[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 69 (Monday, April 12, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17555-17565]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8950]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[AD-FRL-6322-8]
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; interpretation and technical amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (Act), EPA issued a final rule (63 FR
18504, April 15, 1998) to reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP)
emissions from the pulp and paper production source category. That rule
(known as the Pulp and Paper national emission standard for hazardous
air pollutants or pulp and paper NESHAP) is the air component of the
integrated air and water rules for the pulp and paper industry (known
as the Pulp and Paper Cluster Rules). The rule applies to pulp and
paper production processes
[[Page 17556]]
included under Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code 26.
This action makes interpretive amendments to certain regulatory
text in the 1998 pulp and paper NESHAP. We are making these amendments
to make certain that the rule's language reflects our stated intent and
also to correct certain inadvertent omissions and minor drafting
errors.
DATES: These amendments are effective April 12, 1999. The incorporation
by reference of the publication listed in the amendments is approved by
the Director of the Federal Register as of April 12, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Docket No. A-92-40, containing the supporting information
for the original and amendments to 1998 NESHAP and this action, is
available for your inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. and 5:30
p.m., Monday through Friday except for Federal holidays, at the
following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460, or by calling (202) 260-7548. A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Shedd, Emission Standards
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone (919) 541-5397 or e-mail at
shedd.steve@epa.gov. For questions on compliance and applicability
determinations, contact Mr. Seth Heminway, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assessment (2223A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 564-7017 or e-
mail at heminway.seth@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities. Entities potentially regulated by this action
include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category SIC code entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... 26 Pulp mills and
integrated mills (mills
that manufacture pulp
and paper/paperboard)
that chemically pulp
wood fiber.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not exhaustive. It lists the types of entities that
we are now aware might be regulated by this action. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in part 63, subparts A and S of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Information Contacts. If you have questions about how this action
applies to a particular situation or questions about compliance
approaches, permitting, enforcement, and rule determinations, please
contact the appropriate regional representative below.
Region I: Greg Roscoe, Chief, Air Pesticides and Toxics Enforcement
Office, Office of Environmental Stewardship, U.S. EPA, Region I, JFK
Federal Building (SEA), Boston, MA 02203; (617) 565-3221. Technical
Contact for Applicability Determination, Susan Lancey, (617) 565-3587,
(617) 565-4940 (Fax).
Region II: Mosey Ghaffari, Air Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region
II, 290 Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866; (212) 637-3925, (212) 637-
3998 (Fax).
Region III: Makeba Morris, U.S. EPA, Region III, 3AT10, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103; (215) 814-2187.
Region IV: Lee Page, U.S. EPA, Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center,
100 Alabama Street, Atlanta, GA 30303; (404) 562-9131.
Region V: Christina Prasinos (AE-17J), U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 West
Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604-3590; (312) 886-6819, (312) 353-8289
(Fax).
Region VI: Michelle Kelly, Air Enforcement Branch (6EN-AA), U.S.
EPA, Region VI, Suite 1200, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733;
(214) 665-7580, (214) 665-7446 (Fax).
Region VII: Gary Schlicht, Air Permits and Compliance Branch, U.S.
EPA, Region VII, ARTD/APCO, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS
66101; (913) 551-7097.
Region VIII: Tami Thomas-Burton, Air Toxics Coordinator, U.S. EPA,
Region VIII, Suite 500, 999 18th Street, Denver, CO 80202-2466; (303)
312-6581, (303) 312-6064 (Fax).
Region IX: Ken Bigos, U.S. EPA, Region IX, A-5, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; (415) 744-1240.
Region X: Andrea Wallenweber, Office of Air Quality, U.S. EPA,
Region X, OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND STANDARDS-107, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101; (206) 553-8760, (206) 553-0404 (Fax).
Technology Transfer Network. The Technology Transfer Network (TTN)
is a network of EPA's electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides
information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution
control. Information regarding the basis and purpose of this action,
the rule and other relevant documents can be found on the pulp and
paper page of EPA's Unified Air Toxics World Wide Web site (UATW) at
``http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/pulp/pulppg.html''. For more information
on the TTN, call the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
Outline. The technical amendments discussed in this preamble are
grouped according to rule sections: emission standards and testing, and
monitoring and recordkeeping.
The preamble is organized as follows:
I. Description of the Amendments and Interpretations
A. Emission Standards and Testing
1. May process modifications be used instead of add-on control
devices to meet the bleaching system standards (Sec. 63.445)?
2. Must evaporator feed stage vapor and vacuum system
condensates be controlled (Sec. 63.446)?
3. May a direct injection gas chromatography/flame ionization
detection test method be used to measure methanol in liquid streams
(Sec. 63.14 and Sec. 63.457(c)(3))?
4. What are the minimum length and number of test runs required
to demonstrate initial compliance (Sec. 63.457)?
B. Monitoring and Recordkeeping
1. Must continuous monitors for residence time and concentration
be used for some control device alternatives (Sec. 63.453)?
2. What is the condensate tank ``no detectable'' emissions test
frequency (Sec. 63.453)?
3. What must be done if the tests for condensate tanks indicate
emissions (Sec. 63.453)?
4. May the repair period for closed-vent systems extend beyond
15 days as implied in the recordkeeping requirements (Sec. 63.453)?
5. Do the recordkeeping requirements in subpart RR apply to
closed collection systems (Sec. 63.453)?
C. Typographical Corrections
II. Administrative Requirements
III. Legal Authority
I. Description of the Amendments and Interpretations
In today's action, we are amending several sections of the national
emission standard for hazardous air pollutants from the pulp and paper
industry issued
[[Page 17557]]
on April 15, 1998 (the ``1998 NESHAP'') in title 40, part 63, subpart
S. These amendments clarify the intent and correct inadvertent
omissions and minor drafting errors in the 1998 NESHAP. This section
presents a description of each of the amendments.
