental Protection Agency,USEPA Region 5 (Mail Code: E—19J), 77West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,Illinois 60604; telephone number: (312)353—6266; and email address:[email protected] INFORMATION:

Prewnble acronyms andabbreviations. We use multipleacronyms and terms in this preamble.While this list may not be exhaustive, toease the reading of this preamble and forreference purposes, the EPA defines thefol lowing terms an ci acronyms here:ASTM American Society for Testing and

MaterialsAVC automatic voltage controlBLO black liquor oxidationCAA Clean Air ActCBI confidential business informationCDX Central Data ExchangeCEDRI Compliance and Emissions Data

Reporting IiiterfaceCFR Code of Federal Regulations

CHIEF Clearinghouse for Inventories andEmissions Factors

CMS continuous monitoring systemCOMS continuous opacity monitoring

systemCPIvIS continuous parameter monitoring

systemCRA Congressional Review ActDAS data acquisition systemD.C. Cir. United States Court of Appeals for

the District of Columbia CircuitDCE direct contact evaporatorEPA Environmental Protection AgencyERT Electronic Reporting ToolESP electrostatic precipitatorEST Eastern Standard TimeFR Federal RegisterHAP hazardous air pollutantH[ hazard indexHQ hazard quotientIBR incorporation 1w referenceICR Information Collection Requestkm kilometerMACT maximum achievable confrol

technologyMIR maximum individual riskNAAQS National Ambient Air Quality

StandardsNAICS North American Industry

Classification SystemNAS National Academy of SciencesNDCE nondirect contact evaporatorNESHAP national emission standards for

hazardous air pollutantsNo. numberNRDC Natural Resources Defense CouncilNSPS new source performance standardsNTTAA National Technology Transfer and

Advancement ActOAQPS Office of Air Quality Planning and

StandardsOEHHA Office of Environmental Health

Hazard Assessment0MB Office of Management and BudgetPAH polycvclic aromatic hydrocarbonsP3—HAP hazardous air pollutant known to

be persistent and bin-accumulative in theenvironment

PM particulate matterPRA Paperwork Reduction ActPS—i Performance Specification 1QA quality assuranceREL reference exposure levelRFA Regulatory Flexibility ActRIN Regulatory Information NumberRTO regenerative thermal oxidizerRTR residual risk and technology reviewSAB Science Advisory BoardSDT smelt dissolving tankSSM startup, shutdown, and malfunctionTHC total hydrocarbonsTOSHI target organ-specific hazard indextpy tons per yearTRIM.FaTE Total Risk Integrated

Methodology. fate, Transport, andEcological Exposure model

UMRA Unfunded Mandates Reform ActU.S. United StatesU.S.C. United States Codev. versusWeb FIRE Web Factor In formation Retrieval

SystemXML extensible markup language

Background information. OnDecember 30, 2016, the EPA proposedrevisions to the NESHAP for Chemical


Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47329

Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft,Soda, Stilfite, and Stand-AloneSemichemical Pulp Mills based on ourRTR. In this action, we are finalizingamendments to the rule based on publiccomment and updated analyses. Wesummarize comments that the EPAreceived regarding the proposed rulethat resulted in changes i..n th.e finalrulemaking package and provide ourresponses in this preamble. A summaryof all other public comments on theproposal and the EPA’s responses tothose comments is available in thedocument titled, National EmissionsStandards for Hazardous Air Polio ntsfor Chemical Recovery CombustionSources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, andStand-Alone Semichemical Pulp Mills(40 C’FR part 63, subpart MM—ResidualRisk and Technology Review, FinalAmendments: Response to PublicComments on December 30, 2016Proposal, in the docket for this action(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741). A “track changes” version of theregulatory language that incorporatesthe changes in this actioir is alsoavailable in the docket.

Organization of this document. Theinformation in this preamble isorganized as follows:

I. General InformationA. Does this action apply to me?B. Where can I get a copy of this document

and other related information?C. Judicial Review and Administrative

ReconsiderationH. Background

A. What is the statutory authority for thisaction?

B. What is the subpart MM source categoryand how does the NESHAP regulate HAPemissions from the source category?

C. What changes did we propose for thesubpart Mlvi source category in ourDecember 30. 2016, proposal?

III. What is included in this final rule?A. What are the final rule amendments

t)ased on the risk review for the subpartMM source category?

B. What are the final rule amendmentsbased on the technology review for thesubpart MM source category?

C. What are the final rule amendmentsaddressing emissions during periods ot’startup, shutdown, and malfunction?

0. What other changes have been made tothe NESHAP?

E. What are the effective and compliancedates of the standards?

F. What are the requirements forsubmission of performance test data tothe EPA?

IV. What is the rationale for our finaldecisions and amendments for thesubpart MM source category?

A. Residual Risk Review for the SubpartMM Source Category

B. Technology Review for the Subpart MMSource Category

C. Changes to SSM Provisions0. Emissions TestingS. CPMS Operating LimitsF. Recordkeeping and Reporting

RequirementsG. Technical and Editorial Changes

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental, andEconomic Impacts and AdditionalAnalyses Conducted

A. What are the affected sources?B. What are the air quality impacts?C. What are the cost impacts?D. What are the economic impacts?

F. What are the benefits?F. What analysis of environmental justice

did we conduct?G. What analysis of children’s

environmental health did we conduct?Vi. Statutory anti Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: RegulatoryPlanning anti Review and ExecutiveOrder 13563: improving Regulation andRegulatory Review

B: Executive Order 13771: ReducingRegulations and Controlling RegulatoryCosts

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

(UMRA]F. Executive Order 13132: FederalismG. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian TribalGovernments

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection ofChildren from Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks

I. Executive Order 13211: ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply.Distribution, or Use

J. National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFRPart 51

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal ActionsTo Address Environmental Justice inMinority Populations and Low-IncomePopulations

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

Regulated entities. Categories andentities potentially regulated by tillsaction are shown ill Table 1 of thisI)realflble.

TABLE 1—NESHAP AND INDUSTRIAL SOURCE CATEGORIES AFFECTED BY THIS FINAL ACTION

Source category NESHAP NAICS code

Pulp and Paper Production Chemical Recovery Combustion Sources at Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone 32211, 32212,Semichemical Pulp Mills. 32213.

1 North American Industry Classification System.

Table 1 of this preamble is notintended to be exhaustive, but rather toprovide a gtiide for readers regardingentities likely to be affected by the finalaction for the source category listed. Todetermine whether your facility isaffected, you should examine theapplicability criteria in the appropriateNESHAP. If you have any questionsregarding the applicability of any aspectof this NESHAP, please contact theappropriate person listed in thepreceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this preamble.

B. Where can I get a copy of thisdocument and other relatedinformation?

In addition to being available in thedocket, an electronic copy of this finalaction l\rill also be available on tileInternet. Following signature by theEPA Administrator, the EPA will post acopy of this final action at: https://wmvw. epa .go v/stationary-sources-airpolio tion/kraft-soda-sulfite-and-standtilone-semichemical-p ulp-mills-mact-ii.Following publication UI tile FederalRegister. the EPA will post the FederalRegister version and key technicaldocuments at this same Web site.

wwrv3. epa .gov/ttn/atw/rrisk/rtrpg.h tml.This information includes an overviewof the RTR program, links to projectWeb sites for the RTR source categories,and detailed emissions and other datawe used as inputs to the riskassessments.

C. Judicial Review and AdministrativeReconsideration

Under CAA section 307(b)(l), judicialreview of this final action is availableoniv by filing a petition for review intile United States Court c)f Appeals forthe District of Columbia Circuit byDecember 11, 2017. Under CAA section307(b)(2), the TequlrernelltS establishedby this final rule may not be challengedseparately ill any civil or criminal

Additional information is available ontile RTR Web site at https://


47330 federal Register! VoL 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rnles and Regniations

proceedings brought by the EPA toenforce the requirements.

Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAAfurther pronic1es that oniy an objectionto a rule or procedure which was raisedwith reasonable specificity during theperiod for public comment (includingany public hearing) may be raisedduring judicial review. This section alsoprovides a mechanism for the EPA toreconsider the rule if the person raisingan objection can demonstrate to theAdministrator that it was impracticableto raise such objection within the periodfor public comment or if the grounds forsuch objection arose after the period forpublic comment (but within the timespecified for judicial review) and if suchobjection is of central relevance to theoutcome of the rule. Any person seekingto make such a demonstration shouldsubmit a Petition for Reconsideration tothe Office of the Administrator, U.S.EPA, Room 3000, EPA WJC SouthBuilding, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,Washington, DC 20460, with a copy toboth the person(s) listed in thepreceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATIONCONTACT section, and the AssociateGeneral Counsel for the Air andRadiation Law Office, Office of GeneralCounsel (Mail Code: 2344A), U.S. EPA,1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,Washington, DC 20460.

II. Background

A. What is the statutory authority forthis action?

Section 112 of the CAA establishes atwo-stage regulatory process to addressemissions of hazardous air pollutants(RAPs) from stationary sources. In thefirst stage, the EPA must identifycategories of sources emitting one ormore of the RAPs listed in CAA section112(b) and then promulgate technologybased NESHAP for those sources.“Major sources” are those that emit, orhave the potential to emit, any singleI-lAP at a rate of 10 tons per year (tpy)or more, or 25 tpy or more of anycombination of HAPs. For majorsources, these standards are commonlyreferred to as maximum achievablecontrol technology (MACT) standardsand must reflect the maximum degree ofemission reductions of RAPs achievable(after considering cost, energyrequirements, and non-air quality healthand environmental impacts). Indeveloping MACT standards, CAAsection 112(d)(2) directs the EPA toconsider the application of measures,processes, methods, systems ortechniques, including, but not limitedto. those that reduce the volume of oreliminate HAP emissions throughprocess changes, substitution of

materials, or other modifications;enclose systems or processes toeliminate emissions; collect, capture, ortreat HAPs when released from aprocess, stack, storage. or fugitiveemissions point; are design, equipment,work practice, or operational standards;or any combination of the above.

For these MACT standards, the statutespecifies certain minimum stringencyrequirements, which are referred to asMACT floor requirements, and whichmay not be based on costconsiderations. See CAA section112(d)(3). For new sources, the MACTfloor cannot be less stringent than theemission control achieved in practice bythe best-controlled similar source. TheMACT standards for existing sourcescan be less stringent than floors for newsources, but they cannot be lessstringent than the average emissionlimitation achieved by the best-performing 12 percent of existingsources in the category or subcategory(or the best-performing 5 sources forcategories or subcategories with fewerthan 30 sources). In developing MACTstandards, we must also considercontrol options that are more stringentthan the floor under CAA sectionI 12(d)(2). We may establish standardsmore stringent than the floor, based onthe consideration of the cost ofachieving the emissions reductions, anynon-air quality health andenvironmental impacts, and energyrequirements.

In the second stage of the regulatoryprocess, the CAA requires the EPA toundertake two different analyses, whichwe refer to as the technology review andthe residual risk review. Under thetechnology review, we must review thetecimology-based standards and revisethem “as necessary (taking into accountdevelopments in practices, processes,and control technologies)” no lessfrequently than every 8 years, pursuantto çAA section 112(d)(6). Under theresidual risk review, we must evaluatethe risk to public health remaining afterapplication of the technology-basedstandards and revise the standards, ifnecessary, to provide an ample marginof safety to protect public health or toprevent, taking into consideration costs,energy, safety, and other relevantfactors, an adverse environmental effect.The residual risk review is requiredwithin 8 years after promulgation of thetechnology-based standards, pursuant toCAA section 112(f). In conducting theresidual risk review, if the EPAdetermines that the current standardsprovide an ample margin of safet toprotect public health, it is not necessaryto revise the MACT standards pursuant

to CAA section 112(f).1 For moreinformation on the statutory authorityfor this rule, see 81 FR 97049—51.

B. What is the subpart MM sourcecategory and how does the NESHAPregtilate HAP emissions from the sourcecategory?

As defined in the Initial List ofCategories of Sources Under Sectionl12(c)(i) of the Clean AfrActAmendments of 1990 (see 57 FR 31576,July 16, 1992), the “Pulp anti PaperProduction” source category is anyfacility engaged in the production ofpulp and/or paper. The EPA developedthe NESHAPs for the source category intwo phases. The first phase, 40 CFR part63, subpart 5, regulates non-combustionprocesses at mills that (1) chemicallypulp wood fiber (using kraft, sulfite,soda, and semichemical methods), (2)mechanically pulp wood fiber (e.g.,groundwood, thermomechanical,pressurized), (3) pulp secondary fibers(deinked and non-deinked), (4) pulpnon-wood material, and (5) manufacturepaper. Subpart S was originallypromulgated on April 15, 1998, (63 FR18504). The second phase, 40 CFR part63, subpart MM, regulates chemicalrecovery combustion sources at kraft,soda, sulfite, and stand-alonesemichemical pulp mills, and wasoriginally promulgated on January 12,2001 (66 FR 3180). The chemicalrecovery combustion sources includekraft and soda recovery furnaces, smeltdissolving tanks (SDTs), and lime kilns;kraft black liquor oxidation (BLO) units;sulfite combustion units; andsemichemical combustion units.Because subpart MM sources comprisea subset of the sources at a pulp andpaper mill, for purposes of thispreamble, we are referring to the sourcecategory for this NESHAP as the“subpart MM source category.”

We already completed the RTR for 40CFR part 63, subpart 5, with finalamendments published in the FederalRegister on September Ii, 2012 (77 FR55698). For the 40 CFR part 63, subpartMM RTR, we published proposedamendments in the Federal Register onDecember 30, 2016 (81 FR 97046). Weconducted a risk assessment andtechnology review of the emissionsources covered by subpart MM. as wellas a risk assessment of the wholefacility. The facility-wide risk

‘The U.S. Gourt of Appeals for the District ofColumbia Circtut has affirmed this approach Of

implementing CAi\ section 5 12(fl(2)fA): NBDC v.EPA, 529 F.3d 5077, 1063 (D.C. Cir. 2(108) (“If EPAdetermines that the existmg teclinology—hasedstandards provide an ‘ample margin of safety.’ thenthe Agency is free to readopt those standards duringthe residual risk rulmnaking.”)


Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 I Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47331

assessment includes emissions from allsources of RAPs at the facility,including sources covered by otherNESHAP (e.g., pulp and paperprodttction processes covered undersubpart S, boilers covered under 40 CFRpart 63, subpart DDDDD, and paper andother web coating operations coveredunder 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJJJ). Thisfinal rule focuses exclusively on theRTR for subpart MM. The EPA is notamending subpart S. subpart DDDDD, orsubpart JJJJ in this action.

According to the results of the EPA’s2011 pulp and paper InformationCollection Request (ICR), and updatesbased on more recent information, thereare a total of 107 major sources in theUnited States (U.S.) that conductchemical recovery combustionoperations, including 97 kraft pulpmills, I soda pulp mill, 3 sulfite pulpmills, and 6 stand-alone semichemicalpulp mills.

Subpart MM of 40 CFR part 63includes numerical emission limits forrecovery furnaces, SDTs, lime kilns, andsulfite and semichemical combustionunits. The control systems used by mostmills to meet the subpart MM emissionlimits are as follows:

• Recovery furnaces: ESPs, wetscrubbers, and nondirect contactevaporator (NDCE) furnace design withdry-bottom ESP and dry particulatematter (PM) return system.

• Smelt dissolving tanks: Wetscrubbers, mist eliminators, and ventingto recovery furnace.

• Lime kilns: ESPs and wet scrubbers.• Sulfite combustion units: Wet

scrubbers and mist eliminators.• Semichemical combustion units:

Wet scrubbers. ESPs, and regenerativethermal oxidizers (RTOs).

C. 14/hat changes did we propose for thesubpart MM source category in ourDecember 30, 2016, proposal?

On December 30, 2016, the EPApublished a proposed rule in theFederal Register for the subpart MMNESHAP for Chemical RecoveryCombustion Sources at Kraft, Soda,Sulfite, and Stand-Alone SemichemicalPulp Mills, which took intoconsideration the RTR analyses. In thataction, we proposed to:

• Reduce the opacity limits forrecovery furnaces;

• Revise the opacity monitoringallowances for recovery furnaces andlime kilos (i.e., the percentage of theoperating time within a semiannualperiod below which. opacity can exceed.the limit without it being considered aviolation);

• Require ESP parameter monitoringfor recovery furnaces and lime kilnsequipped with ESPs;

• Clarify the monitoring requirementsfor combined ESP/wet scrubbercontrols;

• Provide alternative monitoringparameters for SDT wet scrubbers;

• Require periodic air emissionsperformance testing once every 5 yearsas facilities renew their operatingpermits;

• Eliminate the SSM exemption;• Provide alternative monitoring

parameters for wet scrubbers and ESPsduring SSM periods;

• Specify procedures for establishingcontinuous parameter monitoring

system (CPMS) operating limits;• Reduce the reporting frequency and

require electronic submission for excessemissions reports;

• Require mills to submit electroniccopies of performance test reports; and

• Make a number of technical andeditorial changes.

III. What is incltided in this final rule?

This action finalizes the EPA’sdeterminations pursuant to the RTRprovisions of CAA section 112 for thesubpart MM source category andamends the subpart MM NESHAP basedon those determinations. This actionalso finalizes other changes to theNESHAP, including a requirement for 5-year periodic emissions testing;electronic reporting; revisions toprovisions addressing periods of SSM;and technical and editorial changes.This final action is based on theproposed rulemaking (published in theFederal Register on December 30, 2016)and reflects refinements made inresponse to comments received duringthe public comment period for thatproposal.

A. 14/hat are the final rule amendmentsbased on the risk review for the subpartMlvi source category?

The EPA proposed no changes to thesubpart MM NESHAP based on the riskreview conducted pursuant to CAAsection 112(f). We are finalizing ourproposed determination that risks fromthe source category are acceptable,considering all of the health informationand factors evaluated, and alsoconsidering risk estimation unce:rtainty.We are also finalizing our proposeddetermination that the current standardsprovide an ample margin of safety, aswell as our finding regarding theabsence of adverse environmentaleffects. The EPA received no new dataor other information during the publiccomment period that affected ourdeterminations. Therefore, we are not

requiring additional controls and, thus,are not making any revisions to theexisting standards under CAA section112(f).

B. What are the final rule amendmentsbased on the technology review for thesubpart MM source category?

We determined that there aredevelopments in practices, processes,and control technologies that warrantrevisions to the NESHAP for this sourcecategory. Therefore, to satisfy therequirements of CAA section 112(d)(6),we are revising the NESHAP as follows:

• Revising the opacity monitoringallowance for all recovery furnacesequipped with ESPs from 6 percent to2 percent;

• Revising the opacity monitoringallowance for all lime kllns equippedwith ESPs from 6 percent to 3 percent;

• Adding a requirement for recoveryfurnaces and lime kilns equipped withESPs to maintain proper operation ofthe ESP AVC;

• Adding the aforementioned ESPrequirement and wet scrubber parametermonitoring for emission units equippedwith an ESP followed by a wet scrubber;and

• Provi cling alternative monitoring,specifically scrubber fan amperage, asan alternative to pressure dropmeasurement, for SDT dynamicscrubbers operating at ambient pressureand low-pressure entrainment scrubberson SDTs where the fan speed does notvary.

C. 14/hat are the final rule amendmentsaddressing emissions doming periods ofstartup, sh ci tdo wn and malfunction?

As proposed, we are finalizingamendments to the subpart MMNESHAP to eliminate the SSMexemption. Consistent with Sierra Clubv. EPA, 551 F. 3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008),the EPA has established standards inthis rule that apply at all times. We arealso revising Table 1 to Subpart MM ofPart 63 (General Provisions applicabilitytable) to change several referencesrelated to requirements that applyduring periods of SSM. We areeliminating or revising certainrecordkeeping and reportingrequirements related to the eliminatedSSM exemption, including therecluirement for an SSM plan. We arealso making changes to the rule toremove or modify language that is nolonger applicable clue to the removal ofthe SSM exemption. With the finalamendments to the 40 CF’R part 63,subpart MM monitoring requirements.we determined that facilities in thissource category can meet the applicableemissions standards in this NESHAP at


47332 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

all times, inchiding periods of startupand shutdown; therefore, no additionalstandards are needed to addressemissions during these periods.