A. Emission Standards and Testing
1. May process modifications be used instead of add-on control
devices to meet the bleaching system standards (Sec. 63.445)?
Today's action revises the bleaching system standards (Sec. 63.445)
to make clear that process modifications (e.g., 100 percent
substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine and elimination of
hypochlorite) may be used to achieve compliance with the chlorinated
HAP emission limits for the bleaching system standards. The 1998 NESHAP
requires equipment at subject bleaching stages to be enclosed and
vented into a closed-vent system and routed to a control device that
meets the specified emission limits (see Sec. 63.445(c)).
Following promulgation of the 1998 NESHAP, commenters indicated
that some mills may be able to achieve the concentration or mass
emission limits specified in Sec. 63.445(c) by process modifications
without the use of an add-on control device. The commenters stated that
as written, the 1998 NESHAP would preclude mills from using process
modifications (e.g., 100 percent chlorine dioxide substitution for
chlorine and elimination of hypochlorite) because the 1998 NESHAP
specifies that the emissions must be captured and routed to a control
device.
We did not intend to prevent you (owner or operator of the mill or
reader, as appropriate) from using process modifications to achieve
compliance with the standards for chlorinated HAP emissions. The outlet
concentration control option was provided in the 1998 NESHAP in
response to comments on the December 17, 1996 proposal (Pulp, Paper,
and Paperboard Industry--Background Information for Promulgated Air
Emission Standards, EPA-453/R-93-050b, pages 6-1 and 6-2) indicating
that bleaching systems using high levels of chlorine dioxide
substitution could have difficulty meeting a percent reduction limit
due to low chlorine concentrations at the process equipment outlet.
Also, the mass emission limit for bleaching system vents in the 1998
NESHAP was developed in response to comments on the March 8, 1996
supplemental Federal Register document (61 FR 9394, second column)
indicating that new low-flow rate bleaching system technologies would
not be able to meet either the percent reduction or outlet
concentration limits (Air Docket A-92-40, item IV-B-29). Therefore, we
provided for two standards to allow process modifications without the
need for add-on controls. Thus, we do not intend to require enclosures
and closed-vent systems for process equipment that achieve compliance
using process modifications. A temporary enclosure may be necessary to
measure the outlet concentration or mass emission limit during the
initial performance test and other compliance demonstrations. It should
be noted that the percent reduction alternative emission limit was not
included in the amended language since this reduction alternative is
inherently based on the use of an add-on control device.
2. Must evaporator feed stage vapor and vacuum system condensates
be controlled (Sec. 63.446)?
Evaporator feed stage vapor and vacuum system condensates must be
controlled. Today's action revises the standards for kraft pulping
process condensates in the 1998 NESHAP (Sec. 63.446) to clarify which
condensate streams from evaporator system weak liquor feed stages are
subject to the standards. Our intention in the 1998 NESHAP was to
collect all condensate streams from evaporator system stages where the
majority of HAPs are discharged. The discussion in the next four
paragraphs is intended to present the reader with a brief description
of the evaporation process and provide background for identifying the
regulated condensate streams.
The 1998 NESHAP (Sec. 63.446(b)(3)) specifies that the standards
apply to certain kraft pulping process condensate streams. For the
evaporator system, the 1998 NESHAP specifies that regulated streams are
condensates from ``each evaporator stage where weak liquor is
introduced (feed stages).'' The 1998 NESHAP defines the evaporator
system as
* * * all equipment associated with increasing the solids
content and/or concentrating spent cooking liquor from the pulp
washing system including pre-evaporators, multi-effect evaporators,
concentrators, and vacuum systems, as well as associated condensers,
hotwells, and condensate streams, and any other equipment serving
the same function as those previously listed.
Evaporators are used to remove water and volatile contaminants
(including HAPs) from weak liquor so that the spent cooking chemicals
can be economically recovered and reused. After passing through the
evaporator system, concentrated weak liquor (i.e., heavy or strong
liquor) is burned in the recovery furnace to recover spent cooking
chemicals and heat value contained in organic compounds remaining in
the concentrated liquor.
An evaporator system is a series of interconnected evaporator
stages called ``effects'' (thus the industry term ``multi-effect
evaporator). Each stage is operated at different pressures to evaporate
water and contaminates (HAPs) from weak liquor. The evaporated vapors
from one stage heat the next stage. Thus, the condenser of each stage
condenses vapors from this and previous stages. These vapors typically
do not exit the evaporator system until after entering the next stage
or stages. Additionally, the vapors from the weak liquor feed stages
have the highest HAP content since this is the initial contact of the
weak liquor with heat. Later stages contain less HAPs (unless more weak
liquor is fed into the effect) since the majority of HAPs are
evaporated from the liquor in the previous stage(s).
The liquor feed stages in the evaporator system are operated under
very high vacuum, usually maintained by steam ejectors or vacuum pumps.
The condensates generated by these vacuum devices and their associated
condensers also have high HAP content due to volatilization of
compounds from the individual liquor feed stages.
Following issuance of the 1998 NESHAP, we received requests to
clarify the 1998 NESHAP language regarding the subject condensates from
evaporator system weak liquor feed stages. We intended to include the
condensates from weak liquor feed stage vapors and condensates from
weak liquor feed stage vacuum systems in the list of subject kraft
pulping process condensates specified in the 1998 NESHAP
(Sec. 63.446(b)). However, the 1998 NESHAP language used to describe
the weak liquor feed stage vapor condensates was not accurate and the
1998 NESHAP language omitted weak liquor feed stage vacuum system
condensates. Our intent is evident in EPA's analysis of the condensate
characterization data (Air Docket A-92-40, item IV-B-9) submitted
following proposal, the supplemental Federal Register document (March
8, 1996; 61 FR 9383; page 9390, second column), and communications
between EPA and industry stakeholders (Air Docket A-92-40, items IV-E-
65 and IV-E-71) following publication of the proposed rule.