The 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMmonitoring requirements were analyzedand adjusted to ensure that continuouscompliance can feasibly bedemonstrated during periods of startupand shutdown. Subpart MM requirescontinuous opacity monitoring toindicate ongoing compliance with thePM emission limits. In developing th.eproposed standards for the subpart MMRTR, the EPA reviewed numerouscontinuous opacity monitoring datasetsthat included periods of startup andshutdown, and stated that the affectedunits would be able to comply with theproposed standard.s at all times. Furtheranalysis of the datasets show thatsufficient startup and shutdown datawere included in the analyses to formthe basis for our conclusions, eventhough not all units provided such data.Subpart MM also requires continuousRTO operating temperature and wetscrubber parameter monitoring. Asproposed, we are removing therequirement to consider wet scrubberpressure drop during startup andshutdown because pressure drop isdependent on gas flow, which istransient (changing) during startup andshutdown. Continuous compliance isbased on scrubber liquid flow ratemonitoring during startup andshutdown instead of both pressure dropand liquid flow rate. We are alsolimiting the times when correctiveactions are implemented or violationsare recorded to times when spentpulping liquor or lime mud is fed (asapl)licable). The final rule specifies thatcorrective action can includecompletion of transient startup andshutdown conditions as expediently aspossible.

D. What other changes have been madeto the NESHAP?

Other changes to the NESHAP that donot fall into the categories in theprevious sections include:

• Requiring facilities to conductperiodic air emissions performancetesting, with the first of the tests to beconducted within 3 years of theeffective date of the revised standards,and thereafter no longer than 5 yearsfollowing the previous performance test;

• Specifying procedures forestablishing operating limits based ondata recorded by CPMS, including thefrequency for recording parameters andthe averaging period for reducing therecorded readings:

• Reducing the frequency forsubmitting excess emissions reports

from quarterly to semiannually inconjunction with requiring electronicreporting of excess emissions (in thefuture, as reporting forms are tested andbecome available—see section IV.F ofthis preaml)le);

• Requiring facilities to submitelectronic copies of perforiiance testreports;

• Requiring facilities to submit initialnotifications and notifications ofcompliance status electronically; and

• Making various technical andeditorial corrections.

F. What are the effective andcoinpliance dates of the standards?

The revisions to the NESHAP beingpromulgated in this action are effectiveon October 11, 2017. The compliancedate for existing sources is October ii,2019, with the exception of the firstperiodic performance test, which mustbe conducted by October 13, 2020, andthe date to submit performance test datathrough CEDRI, which is within 60 daysof completing the test. Facilities mustcomply with the changes set out in thisfinal rule no later than 2 years after theeffective date of the final rule. Section112(i)(3) of the CAA provides that, fora standard or other regulationpromulgated under CAA section 112,the Administrator shall establish acompliance date no later than 3 yearsafter the effective date of the standard,except where otherwise provided. Weconclude that 2 years are necessary tomake the system adjustments needed todemonstrate compliance with therevised requirements, includingadjusting data acquisition systems(DAS) to include startup and shutdownperiods and the revised opacitymonitoring allowances, to transition toelectronic excess emissions reporting,and to comply with revised monitoringrequirements.

As noted in section IV.F of thispreamble. the initial compliance datefor electronic excess emissions reportingwill be 1 year after the excess emissionsreporting form (i.e., a spreadsheettemplate) becomes available in theEPA’s Compliance and Emissions DataReporting Interface (CEDRI). Acompliance date 2 years afterpromulgation allows 1 year for beta-testing of the e-reporting form before itis placed into CEDRI. followed by 1 yearfor facilities to begin using the finalform.2 A period of 3 years afterpromulgation is not needed forcompliance because. as explained in

A copy of the revised semiannuat electronicexcess emissions teportitig lorm (spreatlehetittempLate) incorporating public comments has beenplaced in the docket for this action (Docket ID No.EPA—HQ—OAR--2014—0741),

section IV.B of this preamble. the EPAis not finalizing the proposed revisionsto the opacity limits or ESP parametermonitoring requirements that wouldinvolve capital projects such as an ESPupgrade.

New sources must comply with all ofthe standards by October 11, 2017, orupon startup, whichever is later.

F. What are the requirements forsttbmission of performance test data tothe EPA?

The EPA is requiring owners andoperators of pulp and paper productionfacilities to submit electronic copies ofcertain required performance testreports to the EPA’s Central DataExchange (CDX) using the CEDRI. Theelectronic submittal of the reportsaddressed in this rulemaking willincrease the usefulness of the datacontained in those reports, is in keepingwith current trends in data availabilityand transparency, will further assist inthe protection of public health and theenvironment, will improve complianceby facilitating the ability of regulatedfacilities to demonstrate compliancewith requirements and by facilitatingthe ability of delegated state, local,tribal, and territorial air agencies andthe EPA to assess and determinecompliance, and will ultimately reduceburden on regulated facilities, delegatedair agencies, and the EPA. Electronicreporting also eliminates paper-based,manual processes, thereby saving timeand resources, simplifying data entry,eliminating redundancies, minimizingdata reporting errors, and providing dataquickly and accurately to the affectedfacilities, air agencies, the EPA, and thepublic.

The EPA Web site that stores thesubmitted electronic data, WebFIRE, iseasily accessible and provides a user-friendly interface. By making therecords, data, and reports addressed inthis rulemaking readily available, theEPA, the regulated community, and thepublic will benefit when the EPAconducts future CAA-requiredtechnology reviews. As a result ofhaving repo:rts readily accessible, ourability to carry out timelycomprehensive reviews will beincreased.

We anticipate that fewer or lesssubstantial ICRs in conjunction withprospective CAA-required technologyreviews may be needed, which resultsin a decrease in time spent by industryto respond to data collection requests.We also expect the 1CRs to contain lessextensive stack testing provisions, as wewill already have stack test dataelectronically. Reduced testingrequirements would be a cost savings to


federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47333

industry. The EPA should also be al)leto conduct these required reviews moreefficiently. While the regulatedcommunity may benefit from a reducedburden of ICRs, the general publicbenefits from the Agency’s ability toprovide these required reviews moreefficiently, resulting in increased publichealth and environmental protection.

State, local, and tribal air agencies, aswell as the EPA, can benefit from morestreamlined and automated review ofthe electronically submitted data.Standardizing report formats allows airagencies to review reports and datamore quickly. Having reports andassociated data in electronic format willfacilitate review through the use ofsoftware “search” options, as well as thedownloading and analyzing of data inspreadsheet format. Additionally, airagencies and the EPA can access reportswherever and whenever they want orneed, as long as they have access to theInternet. The ability to access andreview air emission report informationelectronically will assist air agencies tomore quickly and accurately determinecompliance with the applicableregulations, potentially allowing a fasterresponse to violations which couldminimize harmful air emissions. Thisbenefits both air agencies and thegeneral public.

For a more thorough discussion ofelectronic reporting required by thisrule, see the discussion in the preamble

of the proposal (81 FR 97079—81). Insummary, in addition to supportingregulation development, control strategydevelopment, and other air pollutioncontrol activities, having an electronicdatabase populated with performancetest data will save industry, air agencies,and the EPA significant time, money,and effort while improving the qualityof emission inventories and air qualityregulations and enhancing the public’saccess to this important information.

IV. What is the rationale for our finaldecisions and amendments for thesubpart MM source category?

For each action, this section providesa description of what we proposed andwhat we are finalizing, the EPA’srationale for the final decisions andamendments, and a summary of keycomments and responses. A thoroughdiscussion of all comments received onthe proposed rulemaking and EPA’scorresponding responses can be foundin the comment summary and responsedocument available in the docket(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741).

A. Residual Risk Review for the SubpartMM Source Category

Results of residual risk review.Pursuant to CAA section 112(f), weconducted a residual risk review andpresented the results for the review,along with our proposed decisions

regarding risk acceptability and amplemargin of safety, in the December 30,2016, proposed rule for the subpart MMsource category (81 FR 97046). Theresults of the risk assessment arepresented briefly in Table 2 of thispreamble, and in more detail in adocument titled, Residual RiskAssessment for Pulp Mill CombustionSources in Support of the October 2017Risk and Technology Review Final Rule,available in the docket for thisrulemaking (Docket ID No. EPA—RQ—OAR—2014—0741]. Based on both actualand. allowable emissions for the sourcecategory, the estimated maximumindividual risk (MIR) was 4-in-imillion, with emissions of gaseousorganic RAPs acetaldehycle andnaphthalene from the BLO processaccounting for the majority of the risk.The total estimated national cancerincidence for this source category, basedon actual emission levels, was 0.01excess cancer cases per year, or one casein 100 years. The total estimatednational cancer incidence for this sourcecategory, based on allowable emissionlevels, was 0.02 excess cancer cases peryear, or one case in 50 years. Theestimated maximum chronic non-cancertarget organ specific hazard index(TOSHI) value for this source categorywas 0.3, based on 1)0th acttial andallowable emissions and driven byacrolein emissions from lime kilns.

The multi-pathway screeninganalysis, based on actual emissions,indicates the excess cancer risk fromthis source category is less than 10-in-1 million, based on dioxins/furans andpolycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAR]emissions, with. PAl-I emissionsaccounting for 99 percent of thesepotential risks fi’orn the fisher and thefarmer scenarios considered for multi-pathway modeling. There were nofacilities within this source categorywith a final multi-pathway non-cancerscreen value greater than 1 for cadmiumor mercury.

Mthougli defined as ‘‘maximum individualrisk,” MIR refers only to cancer risk. MIR, one

To put the risks from the sourcecategory in context, we also evaluatedfacility-wide risk. Our facility-wide riskassessment, based on actual emissions,estimated the MIR to be 20-in-i milliondriven by arsenic and chromium VIemissions, and. estimated the chronicnon-cancer TOSHI value to be 1, drivenby emissions of acrolein. We estimatedapproximately 440,000 people to havecancer risks greater than or equal to 1-in-i million considering facility-wideemissions from the pulp and paperproduction source category (see Table2]. The facility-wide cancer and non-cancer risks are driven by emissions

metric for assessing cancer risk, is the estimated

from industrial boilers, representing 62percent of the cancer risks and 95percent of the non-cancer risks.Emissions from 40 CFR part 63, subpartMM sources represent only 6 percent ofthe total facility-wide cancer risk of 20-in—i. million.

The screening assessment of worst-case acute inhalation impacts indicatesno l)o1lItatts exceeding a hazardquotient (HO] value of I based on thereference exposure level (REL). with anestimated worst-case maximum acuteIIQ of 0.3 for acrolein based on the 1-hour REL.

risk were an inrlividual exposed to the maxinsumlevel of a pollutant for a lifetime.

TABLE 2—PULP MILL COMBUSTION SOURCES (SUBPART MM) INHALATION RISK ASSESSMENT RESULTS IN THE DECEMBER2016 PROPOSAL

1 Hazard index.

Cancer MIR (in-i-million) Cancer Population Population Max chronic Max chronicincidence with risk of with risk of non-cancer non-cancer

Based on actual Based on allowable (cases per 1-in-i 10-in-i HI 1 HI 1

emissions emmissions year) million or more million or more (actuals) (allowables)

Source cat- 4 (naphthalene, acetal- 4 (naphthalene, acetal- 0.01 7,600 0 HI < 1 HI < 1egory. dehyde) dehyde).

Whole facility 20 (arsenic, chromium Vt) 0.05 440,000 280 HI = 1 HI = 1


47334 Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195 / Weclnesday, October Ii, 2017 /Rules and Regulations

A review of the uncertainties in therisk assessment identified oneadditional key consideration, and that isthe quality of c].ata associated with thefacility-wide emissions. The dataprovided from the power boilers (i.e.,sources covered under Boiler MACT, 40CFR part 63, subpart DDDDD) werecollected in 2009 and represent preMACT emissions before any controlswere implemented. The uncertaintyintroduced by using pre-MACT boileremissions data may result in anoverestimated risk estimate for thefacility-wide analysis for both cancerand non-cancer impacts.

We weighed all health risk factors inour risk acceptability determination,and we proposed that the residual risksfrom this source category are acceptable.We then considered whether theNES HAP provides an ample margin ofsafety to protect public health andwhether more stringent standards werenecessary to prevent an adverseenvironmental effect by taking intoconsideration costs, energy, safety, andother relevant factors. In determiningwhether the standards provide an amplemargin of safety to protect public health,we examined the same risk factors thatwe investigated for our acceptabilitydetermination and also considered thecosts, technological feasibility, andother relevait factors related toemissions control options that mightreduce risk associated with emissionsfrom the source category. As noted inthe discussion of the ample margin ofsafety analysis in the preamble to theproposed rule (81 FR 9 7069—70), weconsidered options for further reducinggaseous organic HAP emissions fromrecovery furnace systems. Weconsidered the reduction in HAPemissions that could be achieved byconverting or replacing direct contactevaporator (DCE) recovery furnaces(which include BLO systems) withNDCE recovery furnaces. We alsoconsidered conversion of wet ESPsystems to dry ESP systems for NDCErecovery furnaces. The overall cost ofthese options is an estimated $1.4billion to $3.7 billion in capital cost and$120 million to $440 million inannualized cost. Application of theseoptions would achieve an estimatedemission reduction o:f 2,920 tpy ofgaseous organic HAPs (including riskdrivers and other gaseous organicRAPs), with a corresponding costeffectiveness of $45000 to $153,000 perton of emissions reduced. Due to thelow level of current risk and the costsassociated with these options, weproposed that additional HAP emissionreductions from the source category are

not necessary to provide an amplemargin of safety. Based on the results ofour environmental risk screeningassessment,4 we also proposed thatmore stringent standards are notnecessary to prevent an adverseenvironmental effect.

Public coinmen ts and final approach.Most of the commenters providing inputon the proposed risk review supl)ortedour determination of risk acceptabilityand ample margin of safety analysis for40 CFR part 63, subpart MM.

We evaluated all of the comments onEPA’s risk review and determined thatno changes to the review are needed. Asummary of these coniments and ourresponses is located in the commentsummary and response document,available in the docket for this action(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741).

F or the reasons explained in theproposed rule, we determined that therisks from the 40 CFR part 63, stibpartMM source category are acceptable, andthe current standards provide an amplemargin of safety to protect public healthand prevent an adverse environmentaleffect. Since proposal, neither the riskassessment nor our determinationsregarding risk acceptability, amplemargin of safety or adverseenvironmental effects have changed.Therefore, pursuant to CAA section112(f)(2), we are finalizing our residualrisk review as proposed.

B. Technology Review for the SubpartMM Source Category

Pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6), weconducted a technology review, whichfocused on identifying and evaluatingdevelopments in practices, processes,and control technologies for theemission sources in the source category.The following paragraphs discuss whatwe proposed pursuant to CAA section112(d)(6), changes to the technologyreview since proposal, the keycomments we received on thetechnology review and our responses,and the rationale for our final approachfor the technology review. For an indepth account of the comments andresponses, see the comment summaryand response document in the docketfor this action (Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741).

Emissions standards. At proposal, wefocused our CAA section 112(d)(6)review of 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMon the emissions standards currently

-‘ The environmental scoenmg analysis isdocumented in Reel clucil Rick Assessment for PulpMill Combustion Sources in Support oJ the October2017 Risk and Technology Review Finol Rttle,available in the docket for this action (Docket IDNo. EPA—HQ—OAR—2t)14—0741).

established in subpart MM. No cost-effective developments in practices,processes, or control technologies wereidentified in our technology review towarrant revisions to the gaseous organicHAP standards for recovery furnacesand semichemical combustion units, orto the HAP metal standards for recoveryfurnaces, lime kilns, SDTs, and sulfitecombustion units. More informationconcerning our tecimology review is inthe memorandum titled, Sectionii 2(d)(6) Technology Review for theNESHAP for Chemical RecoveryCombustion Sources at Kraft, Soda,Sulfite, and Stand-Alone SemichernicalPulp Mills, available in the docket forthis action (Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741), and in the preambleto the proposed rule (81 FR 97070—75).

Multiple commenters concurred withthe EPA that the results of thetechnology review supported theconclusion that there should be nochanges to the emissions standards. Onecommenter objected and argued that thecurrent MACT standards for HAP metalsfrom recovery furnaces, SDTs, limekilns, and sulfite combustion units didnot meet the requirements of CAAsection 112(d)(2) and (3) wheno:riginafly promulgated. The commenterstated that each of the emissionsstandards must receive a proper CAAsection 112(d)(6) review to evaluatewhether there is an emissions standardin place that met the CAA section112(d)(2) and (3) test. According to thecommenter, the EPA must set emissionsstandards on each of these emissionunits to satisfy the CAA, by establishinga proper floor for the first time, andperforming a beyond-the-floor analysis.The commenter argued that the EPA isnot authorized by CAA section 112(d)(6)to leave in place errors made whenperforming the originally-requiredMACT rulemaking under CAA section112(d)(2) and (3).

In addition to commenting on thecurrent 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMstandards, commenters offered opposingopimons regarding whether the EPAshould have expanded the scope ofsources and/of pollutants covered t)ysubpart MM as part of the technologyreview. One commenter argued that theEPA has no ot)hgatlon to expand thescope of the existing standards, anddoes not in fact have statutory authorityto do so. The commenter stated thatthere is neither legal nor technicaljustification for considering limitationsfor new pollutants or for new sources aspart of the CAA section 112(d)(6) reviewof the subpart MM standards. Thecommenter also stated that the EPA’sresidual risk review, which included themajor processes and pollutants. did not


federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195 /Wednesclay, October 11, 2017 /Ruies and Regulations 47335

identify any reason for expanding theemission units covered or the pollutantslimited in the subpart MM standards.

Another commenter argued that theEPA must set emissions standards for allemitted HAPs from all emission units.The commenter stated that, currently,the:re are uncontrolled RAPs emitted bypulp mills, including mercury, dioxins!ftirans, and hydrochloric acid. Thecommenter also stated that the gaseousorganic RAPs emitted from existingrecovery furnaces and from new antiexisting lime kilns and SDTs have noapplicable emission limit. Thecommenter also noted that the EPAfailed to set any standard for HAPmetals emissions from new and existingchemical recovery combustion units atstand-alone semichemical pulp mills.The commenter indicated that the CAAsection 112(d)(6) review has brought theproblem of currently unregulated HAPsto the EPA’s attention, and it is now“necessary” under CAA section112(d)(6) to set emissions standards thatcontrol these pollutants, as the CAAdirects. The commenter also assertedthat, under CAA section 112(d)(6). theD.C. Circuit Court legal decisionsgoverning the EPA’s regulatoryresponsibility are “develol)en.ts” thatdefine proper pollution controls,practices, and technologies, and theEPA is legally required to account forthem and set standards to limit thesepollutants in the review rulemaking.

Regarding our review of the current40 CFR part 63, subpart MM standards,we disagree with the commenter thatimplied the EPA must recalculate orreanalyze the validity of MACT floorspreviously established under CAAsections 112(d)(2) and (3) as part of thetechnology review under CAA section112(d)(6). As explained in prior RTRrulemakings, the EPA does not readCAA section 112(d)(6) as requiring areanalysis or recalculation of MACTfloors. See National EmissionsStandards for Coke Oven Batteries (70FR 19992, 20008 (April 15, 2005)). Weread CAA section 112(d)(6] as providingthe EPA with substantial latitude inweighing a variety of factors antiarriving at an appropriate balance inconsidering revisions to standardspromulgated under CAA section112(d)(2) and (3). Nothing in CAAsection 112(d)(6) expressly or implicitlyrequires that the EPA recalculate theMACT floor as part of the CAA section112(d)(6) review. The EPA’sinterpretation on this point has beenupheld by the D.C. Circuit. Nat’] Ass’ofor Surface finishing v. EPA. 795 F.3d1, 7—9 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Ass’n of BatteryRecjiclers v. EPA, 716 F. 3d 667, 673(D.C. Cir. 2013); Notural Resources

Defense CoLtncil (NRDc’) v. EPA, 529F.3d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 2008).further, CAA section 112(d)(6) providesthat the “developments” the EPA musttake into account when conductingtechnology reviews are specifically“developments in practices, processes,and control technologies.” See 81 FR79066 (December 30, 2016) (describingthe developments the EPA considerswhen conducting CAA section 112(d)(6)reviews). The EPA interprets the term“developments” to includetechnological improvements that couldresult in significant additional emissionreduction as well as wholly newmethods of emission reduction. See,e.g., 75 FR 65083; see also Nat’] Ass’nSurface finishingv. EPA. 795 F.3d 1, 11(D.C. Cir. 2015) (upholding the EPA’sconclusion that developments includechanges that indicate that a previouslyconsidered option for reducingemissions may now be cost-effective ortechnologically feasible and concludingthat it is sufficient for the EPA “toassess and discuss the collective impactof the developments it has identified,and to revise standards appropriately inlight thereof.”). The EPA does not,however, interpret the term“development” as used in CAA section112(d)(6] to include intervening caselaw. An intervening decision by a courtregarding other CAA section 112requirements does not constitute adevelopment in a practice, process orcontrol technology. As such, the EPAhas no obligation to considerintervening case law as a“development” when identifyingdevelopments for purposes of thesection 112(d)(6) review.