Accordingly, we are amending Sec. 63.446(b) to clarify that
condensates from the vapors and vacuum systems for weak liquor feed
stages are subject to the kraft pulping process condensate
[[Page 17558]]
standards. As noted above, the vapors from weak liquor feed stages may
not be condensed in some evaporative systems until the following stage
or stages. In this case, you must collect and control the condensates
from these evaporator stages.
3. May a direct injection gas chromatography/flame ionization
detection test method be used to measure methanol in liquid streams
(Sec. 63.14 and Sec. 63.457(c)(3))?
A specific direct injection gas chromatography/flame ionization
detection (GC/FID) test method is being included in today's action as
an additional and alternative test method for determining the methanol
content of liquid streams. We are amending the test methods and
procedures section of the 1998 NESHAP (Sec. 63.457(c)(3)) and the
incorporation-by-reference section of the NESHAP general provisions
(Sec. 63.14) to incorporate this test method.
As presented in the April 15, 1998 NESHAP preamble (63 FR 18529),
the 1998 NESHAP specifies EPA Reference Method 305 for determining
methanol content of liquid streams. As the 1998 NESHAP preamble notes,
however, the GC/FID test method developed by the National Council of
the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI) had not
been validated using EPA procedures (Method 301). However, we stated in
the 1998 NESHAP preamble that if we approve this method using the
Method 301 validation procedures, then the NCASI method would be
approved as either an alternative or a replacement for Method 305 with
a supplemental Federal Register document.
On February 18, 1998, the director of EPA's Emissions, Monitoring
and Analysis Division (EMAD) approved NCASI's test method as an
alternative test method to EPA Method 305 for measuring methanol in
condensates. Since clarifying amendments to the 1998 NESHAP are being
published in today's action, we decided to incorporate this NCASI test
method into the 1998 NESHAP language to ease implementation and
referencing.
Either EPA Method 305 or the NCASI method may be used for measuring
the methanol content of liquid streams. However, the NCASI test method
has been validated for only one HAP compound: methanol. So while this
NCASI method can be used in other parts of the 1998 NESHAP where
methanol is specified as a surrogate for HAP, this method may not be
used for certain test requirements for biological treatment where we
require a total measurement of all HAP compounds (not just methanol).
4. What are the minimum length and number of test runs required to
demonstrate initial compliance (Sec. 63.457)?
For the initial performance tests, a minimum of three 1-hour test
runs must be conducted during which either an integrated sample or four
grab samples must be taken. Today's action clarifies the terminology
used for test runs and samples in the vent sampling requirements in
Sec. 63.457(b)(5) and (b)(6) and adds the 1-hour test length
specification to the liquid sampling requirements in Sec. 63.457(c)(3).
Commenters to the 1998 NESHAP indicated that the language regarding
the minimum length of the test run and number of test runs required by
the NESHAP was unclear. In reviewing the 1998 NESHAP, we found two
sections where clarification of the terminology used to describe test
runs and samples is needed. Additionally, we inadvertently omitted
specifying the minimum test run length for liquid sampling. The
following discussion identifies the 1998 NESHAP language in question
and the amendments in today's action to correct the rule language.
Performance tests are used to demonstrate compliance with a
relevant standard based on conditions that reflect normal operations.
As specified in the performance testing requirements section of the
NESHAP general provisions (Sec. 63.7(e)(1)):
Performance tests shall be conducted under such conditions as
the Administrator specifies to the owner or operator based on
representative performance (i.e., performance based on normal
operating conditions) of the affected source.
The NESHAP general provisions (Sec. 63.7(e)(3)) also specify:
* * * For the purpose of determining compliance with a relevant
standard, the arithmetic mean of the results of the three runs shall
apply.
For pulping and bleaching system vent standards, the 1998 NESHAP
specifies in the test methods and procedures section
(Sec. 63.457(b)(5)) that owners or operators must collect a minimum of
three samples that are representative of normal conditions and average
the results to determine vent gas pollutant concentrations. However,
the terminology used in the 1998 NESHAP for vent sampling was incorrect
since the term ``samples'' was used instead of the phrase ``test
runs.'' Section 63.457(b)(5) should have used the phrase ``test runs''
since the subsequent language in Sec. 63.457(b)(6) refers the minimum
sampling time for the test runs and also specifies the number of
samples to be taken during the run. Therefore, we are changing the word
``samples'' to ``test runs'' in Sec. 63.457(b)(5). Also, for additional
clarity, we are adding the word ``test'' in front of the word ``run''
in Sec. 63.457(b)(6).
For liquid stream sampling, the 1998 NESHAP specifies in the test
methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(c)(3)) that owners or
operators must collect a minimum of three samples that are
representative of normal conditions and average the results to
determine liquid stream total HAP or methanol concentrations. In
drafting the 1998 NESHAP, we inadvertently omitted the minimum sampling
time of each test run for liquid stream sampling. Although the liquid
stream test methods referenced in the 1998 NESHAP (Sec. 63.457(c)(3)(i)
and (c)(3)(ii)) are batch tests, we intended for the samples (either
grab samples or composite samples) to be collected over a minimum
period of 1 hour. Our intent for liquid stream sampling length is found
in the test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.451(i)(2)(iv)) of
the December 17, 1993 proposal (63 FR 66181). Today's action corrects
this omission and inserts the 1-hour sampling period language into
Sec. 63.457(c)(3).
Today's action amends the 1998 NESHAP to clarify that the initial
performance tests for vent and liquid streams must consist of a minimum
of three test runs and that the minimum sampling time for each test run
is 1 hour. However, additional performance tests or longer sampling
times may be needed to demonstrate compliance under normal operating
conditions for equipment systems that have multiple operating scenarios
or modes.
With regard to continuous compliance, the 1998 NESHAP did not
specify frequencies and averaging periods for continuous monitoring
since we intended to provide you flexibility in developing appropriate
continuous monitoring strategies. As specified in the monitoring
section of the 1998 NESHAP (Sec. 63.453(n)(4)), you must provide for
the Administrator's approval the rationale for the selected operating
parameter value, monitoring frequency, and averaging time. Since we
have delegated this authority to State agencies, you have the
flexibility to work out the specifics of continuous monitoring
strategies with your permitting agencies. Additionally, we continue to
hold workshops to discuss and identify continuous monitoring strategies
with stakeholders.
[[Page 17559]]
B. Monitoring and Recordkeeping
1. Must continuous monitors for residence time and concentration be
used for some control device alternatives (Sec. 63.453)?
Thermal oxidizers meeting the outlet concentration standard may
continuously monitor either combustion temperature or outlet
concentration. Today's action clarifies the monitoring requirements in
the 1998 NESHAP (Sec. 63.453(b)) for thermal oxidizers used to control
pulping system vent emissions. Additionally, today's action clarifies
that residence time is an operating parameter to be demonstrated
initially and when process changes occur that will impact residence
time.
The 1998 NESHAP (Sec. 63.443(d)) contains the following alternative
emission limits for thermal oxidizers:
(1) Reduce total HAP emissions by 98 percent or more by weight;
(2) Reduce the total HAP concentration at the outlet of the
thermal oxidizer to 20 parts per million or less by volume (ppmv),
corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry basis;
(3) Reduce total HAP emissions using a thermal oxidizer designed
and operated at a minimum temperature of 871 deg.C (1600 deg.F)
and a minimum residence time of 0.75 seconds; or
(4) Reduce total HAP emissions using a boiler, lime kiln, or
recovery furnace by introducing the HAP emission stream with the
primary fuel or into the flame zone.
The monitoring requirements for thermal oxidizers (Sec. 63.453(b))
specify that a continuous monitoring system (CMS) must be operated to
measure the temperature in the firebox or in the ductwork immediately
downstream of the firebox and before any substantial heat exchange
occurs. This applies to each thermal oxidizer used to comply with the
percent reduction, outlet concentration, and minimum design
specification requirements. When complying with the outlet
concentration or the minimum design requirements, you must monitor for
the parameter specified and for the temperature and concentration
limits specified.
In drafting the 1998 NESHAP, we intended that continuous compliance
with each emission limit alternative (with the exception of using a
boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace) be demonstrated by monitoring
only the thermal oxidizer operating temperature as evidenced by the
December 17, 1993 proposal (Sec. 63.453(b)) and the 1998 NESHAP
preamble (63 FR 18511). As an option for monitoring temperature, we
intended to allow you to continuously monitor only the thermal oxidizer
outlet concentration if you are complying with the 20 ppmv outlet
concentration emission limit (Sec. 63.443(d)(2)). However, the language
in Sec. 63.453(b) of the 1998 NESHAP is unclear. It incorrectly
indicates that owners or operators complying with the 20 ppmv outlet
concentration must continuously monitor the outlet concentration and
temperature, and that owners or operators complying with the
temperature and residence time specifications must continuously monitor
the thermal oxidizer operating temperature, residence time, and HAP
concentration.
Today's action amends the 1998 NESHAP to achieve the original
intent as stated in the preamble (63 FR 18511). The amendment clarifies
that mills that comply with the 20 ppmv emission limit must monitor
either HAP concentration or temperature, but not both. The amendment
also clarifies that monitoring of operating temperature is the only
monitoring parameter requirement for demonstrating continuous
compliance with the minimum temperature and residence time
specification (Sec. 63.443(d)(3)). For the residence time requirement,
you must demonstrate that the minimum residence time is being achieved
(along with the operating temperature) and provide documentation to
demonstrate this in the notification of compliance status. The minimum
residence time must also be performed if the vent gas flow rate sent to
the thermal oxidizer is increased above the flow rate established in
the notification of compliance status.
2. What is the condensate tank ``no detectable'' emissions test
frequency (Sec. 63.453)?
Today's action amends the monitoring requirements for closed
collection systems (Sec. 63.453(l)) to clarify tests to determine ``no
detectable'' emissions are to be conducted initially and annually.
In the standards for kraft pulping process condensates
(Sec. 63.446(d)(2)(i)), the 1998 NESHAP specifies that condensate tanks
used in the closed collection system for regulated condensate streams
must be operated and designed with no detectable emissions as indicated
by an instrument reading of less than 500 parts per million above
background using EPA Reference Method 21. However, we inadvertently
neglected to specify the schedule for conducting this Method 21 test.
We intended this compliance monitoring to be conducted at the same
frequency as that required for the closed-vent system Method 21 tests
since the same test equipment and personnel are being used. Closed-vent
systems are required to be tested initially and annually
(Sec. 63.453(k)(3)). Today's amendment specifies that the ``no
detectable'' emissions tests for closed collection systems must also be
performed initially and annually.
For additional clarity and to better incorporate additional changes
being made in today's action (see sections I.B.3 and I.B.5 of this
preamble), we restructured the NESHAP paragraph where the monitoring
requirements for closed collection systems are specified
(Sec. 63.453(l)). We are changing the structure of Sec. 63.453(l) to
parallel that used for the enclosure and closed-vent system monitoring
requirements (Sec. 63.453(k)). Consequently, several subsections are
being added to Sec. 63.453(l). These revisions are contained in amended
Sec. 63.453(l)(2). Additional changes to Sec. 63.453(l) are discussed
in sections I.B.3 and I.B.5 of this preamble.
3. What must be done if the tests for condensate tanks indicate
emissions (Sec. 63.453)?
We are amending the closed collection system monitoring
requirements (Sec. 63.453(l)) to clarify that pulp and paper mills must
comply with the repair schedule requirements of subpart RR of this part
(Sec. 63.964(b)) if condensate tank ``no detectable'' emissions tests
indicate emissions. All detectable emissions measured on condensate
tanks must be repaired according to the repair schedule in subpart RR
of this part.