Regarding the scope of the subpartMM technology review, the EPAacknowledges that standards for certaincombinations of pollutants andprocesses in the subpart MM sourcecategory have not been promulgatedaccording to CAA section 112(d)(2) and(3). We agree that the EPA does not haveany obligation to expand the scope ofthe existing standards under CAAsection 112(d)(6), and we do not look toCAA section 112(d](6) for authority toset additional standard.s within a sourcecategory. The authority to set additionalstandards within a source categorycomes from CAA section 112(d)(2) and(3). Though the EPA has discretion todevelop standards under CAA section112(d)(2) and (3) for prexriousiyunregulated pollutants at the same timeas the Agency completes the CAAsection i.12(d)(6) review, nothing inCAA section 1 1 2(d)(6) expresslyrequires the EPA to do so as part of thatreview. The compressed schedule for

this rulemaking, due to the court-ordered deadline, did not make itreasonable to appropriately evaluatenew standards for unregulatedpollutants and processes. This issue isdiscussed further in the commentsummary and response document that isavailable in the docket. The EPA is nottaking any action at this time withrespect to the unregulated pollutants orprocesses, though the EPA might chooseto do so in the future after assemblingthe data and information needed toconduct the CAA section 112(d)(2) and(3) analyses.

Con tin ii ous opacity monitoring. Basedon our analysis of continuous opacitymonitoring systeni (COMS) data for kraftand soda recovery furnaces and limekilns equipped with ESPs5 and ourconsideration of the costs and impactsof various opacity monitoring optionsfor these sources,° we stated at proposalthat:

• There had been a development inexisting recovery furnace operatingpractices that supported reducing theexisting source opacity limit from 35percent to 20 percent and revising themonitoring allowance for the 20 percentopacity limit from 6 percent to a 2percent monitoring allowance as part ofthe subpart MM technology reviewprocess; and

• There had been a development inexisting lime kiln operating practicesthat supported revising the monitoringallowance from 6 percent to a 1 percentmonitoring allowance for opacity as partof the subpart MM technology reviewprocess.

The estimated cost effectiveness of theproposed recovery furnace option,$36,800 per ton PM. was within therange of other recent EPA regulations.There was no cost-effectiveness valuefor the proposed lime kiln optionl)ecause there were no estimatedincremental HAP reductions (81 FR97072—73).

Multiple cornmen.ters ol)]ected to theproposed changes to the opacityrequirements for recovery furnaces andlime kilns, questioning the costeffectiveness and stating that thetechnology review should not result inchanging the opacity requirements. Thecommenters argued that the EPA’sassumption for “improvingmaintenance” to reduce the number ofexceedances of the recovery furnace andlime kiln opacity limits was incorrect,

See the memorandum hi the docket titled.Re view of the Continuous Opacity Monitoring Onto[rnni the Pulp and Pcipm’r ICR Responses for Shpcii’tMM SOUrCeS.

‘See the memormmdum in the docket titled.Costs/Impacts of the Subpart MM Residual Risk endTechnology Reviemv.


47336 Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195 I Wednesday, October 11, 2017 /Rules aird Regulations

and stated that facilities would incuremission unit shutdown (and resultinglost production) and potential capitalcosts in order to meet the reducedopacity limits and monitoringallowances. Commenters stated thatfacilities would need to make ESPupgrades to meet the proposed limitsand they provided cost estimates forthese upgrades, based on theirexperiences. In response to thesecomments, we conducted furtheranalysis, based on the assumption thatESP upgrades (hut not maintenance)would be needed to meet the proposedstandard and revised the cost estimatesconsidering the cost data provided.7 Inthis further analysis considering newinformation, we estimated costs that aresignificantly higher than what weestimated at proposal. For recoveryfurnaces, we estimated annua.i ES?upgrade costs of $21 million v. $8.7million at proposal; for lime kilns, weestimated annual ESP upgrade costs of$0.87 million v. $0.068 million atproposal. For PM, the surrogate for HAPmetals, we estimated the costeffectiveness for recovery furnace ES?upgrades to increase from $36,800 to$91,400 per ton. For HAP metalsspecifically, the cost effectivenessexceeds $250 million per ton.

Commenters also stated thatexamination of only 1 year of COMSdata for 2009 from the 2011 pulp andpaper ICR was not adequate to fullydetermine the impacts of the proposedchange or to demonstrate that there hasbeen a change in operating l)ractice.Commenters further stated that theCOMS data for recovery furnaces andlime kilns that the EPA used in itsanalysis did not include periods ofstartup and shutdown in all instances,and that the EPA’s analysis of existingperformance relative to the propose(lopacity limits and monitoringallowances was, therefore, incomplete.The EPA acknowledges that 2009 datamay not be representative of currentoperation, as suggested by thecommenters, and that tire number ofstartup and shutdown events likely varyfrom year to year. Considering thisinformation and the analyses performedfor the final action,8 we are notfinalizing tire recovery furnace and limekiln opacity requirements as proposed.Instead, we are finalizing an Ol)acitylimit of 35 percent for existing recoveryfurnaces, with a corrective action levelof 2t) percent an(l a 2 percentmonitoring allowance. A 2 percent

See the memorandum in the docket titled,Revised Costs/Impacts of the Subpart MM ResidualRisk arid Technology Rcuieu’ for Prom tigation.

°Id.

monitoring allowance reflectsimprovements in operating practicesfrom the previous 6 percent allowance,but allows sufficient flexibility forperiods of startup and shutdown. Weare finalizing, as proposed, an opacitylimit of 20 percent for new recoveryfurnaces, with a corrective action levelof 20 percent and a 2 percentnionitoring allowance. For lime kilns,we are finalizing an opacity limit of 20percent, with a 3 percent monitoringallowance. A 3 percent monitoringallowance reflects improvements inoperating practices from tire previous 6percent allowance, but allows sufficientflexibility for periods of startup andshutdown as compared to the proposed1 percent allowance. Our review ofavailable COMS data indicates that allrecovery furnaces and lime kilnsequipped with ESPs can meet theselimits, so we do not expect any costsassociated with these requirements,rhici, addresses commenters’ concernsabout the cost of the proposed opacityoptions.9

ESP parameter monitoring. Weproposed an ESP parameter monitoringrequirement for recovery furnaces andlime kilns equipped with ESPs. Weproposed that these sources monitor thesecondary voltage and secondarycurrent (or, alternatively, totalsecondary power) of each ES? collectionfield. These proposed ESP parametermonitoring requirements were inaddition to opacity monitoring forrecovery furnaces equipped with ESPsalone. The purpose of this proposedrequirement was to provide anadditional indicator of ESP performanceand enable affected sources to showcontinuous compliance with the HAPmetal standards (surrogate PM emissionlimits) at all times, including periodswhen the opacity monitoring allowanceis used (81 FR 97073]. For example,these requirements were proposed toprovide an indicator that the ESP wasefficiently operated and properlymaintained for the duration of thesemiannual reportIng period., includingduring periods of startup and shutdown.At the time of the proposed rule, weestimated that the nationwide costsassociated with adding the proposedESP parameter monitoring requirementswould be $5.7 million capital and $1.4million annual izecl for ESP parametermonitors, and that all mills with ESPcontrolled recovery furnaces and limekilns would be impacted (81 FR 97073).

Ci See the tnern urancla in the tint :ket titled,Addendum to the Review of the Cantmuons OpacityMonitoring Data troUt the Pulp and Pfiper [CRResponses for Subpart Mit.’! Sources, anti RevisedCasts/tnlpftcts of the Subpart MM Resiclucti Risk andTechnology Review for Promulgation.

Multiple commenters stated that theES? total power monitoring provisionsshould be removed or revised. Instead ofadding an additional monitoringrequirement that they believed would beburdensome and duplicative of theopacity monitoring already beingconducted, comnienters suggested thatthe EPA should instead require properoperation of’ the ESP’s AVC or powermanagement system, which wouldachieve the same goal of ensuring theESP performance. Commenters providedinformation suggesting that weunderestimated the ESP parametermonitoring costs, specifically that EPAincorrectly assumed that all ESPs wereequipped with the ability to record theparameters. Based on our review of thiscost information, we conducted areanalysis and estimated revised costs of$16 million in capital costs and $4million in annualized costs associatedwith adding ESP parameter monitoringfor existing sources.’°

Given that the intent of the proposedadditional ESP monitoring was toensure efficient operation and propermaintenance of the ES?, see 81 FR97073 (December 30, 2016), and thatconrmenters suggested that tire use ofthe AVG ensures efficient operation andnotifies operators of issues requiringmaintenance, and that the costs weresignificantly higher than EPA estimatedat proposal, we are not finalizing theproposed ESP parameter monitoringrequirements. The EPA is insteadfinalizing a requirement for recoveryfurnaces and lime kilns equipped withESPs to mai;rtain proper operation ofthe ESP’s AVG. This requirementapplies at all times, including timeswhen the opacity monitoring allowanceis used. Because existing ESPs alreadyhave AVC, there is no need to estimateequipment cost, We have only estimatedrecordkeeping costs for thisrequirement.” The final rule alsoclarifies that the requirement tomaintain proper operation of the ESP’sAVC does not apply to recoveryfurnaces and lime kilns subject to tire 40CFR part 60, subpart BBa New SourcePerformance Standards (NSPS) for KraftPulp Mills, because the NSPS requiresES? parameter monitoring for theseunits.

Monitoring of ESPs followed by wetscrubbers. Because moisture in wet

stacks interferes with opacity readings,opacity is not a suitable monitoringrequirement for recovery furnaces orlime kilns with wet scrubber stacks.

See tlse memorandum in the docket titlod.Revised Costs/Impacts of the Subpart MM ResidualRisk and Technology tieview for Promulgation.

‘‘(dl.


Federal Register! Vol. 82, No. 195 !Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47337

Therefore, we proposed to require ESPand wet scrubber parameter monitoringfor emission units equipped with anESP followed by a wet scrubber. TheESP parameters proposed to bemonitored were secondary voltage andsecondary ctirrent (or, alternatively,total secondary power), and the wetscrubber parameters were pressure dropand scrubber liquid flow rate (81 FR97073—74). As noted in the previousparagraph, for the final rule, we arereplacing the proposed ESP parametermonitoring requirement with arequirement to maintain properoperation of the ESP’s AVC based onpublic comment, except for recoveryfurnaces and lime kilns subject to thesubpart BBa NSPS, because ESPparameter monitoring is alreadyrequired for these units. We arefinalizing the rest of these monitoringrequirements as proposed.

Wet scrubber parameter monitoring.Subpart MM of 40 CFR part 63 specifiesmonitoring of scrubber liquid flow rateand pressure drop for kraft and sodaSDTs and sulfite combustion unitsequipped with wet scrubbers. Facilitiesmay have difficulty meeting theminimum pressure drop requirementduring startup and shutdown, asexpected due to the reduced (andchanging] volumetric flow of stack gasesduring these periods. We proposedrevising the monitoring requirements toaddress startup and shutdown periodswhen certain parameters could bedifficult to achieve. Specifically, weproposed to consider only scrubberliquid flow rate during these periods(i.e., excess emissions would includeany 3-hour period when black liquorsolids (BLS) are fired that the scrubberflow rate does not meet the minimumparameter limits set in the initialperformance test]. Based on previousalternative monitoring requests forSDTs, we also proposed to allowoperators to use SDT scrubber fanamperage as an alternative to pressuredrop measurement for SDT dynamicscrubbers operating at ambient pressureor for low-energy entrainment scrubberson SDTs where the fan speed does notvary (81 FR 9 7074—75]. We received nopttblic comments on the proposedchanges in wet scrubber parametermonitoring and, therefore, are finalizingthese monitoring requirements as

proposed.

c. changes to SSM Provisions

We received several com:ments on ourproposal to remove exemptions for SSMevents. See the comment summary andresponse document axrailable in thedocket for this action (Docket ID No.EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741) for public

comments an(l our responses relating toour proposal to remove the SSMexemption from 40 CfR part 63, subpartMM. An overview of our rationale forremoving this exemption is providedbelow.

In its 2008 decision in Sierra Club v.EPA, 551 f.3d 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2008), theUnited States Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia Circuit vacatedportions of two provisions in the EPA’sCAA section 112 regulations governingthe emissions of HAP during periods ofSSM. Specifically, the Court vacated theSSM exemption contained in 40 CFR63.6(f)(1] and 40 CFR 63.6(h)(l), holdingthat under section 3 02(k) of the CAA,emissions standards or limitations mustbe continuous in nature and that theSSM exemption violates the CAA’srequirement that some CAA section 112standards apply continuously.

We have eliminated the SSMexemption in this rule. Consistent withSierra Glob v. EPA, the EPA hasestablished standards in this rule thatapply at all times. We have also revisedTable 1 (the General Provisionsapplicability table) in several respects asis explained in more detail below. forexample, we have eliminated theincorporation of the General Provisions’requirement that the source develop anSSM plan. We have also eliminated andrevised certain recordkeeping andreporting that is related to the SSMexemption as described in detail in theproposed rule and summarized againhere.

In establishing the standards in thisrule, the EPA has taken into accountstartup and shutdown periods and, forthe reasons explained l)eiow, has notestablished alternate emissionsstandards for those periods.

Periods of startup, normal operations,and shutdown are all predictable androutine aspects of a source’s operations.Malfunctions, in contrast, are neitherpredictable nor routine. Insteac], theyare, by definition, sudden, infrequentand not reasonably preventable failuresof emissions control, process ormonitoring equipment (40 CFR 63.2)(definition of malfunction). The EPAinterprets CAA section 112 as notrequiring emissions that occur <luringperiods of malfunction to be factoredinto development of CAA section 112standards and this reading has beenupheld as reasonable by the D.C. Circuitin U.S. Sugar CoTp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d579, 606—610 (2016). Under CAAsection 112, emissions standards fornew sources must be no less stringentthan the level “achieved” by the bestcontrolled similar source, and forexisting sources, generally must be noless stringent than the average emission

limitation ‘achieved” by the bestperforming 12 percent of sources in thecategory. There is nothing in CAAsection 112 that directs the Agency toconsider malfunctions in determiningthe level “achieved” by the bestperforming sources when settingemissions standards. As the D.C. Circuithas recognized, the phrase ‘averageemissions limitation achieved by thebest performing 12 percent of” sources“says nothing about how theperformance of the best units is to becalculated.” Nat ‘I Ass ‘n of Glean WaterAgencies v. EPA, 734 f.3d 1115, 1141(D.C. Cir. 2013). While the EPAaccounts for variability in settingemissions standards, nothing in CAAsection 112 requires the Agency toconsider malfunctions as part of thatanalysis. A malfunction should not betreated in the same manner as the typeof variation in performance that occursduring routine operations of a source. Amalfunction is a failure of the source toperform in a ‘normal or usual manner”and no statutory language compels theEPA to consider such events in settingCAA section 112 standards.

As the D.C. Circuit recognized in US.Sugar Corp., accounting formalfunctions in setting emissionsstandards would be difficult, if notimpossible, given the myriad differenttypes of malfunctions that can occuracross all sources in the category andgiven the difficulties associated. withpredicting or accounting for thefrequency, degree, and duration ofvarious malfunctions that might occur.Id. at 608 (“the EPA would have toconceive of a standard that could applyequally to the wide range of possibleboiler malfunctions, ranging from anexplosion to minor mechanical defects.Any possible standard is likely to behopelessly generic to govern such awide array of circumstances.”] As such,the performance of units that aremalfunctioning is not “reasonably”foreseeable. See, e.g., Sierra Club v.

EPA, 167 F.3d 658, 662 (D.C. Cir. 1999](“The EPA typically has wide latitudein determining the extent of data-gathering necessary to solve a problem.We generally defer to an agency’sdecision to proceed on the basis ofimperfect scientific information, ratherthan to ‘invest the resources to conductthe perfect study.”) See also,Weverhaeuserv. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011,1058 (D.C. Cir. 1978) (“in the nature ofthings, no general limit, individualpermit, or even any upset provision cananticipate all upset situations. After acertain point, the transgression ofregulatory limits caused by‘uncontrollable acts of third parties,’


47338 Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195/Wednesday, October ii, 2017/Rules and Regulations

such as strikes, sal)otage, operatorintoxication or insanity, and a variety ofother eventualities, must be a matter forthe administrative exercise of case-by-case enforcement discretion, not forspecification in advance byregulation”). In addition, emissionsduring a malfunction event can besignificantly higher than emissions atany other time of source operation. Forexample, if an air pollution controldevice with 99 percent removal goes off-line as a result of a malfunction (asmight happen if, for example, the bagsin a baghouse catch fire) and theemission unit is a steady state type unitthat would take days to shut down, thesource would go from 99 percent controlto zero control until the control devicewas repaired. The source’s emissionsduring the malfunction would be 100times higher than during normaloperations. As such, the emissions overa 4-day malfunction period wouldexceed the annual emissions of thesource during normal operations. Asthis example illustrates, accounting formalfunctions could lead to standardsthat are not reflective of (andsignificantly less stringent than) levelsthat are achieved by a well-performingnon-malfunctioning source. It isreasonable to interpret CAA section 112to avoid such a result. The EPA’sapproach to malfunctions is consistentwith CAA section 112 and is areasonable interpretation of the statute.

In the event that a source fails tocomply with the applicable CAA section112(d) standards as a result of amalfunction event, the EPA woulddetermine an appropriate responsebased on, among other things, the goodfaith efforts of the source to minimizeemissions during malfunction periods,including preventative and correctiveactions, as well as root cause analysesto ascertain and rectify excessemissions. The EPA would alsoconsider whether the source’s failure tocomply with the CAA section 112(d)standard was, in fact, sudden,infrequent, not reasonably preventable.and was not instead caused in part bypoor maintenance or careless operation.

40 CFR 63.2 (definition of malfunction).If the EPA determines in a particular

case that an enforcement action against

a source for violation of an emiss:ions

standard is warranted, the source can

raise any and all defenses in thatenforcement action and the federaldistrict court will determine what, if

any, relief is appropriate. The same istrue for citizen enforcement actions.

Similarly, the presiding officer in an

administrative proceeding can considerany defense raised and determine

whether administrative penalties areappropriate.

In summary, the EPA interpretation ofthe CAA and, in particular, CAA section112 is reasonable and encouragespractices that will avoid malfunctions.Administrative and judicial proceduresfor addressing exceedances of thestandards fully recognize that violationsmay occur despite good faith efforts tocomply and can accommodate thosesituations. U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830F.3d 579, 606—61.0 (2016).

40 C’FR 63.860(d) General duty. Weare revising the General Provisions table(Table 1) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(e) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i) andchanging the ‘yes” in column 3 to a“no.” Section 63.6(e)(1)(i) describes thegene:cal duty to minimize emissions.Some of the language in that section isno longer necessary or appropriate inlight of the elimination of the SSMexemption. We are instead addinggeneral duty regulatory text at 40 CFR63.860(d) that reflects the general dutyto minimize emissions whileeliminating the reference to periodscovered by an SSM exemption. Thecurrent language in 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(i)characterizes what the general dutyentails during periods of SSM. With theelimination of the SSM exemption,there is no need to differentiate betweennormal operations, startup andshutdown, and malfunction events indescribing the general duty. Therefore,the language the EPA is promulgatingfor 40 CFR 63.860(d) does not includethat language from 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1).

We are also revising the GeneralProvisions table (Table 1) to add anenty for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(1)(ii] andinclude a “no” in column 3. Section63.6(e)(1)(ii) imposes requirements thatare not necessary with the eliminationof the SSM exemption or are redundantwith the general duty requirement beingadded at 40 CFR 63.860(d).

SSM plan. We are revising the GeneralProvisions table (Table i) to add anentry for 40 CFR 63.6(e)(3) and includea “no” in column 3. Generally, theseparagraphs require development of anSSM plan and specify SSMrecordkeeping and reportingrequirements related to the SSM plan.As noted, the EPA is removing the SSMexemptions. Therefore, affected unitswill be subject to an emissions standard.during stich events. The applicability ofa standard during such events willensure ‘that sources have ampleincentive to plan for and achievecompliance and, thus, the SSM planrequirements are no longer necessary.