The kraft pulping process condensate standards of the 1998 NESHAP
(Sec. 63.446(d)(2)(i)) state that condensate tanks used in the closed
collection system must be designed and operated with no detectable
emissions. The 1998 NESHAP (Sec. 63.453(l)) specifies that closed
collection systems (which include condensate tanks) must meet the
inspection and monitoring requirements of subpart RR of this part
(Sec. 63.964) which provide a repair schedule. Section 63.964(b) of
subpart RR of this part states:
(b) The owner or operator shall repair all detected defects as
follows:
(1) The owner or operator shall make first efforts at repair of
the defect no later than 5 calendar days after detection and repair
shall be completed as soon as possible but no later than 15 calendar
days after detection except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section.
(2) Repair of a defect may be delayed beyond 15 calendar days if
the owner or operator determines that repair of the defect requires
emptying or temporary removal from service of the individual drain
system and no alternative capacity is available at the facility site
to accept the wastewater normally managed in the individual drain
system. In this case, the owner or operator shall repair the defect
at the next time the process or unit that is generating the
wastewater managed in
[[Page 17560]]
the individual drain system stops operation. Repair of the defect
shall be completed before the process or unit resumes operation.
We inadvertently omitted rule text in the 1998 NESHAP specifying
that you must follow the repair schedule if the condensate tank tests
indicate emissions. Our intent is evident since we included the repair
schedule for defects in the continuous monitoring section
(Sec. 63.453(f)(3)) of the December 17, 1993 proposal (58 FR 66182). In
today's action, we are clarifying the 1998 NESHAP by explicitly
specifying that the repair schedule requirements in subpart RR of this
part (Sec. 63.964(b)(1) and (b)(2)) are triggered if the condensate
tank ``no detectable'' emissions tests identify emissions.
As discussed previously in section I.B.2 of this preamble, the
structure of the paragraph in the 1998 NESHAP specifying the monitoring
requirements for closed collection systems (Sec. 63.453(l)) is being
revised to parallel that used for the enclosure and closed-vent system
monitoring requirements (Sec. 63.453(k)). As part of that
restructuring, the revisions discussed in today's action regarding the
repair schedule specified in subpart RR of this part for both
condensate tanks and the rest of the closed collection system are
contained in Sec. 63.453(l)(3). One additional change to Sec. 63.453(l)
is discussed in section I.B.5 of this preamble.
4. May the repair period for closed-vent systems extend beyond 15
days as implied in the recordkeeping requirements (Sec. 63.453)?
Corrective actions or repairs of closed-vent system defects or
leaks, under certain circumstances, may extend beyond the 15 calendar
days specified in the 1998 NESHAP. Today's action corrects a drafting
oversight in the requirements for inspection and repair of enclosures
and closed-vent systems (Sec. 63.453(k)(6)(ii)).
In the monitoring requirements for enclosures and closed-vent
systems (Sec. 63.453(k)(6)(ii)), the 1998 NESHAP specifies that
corrective actions or repairs for enclosure and closed-vent system
defects and leaks must be completed no later than 15 calendar days
after the problem is identified. However, certain equipment may require
more than the 15 calendar days to repair. It is not our intent to
create a violation in cases where the failure to repair is beyond the
control of the owner or operator, or where immediate repair would
create greater emissions. The Agency's intent is evident since specific
recordkeeping requirements (Sec. 63.454(b)(8) through (b)(10)) are
triggered when repairs or corrective actions require more than 15
calendar days to complete indicating that the rule contemplates
situations where it will take longer than 15 days to complete repairs.
For these cases, owners or operators must record the reason for the
delay in repair, the expected date of successful repair, and the actual
date of successful repair. If the reasons for delaying the repair meet
the conditions specified in the rule and the recordkeeping requirements
are met, then repairs or corrective actions that require longer than 15
calendar days are allowed.
Today's action adds clarifying sentences to the monitoring
requirements for enclosures and closed-vent systems
(Sec. 63.453(k)(6)(ii)). Delays in corrective actions or repairs beyond
15 calendar days are allowed in cases where the corrective actions or
repairs are technically infeasible without a process unit shutdown or
where the emissions resulting from immediate repair would be greater
than the emissions likely to result from the delay of repair. This
language addressing corrective actions and repairs is consistent with
provisions in the national emission standards, specifically for oil-
water separators and organic water separators (Sec. 63.1047(d)(2) of
subpart VV of this part) and in the national emission standards for
organic hazardous air pollutants for equipment leaks (Sec. 63.172(i) of
subpart H of this part).
5. Do the recordkeeping requirements in subpart RR apply to closed
collection systems (Sec. 63.453)?
The recordkeeping requirements of subpart RR of this part do not
apply to closed collection systems. Today's action amends the
monitoring requirements for closed collection systems (Sec. 63.453(l))
to clarify that the recordkeeping requirements of subpart RR of this
part are not in effect. Certain provisions of the national emission
standards for individual drain systems (subpart RR of this part) are
referenced in the 1998 NESHAP for convenience. In developing the 1998
NESHAP, we identified areas of overlap between subpart RR of this part
and the pulp and paper NESHAP. However, additional overlap was
identified since promulgation.
The closed collection system monitoring requirements in the 1998
NESHAP (Sec. 63.453(l)) specify that each closed collection system must
comply with the inspection and monitoring requirements of subpart RR of
this part (Sec. 63.964). However, the monitoring requirement section of
subpart RR of this part contains references (Sec. 63.964(a)(1)(vi) and
(b)(3)) to the recordkeeping requirements of subpart RR of this part
(Sec. 63.965).
Today's action amends the pulp and paper 1998 NESHAP to specify
that owners or operators are required to comply only with the closed
collection system recordkeeping requirements specified in the pulp and
paper 1998 NESHAP (Sec. 63.454) since the recordkeeping requirements
specified in subpart RR of this part are redundant. As discussed
previously in sections I.B.2 and I.B.3 of this preamble, the structure
of the paragraph in the 1998 NESHAP specifying the monitoring
requirements for closed collection systems (Sec. 63.453(l)) is being
revised to parallel that used for the enclosure and closed-vent system
monitoring requirements (Sec. 63.453(k)). The revisions to identify the
overlap between the monitoring requirements of subpart RR of this part
and the pulp and paper NESHAP discussed in this section are contained
in Sec. 63.453(l)(1)(i).
C. Typographical Corrections
Minor drafting errors and inadvertent omissions were identified in
the 1998 NESHAP after promulgation. Today's action makes the following
corrections:
Changes ``HAP's'' to ``HAPs'' in the following sections:
the definition of process wastewater treatment system (Sec. 63.441);
the standards for kraft pulping process condensates section
(Sec. 63.446(e)(3)); and the test methods and procedures section
(Sec. 63.457(f)(1) and Sec. 63.457(h)).
Changes the word ``sources'' to ``source'' in the
standards for the pulping system at kraft, soda, and semi-chemical
processes (Sec. 63.443(b)(1)).
Changes the word ``uses'' to ``use'' in the standards for
the bleaching system (Sec. 63.445(a)(2)).
Corrects text for the closed collection system design
specifications in the standards for kraft pulping process condensates.
In Sec. 63.446(d)(l), delete the word ``for'', changes the words
``closed'' and ``vent'' to ``closed-vent'', and deletes the phrase
``Sec. 63.693 as specified in.''
Corrects text for the clean condensate alternative
standards (Sec. 63.447). In Sec. 63.447(e)(2), delete the word
``that'', add the word ``and'' at the end of the paragraph in
Sec. 63.447(g)(1)(ii), and add the word ``of'' to Sec. 63.447(g)(2)
between the words ``requirements'' and ``paragraphs.''
Corrects wording for the standards for enclosures and
closed-vent systems (Sec. 63.450). In the Sec. 63.450(b), add the word
``in'' before ``Sec. 63.45(e).''
Corrects wording for test methods and procedures section
(Sec. 63.457). In Sec. 63.457(b)(5)(ii)(C), change the word
[[Page 17561]]
``project'' to ``protect.'' In Sec. 63.457(b)(5)(ii)(E)(7), change the
word ``an'' to ``a.'' In Sec. 63.457(c)(2), the change the semicolon at
the end of the paragraph to a period. Add the word ``an'' to
Sec. 63.457(c)(4)(i) between the words ``into'' and ``Erlenmeyer'' in
the first sentence of the paragraph.
Changes the acronym ``CEM's'' to ``CEMs'' in the comment
column for the reference Sec. 63.8(f)(6) in table 1 of the 1998 NESHAP
(general provisions applicability to subpart S).
II. Administrative Requirements
A. Docket
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. The docket is
a dynamic file, because material is added throughout the rulemaking
development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of the
public and industries involved to readily identify and locate documents
so that you can effectively participate in the rulemaking process.
Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their preambles,
the contents of the docket except for certain interagency documents
will serve as the record in case of judicial review. (See section
307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.)
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The EPA already submitted the information requirements of the 1998
NESHAP to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on April 27, 1998
for approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
An Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by
EPA (ICR No. 1657.03), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer,
Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation Regulatory Information
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. The information
requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
Today's amendments to the NESHAP will have no impact on the
information collection burden estimates made previously. The amendments
clarify the intent of the 1998 NESHAP and correct inadvertent omissions
and minor drafting errors in the 1998 NESHAP. Consequently, the ICR has
not been revised.
C. Executive Order 12866: ``Significant Regulatory Action''
Determination
Under Executive Order 12866, EPA must determine whether the
regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to OMB
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The order defines
``significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely to lead to a
rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, public health or safety in State, local, or tribal governments
or communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs, or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
The NESHAP published on April 15, 1998 was considered significant
under Executive Order 12866, and EPA accordingly prepared a regulatory
impact analysis (RIA). The amendments published today clarify the
intent of the 1998 NESHAP and correct inadvertent omissions and minor
drafting errors in the 1998 NESHAP. The OMB evaluated this action and
determined it to be nonsignificant; thus, it did not require OMB
review.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking unless the agency certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. The EPA
determined that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility
analysis in connection with this action. These amendments would not
result in increased impacts to small entities and the changes to the
1998 NESHAP in today's action do not add new control requirements.
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
The EPA has determined that the action promulgated today does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of the
Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to today's action.
F. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local,
or tribal government unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by
consulting, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the OMB a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected State, local, and tribal governments, the
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of State, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
While the final rule published on April 15, 1998 (1998 NESHAP) does
not create mandates upon State, local, or tribal governments, EPA
involved State and local governments in its development. Because
today's action clarifies the intent of the 1998 NESHAP and corrects
inadvertent omissions and minor drafting errors, today's action does
not create a mandate upon State, local, or tribal governments.
G. Applicability of Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines (1)
is economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule has a
disproportionate effect on children. If
[[Page 17562]]
the regulatory action meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the
environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on children
and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered
by the Agency.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This rule falls into that
category only in part: the minimum rule stringency is set according to
a congressionally mandated, technology-based lower limit called the
``floor,'' while a decision to increase the stringency beyond this
floor can be partly based on risk considerations.
No children's risk analysis was performed for the 1998 NESHAP
rulemaking because no alternative technologies exist that would provide
greater stringency at a reasonable cost, and therefore the results of
any such analysis would have no impact on the stringency decision.
Today's action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions on environmental health risks or safety risks
that may disproportionately affect children.