Compliance with standards. We arerevising the General Provisions table(Table 1) entry for 40 CFR 63.6(f) by re

designating this section as 40 CFR63.6(11(l) and including a “no” incolumn 3. The current language of 40CFR 63.6(11(l) exempts sources fromnon-opacity standards during periods ofSSM. As discussed above, the Court inSierra c’lub vacated the exemptionscontained in this provision and heldthat the CAA requires that some CAAsection 112 standard applycont:inu ou sly. C o:nsistent with SierraC’ltth, the EPA is revising standards inthis rule to apply at all times.

We are revising the GeneralProvisions table (Table 1) entry for 40CFR 63.6(h) by re-designating thissection as 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1) andincluding a “no” in column 3. Thecurrent language of 40 CFR 63.6(h)(1)exempts sources from opacity standardsduring periods of SSM. As discussedabove, the Court in Sierra Club vacatedthe exemptions contained in thisprovision and held that the CAArequires that some CAA section 112standard apply continuously. Consistentwith Sierra c’lub, the EPA is revisingstandards in this rule to apply at alltimes.

40 C’FR 63.865 Performance testrequirements and test methods. We arerevising the General Provisions table(Table 1) entry for 40 CFR 63.7(e) by redesignating it as 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) andincluding a “no” in column 3. Section63.7(e)(l) describes performance testingrequirements. The EPA is insteadadding a performance testingrequirement at 40 CFR 63.865. Theperformance testing requirements weare adding differ from the GeneralProvisions performance testingprovisions in several respects. Theregulatory text does not include thelanguage in 40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) thatrestated the SSM exemption andlanguage that precluded startup andshutdown periods from beingconsidered “representative” forpurposes of performance testing. Therevised performance testing provisionsrequire testing under representativeoperating conditions, excluding periodsof startup and shutdown. As in 40 CFR63. 7(e)(1). performance tests conductedunder this subpart should not beconducted during malfunctions becauseconditions during malfunctions areoften not representative of normaloperating conditions. The EPA is addinglanguage that requires the owner oroperator to record the processinformation that is necessary todocument operating conditions duringthe test and include in such record anexplanation to support that suchconditions represent normal operation.Section 63.7(e) requires that the owneror operator make ava:iiable records “as


Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195 /Wednesday, October 11, 2017/Rules and Regulations 47339

may t)e necessary to determine thecondition of the performance est”tothe Administrator upon request, butdoes not specifically require theinformation to be recorded. Theregulatf)ry text the EPA is adding to thisprovision builds on that requirementand makes explicit the requirement torecord the information.

40 CFR 63.864 Monitoringrequirements. We are revising theGeneral Provisions table (Table 1) by redesignating 40 CFR 63.8(c) as 40 CFR63.8(c)(1), adding entries for 40 GFR63.8(c)(i)(i) through (iii) and including“no” in column 3 for paragraphs (1) and(iii). The cross-references to the generalduty and SSM plan requirements inthose subparagraphs are not necessaryin light of other requirements of 40 CFR63.8 that require good air pollutioncontrol practices (40 CFR 63.8(c)(1]) andthat set out the requirements of a qualitycontrol program for monitoringequipment (40 CFR 63.8(d)).

We are revising the GeneralProvisions table (Table 1) by adding anentry for 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) andincluding a ‘no” in column 3. The finalsentence in 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) refers tothe General Provisions’ SSM planrequirement which is no longerapplicable. The EPA is adding to therule at 40 CFR 63.864(f) text that isidentical to 40 CFR 63.8(d)(3) exceptthat the final sentence is replaced withthe following sentence: “The program ofcorrective action should be included inthe plan required under 40 CFR63.8(d)(2).”

40 C’FR 63.866 Recordkeepingrequirements. We are revising theGeneral Provisions table (Table 1) byadding an entry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(i)and including a “no” in column 3.Section 63. 10(b)(2)(i) describes therecordkeeping requirements duringstartup and shutdown. These recordingprovisions are no longer necessarybecause the EPA is promulgating thatrecordkeeping and reporting applicableto normal operations applies to startupand shutdown. In the absence of specialprovisions applicable to startup andshutdown, such as a startup andshutdown plan, there is no reason toretain additional recordkeeping forstartup and shutdown periods.

We are revising the GeneralProvisions table (Table 1] by adding anentry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2](ii) andincluding a “no” in column 3. Section63.10(b)(2)(ii) describes therecordkeeping requirements during amalfunction. The EPA is adding suchrequirements to 40 CFR 63.866(d). Theregulatory text we are adding differsfrom the General Provisions it isreplacing in that the General Provisions

requires the creation and retention of arecord of the occurrence and duration ofeach malfunction of process, airpollution control, and monitoringequipment. The EPA is applying therequirement to any failure to meet anapplicable standard and is requiring thatthe source record the date, time, andduration of the failure rather than the“occurrence.” The EPA is also adding to40 CFR 63.866(d) a requirement thatsources keep records that include a listof the affected source or equipment andactions taken to minimize emissions, anestimate of the quantity of eachregulated pollutant emitted over anyemission limit the source failed to meet,and a description of the method used toestimate the emissions. Examples ofsuch methods could include massbalance calculations, measurementswhen available, or engineeringjudgment based on known processparameters. The EPA is requiring thatsources keep records of this informationto ensure that there is adequateinformation to allow the EPA todetermine the severity of any failure tomeet a standard, and to provide datathat may document how the source metthe general duty to minimize emissionswhen the source has failed to meet anapplicable standard.

We are revising the GeneralProvisions table (Table 1) by adding anentry for 40 GFR 63.10(b)(2)(iv) andincluding a “no” in column 3. Whenapplicable, the provision requiressources to record actions taken duringSSM events when actions wereinconsistent with their SSM plan. Therequirement is no longer appropriatebecause SSM plans will no longer berequired. The requirement previc)uslyapplicable under 40 CFR63.l0(b](2)(iv)(B) to record actions tominimize emissions and recordcorrective actions is now applicable byreference to 40 GFR 63.866(d).

We are revising the GeneralProvisions table (Table 1) by adding anentry for 40 CFR 63.10(b)(2)(v] andincluding a “no” in column 3. Whenapplicable, the provision requiressources to record actions taken duringSSM events to show that actions takenwere consistent with their SSM plan.The requirement is no longerappropriate because SSM plans will nolonger be required.

We are revising the GeneralProvisions table (Table 1) by adding anentry for 40 CFR 63.10(c)(15) andincluding a “no” in column 3. The EPAis promulgating that 40 CFR 63.l0(c)(15)no longer applies. When applicable, the[):rf)vision allows an owner or operatorto use the affected sources SSM plan orrecords kept to satisfy the recordkeeping

requirements of the SSM plan, specifiedin 40 CFR 63.6(e), to also satisfy therequirements of 40 CFR 63.10(c)(10)through (12). The EPA is eliminatingthis requirement because SSM planswill no longer be required, and,therefore, 40 CFR 63.10(c)(l 5) no longerserves any useful purpose for affectedunits.

40 C’FR 63.867 Reportingrequirements. We are revising theGeneral Provisions table (Table 1) entryfor 40 CFR 63.l0(d)(5) by re-designatingit as 40 CFR 63.l0(d)(5)(i) and changingthe “yes” in column 3 to a “no.” Section63.10(d)(5)(i) describes the periodicreporting requirements for startups,shutdowns, and malfunctions. Toreplace the General Provisions reportingrequirement, the EPA is addingreporting requirements to 40 CFR63.867(c). The replacement languagediffers from the General Provisionsrequirement in that it eliminatesperiodic SSM reports as a stand-alonereport. We are promulgating languagethat requires sources that fail to meet anapplicable standard at any time to reportthe information concerning such eventsin the semiannual report alreadyrequired under this rule. We arepromuigatng that the rel)ort mustcontain the number, date, time,duration, and the cause of stich events(including unknown cause, ifapplicable), a list of the affected sourceor equipment, an estimate of thequantity of each regulated pollutantemitted over any emission limit, and adescription of the method used toestimate the emissions.

We will no longer require owners oroperators to determine whether actionstaken to correct a malfunction areconsistent with an SSM plan, becauseplans will no longer be required. Thefinal amendments, therefore, eliminatethe cross reference to 40 CFR63.10(d)(5)(i) that contains thedescription of the previously requiredSSM report format and submittalschedule from this section. Thesespecifications are no longer necessarybecause the events will be reported inotherwise required reports with similarformat and submittal requirements.

We are revising the GeneralProvisions table (Table 1) to add anentry for 40 CFR 63.10(d)(5)(ii) andinclude a “no” in column 3. Section63. 10(d)(5)(ii) describes an immediatereport for startups, shutdown, and.malfunctions when a source failed tomeet an applicable standard, but did notfollow the SSM l)ian. We will no longerrequire owners and operators to reportwhen actions taken during a startup,shutdown, or malfunction were not


47340 federal Register! Vol. 82, No. 195 /Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

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

D. Emissions Testing

Pei’iodic testing. As part of an ongoingeffort to improve compliance withvarious federal air emission regulationswe reviewed the 40 CFR part 63, subpartMM emissions testing and monitoringrequirements and proposed to requireperiodic emissions testing every 5 years.We proposed that the first of theperiodic performance tests be conductedwithin 3 years of the effective date ofthe revised standards and, thereafter,before the facilities renew their 40 CFRpart 70 operating permits, but no longerthan 5 years following the previousperformance test. The proposal requiredperiodic filterable PM testing forexisting and new kraft and sodarecovery furnaces, SDTs, and lime kilnsand sulfite combustion units; periodicmethanol testing for new kraft and sodarecovery furnaces; and periodic totalhydrocarbon (THC) testing for existingand new semichernical combustionunits (81 FR 97078).

Multiple commenters expressedconcern about the proposed requirementfor facilities to conduct periodic tests“before renewing their 40 CFR part 70operating permit,” arguing that thephrase was confusing and unnecessary,and they recommended that thewording linking periodic testing topermit renewal should be struck. Wehave reviewed these comments andagree that tying the timing for periodictesting to title V permit renewal couldbe considered confusing and couldunnecessarily complicate the rule.Therefore, we are finalizing (asproposed] the requirement to conductthe first of the periodic tests within 3years of the effective date of the revisedstandards and, thereafter, no longer than5 years following the previous test,without reference to permit renewal. Formore information, see the commentsummary and response documentavailable in the docket for this action(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741]. 12

Test conditions. We also proposed torevise the performance testrequirements to specify that“performance tests shall be conductedunder such conditions as theAdministrator specifies to the owner oroperator based on representativeperformance of the affected source forthe period being tested” (81 FR 97081).The proposed rule language wasincluded in 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMas a replacement for similar language in40 CFR 63.7(e)(1) that is no longer

12

entirely applicable because it stated thatperiods of SSM would not beconsidered a violation.

A commenter objected to theproposed language, stating that,depending on what ‘conditions” theAdministrator specifies, it may beimpossil)le to conduct performancetesting in the time frame required, whilesimultaneously meeting all theconditions the Administrator or theirdesignee may specify. The commentersuggested that the rule should simplyrequire that performance tests beconducted under normal operatingconditions. We agree that the proposedrule language needs clarification andhave revised the language for the finalrule to refer to “normal operatingconditions” and eliminate the phrase“such conditions as the Administratorspecifies to the owner or operator.”

E. C’Pi’vIS Operating Limits

We proposed specific changesregarding the establishment andenforcement of CPMS operating limits.A discussion of the proposed changes,the public comments received, and thechanges made for promulgation isprovided in the following paragraphsand presented in greater detail in thecomment summary and responsedocument available in the docket forthis action (Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741).13

Procedures for establishing operatinglimits. We proposed procedures forestablishing operating limits based ondata recorded by CPMS. The 40 CFRpart 63, subpart MM emissionsstandards include numerical emissionlimits, with compliance demonstratedthrough the proposed periodicperformance tests, and operating limits(e.g., opacity limits or continuouslymonitored parameter limits) used todemonstrate ongoing compliance inbetween performance tests. The originalsubpart MM regulatory text referredextensively to operating parameterranges and is not as speci:fic as morerecent NESHAPs in specifying howoperating limits are to be determined.Therefore, we proposed language toclarify the procedures for establishingparameter limits, beginning with thefirst periodic performance test proposedto be required under 40 CFR 63.865. Weproposed that the operating limits beestablished as the average of theparameter values associated with eachperformance test run in 40 CFR6 3.864(j). Wet scrubbers and RTOs havemininium operating limits, such that theEPA would consider 3-hour averagevalues below the minimum operating

limit to be a monitoring exceedance tobe reported under 40 CFR 63.867(c) (81FR 9 7078—79).

Multiple commenters objected to theproposed provisions in 40 CFR 63.864(j)that specify how operating parameterlimits are established. The commentersargued that use of the test averageconflicts with the language in 40 CFRpart 63, subpart MM that allows theoperating parameter limits to beexpanded based on additional test dataand limits the flexibility facilities needto establish an operating limit thatallows for the full range of processoperation. Commenters argued that theproposed methodology also conflictswith recent MACT rules such as theBoiler MACT rule (subpart DDDDD) thatallows use of the lowest or highestindividual test run to be used.Commenters concluded that flexibilityin use of the hourly average valueobtained during a test run and not thetest average is important to establishingoperating parameter limits that allow fora compliance demonstration atoperating conditions below full load.Commenters stated that the ability toconfirm the established operating limitduring subsequent testing is anotherimportant element of flexibility neededin subpart MM. Commenters alsorecommended that subpart Mlvl shouldiallow operating parameter limits to beadjusted to a level that is 90 percent ofthe value during the test to allow foroperational flexibility.

In response to these comments, wehave revised the rule from proposal toallow minimum operating parameterlimits to be established based on thelowest i-hour average value recordedduring a performance test thatdemonstrates compliance. We have alsorevised the rule from proposal to allowfacilities to confirm the establishedoperating limits during subsequenttesting instead of requiring the operatinglimits to be reestablished during eachrepeat test. With these addedflexibilities, in addition to provisionsincluded in 40 CFR 63.864(k) thatspecify corrective actions before anoperating parameter violation isincurred, we did not include thecommenter’s suggested 90 percentadljustment for minimum operatingparameter limits. Facilities mayestablish a range of parameter values byconducting multiple pei’forna;ice tests.

Exceedances of operating limits. Weproposed to eliminate the language in40 CFR 63.864(k)(3) providing that nomore than one non-opacity monitoringexceedance will be attributed in any 24-hour period (81 FR 97079). Multiplecommenters argued that the EPA shouldnot delete 40 CFR 63.864(k)(3), noting33


Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195 /Wednesday, October 11, 2017 /Rules and Regulations 47341

that facilities may experienceconsecutive 3-hour periods whereoperating parameter values (e.g.,concurrent scrubber flow and pressuredrop) are out of range as part of thesame event, despite a facility’s bestefforts to take corrective action as soonas possible. With the removal of the 24-hour defined period, commentersindicated it is unclear how to countconcurrent parameter events for thepurposes of determining anoncompliance count. Commenters alsonoted that 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMdoes not currently specify that the 3-hour wet scrubber continuousmonitoring systems (CMS) are averagedover 3-hour blocks or 3-hour rollingperiods and that states have not beenconsistent in applying this averagingperiod, so a facility with a 3-hour rollingaverage would consume the fiveallowed 3-hour averages in as little as 7hours.

In response to these comments, we arenot taking any final action to eliminateor in any way revise 40 CFR63.864(k)(3). We recognize that oneevent could trigger multiple 3-hourexceedances in a 24-hour period,especially for facilities using a 3-hourrolling average. As originallypromulgated, 40 CFR part 63, subpartMM did not specify whether 3-hoursaverages were to be reduced to 3-hourblock or 3-hour rolling averages. As aresult, commenters brought to ourattention that some facilities arecurrently using block averages, whileothers are using rolling averages.Keeping in place the current provisionin 40 CFR 63.864(k)(3) that no morethan one exceedance will be attributedin any given 24-hour period avoidscreating a difference in the complianceobligation between the two monitoringapproaches.

F. Recordkeeping and ReportingRequirements

We proposed specific changes to therecordkeeping and reportingrequirements. Major public commentson the proposed amendments to theserequirements and the EPA’s responsesare discussed in the paragraphs belowand presented in greater detail in thecomment summary and responsedocument, available in the docket forthis action (Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741).14

Reporting jrequ ency and electronicreporting. As originally promulgated, 40CFR part 63, subpart MM requires thatowners and operators of facilitiessubmit quarterly excess emissionsreports for monitoring exceedances and

14 Id.

periods of noncompliance andsemiannual reports when no excessemissions have occtirred during thereporting period. These excess emissionreports are typically submitted as a hardcopy to the delegated authority, andreports in this form usually are riotreadily available for the EPA and thepublic to analyze. We proposed thatsemiannual electronic reporting wouldprovide ample data to assess a facilitysperformance with regard to theemissions standards in subpart MM. Weproposed that all excess emissionsreports be submitted on a semiannualbasis in conjunction with requiringelectronic reporting as discussed below(81 FR 97079). We received l)ubliccomments supporting the reduction inreport:ing frequency and no commentsdisagreeing with this change. Therefore,we are finalizing this provision asproposed.

We proposed that owners andoperators of 40 CFR part 63, subpartMM facilities submit performance testreports, semiannual reports, andnotifications through CEDRI. The EPAbelieves that the electronic submittal ofthese reports will increase theusefulness of the data contained in thereports, is consistent with. current trendsin data availability, will further assist inthe protection of public health and theenvironment, and will ultimately resultin less burden on the regulatedcommunity (81 FR 97079).

Multiple commenters stated that theEPA’s proposed new electronicreporting requirement in 40 CFR part63, subpart MM will be excessivelyburdensome to industry and is notjustified. We disagree with thesecomments. Based on the analysisperformed for the proposed ElectronicReporting and RecordkeepingRequirements for the New SourcePerformance Standards (i.e., the NSPSelectronic reporting rule) (80 FR 15100),electronic reporting results in an overallcost savings to industry whenannualized over a 20-year period,although there are some initial costs inthe short term (80 FR 15111). The costsavings is achieved through means suchas standardization of data, embeddedquality assurance (QA) checks,automatic calculation routines, andreduced data entry through the ability toreuse data in files instead of startinganew with each report. As outlined inthe NSPS electronic reporting rule, thereare many benefits to electronic reportingspanning all users of the data—the EPA,state and local regulators, the regtilatedentities. and the public. In the preambleto this proposed rule (81 FR 97079—80),we provided a number of reasons whythe electronic reporting required by the

amendments will provide benefits goingforward and that most of the benefits weoutlined were longer-term benefits (e.g.,eliminating “paper-based, manualprocesses, thereby saving time andresources, simplifying data entry,eliminating redundancies, minimizingdata reporting errors and providing dataquickly and accurately to the affectedfacilities, air agencies, the EPA and thepublic.”). For these reasons, we arefinalizing the requirement toelectronically report test results throughCEDRI using the Electronic ReportingTool (ERT).

One commenter noted that the EPA’sERT, which is used to generate the testdata files uploaded to the EPA’s CDXthrough CEDRI, continues to be revisedand updated due to various flaws. Thecommenter argued that it isunreasonable to put sources at risk ofviolations (due to late or inaccuratereporting] because of EPA reporting toolissues or availability. At a minimum,the commenter suggested that therequirement to use a particular CEDRIform should stipulate that the form hasbeen available for 1 year, per therecently signed final, but not publishedNSPS electronic reporting rule.According to the commenter, that rulealso provides for a reporting extensionin the event of an outage of the EPA’sCDX or CEDRI the week prior to areport’s due date. The commenterstiggested that this same allowanceshould be provided in 40 CFR part 63,subpart MM if the electronic reportingrequirement is finalized.

We agree that it is unreasonable to putsources at risk of violations because ofEPA reporting tool issues or availability.Based on commenter input and ourconsideration of the tasks that facilitiesmust conduct prior to initialcompliance, we have determined 1 yearfront the posting of the reporting form(i.e., a spreadsheet template) on theCEDRI Web site will provide for a moreefficient transition to electronicreporting of semiannual reports. Fort.hese reports, the initial compliancedate t’or electronic reporting will be 1year from the date the form is posted onthe CEDRI Web site. We have also addedlanguage to the final rule to providefacilities with the ability to seekelectronic reporting extensions forcircumstances beyond. the control of thefacility, i.e.. for a possible outage in theCDX or CEDRI or for a force ma jeureevent in the time just prior to a report’sdue date. If either the CDX or CEDRI isunavailable at any time beginning 5business days prior to the date that thesubmission is due, and theunavailability prevents the submissionof a report by the required date. a


47342 Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195 /Wednesday, October 11, 2017/Rules and Regulations

facility may assert a claim of EPAsystem outage. We consider 5 businessdays prior to the reporting deadline tobe an appropriate timeframe because ifthe system is down prior to this time,facilities will have 1 reek to completereporting once the system is backonline. We will provide notification ofknown outages as far in advance aspossil)le by the EPA’s Clearinghouse forInventories and Emissions Factors(CHIEF) Listserv notice, posting on theCEDRI Web site and posting on the CDXWeb site to enable facilities to planaccordingly. However, if a planned orunplanned outage occurs and a facilitybelieves that it will affect or it hasaffected compliance with an electronicreporting requirement, we haveprovided a process to assert such aclaim. A force majeure event is an eventthat will be or has been caused bycircumstances beyond the control of theaffected facility, its contractors. or anyentity controlled by the affected facilitythat prevents you from complying withthe requirement to submit a reportelectronically as required by this rule.Examples of such events are acts ofnature, acts of war or terrorism, orequipment failure or safety hazardsbeyond the control of the facility. Ifsuch an event occurs or is still occurringor if there are still lingering effects ofthe event in the 5 business days prior toa submission deadline, we haveprovided a process to assert a claim offorce majeure. In both circumstances,reporting should occur as soon aspossible once the situation has beenresolved. We are providing thesepotential extensions to protect facilitiesfrom noncompliance in cases when afacility cannot successfully submit areport by the reporting deadline forreasons outside of its control, asdescribed above. We are not providingan extension for other instances. Youshould register for CEDRI far in advanceof the initial compliance date, in orderto make sure that you can complete theidentity proofing process prior to theinitial compliance date. Additionally,we recommend you start developingreports early, in case any questions ariseduring the reporting process.

While we do agree that more time isnecessary to comply with electronicreporting requirements for semiannualreports, we do not agree that more timeis necessary to comply with electronicreporting requirements for perfo:rmancetest reports and performance evaluationreports, which are uploads of ERT files.The allotted 60 days should be ampletime to determine whether reports usingthe ERT need to be uploaded to the CDXthrough CEDRI. We also disagree that

the ERT continues to be revised andupdated due to various flaws. Weacknowledge that, in early versions ofthe ERT, there were some issues,particularly related to rounding results.However, we have diligently worked toaddress issues as they have beenbrought to our attention. We have alsoadded many improvements to the ERTbased on feedback from users. We arefinalizing the requirement to submitreports electronically to the EPAthrough CEDRI.

If the requirement for using CEDRI forelectronic reporting remains in the finalrule, commenters stated they wouldprefer filling and uploading thespreadsheet to fulfill the reportingrequirements rather than entering therequired information into a filiableCEDRI web form and increasing thechances of transcription errors, if theymust choose between approaches.However, the commenters indicatedtheir ultimate preference would be forfacilities to upload their own already-formatted reports generated from theirDAS, rather than reformatting thecurrent information to fit the EPA’sreporting form.

We acknowledge the commenter’ssupport for the use of the spreadsheetstyle form for fulfilling reportingredluirements. We intend to solely usethe spreadsheet-style form for this rulein lieu of a fillable web form orextensible markup language (XML)submittal. Commenters provided avariety of detailed comments on thesemiannual compliance reportingspreadsheet for 40 CFR part 63, subpartMM, which have resulted in a numberof changes to the spreadsheet reportingform (template) for the final rule. Formore information, see the commentsummary and response document,available in the docket for this action(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741).’ We have also placed a copy ofthe revised electronic reportingspreadsheet template incorporatingpublic comments in the docket. Thespreadsheet template includes tal)5 forexcess emissions summary reports andexcess emissions detailed reports (ifrequired). We are not allowing free-formexcess emissions summary reportsbecause this does not allow for efficientelectronic compilation of theinfo:rmation reported, a key benefit ofelectronic reporting. The final rulerequires use of the excess emissionssummary report tabs in the spreadsheettemplate for each semiannual report.However, when detailed reporting isrequired (e.g., due to the number ofoperating limit exceedances or monitor

15 Id.

downtime), facilities would be allowedto submit detailed reports in either thespreadsheet template format provided orin an alternative format specifying therequired details (e.g., as a separate fileupload into CEDRI) given the length ofdetailed reports. Allowing a file uploadof detailed reports in an alternate formatallows facilities to provide datagenerated from their DAS.

As another burden-reducing measure,we have reduced the number ofnotifications proposed to be uploadedinto CEDRI. As proposed, an electroniccopy of all notifications required under40 CFR part 63, subpart MM would havebeen required to be uploaded intoCEDRI. Subpart MM requires numerousnotifications listed in the NESHAPGeneral Provisions (40 CFR part 63,subpart A), as specified in Table 1 ofsubpart MM. For example, facilities arerequired to notify their delegatedauthority prior to conducting orrescheduling performance tests, as wellas in the event of a CMS performanceevaluation. Considering comments onelectronic reporting in general, and afterreviewing the number of notifications,we revised the final rule to only requireupload of initial notifications requiredin 40 CFR 63.9(b), notifications ofcompliance status required in 40 CFR63.9(h), and the report of PM emissionlimits required in 40 CFR 63.867(b) tobe included in a notification ofcompliance status. This change focusesCEDRI-reporting of notifications forsubpart MM on key (non-routine)notifications that will be the mostinformative in conjunction withelectronically submitted emissions testreports and semiannual reports. Any ofthese notifications required after 2 yearsfollowing the effective date of the finalrule would be required to be uploadedinto CEDRI in a user-specified fileformat. No specific form is beingdesigned for subpart MM notificationsat this time.

Excess emissions recordkeeping andreporting. We proposed specifying in 40CFR 63.867(c)(l) and (3) the reportingrequirements from the NESHAP GeneralProvisions for the excess emissions andstimmary reports. We believed thatspecifying the General Provisionreporting requirements for the proposedsemiannual reports in 40 CFR part 63,sttbpart MM would help eliminateconfusion as to which report issubmitted (e.g., full excess emissionsreport or summary report) and thecontent of the rec1uired report (81 FR97080).

The EPA’s intent with the proposedrevisions to 40 CFR 63.$67(c)(l) and (3)was to include the relevant languagefrom 40 CFR 63.i0(e)(3) of the General


Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195/Wednesday, October 11, 2017/Rules and Regulations 47343

Provisions specifying the contents ofsummary and detailed excess emissionsreports into 40 CFR part 63, subpart MMto improve clarity. However, wereceived public comments indicatingthat duplicating the relevant portions of40 CFR 63.10(e)(3) as proposed mayhave caused some confusion. To remedythis confusion, we are splitting out theparagraphs of 40 CFR 63.10(e) and63.10(e)(3) in the General Provisionsapplicability table (Table 1 to SubpartMM of Part 63] to more clearly indicatewhich sections apply or are replaced bysections in subpart MM. We arefinalizing a revised version of 40 CFR63.867(c)(1) that removes the proposedreferences to paragraphs in 40 CFR63.10(e](3), replaced by 40 CFR63.867(c)(1). We are also noting in. Table1 that 40 CFR 63.867(c](1] and (3)specify the contents of the summary anddetailed excess emissions reports. Weare finalizing a revised version of§ 63.867(c) that refers to the proceduresin 40 CFR 63.867(d)(2] and 40 CFR63.10(e](3)(v) for submittal of thesemiannual excess emission reports andsummary reports.

Section 63 .10(e)(3)(v) continues toapply and is not being replaced withlanguage in 40 CFR part 63, subpartMM. This section specifies the deliverydate for the report (i.e., post-marked bythe 30th business day following eachcalendar half) and general content forthe report. The final rule now relies on40 CFR 63.10(e)(3](v) for therequirement: “When no excessemissions or exceedances of a parameterhave occurred, or a CMS has not beeninoperative, out of control, repaired, oradjusted, such information shall bestated in the report.”

In addition, we are not finalizing theproposed requirement in 40 CfR63.867(c)(3)(iii](A](2) to include in thedetailed excess emissions re;)ort thenumber of 6-minute opacity averagesremoved due to invalid readings, toaddress a comment that including thisprovision could imply that invalidopacity averages are periods of excessemissions. The CMS performancesummary portion of the summary anddetail reports provide sufficientinformation on the duration of invalidreadings.

We proposed to revise therecordkeeping requirements section in40 CFR 63.866(d)(2) to require thatsources record information on failuresto meet the applicable standard (81 FR97081). We further proposed in 40 CFR63.86 7(c)(4] to require reporting of thisinformation in the excess emissionsreport along with an estimate ofemissions associated with the failure.Multiple commenters objected to the

proposed requirement that would haverequired an emissions estimate inassociation with opacity or parameteroperating limits. The commentersargued that attempting to quantifyemissions that may theoretically resultfrom a violation of monitoringrequirements would be extremelyburdensome, impracticable, and wouldresult in over-reporting and inaccurateemissions estimates. The commentersstated that, with a large margin ofcompliance, a monitoring violation maynot actually result in emissions inexcess of the applicable emission limit.They recommended that this prol)osedlanguage be revised.

In response to this comment, we haverevised the language in the finalrulemaking to require emissionsestimates to be provided in thesemiannual report only for failures tomeet ‘emission limits,” such as the PM(HAP metal), methanol, or THC limitscontained in 40 CFR part 63, subpartMM. Failures to meet emission limitsare likely to be discovered duringperiodic emissions tests, which providea quantitative means for estimatingemissions. Failures also includeviolations of opacity and parameteroperating limits as specified in§ 63.864(k)(2), which are required to bereported with the correspondingnumber of failures, and the date, time,and duration of each failure in thesemiannual report. The final rule doesnot require reporting of an emissionsestimate associated with failure to meetan opacity or parameter operating limit,but does require facilities to maintainsufficient information to provide anemissions estimate if such an estimatewas requested by the Administrator.

G. Technical and Editorial Ghanges

The EPA is finalizing as proposed (81FR 97081) several technical andeditorial corrections on which wereceived no public comments,including:

• Revisions throughout 40 CFR part63, subpart MM to clarify the locationin 40 CFR part 60 of applicable EPA testmethods;

• Revisions throughout 40 CFR part63, subpart MM to update the facilityname for Cosmo Specialty fibers;

• Revisions to the definitions sectionin 40 CFR 63.861 to:

o Remove the definition for ‘blackliquor gasification” and removereference to black liquor gasification inthe definitions for “kraft recoveryfurnace.” ‘recovery furnace.”“semichemical combustion unit,” and•‘soda recovery furnace”;

O Remove the SSM exemption fromthe definition for ‘‘modification’;

Clarify that the definition for“particulate matter (PM]” refers tofilterable PM;

C Remove reference to use of one-halfof the method detection limit for non-detect Method 29 measurements withinthe definition of “hazardous airpollutant (HAP] metals”;

O Change the definition for “smeltdissolving tanks (SDT]” to refer to thesingular ‘smelt dissolving tank (SDT]”to be consistent with the use of the termin the rule; and

O Remove the definition for “startup”that pertains to the former black liquorgasification system at Georgia-Pacific’sfacility in Big Island, Virginia.

• Correction of a misspelling in 40CFR 63.862(c).

• Revisions to multiple sections (40CFR 63.863, 63.866, and 63.867] toremove reference to the former smeltersand former black liquor gasificationsystem at Georgia-Pacific’s facility inBig Island, Virginia.

• Revisions to the monitoringrequirements section in 40 CFR 63.864to add reference to PerformanceSpecification 1 (PS—i) in COMSmonitoring provisions and addincorporation by reference (IBR] for bagleak detection systems.

• Revisions to the performance testrequirements section in 40 CFR 63.865to change the ambient oxygenconcentration in Equations 7 and 8 from21 percent to 20.9 percent to makesubpart Mlvi consistent with the rest ofthe NESHAPs.

• Revision to the terminology in thedelegation of authority section in 40CFR 63.868 to match the definitions in40 CFR 63.90.

• Revisions to the General Provisionsappli.cablhty table (Table I to subpartMM of part 63] to align with thosesections of the General Provisions thathave been amended or reserved overtime.

V. Summary of Cost, Environmental,and Economic Impacts and AdditionalAnalyses Conducted

A. What are the affected sources?

There are currently 107 major sourcepulp and paper mills operating in theU.S. that conduct chemical recoverycombustion operations, including 97kraft pulp mills. 1 soda pulp mill, 3sulfite pulp mills, and 6 stand-alonesemichemical pulp mills. The existingaffected source regulated at kraft or sodapulp mills is each existing chemicalrecovery system, defined as all existingDCE and NDCE recovery furnaces,SDTs, and lime kilns. A DCE recoveryfurnace system is defined to include theDCE recovery furnace and BLO system


47344 federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195/Wednesday, October Ii, 2017/Rules and Regulations

at the pulp mill. New affected sourcesat kraft or soda puip mills include eachnew recovery furnace and associatedSDT. and each new lime kiln. SubpartMM of 40 CFR part 63 affected sourcesalso include each new or existingchemical recovery combustion unitlocated at a sulfite pulp mill or at astand-alone semichemical pulp mill.

B. What are the air quality impacts?

At the current level of control,emissions of HAPs (HAP metals, acidgases, and gaseous organic HAPs) areapproximately 11,600 tpy. Currentemissions of PM (a surrogate pollutantfor HAP metals) and total reduced sulfurcompounds (emitted by the samemechanism as gaseous organic HAP) areapproximately 23,200 tpy and 3,600 tpy,respectively.

The final amendments require all 107mills subject to 40 CFR part 63, subpartMM to conduct periodic testing for theirchemical recovery combustionoperations; 96 mills with recoveryfurnaces or lime kilns equipped withESP controls to meet more stringentopacity monitoring allowances andcomply with a requirement to maintainproper operation of the ESP’s AVC; andall 107 mills to operate without the SSMexemption. The EPA estimates that thefinal changes to the opacity monitoringallowances will result in no emissionsreductions. We were unable to quantifythe specific emissions reductionsassociated with periodic emissionstesting or eliminating the SSMexemption, and we expect no emissionsreductions with the aforementioned ESPrequirement. Periodic testing will helpfacilities understand the emissions fromand performance of their processes andcontrol systems, and will help toidentify potential issues that mayotherwise go unnoticed, and thus,providing benefit to both the facilitiesand to surrounding populations.Eliminating the SSM exemption willreduce emissions by requiring facilitiesto meet the applicable standards at alltimes.

Indirect or secondary air emissionsimpacts are impacts that would restIltfrom the increased electricity usageassociated with the operation of controldevices (i.e.. increased secondaryemissions of criteria pollutants frompower plants, which include PM,carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, andsulfur dioxide). Energy impacts includethe electricity and steam needed tooperate control devices and otherequipment that would be requiredunder this final rule. The EPA estimatesthat the final changes to the opacitymonitoring allowances will result in noenergy impacts or secondary emissions

of criteria pollutants. The EPA alsoexpects no secondary air emissionsimpacts or energy impacts from theother final require in ents.

For further information on theseimpacts, see the memorandum titled,Revised Costs/Impacts of the SubpartMM Residual Risk cind TechnologyReview for Prom ulgation, available inthe docket for this action (Docket ID No.EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741).

C. What are the cost impacts?

Costs associated with elimination ofthe startup and shutdown exemptionwere estimated as part of the reportingand recordkeeping costs and includetime for re-evaluating previouslydeveloped SSM record systems. Costs totransition to electronic excess emissionsreporting anti adjust existing recordsystems for the revised opacitymonitoring allowances were alsoestimated as part of the reporting andrecordkeeping costs. Costs associatedwith periodic testing were estimated forthe 73 mills that do not already conductperiodic testing and include the costsfor EPA Method 5 filterable PM testingfor kraft and soda recovery furnaces,lime kilns, and SDTs and sulfitecombustion units; EPA Method 308methanol testing for new kraft and sodarecovery furnaces; and EPA Method 25ATHC testing for semichemicalcombustion units. Costs associated withthe requirement to maintain properoperation of ESP AVC were estimatedfor the 96 mills with ESP-controlledrecovery furnaces and lime kilns andinclude only recordkeeping costs, sinceexisting ESPs are already expected tohave these systems. The EPA estimatesthe nationwide capital costs associatedwith these new requirements to be $3.8million and the nationwide annual coststo be $0.97 million to $1.0 million peryear at 3 percent and 7 percent interestrates, respectively.

For further information on these costs,see the memorandum titled, RevisedCosts/impacts of the Subpa;’t MMResidctal Risk and Technology Reviewfor Promulgation, available in thedocket for this action (Docket ID No.EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741).

D. What are the economic impacts?

The economic impact analysis isdesigned to inform decision makersabout the potential economicconsequences of a regulatory action. Forthe final rule. the EPA performed apartial-equilibrium analysis of nationalpulp and paper product markets toestimate potential paper product marketimpacts, as well as consumer antiproducer welfare impacts of theregulatory options.

Across regulatory options. the EPAestimates market-level changes in thepaper and paperboard markets to beinsignificant. For the final rule, the EPApredicts national-level weighted averagepaper and paperboard prices to increaseabout 0.01 percent. while totalproduction levels decrease less than0.01 percent on average.

In addition, the EPA performed asc:reening analysis for impacts on smallbusinesses by comparing estimatedannualized engineering compliancecosts at the firm-level to firm sales. Thescreening analysis found that the ratioof compliance cost to firm revenue fallsbelow 1 percent for the three smallcompanies likely to be affected by thefinal rule. for small firms, the minimumand maximum cost-to-sales ratios areless than 1 percent.

More information and details of thisanalysis are provided in the technicaldocument, titled Economic ImpactAnalysis for Final Revisions to theNational Emissions Standards foriiazardous Air Pollutants, Subpart MM,for the Pulp and Paper Industry,available in the docket for this final rule(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741).

E. What are the benefits?

We do not estimate any significantreductions in HAP emissions as a resultof these final amendments. However,the amendments will help to improvethe clarity of the rule, which willimprove compliance and, therefore,minimize emissions. Certain provisionsalso provide operational flexibility withno increase in HAP emissions.

F. What analysis of environmentaljustice did we conduct?

We examined the potential for anyenvironmental justice issues that mightbe associated with the source categoryby performing a demographic analysisof the population close to the facilities.In this analysis, we evaluated thedistribution of HAP-related cancer andnon-cancer risks from the subpart MMsou.rce category across different social,demographic, and econ o;nic groupswithin the populations living nearfacilities identified as having the highestrisks. The methodology and the resultsof the demographic analyses areincluded in a technical report, Risk andTech nologv Review—A nalysis of SocioEconomic Factors for Populations LivingNear Pulp Mill Combustion Soctrces.available in the docket for this action(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741). The results, for variousdemographic groups. are based on theestimated risks from actual emissions


federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195/Wednesday, October Ii, 2017/Rules and Regulations 47345

levels for the population living within50 kilometers (km) of the facilities:’6

The results of the subpart MM sourcecategory demographic analysis in ]icatethat emissions from the source categoryexpose approximately 7,600 people to acancer risk at or above 1-in-i millionand do not expose any person to achronic non-cancer TOS HI greater than1. The specific demographic resultsindicate that the percentage of thepopulation potentially impacted byemissions is greater than itscorresponding national percentage forthe minority population (33 percent forthe source category compared to 28percent nationwide), the AfricanAmerican population (28 percent for thesource category compared to 13 percentnationwide) and for the population overage 25 without a high school diploma(18 percent for the source categorycompared to 15 percent nationwide).The proximity results (irrespective ofrisk) indicate that the populationpercentages for certain demographiccategories within 5 km of sourcecategory emissions are greater than thecorresponding national percentage forthose same demographics. Thefollowing demographic percentages forpopulations residing within closeproximity to facilities with chemicalrecovery combustion sources are higherthan the corresponding nationwidepercentage: African American, ages 65and up, over age 25 without a highschool diploma, and below the povertylevel.

The risks due to HAP emissions fromthis source category are low for allpopulations (e.g., inhalation cancer risksare less than 4-in-i million for allpopulations and non-cancer HIs are lessthan 1). Furthermore, we do not expectthis final rule to achieve significantreductions in HAP emissions. SectionIV.B of this preamble addressesopportunities as l)art of the technologyreview to further reduce HAP emissions.We did not find these technologies to becost effective.

Therefore, we conclude that this finalrule will not have disproportionatelyhigh and adverse human health orenvironmental effects on minority orlow-income populations because it doesnot affect the level of protectionprovided to human health or theenvironment. 1-lowever, this final rulewill provide additional benefits to thesedemographic groups by improving thecorn pliance, monitoring, andimplementation of the NESHAP.