H. Executive Order 13084: Consultations and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments or if EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section
of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected and
other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory policies
on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. The final rule published on
April 15, 1998 (1998 NESHAP) does not create mandates upon tribal
governments. Because today's action clarifies the intent of the 1998
NESHAP and corrects inadvertent omissions and minor drafting errors,
today's action does not create a mandate on tribal governments.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this action.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards instead of government-unique standards in their regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, business practices) that are developed or adopted by one or
more voluntary consensus standards bodies. Examples of organizations
generally regarded as voluntary consensus standards bodies include the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), the National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA), and the Society of Automotive Engineers
(SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal agencies like EPA to provide
Congress, through the OMB, with explanations when an agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
Although this action does not involve any new technical standards,
today's action does include the incorporation by reference of an
alternative test method. The method was developed by NCASI, however,
NCASI is not a voluntary consensus standards body. No voluntary
consensus standards were identified for measuring methanol in pulping
process condensates.
J. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C
804(2). These technical amendments will be effective April 12, 1999.
K. Immediate Effective Date
The EPA is making today's action effective immediately. The EPA has
determined that the rule amendments being made in today's action are
interpretive rules which are not subject to notice and comment
requirements. The EPA has also determined that this rule may be made
effective in less than 30 days because it is interpretive and relieves
restrictions. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d) (1) and (2).
III. Legal Authority
These regulations are amended under the authority of sections 112,
114, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. sections 7412,
7414, and 7601).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations.
Dated: March 31, 1999.
Robert Brenner,
Acting Assistant Administrator, OAR.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Subpart A--General Provisions
2. Amend Sec. 63.14 by adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(f) The following material is available from the National Council
of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI), P.
O. Box 133318, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-3318 or at http://
www.ncasi.org: NCASI Method DI/MEOH-94.02, Methanol in Process Liquids
GC/FID (Gas Chromatography/Flame Ionization
[[Page 17563]]
Detection), August 1998, Methods Manual, NCASI, Research Triangle Park,
NC, IBR approved for Sec. 63.457(c)(3)(ii) of subpart S of this part.
Subpart S--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Pulp and Paper Industry
3. Amend Sec. 63.441 by revising the definition of ``Process
wastewater treatment system'' to read as follows:
Sec. 63.441 Definitions.
* * * * *
Process wastewater treatment system means a collection of
equipment, a process, or specific technique that removes or destroys
the HAPs in a process wastewater stream. Examples include, but are not
limited to, a steam stripping unit, wastewater thermal oxidizer, or
biological treatment unit.
* * * * *
4. Amend Sec. 63.443 by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as
follows:
Sec. 63.443 Standards for the pulping system at kraft, soda, and semi-
chemical processes.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) At each existing affected source, the total HAP emissions from
each LVHC system shall be controlled.
* * * * *
5. Amend Sec. 63.445 by revising paragraphs (a)(2) and (b) to read
as follows:
Sec. 63.445 Standards for the bleaching system.
(a) * * *
(2) Bleaching systems bleaching pulp from kraft, sulfite, or soda
pulping processes that use any chlorinated compounds; or
* * * * *
(b) The equipment at each bleaching stage, of the bleaching systems
listed in paragraph (a) of this section, where chlorinated compounds
are introduced shall be enclosed and vented into a closed-vent system
and routed to a control device that meets the requirements specified in
paragraph (c) of this section. The enclosures and closed-vent system
shall meet the requirements specified in Sec. 63.450. If process
modifications are used to achieve compliance with the emission limits
specified in paragraphs (c)(2) or (c)(3), enclosures and closed-vent
systems are not required, unless appropriate.
* * * * *
6. Amend Sec. 63.446 by revising paragraphs (b), (d)(1), and (e)(3)
to read as follows:
Sec. 63.446 Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.
* * * * *
(b) The pulping process condensates from the following equipment
systems shall be treated to meet the requirements specified in
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section:
(1) Each digester system;
(2) Each turpentine recovery system;
(3) Each evaporator system condensate from:
(i) The vapors from each stage where weak liquor is introduced
(feed stages); and
(ii) Each evaporator vacuum system for each stage where weak liquor
is introduced (feed stages).
(4) Each HVLC collection system; and
(5) Each LVHC collection system.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Each closed collection system shall meet the individual drain
system requirements specified in Secs. 63.960, 63.961, and 63.962 of
subpart RR of this part, except closed-vent systems and control devices
shall be designed and operated in accordance with Secs. 63.443(d) and
63.450, instead of in accordance with Sec. 63.962(a)(3)(ii),
(b)(3)(ii)(A), and (b)(3)(ii)(B)(5)(iii); and
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(3) Treat the pulping process condensates to reduce or destroy the
total HAPs by at least 92 percent or more by weight; or
* * * * *
7. Amend Sec. 63.447 by revising paragraphs (e)(2), (g)(1)(ii), and
(g)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.447 Clean condensate alternative.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) The HAP emissions reduction occurring by complying with the
clean condensate alternative technology.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The air pollution control technologies that would be used to
meet the requirements of Sec. 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through (a)(1)(v); and
* * * * *
(2) Estimates and basis for the estimates of total HAP emissions
and emission reductions to fulfill the requirements of paragraphs (d),
(e), and (f) of this section.
* * * * *
8. Amend Sec. 63.450 by revising paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.450 Standards for enclosures and closed-vent systems.
* * * * *
(b) Each enclosure shall maintain negative pressure at each
enclosure or hood opening as demonstrated by the procedures specified
in Sec. 63.457(e). Each enclosure or hood opening closed during the
initial performance test specified in Sec. 63.457(a) shall be
maintained in the same closed and sealed position as during the
performance test at all times except when necessary to use the opening
for sampling, inspection, maintenance, or repairs.
* * * * *
9. Amend Sec. 63.453 by revising paragraphs (b), (k)(6)(ii), and
(l) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.453 Monitoring requirements.