16 This metric comes from the Benzene NESHAP.See 54 FR 38045.

G. H/hat analysis of children’senvironmental health did we conduct?

This action is not subject to ExecutiveOrder 13045 because it is noteconomically significant as defined inExecutive Order 12866, and because theEPA does not believe the environmentalhealth risks or safety risks addressed by•this action present a disproportionaterisk to children. The results of thesubpart MM source categorydemographic analysis 17 indicate thatapproximately 7,600 people are exposedto a cancer risk at or above i-in-imillion and no one is exposed to achronic non-cancer TOSHI greater than1 due to emissions from the sourcecategory. The distribution of thepopulation with risks above i-in-imillion is 26 percent for ages 0 to 17,6i percent for ages 18 to 64, and 13percent for ages 65 and up. Childrenages 0 to 17 also constitute 24 percentof the population nationwide.Therefore, the analysis shows thatactual emissions from 40 CFR part 63,subpart MM facilities have only aslightly greater impact on children agesOto 17.

VI. Statutory and Executive OrderReviews

Additional information about thesestatutes and Executive Orders can befound at h ttp ://www2. epa .gov/la ,vsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: RegulatoryPlanning and Review and ExecutiveOrder 13563: Improving Regulation andRegulatory Review

This action is not a significantregulatory action and was therefore notsubmitted to the Office of Managementand Budget (0MB) for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: ReducingRegulations and Con trolling Regu IatorvCosts

This action is not an Executive Order13771 regulatory action because thisaction is not significant under ExecutiveOrder 12866.

C. Paperwork Redctction Act (PRA]

The information collection activitiesin this rule have been submitted forapproval to 0MB tinder the PRA. TheICR document that the EPA preparedhas been assigned EPA ICR number1805.09. You can find a copy of the ICRin the (locket for this rule (Docket ID No.EPA—HQ—OAR—20i4—0741), and it isbriefly summarized here. The

Seo the following (]ofalment in. the dockettitlecL. Risk and Thchnologv Rcview—Analvsis ofSocio-Economic Fac:tors tol’ Populations Liuin NearPulp Will Combustion Sources.

information collection requirements arenot enforceable until 0MB approvesthem.

The information requirements arebased on notification, recordkeeping,and reporting requirements in theNESHAP General Provisions, which areessential in determining complianceand mandatory for all operators subjectto national emissions standards. Theserecordkeeping and reportingrequirements are specifically authorizedby CAA section 114 (42 U.S.C. 7414).All information submitted to the EPApursuant to the recordkeeping andreporting requirements for which aclaim of confidentiality is made issafeguarded according to Agencypolicies set forth in 40 CFR part 2,subpart B.

We are finalizing changes to the 40CFR part 63. subpart MM paperworkrequirements in tile form of eliminatingthe SSM reporting and SSM planrequirements, adding periodicemissions testing for selected processequipment, revising opacity monitoringallowances. adding a recordkeepingrequirement for recovery furnaces andlime kilns equipped with ESPs,reducing the frequency of all excessemissions reports to semiannual, andrequiring electronic submittal of allperformance test. reports andsemiannual reports.

Respondents/affected entities:Respondents include chernicai pulpmills operating equipment subject to 40CFR part 63, subpart MM.

Respondent’s obligation to respond:Mandatory (authorized by section 114 ofthe CAA].

Estimated number of respon dents:107.

Frequency of response: The frequencyof responses varies depending on theburden item. Responses includenotifications, reports of periodicperformance tests, and semiannualcompliance reports.

Total estimated burden: Theestimated annual recordkeeping andreporting burden for this informationcollection, averaged over the first 3years of this ICR, is 124,085 labor hoursper year. Burden is defined at 5 CFR1320,3(b).

Total estimated cost: $14.1 to 14.2million per year. including $13.4million per year in labor costs and $0.7to 0.8 million per year in annualizedcapital costs at 3 pel’cellt and 7 percentinterest, respectively. These estimatedcosts represent the full ongoinginformation collection burden for 40CFR part 63, subpart MM. as revised bythe final amendments beingpromulgated.


47346 federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Weclnesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

An agency may not conduct orsponsor, and a person is not required torespond to, a co]]ection of informationunless it displays a currently valid 0MBcontrol number. The 0MB controlnumbers for the EPA’s regulations in 40CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When0MB approves this ICR, the Agency willannounce that approval in the federalRegister and publish a technicalamendment to 40 CfR part 9 to displaythe 0MB control number for theapproved information collectionactivities contained in this final rule.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

I certify that this action will not havea significant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entitiesunder the RFA. In making thisdetermination, the impact of concern isany significant adverse economicimpact on small entities. An agency maycertify that a rule will not have asignificant economic impact on asubstantial number of small entities ifthe rule relieves regulatory burden, hasno net burden or otherwise has apositive economic effect on the smallentities subject to the rule. The EPAestimates that all affected small entitieswill have annualized costs of less than1 percent of their sales. We have,therefore, concluded that this actionwill have no net regulatory burden forall directly regulated small entities. Formore information on the small entityimpacts associated with this rule, pleaserefer to the Economic Impact Analvsisfor final Revisions to the NotionalEmissions Standards for Hazardous AirPollutants, Subpart MM, for the Pulpand Paper Industry in the public docket(Docket ID No. EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741).

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act(UMRA)

This action does not contain anunfunded mandate of $100 million ormore as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.1531—1538, and does not significantly oruniquely affect small governments. Theaction imposes no enforceable duty onany state, local, or tribal governments C)C

the private sector.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

This action does not have federalismimplications. It will not have substantialdirect effects on the states, on therelationship between the nationalgovernment and the states, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities among the variouslevels of government.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultationand Coordination With Indian TribalGovernmnts

This action does not have tribalimplications as specified in ExecutiveOrder 13175. It will not have substantialdirect effects on tribal governments, onthe relationship between the federalgovernment and Indian tribes, or on thedistribution of power andresponsibilities between the federalgovernment and Indian tribes, asspecified in Executive Order 13175.This final rule imposes requirements onowners and operators of kraft, soda,sulfite, and stand-alone semichemicalpulp mills and not tribal governments.The EPA does not know of any pulpmills owned or operated by Indian tribalgovernments, or located within triballands. However, if there are any. theeffect of this rule on communities oftribal governments would not be uniqueor disproportionate to the effect on othercommunities. Thus, Executive Order13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection ofChildren From Environmental HealthRisks and Safety Risks

This action is not subject to ExecutiveOrder 13045 because it is noteconomically significant as defined inExecutive Order 12866, and because theEPA does not believe the environmentalhealth or safety risks addressed by thisaction present a disproportionate risk tochildren. This action’s health and riskassessments are contained in sectionIV.A of this preamble and furtherdocumented in the risk report titled,Residual Risk Assessment for Pulp MillCombustion Sources in Support of theOctober 2017 Risk and TechnologyReview Final Rttle. available in thedocket for this action (Docket ID No.EPA—HQ—OAR—2o14—0741).

I. Executive Order 13211: ActionsConcerning Regulations ThatSignificantly Affect Energy Supply,Distribution, or Use

This action is not sul)ject to ExecutiveOrder 13211 because it is not asignificant regulatory action underExecutive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer andAdvancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFRPart 51

This action involves technicalstandards. While the EPA identifiedASTM D6784—02 (Reapproved 2008),“Standard Test Method for Elemental,Oxidized, Particle-Bound and TotalMercu;’v Gas Generated from Coal-FiredStationary Sources (Ontario HydroMethod)” as being potentiallyapplicable, the Agency decided not to

use it. The use of this voluntaryconsensus standard would beimpractical because this standard isonly acceptable as an alternative to theportion of EPA Method 29 for mercury,and emissions testing for mercury aloneis not required under 40 CFR part 63,subpart MM.

The EPA is incorporating into 40 CFRpart 63, subpart MM the followingguidance document: EPA—454/R—98—015, Office of Air Quality Planning andStandards (OAQPS), Fabric Filter BagLeak Detection Guidance, September1997. This guidance document providesprocedures for selecting, installing,setting up. adjusting, and operating abag leak detection system; and alsoincludes QA procedures. This guidancedocument is readily accessible ath ttps://www. epa .gov/emc/emccontinuaus-emission -in onitoringsystems.

K. Executive Order 12898: FederalActions To Address EnvironmentalJustice in Minority Populations andLow-In coin e Populations

The EPA believes that this action doesnot have disproportionately high andadverse human health or environmentaleffects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenouspeoples, as specified in Executive Order12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

The documentation for this decisionis contained in section \1.f of thispreamble and the technical report titled,Risk and Technology Review—Analysisof Socio-Econoinic Factors forPoptilations Living Near Pttlp MillCombustion Sources, in the publicdocket for this action (Docket ID No.EPA—HQ—OAR—2014—0741).

L. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

This action is subject to the CRA, andthe EPA will submit a rule report toeach House of the Congress and to theComptroller General of the UnitedStates. This action is not a “major rule”as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Enviroiimental protection.Administrative practice and procedures,Air pollution control, Hazardoussubstances. Incorporation by reference,Intergovernmental relations, Pulp andpaper mills. Reporting andrecorclkeeping requirements.

Dated: September 29, 2017.

E. Scott Pruitt,Adin ini.’tm tar.

For the reasons set out in thepiearnbie, title 40, chapter 1, part 63 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations isamended as follows:


Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195/Weclnesday, October ii, 2017/Rules and Regulations 47347

PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSIONSTANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIRPOLLUTANTS FOR SOURCECATEGORIES

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

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

Subpart A—[Amended]

• 2. Section 63.14 is amender]. byrevising paragraph (m)(3) to read asfollows:

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference.* * * * *

(m) * * *

(3) EPA—454/R—98—015, Office of AirQuality Planning and Standards(OAQPS], Fabric Filter Bag LeakDetection Guidance, September 1997,https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDf.cgi?Dockey=2000D5T6.PDf, IBRapproved for §5 63.548(e), 63.864(e),63.7525(j), 63.8450(e), 63.8600(e), and63.11224(f).* * * * *

Subpart MM—[AmendedJ

• 3. Section 63.860 is amended byrevising paragraphs (b)(5) and (7) andadding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

§ 63.860 Applicability and designation ofaffected source.* * * * *

(b) * * *

(5) Each new or existing sulfitecombustion unit located at a sulfite pulpmill, except such existing units atCosmo Specialty Fibers’ Cosmopolis,Washington facility (Emission Unit no.AP—lO).* * * * *

(7) The requirements of the alternativestandard in § 63.862(d) apply to the hogfuel dryer at Cosmo Specialty fibers’Cosmopolis, Washington facility(Emission Unit no. HD—14).* * * * *

(d) At all times, the owner or operatormust operate and maintain any affectedsource, including associated airpollution control equipment andmonitoring equipment, in a mannerconsistent with safety and good airpollution control practices forminimizing emissions. The general dutyto minimize emissions does not requirethe owner or operator to make anyfurther efforts to reduce emissions iflevels required by the applicablestandard have been achieved.Determination of whether a source isoperating in compl lance with operationand maintenance requirements will hebased on information available to the

Administrator which may include, butis not limited to, monitoring results,review of operation and maintenanceprocedures, review of operat ion andmaintenance records, and inspection ofthe source.

• 4. Section 63.861 is amended by:• a. Removing the definition for “Blackliquor gasification”;• b. Revising the definitions for“Hazardous air pollutants (HAP)metals,” “Hog fuel dryer,” “Kraftrecovery furnace,” “Modification.”“Particulate matter (PM),” “Recoveryfurnace,” “Semichemical combustionunit,” “Smelt dissolving tanks,” and“Soda recovery furnace”;• c. Removing the definition for“Startup”; and• d. Revising the definition for ‘Totalhydrocarbons (THC).”

The revisions read as follows:

§ 63.861* *

Hazardous air pollutants (HAP)metals means the sum of all emissionsof antimony, arsenic, beryllium,cadmium, chromium, cobalt, lead,manganese, mercury, nickel, andselenium as measured by EPA Method29 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A—8).

Hog fuel dryer means the equipmentthat combusts fine particles of woodwaste (hog fuel) in a fluidized bed anddirects the heated exhaust stream to arotary dryer containing wet hog fuel tobe dried prior to combustion in the hogfuel boiler at Cosmo Specialty Fibers’Cosmopolis, Washington facility. Thehog fuel dryer at Cosmo SpecialtyFibers’ Cosmopolis, Washington facilityis Emission Unit no. HD—14.* * * * *

Kraft recovery furnace means arecovery furnace that is used to burnblack liquor produced by the kraftpulping process, as well as any recoveryfurnace that burns black liquorproduced from both the kraft andsemichemical pulping processes, andincludes the direct contact evaporator, ifapplicable.* * * * *

Modification means, for the purposesof § 63.862(a)(i](ii)(E](i), any physic:a.lchange (excluding any routine partreplacement or maintenance) oroperational change that is made to theair pollution control device that could.result in an increase in PN’I emissions.

* * * *

Particulate matter (PM) means totalfilterable particulate matter as measuredby EPA Method 5 (40 CFR part 60,appendix A—3), EPA Method 17(S 63.865(b)(1)) (40 CFR part 60,

appendix A—6), u’ EPA Method 29 (40CFR part 60, appendix A—8).* * * * *

Recovery furnace means an enclosedcombustion device where concentratedblack liquor produced by the kraft orsoda pulping process is burned torecover pulping chemicals and. producesteam.* * * * *

Sernichernical combustion unit meansany equipment used to combust orpyrolyze black liquor at stand-alonesemichemical pulp mills for the purposeof chemical recovery.* * * * *

Smelt dissolving tank (SDT) means avessel used for dissolving the smeltcollected from a kraft or soda recoveryfurnace.* * * * *

Soda recovery furnace means arecovery furnace used to burn blackliquor produced by the soda pulpingprocess and includes the direct contactevaporator, if applicable.* * * * *

Total hydrocarbons (THG means thesum of organic compounds measured ascarbon using EPA Method 25A (40 CFRpart 60, appendix A—7).• 5. Section 63.862 is amended byrevising paragraphs (c)(l) and (d) to readas follows:

§ 63.862 Standards.* * * * *

(c) Standards for gaseous organicHAP. (1) The owner or operator of annew recovery furnace at a kraft or sodapulp mill must ensure that theconcentration of gaseous organic HAP,as measured by methanol, discharged tothe atmosphere is no greater than 0.012kg/Mg (0.025 lb/ton) of black liquorsolids fired.* * * * *

(d) Alternative standard. As analternative to meeting the requirementsof paragraph (a)(2) of this section, theowner or operator of the existing hogfuel dryer at Cos.mo Specialty Fibers’Cosmopolis, Washington facility(Emission Unit no. HD—14) must ensurethat the mass of PM in the exhaust gasesdischarged to the atmosphere from thehog fuel dryer is less than or equal to4.535 kilograms per hour (kg/hr) (10.0pounds per hour (lb/br)).• 6. Section 63.863 is amended byrevising paragraphs (a) and (c) to read asfoil ows:

§ 63.863 Compliance dates.

(a) The owner or operator of anexisting affected source or process unitmust comply with the requirements in

Definitions.* *


47348 federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October 11, 2017 / Rules and Regulations

this subpart no later than March 13,2004, except as noted in paragraph (c)of this section.* * * * *

(c) The owner or operator of anexisting source or process unit mustcomply with the revised requirementspublished on October 11, 2017 no laterthan October ii, 2019, with theexception of the following:

(1) The first of the 5-year periodicperformance tests must be conducted byOctober 13, 2020, and thereafter within5 years following the previousperformance test; and

(2) The date to submit performancetest data through the CEDRI is within 60days after the date of completing eachperformance test.• 7. Section 63.864 is amended by:• a. Revising the introductory text ofparagraph (d) and paragraph (d)(4);• b. Adding paragraphs (e)(1) and (2);• c. Revising paragraphs (e)(10)(i] and(ii);• d. Adding paragraph (e)(1 0) (iii);• e. Revising the introductory text ofparagraph (e)(12) and paragraphs(e)(12)(i), (ix), and (x);• f. Revising paragraphs (e)(13) and (14);• g. Adding paragraph (f);• h. Revising paragraph (g);• i. Adding paragraph (h); and• j. Revising paragraphs (j) and (k].

The revisions and additions read asfollows:

§63.864 Monitoring requirements.* *

(d) Continuous opacity monitoringsystem (COMS). The owner or operatorof each affected kraft or soda recoveryfurnace or lime kiln equipped with anESP must install, calibrate, maintain,and operate a COMS in accordance withPerformance Spec:ification 1 (PS—i) inappendix B to 40 CFR part 60 and theprovisions in § 63.6(h) and 63.8 andparagraphs (d)(3) and (4) of this section.* * * * *

(4) As specified in § 63.8(g)(2), each 6-minute COMS data average must becalculated as the average of 36 or moredata points, equally spaced over each 6-minute period.

(e) *

(1) For any kraft or soda recoveryfurnace or lime kiln using an ESPemission control device, the owner oroperator must maintain properoperation of the ESP’s automatic voltagecontrol (AVC).

(2) For any kraft or soda recoveryfurnace or time kiln using an ESPfollowed liv a wet scrubber, the owneror operator must follow the parametermonitoring reqttirements specified inparagraphs (e)(l) and (10) of this

section. The opacity monitoring systemspecified in paragraph (d) of this sectionis not required for combination ESP/wetscrubber control device systems.* * * * *

(10) * * *

(i) A monitoring device used for thecontinuous measurement of the pressuredrop of the gas stream across thescrubber must be certified by themanufacturer to be accurate to within agage pressure of ±500 pascals (±2 inchesof water gage pressure); and

(ii) A monitoring device used for

continuous measurement of thescrubbing liquid flow rate must becertified by the manufacturer to beaccurate within ±5 percent of the designscrubbing liquid flow rate.

(iii) As an alternative to pressure dropmeasurement under paragraph (e) (3) (i)of this section. a monitoring device formeasurement of fan amperage may beused for smelt dissolving tank dynamicscrubbers that operate at ambientpressure or for low-energy entrainment

scrubbers where the fan speed does not

vary.

* * * * *

(12) The owner or operator of theaffected hog fuel dryer at CosmoSpecialty Fibers’ Cosmopolis,Washington facility (Emission Unit no.HD—14) must meet the requirements in

paragraphs (e)(12)(i) through (xi) of thissection for each bag leak detectionsystem.

(i) The owner or operator must install,calibrate, maintain, and operate eachtrthoelectric bag leak detection systemaccording to EPA—454/R—98—015.“Fabric Filter Bag Leak DetectionGuidance” (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14). The owner or operator mustinstall, calibrate, maintain, and operateother types of bag leak detectionsystems in a manner consistent with themanufacturer’s written specificationsand recommendations.* * * * *

(ix) The baseline output must beestablished by adjusting the range andthe averaging period of the device andestablishing the alarm set points and thealarm delay time according to section5.0 of the ‘fabric Filter Bag LeakDetection Guidance” (incorporated byreference—see § 63.14).

(x) Following initial adjustment of thesystem, the sensitivity or range,averaging period, alarm set points, oralarm delay time may not be adjustedexcept as detailed in the site-specificmonitoring plan. In no case may thesensitivity be increased by more than100 i)e1ce1t or decreased more than 50percent over a 365-day period unlesssuch adjustment follows a complete

fabric filter inspection whichdemonstrates that the fabric filter is ingood operating condition, as defined insection 5.2 of the “fabric Filter BagLeak Detection Guidance.”(incorporated by reference—see § 63.14).Record each adjustment.* * * * *

(13) The owner or ol)erator of eachaffected source or process unit that usesan ESP, wet scrubber, RTO, or fat)ricfilter may monitor alternative controldevice operating parameters subject toprior written approval I)y theAdministrator. The request for approvalmust also include the manner in whichthe parameter operating limit is to beset.

(14) The owner or operator of eachaffected source or process unit that usesan air pollution control system otherthan an ESP, wet scrubber, RTO, orfabric filter must provide to theAdministrator an alternative monitoringrequest that includes a description ofthe control device, test results verifyingthe performance of the control device.the appropriate operating parametersthat will be monitored, how theoperating limit is to be set, and thefrequency of measuring and recording toestablish continuous compliance withthe standards. The alternativemonitoring request is subject to theAdministrator’s approval. The owner oroperator of the affected source orprocess unit must install, calibrate,operate, and maintain the monitor(s) inaccordance with the alternativemonitoring request approved by theAdministrator. The owner or operatormust include in the informationsubmitted to the Administratorproposed performance specificationsand quality assurance procedures for themonitors. The Administrator mayrequest further information and willapprove acceptable test methods andprocedures. The owner or operator mustmonitor the parameters as approved bythe Administrator using the methodsand procedu:res in the alternativemonitoring request.

(f) Data quality assurance. The owneror operator shall keep CMS data qualityassurance procedures consistent withthe requirements in § 63.8(d)(1) and (2)on record for the life of the affectedsource or until the affected source is nolonger subject to the provisions of thispart, to be made available forinspection, upon request. by theAdministrator. If the performanceevaluation plan in § 63.8(d)(2) isrevised, the owner or ol)erator shaHkeep previous (i.e., superseded) versionsof the performance evaluation plan onrecord to be made available for

* *


federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195/Wedllesclay, October 11, 2017 /Rules and Regulations 47349

inspection, upon request, by theAdministrator, for a period of 5 yearsafter each revision to the plan. Theprogram of corrective action should 1)eincluded in the plan required under§ 63.8(d)(2).

(g) Gaseous organic HAP. The owneror operator of each affected source orprocess unit complying with thegaseous organic HAP standard of§ 63.862(c)(1) through the use of anNDCE recovery furnace equipped with adry ESP system is not required toconduct any continuous monitoring todemonstrate compliance with thegaseous organic HAP standard.

(h] Monitoring data. As specified in§ 63.8(g)(5), monitoring data recordedduring periods of unavoidable CMSbreakdowns, out-of-control periods,repairs, maintenance periods,calibration checks, and zero (low-level)and high level adjustments must not beincluded in any data average computedunder this subpart.* * * * *

(j) Determination of operating limits.(1) During the initial or periodicperformance test required in § 63.865,the owner or operator of any affectedsource or process unit must establishoperating limits for the monitoringparameters in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2)and (e)(1O) through (14) of this section,as appropriate; or

(2) The owner or operator may baseoperating limits on values recordedduring previous performance tests orconduct additional performance tests forthe specific purpose of establishingoperating limits, provided that dataused to establish the operating limits areor have been obtained during testingthat used the test methods andprocedures required in this subpart. Theowner or operator of the affected sourceor process unit must certify that allcontrol techniques and processes havenot been modified subsequent to thetesting upon which the data used toestablish the operating parameter limitswere obtained.

(3) The owner or operator of anaffected source or process unit mayestablish expanded or replacementoperating limits for the monitoringparameters listed in paragraphs (e)(i)and (2) and (e)(10) through (14) of thissection and established in paragraph(j)(1) or (2) of this section duringsubsequent performance tests using thetest methods in § 63.865.

(4) The owner or operator of theaffected source or process unit mustcontinuously monitor each parameterand determine the arithmetic averagevalue of each parameter during eachperformance test run. Multiple

performance tests may be conducted toestablish a range of parameter values.Operating outside a previouslyestablished parameter limit during aperformance test to expand theoperating limit range does not constitutea monitoring exceedance. Operatinglimits must be confirmed orreestablished during performance tests.

(5) New, expanded, or replacementoperating limits for the monitoringparameter values listed in paragraphs(e)(i) and (2) and (e)(10) through (1.4) ofthis section should be determined asdescribed in paragraphs (j)(5)(i) and (ii)of this section.

(i) The owner or operator of anaffected source or process unit that usesa wet scrubber must set a minimumscrubber pressure drop operating limitas the lowest of the 1-hour averagepressure drop values associated witheach test run demonstrating compliancewith the applicable emission limit in§ 63.862.

(A) For a smelt dissolving tankdynamic wet scrubber operating atambient pressure or for low-energyentrainment scrubbers where fan speeddoes not vary, the minimum fanamperage operating limit must be set asthe lowest of the i-hour average fanamperage values associated with eachtest run demonstrating compliance withthe applicable emission limit in§ 63.862.

(B) [Reserved](ii) The owner operator of an affected

source equipped with an RTO must setthe minimum operating temperature ofthe RTO as the lowest of the i-houraverage temperature values associatedwith each test run demonstratingcompliance with the applicableemission limit in § 63.862.

(k) On-going compliance provisions.(1) Following the compliance date,owners or operators of all affectedsources or process units are required toimplement corrective action if them.omtoring exceedances in paragraphs(k)(1)(i) through (vii) of this sectionoccur during times when spent pulpingliquor or lime mud is fed (asapplicable). Corrective action caninclude completion of transient startupand shutdown conditions asexpediently as possible.

(i) For a new or existing kraft or sodarecovery furnace or lime kiln equippedwith an ES?, when the average of tenconsecutive 6-minute averages result ina measurement greater than 20 percentopacity;

(ii) For a new or existing kraft or sodarecovery furnace, kraft or soda smeltdissolving tank, kraft or soda lime kiln.or sulfite combustion unit equippedwith a. wet scrubber, when any 3-hour

average parameter value is below theminimum operating limit established inparagraph (j) of this section, with theexception of pressure drop duringperiods of startup and shutdown;

(iii) For a nev or existing kraft or sodarecovery ftirnace or lime kiln equippedwith an ESP followed by a wet scrubber,when any 3-hour average scrubberparameter value is below the minimumoperating limit established in paragraph(j) of this section, with the exception ofpressure drop during periods of startupand shutdown;

(iv) For a new or existingsemichemical combustion unitequipped with an RTO, when any1-hour average temperature falls belowthe minimum temperature operatinglimit established in paragraph (j) of thissection;

(v) For the hog fuel dryer at CosmoSpecialty Fibers’ Cosmopolis,Washington facility (Emission Unit no.HD—14), when the t)ag leak detectionsystem alarm sounds;

(vi) For an affected source or processunit equipped with an ESP, wetscrubber, RTO, or fabric filter andmonitoring alternative operatingparameters established in paragraph(e)(i3) of this section, when any 3-houraverage value does not meet theoperating limit established in paragraph(j) of this section; and

(vii) For an affected source or processunit equipped with an alternative airpollution control system and monitoringoperating parameters approved by theAdministrator as established inparagraph (e)(14) of this section, whenany 3-hour average value does not meetthe operating limit established inparagraph (j) of this section.

(2) Following the compliance date,owners or operators of all affectedsources or process units are in violationof the standards of § 63.862 if themonitoring exceedances in paragraphs(k)(2](i) through (ix) of this sectionoccur during times when spent pulpingliquor or lime mud is fed (asappiical)le):

(i) for an existing kraft or sodarecovery furnace equipped with an ESP,when opacity is greater than 35 percentfor 2 percent or more of the operatingtime within any semiannual period:

(ii) For a new kraft or soda recoveryfurnace equipped with an ES?, whenopacity is greater than 20 percent for 2percent or more of the operating timewithin any semiannual period:

(iii) for a new or existing koaft or sodalime kiln equipped with an ESP. whenopacity is greater than 20 percent for 3percent or more of the operating timewithin any semiannual period;



(iv) for a new or existing kraft or sodarecovery furnace, kraft or soda smeltdissolving tank, kraft or soda lime kiln,or sulfite combustion unit equippedwith a wet scrubber, when six or more3-hour average parameter values withinany 6-month reporting period are belowthe minimum operatIng limitsestablished in paragraph (j) of thissection, with the exception of pressuredrop during periods of startup andshutdown;

(v) For a new or existing kraft or sodarecovery furnace or lime kiln equippedwith an ESP followed by a wet scrubber,when six or more 3-hour averagescrubber parameter values within any 6-month reporting period are outside therange of values established in paragraph(j) of this section, with the exception ofpressure drop during periods of startupand shutdown;

(vi) For a new or existingsemichemical combustion unitequipped with an RTO, when any 3-hour average temperature falls belowthe temperature established inparagraph (j) of this section;

(vii) For the hog fuel dryer at CosmoSpecialty Fibers’ Cosmopolis,Washington facility (Emission Unit no.HD—14), when corrective action is notinitiated within 1 hour of a bag leakdetection system alarm and the alarm isengaged for more than 5 percent of thetotal operating time in a 6-month blockreporting period. In calculating theoperating time fraction, if inspection ofthe fabric filter demonstrates that nocorrective action is required, no alarmtime is counted; if corrective action isrequired, each alarm is counted as aminimum of 1 hour; if corrective actionis not initiated within 1 hour, the alarmtime is counted as the actual amount oftime taken to initiate corrective action;

(viii) For an affected source or processunit equipped with an ESP, wetscrubber, RTO, or fabric filter and

monitoring alternative operatingparameters established in paragraph(e)(13) of this section, when six or more3-hour average values within any 6-month reporting period do not meet theoperating limits established inparagraph (j) of this section; and

(ix) For an affected source or processunit equipped with an alternative airpollution control system and monitoringoperating parameters approved by theAdministrator as established inparagraph (e)(14) of this section, whensix or more 3-hour average valueswithin any 6-month reporting period donot meet the operating limitsestablished in paragraph (j) of thissection.

(3) For purposes of determining thenumber of nonopacity monitoringexceedances, no more than oneexceedance will be attributed in anygiven 24-hour period.• 8. Section 63.865 is amended byrevising the introductory text andparagraphs (b)(i) through (5), (c)(1), andthe introductory text of paragraph (d) toread as follows:

§ 63.865 Performance test requirementsand test methods.

The owner or operator of eachaffected source or process unit subject tothe requirements of this subpart isrequired to conduct an initialperformance test and periodicperformance tests using the testmethods and procedures listed in § 63.7and paragraph (b) of this section. Theowner or operator must conduct the firstof the periodic performance tests within3 years of the effective date of therevised standards and thereafter within5 years following the previousperformance test. Performance testsshall be conducted based onrepresentative performance (i.e..performance based on normal operatingconditions) of the affected source for the

period being tested. Representativeconditions exclude periods of startupand shutdown. The owner or operatormay not conduct performance testsduring periods of malfunction. Theowner or operator must record theprocess information that is necessary todocument operating conditions duringthe test and include in such record anexplanation to support that suchconditions represent normal operation.Upon request. the owner or operatorshall make available to theAdministrator such records as may benecessary to determine the conditions ofperformance tests.* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) For purposes of determining theconcentration or mass of PM emittedfrom each kraft or soda recoveryfurnace, sulfite combustion unit, smeltdissolving tank, lime kiln, or the hogfuel dryer at Cosmo Specialty Fibers’Cosmopolis, Washington facility(Emission Unit no. HD—14), Method 5 inappendix A—3 of 40 CFR part 60 orMethod.29 in appendix A—8 of 40 CFRpart 60 must be used, except thatMethod 17 in appendix A—6 of 40 CFRpart 60 may be used in lieu of Method5 or Method 29 if a constant value of0.009 g/dscm (0.004 gr/dscf) is added tothe results of Method 17, and the stacktemperature is no greater than 205 °C(400 °F). For Methods 5, 29, and 17, thesampling time and sample volume foreach run must l)e at least 60 minutesand 0.90 dscm (31.8 dscf), and watermust be used as the cleanup solventinstead of acetone in the samplerecovery procedure.

(2) For sources complying with§ 63.862(a) or (b), the PM concentrationmust be corrected to the appropriateoxygen concentration using Equation 7of this section as follows:

= x (20.9---X)/t 2t).9—Y) (Eq. 7)

Where:

Ccorr = the measured concentration correctedfor oxygen, g/dscrn (gr/dscf);

C,,,ea = the measured concentrationuncorrected for oxygen, g/dscm (gr/clscfJ

X = the corrected roltimetric oxygen

concentration (8 percent for kraft or sodarecovery furnaces and sulfite combustionunits and 10 percent for kraft or sodalime kilns); and

Y = the measured average volumetric oxygenconcentration.

(3) Method 3A or 3B in appendix A—2 of 40 CFR part 60 must be used todetermine the oxygen concentration.The voluntary consensus standardANSI/ASME PTC 19.10—198 1—Part 10(incorporated by reference—see § 63.14)may be used as an alternative to using

Method 3B. The gas sample must betaken at the same time and at the sametraverse points as the particulatesample.

(4) For purposes of complying with§ 63.862(a)(1)(ii)(A). the volumetric gasflow rate must be corrected to theappropriate oxygen concentration usingEquation 8 of this section as follows:

= : (2O.) V )/(2t).Q N) ( 1q. X)



WhereQorr = the ineasured volumetric gas flow rate

corrected for oxygen, dscm/min (dscf/mm).

= the measured volumetric gas flowrate uncorrected for oxygen dscm/min(clscf/rnin).

= the measured average volumetric oxygenconcentration.

X = the corrected roltjmetric oxygenconcentration (8 percent for kraft or sodarecovery furnaces and 10 percent forkraft or soda lime kilns).

(5)(i] For purposes of selectingsampling port location and number oftraverse points, Method 1 or 1A inappendix A—i of 40 CFR prt 60 mustbe used;

(ii) F or purposes of determining stackgas velocity and volumetric flow rate,Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, or 2f in appendixA—i of 40 CFR part 60 or Method 2G inappendix A—2 of 40 CFR part 60 mustbe used;

(iii) For purposes of conducting gasanalysis, Method 3, 3A, or 3B inappendix A—2 of 40 CFR part 60 mustbe used. The voluntary consensusstandard ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10—1981—Part 10 (incorporated byreference—see § 63.14) may be used asan alternative to using Method 3B; and

(iv] For purposes of determiningmoisture content of stack gas, Method 4in appendix A—3 of 40 CFR part 60 mustbe used.* * * * *

(c] * * *

(1] The owner or operator complyingthrough the use of an NDCE recoveryfurnace equipped with a dry ESP systemis required to conduct periodicperformance testing using Method 308in append:ix A of this part, as well as themethods listed in paragraphs (b)(5)(i)through (iv) of this section todemonstrate compliance with thegaseous organic HAP standard. Therequirements and equations inparagraph (c)(2] of this section must bemet and utilized, respectively.* * * * *

(d) The owner or operator seeking todetermine compliance with the gaseousorganic HAP standards in § 63.862(c)(2)for semichemical combustion unitsmust use Method 25A in appendixA—7 of 40 CFR part 60, as well as themethods listed in paragraphs (b)(5)(i)through (iv) of this section. Thesampling time for each Method 25A runmust be at least 60 minutes. Thecalibration gas for each Method 25A runmust be propane.* * * * *

• 9. Section 63.866 is amended byremoving and reserving paragraph (a)and revising paragraphs (c) and (d) toread as follows:

§ 63.866 Recordkeeping requirements.* * * * *

(c) In addition to the general recordsrequired by § 63.10(b)(2)(iii) and (vi)through (xiv), the owner or operatormust maintain records of theinformation in paragraphs (c](1) through(8) of this section:

(1) Records of black liquor solidsfiring rates in units of Mg/d or ton/d forall recovery furnaces and sernichernicalcombustion units;

(2) Records of CaO production rates inunits of Mg/d or ton/d for all lime kilns;

(3) Records of parameter monitoringdata required under § 63.864, includingany period when the operatingparameter levels were inconsistent withthe levels established during theperformance test, with a briefexplanation of the cause of themonitoring exceedance, the time themonitoring exceedance occurred, thetime corrective action was initiated andcompleted, and the corrective actiontaken;

(4) Records and documentation ofsupporting calculations for compliancedeterminations made under § 63.865(a)through (d);

(5) Records of parameter operatinglimits established for each affectedsource or process unit;

(6) Records certifying that an NDCErecovery furnace equipped with a dryESP system is used to comply with thegaseous organic HAP standard in§ 63.862(c)(1);

(7) For the bag leak detection systemon the hog fuel dryer fabric filter atCosmo Specialty Fibers’ Cosmopolis,Washington facility (Emission Unit no.HD—14), records of each alarm, the timeof the alarm, the time corrective actionwas initiated and completed, and a briefdescription of the cause of the alarmand the corrective action taken; and

(8) Records demonstrating compliancewith the requirement in § 63.864(e)(1) tomaintain proper operation of an ESP’sAVC.

(d)(i) In the event that an affectedunit fails to meet an applicablestandard, including any emission limitin § 63.862 or any opacity or CPMSoperating limit in § 63.864. record thenumber of failures. for each failurerecord the date, start time, and durationof each failure.

(2) for each failure to meet anapplicable standard, record and retain alist of the affected sources or equipment,and the following information:

(i) For any failure to meet an emissionlimit in § 63.862, record an estimate ofthe quantity of each regulated pollutantemitted over the emission limit and adescription of the method used toestimate the emissions.

(ii) For each failure to meet anoperating limit in § 63.864, maintainsufficient information to estimate thequantity of each regulated pollutantemitted over the emission limit. Thisinformation must be sufficient toprovide a reliable emissions estimate ifrequested by the Administrator.

(3) Record actions taken to minimizeemissions in accordance with§ 63.860(d) and any corrective actionstaken to return the affected unit to itsnormal or usual manner of operation.• 10. Section 63.86 7 is amended by:• a. Removing and reserving paragraph(a)(2);• b. Revising paragraph (a)(3);• c. Revising paragraph (c); and• d. Adding paragraph (d).

The revisions and additions read asfollows:

§ 63.867 Reporting requirements.

(a) * * *

(3) In addition to the requirements insubpart A of this part, the owner oroperator of the hog fuel dryer at CosmoSpecialty Fibers’ Cosmopolis,Washington, facility (Emission Unit no.HD—14) must include analysis andsupporting documentationdemonstrating conformance with EPAguidance and specifications for l)ag leakdetection systems in § 63.864(e)(12) inthe Notification of Compliance Status.* * * * *

(c) Excess emissions report. Theowner or operator must submitsemiannual excess emissions reportscontaining the information specified inparagraphs (c)(1) through (5) of thissection. The owner or operator mustsubmit semiannual excess emissionreports and summary reports followillgthe procedure specified in paragraph(d)(2) of this section as specified in§ 63.i0(e)(3)(v).

(1) If the total duration of excessemissions or process control systemparameter exceedances for the reportingperiod is less than 1 percent of the totalreporting period operating time, andCMS downtime is less than 5 percent ofthe total reporting period operatingtime, only the summary report isrequired to be submitted. This reportwill be titled “Summary Report—Gaseous and Opacity Excess Emissionsand Continuous Monitoring SystemPerformance” and must contain theinformation specified in paragraphs(c)(1)(i) through (x) of this section.

(i) The company name and addressand name of the affected facility

(ii) Beginning and ending dates of therepc)rtmg period.

(iii) An identification of each processunit with the corresponding air



pollution control device, being includedin the semiannual report, including thepollutants monitored at each processunit, and the total operating time foreach process unit.

(iv) An identification of the applicableemission limits, operating parameterlimits, and averaging times.

(v) An identification of the monitoringequipment used for each process unitand the corresponding model number.

(vi) Date of the last CMS certificationor audit.

(vii) An emission data summary,including the total duration of excessemissions (recorded in minutes foropacity and hours for gases), theduration of excess emissions expressedas a percent of operating time, thenumber of averaging periods recorded asexcess emissions, and reason for theexcess emissions (e.g., startup!shutdown, control equipment problems,other known reasons, or other unknownreasons).

(viii) A CMS performance summary,including the total duration of CMSdowntime during the reporting period(recorded in minutes for opacity andhours for gases), the total duration ofCMS downtime expressed as a percentof the total source operating time duringthat reporting period, and a breakdownof the total CMS downtime during thereporting period (e.g., monitoringequipment malfunction, non-monitoringequipment malfunction, qualityassurance, quality control calibrations,other known causes, or other unknowncauses).

(ix) A description of changes to CMS,processes, or controls since lastreporting period.

(x) A certification by a certifyingofficial of truth, accuracy andcompleteness. This will state that, basedon information and belief formed afterreasonable inquiry, the statements andinformation in the document are true,accurate, and complete.

(2) [Reserved](3) If measured parameters meet any

of the conditions specified in§ 63.864(k)(l) or (2), the owner oroperator of the affected source mustsubmit a semiannual report describingthe excess emissions that occurred. Ifthe total duration of monitoringexceedances for the reporting period is1 percent or greater of the total reportingperiod operating time, or the total CMSdowntime for the reporting period is 5percent or greater of the total reportingperiod operating time, or any violationsaccording to § 63.864(k) (2) occurred,information from both the summaryreport and the excess emissions andcontinuous monitoring systemperformance report nntst be submitted.

This report will lie titled “ExcessEmissions and Continuous MonitoringSystem Performance Report” and mustcontain the information specified inparagraphs (c)(1)(i) through (x) of thissection, in addition to the informationrequired in § 63.if)(c)(5) through (14), asspecified in paragraphs (c)(3)(i) through(vi) of this section. Reportingmonitoring exceedances does notconstitute a violation of the applicablestandard unless the violation criteria in§ 63.864(k)(2) and. (3) are reached.