* * * * *
(b) A CMS shall be operated to measure the temperature in the
firebox or in the ductwork immediately downstream of the firebox and
before any substantial heat exchange occurs for each thermal oxidizer
used to comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.443(d)(1) through
(d)(3). Owners and operators complying with the HAP concentration
requirements in Sec. 63.443(d)(2) may install a CMS to monitor the
thermal oxidizer outlet total HAP or methanol concentration, as an
alternative to monitoring thermal oxidizer operating temperature.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(6) * * *
(ii) The repair or corrective action shall be completed no later
than 15 calendar days after the problem is identified. Delay of repair
or corrective action is allowed if the repair or corrective action is
technically infeasible without a process unit shutdown or if the owner
or operator determines that the emissions resulting from immediate
repair would be greater than the emissions likely to result from delay
of repair. Repair of such equipment shall be completed by the end of
the next process unit shutdown.
(l) Each pulping process condensate closed collection system used
to comply with Sec. 63.446(d) shall comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (l)(3) of this section.
(1) Each pulping process condensate closed collection system shall
be visually inspected every 30 days and shall comply with the
inspection and monitoring requirements specified in Sec. 63.964 of
subpart RR of this part, except:
(i) Owners or operators shall comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. 63.454 instead of the requirements specified in
Sec. 63.964(a)(1)(vi) and (b)(3) of subpart RR of this part.
[[Page 17564]]
(ii) Owners or operators shall comply with the inspection and
monitoring requirements for closed-vent systems and control devices
specified in paragraphs (a) and (k) of this section instead of the
requirements specified in Sec. 63.964(a)(2) of subpart RR of this part.
(2) Each condensate tank used in the closed collection system shall
be operated with no detectable leaks as specified in
Sec. 63.446(d)(2)(i) measured initially and annually by the procedures
specified in Sec. 63.457(d).
(3) If an inspection required by this section identifies visible
defects in the closed collection system, or if an instrument reading of
500 parts per million or greater above background is measured, then
corrective actions specified in Sec. 63.964(b) of subpart RR of this
part shall be taken.
* * * * *
10. Amend Sec. 63.457 by revising paragraphs (b)(5) introductory
text, (b)(5)(ii)(C), (b)(5)(ii)(E)(7), (b)(6), (c)(2), (c)(3)
introductory text, (c)(4)(i), (f)(1), (h), and (m)(1)(ii); by
redesignating paragraph (c)(3)(ii) as paragraph (c)(3)(iii); and adding
a new paragraph (c)(3)(ii) to read as follows:
Sec. 63.457 Test methods and procedures.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(5) To determine vent gas concentrations, the owner or operator
shall conduct a minimum of three test runs that are representative of
normal conditions and average the resulting pollutant concentrations
using the following procedures.
* * * * *
(ii) * * *
(C) Critical orifice. The critical orifice shall have a flow rate
of 200 to 250 ml/min and shall be followed by a vacuum pump capable of
providing a vacuum of 640 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). A 45
millimeter diameter in-line Teflon 0.8 micrometer filter shall follow
the impingers to protect the critical orifice and vacuum pump.
* * * * *
(E) * * *
(7) To prepare the 10 percent sulfuric acid solution, add 10 ml of
concentrated sulfuric acid to 80 ml water in a 100 ml volumetric flask.
Dilute to volume.
* * * * *
(6) The minimum sampling time for each of the three test runs shall
be 1 hour in which either an integrated sample or four grab samples
shall be taken. If grab sampling is used, then the samples shall be
taken at approximately equal intervals in time, such as 15 minute
intervals during the test run.
(c) * * *
(2) The volumetric flow rate of the entering and exiting liquid
streams shall be determined using the inlet and outlet flow meters or
other methods demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction. The
volumetric flow rate measurements to determine actual mass removal
shall be taken at the same time as the concentration measurements.
(3) The owner or operator shall conduct a minimum of three test
runs that are representative of normal conditions and average the
resulting pollutant concentrations. The minimum sampling time for each
test run shall be 1 hour and the grab or composite samples shall be
taken at approximately equally spaced intervals over the 1-hour test
run period. The owner or operator shall use one of the following
procedures to determine total HAP or methanol concentration:
* * * * *
(ii) For determining methanol concentrations, NCASI Method DI/MEOH-
94.02, Methanol in Process Liquids by GC/FID, August 1998, Methods
Manual, NCASI, Research Triangle Park, NC. This test method is
incorporated by reference in Sec. 63.14(f) of subpart A of this part.
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Filter the sample through the filter paper, into an Erlenmeyer
flask by applying a vacuum to the flask sidearm. Minimize the time for
which vacuum is applied to prevent stripping of volatile organics from
the sample. Replace filter paper as often as needed in order to
maintain filter times of less than approximately 30 seconds per filter
paper. No rinsing of sample container or filter bowl into the
Erlenmeyer flask is allowed.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) As the sum of all individual HAPs; or
* * * * *
(h) Bleaching HAP concentration measurement. For purposes of
complying with the bleaching system requirements in Sec. 63.445, the
owner or operator shall measure the total HAP concentration as the sum
of all individual chlorinated HAPs or as chlorine.
* * * * *
(m) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Multiply the total HAP mass determined in paragraph (m)(1)(i)
of this section by 0.65 to determine the target HAP mass for the high-
HAP fraction condensate stream or streams.
* * * * *
11. Table 1 of subpart S is amended by revising the entry for
Sec. 63.8(f)(6) to read as follows:
Table 1 to Subpart S--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart Sa
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference Applies to Subpart S Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * *
* * *
63.8(f)(6).............. No...................... Subpart S does not
specify relative
accuracy test for
CEMs.
* * * *
* * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Wherever subpart A specifies ``postmark'' dates, submittals may be
sent by methods other than the U.S. Mail (e.g., by fax or courier).
Submittals shall be sent by the specified date, but a postmark is not
required.
[[Page 17565]]
[FR Doc. 99-8950 Filed 4-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