(i) An identification of the date andtime identifying each period duringwhich the CMS was inoperative exceptfor zero (low-level) and high-levelchecks.

(ii) An identification of the date andtime identifying each period duringwhich the CMS was out of control, asdefined in § 63.8(c)(7).

(iii) The sJ)ecific identification of eachperiod of excess emissions andparameter monitoring exceedances asdescribed in paragraphs (c)(3)(iii)(A)through (E) of this section.

(A) for opacity:(1) The total number of 6-minute

averages in the reporting period(excluding process unit downtime).

(2) [Reserved!(3) The number of 6-minute averages

in the reporting period that exceededthe relevant opacity limit.

(4) The percent of 6-minute averagesin the reporting period that exceed therelevant opacity limit.

(5) An identification of eachexceedance by start and end time. date,and cause of exceedance (includingstartup/shutd own, control equipmen.tproblems, process problems, otherknown causes, or other unknowncauses).

(B) [Reserved](C) for wet scrubber operating

parameters:(1) The operating limits established

during the performance test forscrubbing liquid flow rate and pressuredrop across the scrubber (or fanamperage if used for smelt dissolvingtank scrubbers).

(2) The number of 3-hour wetscrubber parameter averages below theminimum operating limit establishedduring the performance test, ifapplicable.

(3) An identification of eachexceedance by start and end time, date,and cause of exceedance (includingstartup/shutdown, control equipmentproblems. process problems, otherknown causes, or other unknowncauses).

(D) For RTO operating temperature:(1) The operating limit established

during the performance test.

(2) The number of 1-hour and 3-hourtemperature averages below theminimum operatIng limit establishedduring the performance test.

(3) An identification of eachexceedance by start and end time, date,and cause of exceedance includingstartup/shutdown. control equipmentproblems, process problems, otherknown causes, or other unknowncauses).

(E) For alternative parametersestablished according to § 63.864(e)(13)or (14) subject to the requirements of§ 63.864(k)(1) and (2):

(1) The type of operating parametersmonitored for compliance.

(2) The operating limits establishedduring the performance test.

(3) The number of 3-hour parameteraverages outside of the operating limitsestablished during the performance test.

(4) An identification of eachexceedance by start and end time, date,and cause of exceedance includingstartup/shutdown, control equipmentproblems, process problems, otherknown causes, or other unknowncauses).

(iv) The nature and cause of the event(if known).

(v) The corrective action taken orpreventative measures ad opted.

(vi) The nature of repairs andadjustments to the CMS that wasinoperative or out of control.

(4] If a source fails to meet anapplicable standard, including allyemission limit in § 63.862 or anyopacity or CPMS operating limit in§ 6 3.864, report such events in thesemiannual excess emissions report.Report the number of failures to meet allapplicable standard. For each instance.report the date, time and duration ofeach failure. For each failure, the reportmust include a list of the affectedsources or equipment, and for anyfailure to meet an emission limit under§ 63.862, provide an estimate of tile

quantity of each regulated pollutantemitted over the emission limit, and adescription of the method used toestimate the emissions.

(5) The owner or operator of anaffected sotirce or process unit subject totile requirements of this subpart andsubpart S of this part may combineexcess emissions and/or su;nniaryreports for the mill.

(di Electronic reporting. (1) Within 60das after the date of completing eachperformance test (as defined in § 63.2)required by this subpart. the owner oroperator must submit the results of theperformance test following theprocedure specified in either paragraph(d)(i)(i) or (ii) of this section.



(i) for data collected using testmethods supported by the EPA’sElectronic Reporting Tool (ERT) aslisted on the EPA’s ERT Web site(]i ttps ://www. epa gay/electron Ic-reporting-afr-emissions/electronicreporting-tool-ert) at the time of the test,the owner or operator must submit theresults of the performance test to theEPA via the Compliance and EmissionsData Reporting Interface (CEDRI).(CEDRI can be accessed through theEPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX)(https://cdx.epa.gov/J.) Performance testdata must be submitted in a file formatgenerated through the use of the EPA’sERT or an alternate electronic fileformat consistent with the extensiblemarkup language (XML) schema listedon the EPA’s ERT Web site. if the owneror operator claims that some of theperformance test information beingsubmitted is confidential businessinformation (CBI), the owner or operatormust submit a complete file generatedthrough the use of the EPA’s ERT or analternate electronic file consistent withthe XML schema listed on the EPA’sERT Web site, including informationclaimed to be CBI, on a compact disc,flash drive, or other commonly usedelectronic storage media to the EPA. Theelectronic media must be clearly markedas CB1 and mailed to U.S. EPA/OAPQS/CORE CBI Office, Attention: GroupLeader, Measurement Policy Group, MDC404—02, 4930 Old Page Rd., Durham,NC 27703. The same ERT or alternatefile with the CBI omitted must besubmitted to the EPA via the EPA’s CDXas described earlier in this paragraph(d)(1)(i).

(ii) For data collected using testmethods that are not supported by theEPA’s ERT as listed on the EPA’s ERTWeb site at the time of the test, theowner or operator must submit theresults of the performance test to theAdministrator at the appropriateaddress listed in § 63.13 unless theAdministrator agrees to or specifies an

alternative reporting method.(2) The owner or operator must

submit the notifications required in§ 63.9(b) and § 63.9(h) (including anyinformation specified in § 63.86 7(b))and semiannual reports to the EPA viathe CEDRI. (CEDRI can be accessedthrough the EPA’s CDX (https://cdx.epci.gov).) You must upload anelectronic copy of each notification inCEORI beginning with any notificationspecified in this paragraph that isi’equired after October ii. 2019. Theowner or operator must use the

appropriate electronic report in CEDRIfor this subpart listed on the CEDRI Website (h ttps ://www. epa .gov/e]ectronicreporting-air-emissions/cornplianceand-emissions-data-reporting-interfacecedri) for semiannual reports. If thereporting form specific to this subpart isnot available in CEDRI at the time thatthe report is due, you must submit thereport to the Administrator at all theappropriate addresses listed in § 63.13.Once the form has been available inCEDRI for 1 year, you must beginsubmitting all subsequent reports viaCEDRI. The reports must be submittedby the deadlines specified in thissubpart, regardless of the method inwhich the reports are submitted.

(3) If you are required toelectronically submit a report throughCEDRI in the EPA’s CDX, and due to aplanned or actual outage of either theEPA’s CEDRI or CDX systems within theperiod of time beginning 5 businessdays prior to the date that thesubmission is due, you will be or areprecluded from accessing CEDRI or CDXand submitting a required report withinthe time prescribed, you may assert aclaim of EPA system outage for failureto timely comply with the reportingrequirement. You must submitnotification to the Administrator inwriting as soon as possible following thedate you first knew, or through duediligence should have known, that theevent may cause or caused a delay inreporting. You must provide to theAdministrator a written descriptionidentifying the date, time and length ofthe outage; a rationale for attributing thedelay in reporting beyond the regulatorydeadline to the EPA system outage;describe the measures taken or to betaken to minimize the delay inreporting; and identify a date by whichyou propose to report, or if you have

already met the reporting requirement atthe time of the notification, the date youreported. In any circumstance, thereport must be submitted electronicallyas soon as possible after the outage isresolved. The decision to accept theclaim of EPA system outage and allowan extension to the reporting deadline issolely within the discretion of theAdministrator.

(4) If you are required toelectronically submit a report throughCEDRI in the EPA’s CDX and a forcemajeure event is abottt to occur, occurs,or has occurred or there are lingeringeffects from such an event within theperiod of time beginning 5 businessdays prior to the date the submission is

clue, the owner or operator may assert aclaim of force majeure for failure totimely comply with the reportingrequirement. for the purposes of thissection, a force inajeure event is definedas an event that will be or has beencaused. by circumstances beyond thecontrol of the affected facility, itscontractors, or any entity controlled bythe affected facility that prevents youfrom complying with the requirement tosubmit a report electronically within thetime period prescribed. Examples ofsuch events are acts of nature (e.g.,hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods), actsof war or terrorism, or equipment failureor safety hazard beyond the control ofthe affected facility (e.g., large scalepower outage). If you intend to assert aclaim of force majeure, you must submitnotification to the Administrator inwriting as soon as possible following thedate you first knew, or through duediligence should have known, that theevent may cause or caused a delay inreporting. You must provide to theAdministrator a written description of

the force majeure event and a rationalefor attributing the delay in reportingbeyond the regulatory deadline to theforce majeure event; describe thenieasures taken or to be taken tominimize the delay in reporting; andidentify a date by which you propose toreport, or if you have already met thereporting requirement at the time of thenotification, the date you reported. Inany circumstance, the reporting mustoccur as soon as possible after the forcemajeure event occurs. The decision toaccept the claim of force majeure andallow a:n extension to the reportingdeadline is solely within t.he discretionof the Administrator.

• Ii. Section 63.868 is amended byrevising paragraphs (b)(2) through (4) toread as follows:

§ 63.868 Delegation of authority.* * * * *

(b) * * *

(2) Approval of a major change to testmethod under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) andas defined in § 63.90.

(3) Approval of a major change tomonitoring under § 63.8(f) and asdefined in § 63.90.

(4) Approval of a major change torecordkeeping/reporting under § 63.10(f)andi as defIned in § 63.90.

• 12. Table 1 to Subpart MM of Part 63is revised to read as follows:


47354 Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195 /Weclnesday, October 11, 2017/Rules and Regulations

63.1(c)(3)63.l(c)(4)

63.1(c)(5)

63.1(d)63.1(e)

63.2

63.363.463.5(a)63.5(b)(1)

63.5(b)(2)63.5(b)(3)63.5(b)(4)63.5(b)(5)63.5(b)(6)63.5(c)63.5(d)

63.5(e)63.5(f)

63.6(a)(1)

63.6(a)(2)

63.6(b)

63.6(c)

63.6(d)63.6(e)(1 )(i)63.6(e)(1 )(ii)63.6(e)(1 )(iii)

63,6(e)(2)63.6(e)(3)

63.6(f)(1)

63.6(f)(2)—(3)

63.6(g)

Yes.Yes.Yes.Yes.

No.Yes.Yes.Yes.Yes.No.Yes.

Yes.Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes, except forsources granted extensions under63.863(c).

No.NoNo.Yes.

Additional terms defined in §63.861; whenoverlap between subparts A and MM of thispart, subpart MM takes precedence.

Subpart MM specifies the applicability in§ 63.860.

All major affected sources are required to obtain a title V permit.

All affected sources are subject to subpartMM according to the applicability definitionof subpart MM.

Subpart MM clarifies the applicability of eachparagraph of subpart A of this part tosources subject to subpart MM.

All major affected sources are required to obtain a title V permit. There are no areasources in the pulp and paper mill sourcecategory.

Additional terms defined in §63.861; whenoverlap between subparts A and MM of thispart occurs, subpart MM takes precedence.

Subpart MM specifically stipulates the compliance schedule for existing sources.

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MM OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART MM

Applies to ExplanationGeneral provisions Summary of requirements subpart MMreference

63.1(a)(1) General applicability of the General Provisions Yes

63.1(a)(2)—(14) General applicability of the General Provisions Yes.63.1(b)(1) Initial applicability determination No

63.1(b)(2) Title V operating permit—see 40 CFR part 70 Yes

63.1(b)f3) Record of the applicability determination No

63.1(c)(1) Applicability of subpart A of this part after a Yesrelevant standard has been set.

63.1(c)(2) Title V permit requirement Yes

[Reserved] No.Requirements for existing source that obtains Yes.

an extension of compliance.Notification requirements for an area source Yes.

that increases HAP emissions to majorsource levels.

[Reserved] No.Applicability of permit program before a rel- Yes.

evant standard has been set.Definitions Yes

Units and abbreviationsProhibited activities and circumventionConstruction and reconstruction—applicabilityUpon construction, relevant standards for new

sources.[Reserved]New construction/reconstructionConstruction/reconstruction notificationConstruction/reconstruction complianceEquipment addition or process change[Reserved]Application for approval of construction/recon

struction.Construction/reconstruction approvalConstruction/reconstruction approval based on

prior State preconstruction review.Compliance with standards and maintenance

requirements—applicability.Requirements for area source that increases

emissions to become major.Compliance dates for new and reconstructed

sources.Compliance dates for existing sources

[Reserved]General duty to minimize emissionsRequirement to correct malfunctions ASAPOperation and maintenance requirements en

forceable independent of emissions limitations.

[Reserved]Startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan

(SSMP).Compliance with nonopacity emissions stand

ards except during SSM.Methods for determining compliance with non-

opacity emissions standards.Compliance with alternative nonopacity emis

sions standards.

See § 63.860(d) for general duty requirement.

No.No.

No.

Yes.

Yes.


federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195 /Wednesday, October ii, 2017/Rules and Regulations 47355

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART MM OF PART 63—GENERAL PROVISIONS APPLICABILITY TO SUBPART MM—Continued

Applies to ExplanationGeneral provisions Summary of requirements

subpart MMreference

63.6(h)(1) Compliance with opacity and visible emissions No.(VE) standards except during SSM.

63.6(h)(2)—(9) Compliance with opacity and YE standards Yes Subpart MM does not contain any opacity orVE standards; however, § 63.864 specifiesopacity monitoring requirements.

63.6(i) Extension of compliance with emissions Yes.standards.

63.6(j) Exemption from compliance with emissions Yes.standards.

63.7(a)(1) Performance testing requirements—applica- Yes.bility.

63.7(a)f2) Performance test dates Yes.63.7(a)(3) Performance test requests by Administrator Yes.

under CAA section 114.63.7(a)(4) Notification of delay in performance testing Yes.

due to force majeure.63.7(b)(1) Notification of performance test Yes.63.7(b)(2) Notification of delay in conducting a scheduled Yes.

performance test.63.7(c) Quality assurance program Yes.63.7(d) Performance testing facilities Yes.63.7(e)(1) Conduct of performance tests No See § 63.865.63.7(e)(2)—(3) Conduct of performance tests Yes.63.7(e)f4) Testing under section 114 Yes.63.7(f) Use of an alternative test method Yes.63.7(g) Data analysis, recordkeeping, and reporting Yes.63.7(h) Waiver of performance tests Yes §63.865(c)(1) specifies the only exemption

from performance testing allowed undersubpart MM.

63.8(a)(1) Monitoring requirements—applicability Yes See § 63.864.63.8(a)(2) Performance Specifications Yes.63.8(a)(3) [Reserved] No.63.8(a)(4) Monitoring with flares No The use of flares to meet the standards in

subpart MM is not anticipated.63.8(b)(1) Conduct of monitoring Yes See § 63.864.63.8(b)(2)—(3) Specific requirements for installing and report- Yes.

ing on monitoring systems.63.8(c)(1) Operation and maintenance of CMS Yes See § 63.864.63.8(c)(1)(i) General duty to minimize emissions and CMS No.

operation.63.8(c)(1)(ii) Reporting requirements for SSM when action Yes.

not described in SSMP.63.8(c)(1)(iii) Requirement to develop SSM plan for CMS No.63.8(c)(2)—(3) Monitoring system installation Yes.63.8(c)(4) CMS requirements Yes.63.8(c)(5) Continuous opacity monitoring system Yes.

(COMS) minimum procedures.63.8(c)(6) Zero and high level calibration check require- Yes.

ments.63.8(c)(7)—(8) Out-of-control periods Yes.63.8(d)(1)—(2) CMS quality control program Yes See § 63.864.63.8(d)(3) Written procedures for CMS No See § 63.864(1).63.8(e)(1) Performance evaluation of CMS Yes.63.8fe)(2) Notification of performance evaluation Yes.63.8(e)(3) Submission of site-specific performance eval- Yes.

uation test plan.63.8(e)(4) Conduct of performance evaluation and per- Yes.

formance evaluation dates.63.8(e)(5) Reporting performance evaluation results Yes.63.8(1) Use of an alternative monitoring method Yes.63.8(g) Reduction of monitoring data Yes.63.9(a) Notification requirements—applicability and Yes.

general information.63.9(b) Initial notifications Yes.63.9(c) Request for extension of compliance Yes.63.9(d) Notification that source subject to special com- Yes.

pliance requirements.63.9(e) Notification of performance test Yes.63.9(f) Notification of opacity and VE observations Yes Subpart MM does not contain any opacity or

VE standards; however, § 63.864 specifiesopacity monitoring requirements.


47356 Federal Register/Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October Ii, 2017 / Rules and Regulations


63.9(g)(1)

63.9(g)(2)

63.9(g)(3)

63.9(h)63.9(i)

63.9(j)63.7 0(a)

63.10(b)(1)63.10(b)(2)(i)

63.1 0(b)(2)(ii)

63.10(b)(2)( iii)63.10(b)(2)(iv)—(v)

63.10(b)(2)(vi)63.1 0(b)(2)(vii)—(xiv)63.10(b)(3)

63.10(c)(1)—(14)

63.1O(c)(15)63.10(d)(1)63.10(d)(2)63.10(d)(3)

63.10(d)(4)63.10(d)(5)(i)

63.1 0(d)(5)(ii)

63.10(e)(1)

63.10(e)(2)

63.1 0(e)(3)(i)—(iv)

63.10(e)(4)

63.10(f)

63.71

63.7263.13

Additional notification requirementssources with CMS.

Notification of compliance with opacity emissions standard.

Notification that criterion to continue use of alternative to relative accuracy testing hasbeen exceeded.

Notification of compliance statusAdjustment to time periods or postmark dead

lines for submittal and review of requiredcommunications.

Change in information already providedRecordkeeping requirements—applicability

and general information.Records retentionRecordkeeping of occurrence and duration of

startups and shutdowns.Recordkeeping of failures to meet a standard

Maintenance recordsActions taken to minimize emissions during

SSM.Recordkeeping for CMS malfunctionsOther CMS requirements

relevant standard.Additional recordkeeping requirements for

sources with CMS.Use of SSM planGeneral reporting requirementsReporting results of performance testsReporting results of opacity or VE observa

tions.

Progress reportsPeriodic startup, shutdown, and malfunction

reports.Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction

reports.Additional reporting requirements for sources

with CMS—General.Reporting results of CMS performance evalua

tions.Requirement to submit excess emissions and

CMS performance report and/or summaryreport and frequency of reporting.

General content and submittal dates for excess emissions and monitoring system performance reports.

Specific summary report content

Conditions for submitting summary reportversus detailed excess emission report.

Reporting continuous opacity monitoring system data produced during a performancetest.

Waiver of recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Control device requirements for flares

State authority and delegationsAddresses of State air pollution control agen

cies and EPA Regional Offices.

Yes.Yes.

Yes.No.

No

Subpart MM does not contain any opacity orVE emissions standards; however, § 63.864specifies opacity monitoring requirements.

See §63.866(d) for recordkeeping of (1) date,time and duration; (2) listing of affectedsource or equipment, and an estimate of thequantity of each regulated pollutant emittedover the standard; and (3) actions to minimize emissions and correct the failure.

Subpart MM does not include any opacity orVE standards; however, § 63.864 specifiesopacity monitoring requirements.

See § 63.867(c)(3) for malfunctionrequirements.

See §63.867(c)(3) for malfunctionrequirements.

§63.867(c)(1) and (3) require submittal of theexcess emissions and CMS performance report and/or summary report on a semiannual basis.

§63.867(c)(1) specifies the summary reportcontent.

§63.867(c)(1) and (3) specify the conditionsfor submitting the summary report or detailed excess emissions and CMS perform-

Applies to ExplanationGeneral provisions Summary of requirements subpart MMreference

for Yes.

Yes

Yes.

Yes.Yes See § 63.866.

Yes.No.

Yes.Yes.

Records retention for sources not subject to Yes Applicability§ 63.860.

requirements are given in

reporting

reporting

63.10(e)(3)(v)

63.10(e)(3)(vi)

63.1 0(e)(3)(vii)—(viii)

Yes.

No.Yes.Yes.Yes

Yes.No

No

Yes.

Yes.

No

Yes.

No

No

Yes.

Yes.

No

Yes.Yes.

ance report.

The use of flares to meet the standards insubpart MM is not anticipated.


Federal Register I Vol. 82, No. 195 / Wednesday, October ii, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47357


General provisions Summary of requirements Applies to Explanationreference subpart MM

63.14 Incorporations by reference Yes.63.15 Availability of information and confidentiality ... Yes.63.16 Requirements for Performance Track member Yes.

facilities.

[FR Doc. 2017—21799 Filed 10—10—17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560—50—P


ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION ) CITIZENS FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ...

Documents