[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18504-18751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9613]
[[Page 18503]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 63, 261, and 430 National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper
Production; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Category; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 18504]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 63, 261, and 430
[FRL-5924-8]
RIN 2040-AB53
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance
Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rules.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action promulgates effluent limitations guidelines and
standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for a portion of the pulp,
paper, and paperboard industry, and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as
amended in 1990 for the pulp and paper production source category.
EPA is also promulgating best management practices under the CWA
for a portion of the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry, and new
analytical methods for 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants and for
adsorbable organic halides (AOX). This action consolidates into 12
subcategories what had once been 26 subcategories of effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry, and revises the existing effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. The revised
effluent limitations guidelines and standards require existing and new
facilities within these two subcategories to limit the discharge of
pollutants into navigable waters of the United States and to limit the
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works. The
NESHAP requires existing and new major sources within the pulp and
paper production source category to control emissions using the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) to control hazardous air
pollutants (HAP).
EPA is revising the effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory and the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory primarily to reduce the discharge of
toxic and nonconventional chemical compounds found in the effluents
from these mills. Discharge of these pollutants into the freshwater,
estuarine, and marine ecosystems may alter aquatic habitats, affect
aquatic life, and adversely impact human health. Discharges of
chlorinated organic compounds from chlorine bleaching, particularly
dioxins and furans, are human carcinogens and human system toxicants
and are extremely toxic to aquatic life. The final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are estimated to reduce the discharge of
adsorbable organic halides (AOX) by 28,210 kkg/year; chloroform by 45
kkg/year; chlorinated phenolics by 47 kkg/year; and 2,3,7,8-TCDD
(dioxin) and 2,3,7,8-TCDF (furan) by 125 gm/year. These reductions will
permit all 19 dioxin/furan-related fish consumption advisories
downstream of pulp and paper mills to be lifted.
EPA is revising the subcategorization scheme for the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards because the new scheme better
defines the processes typically found in U.S. mills and thus results in
what ultimately will be a streamlined regulation that can be
implemented more easily by the permit writer. With the exception of the
new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories, EPA is
making no substantive changes to the limitations and standards
applicable to the newly reorganized subcategories. Those portions of
the existing pulp, paper, and paperboard effluent limitations
guidelines and standards that are not substantively amended by this
action are not subject to judicial review; nor is their effective date
affected by this reorganization.
The HAPs emitted by facilities covered by the NESHAP include such
compounds as methanol, chlorinated compounds, formaldehyde, benzene,
and xylene. The health effects of exposure to these and other HAPs at
pulp and paper mills can include cancer, respiratory irritation, and
damage to the nervous system. The final NESHAP is expected to reduce
baseline emissions of HAP by 65 percent or 139,000 Mg/yr.
The pollutant reductions resulting from these rules will achieve
the primary goals of both the CAA and CWA, which are to ``enhance the
quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public
health and welfare and productive capacity of its population'' and to
``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters,'' respectively. These rules will result in
continued environmental improvement at reasonable cost by providing
flexibility in when and how results are achieved and, for certain
mills, by providing incentives to surpass baseline requirements.
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is concurrently
proposing NESHAP to control hazardous air pollutants from chemical
recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone
semi-chemical pulp mills.
In another proposed rule published in today's Federal Register, EPA
is also proposing a regulation that would require mills enrolled in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program being promulgated for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory to submit a plan
specifying research, construction, and other activities leading to
achievement of the Voluntary Advanced Technology effluent limitations,
with accompanying dates for achieving these milestones. Second, EPA
proposes to authorize Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory
mills under certain circumstances to submit a certification based on
process changes in lieu of monitoring for chloroform. Third, although
not proposing totally chlorine-free (TCF) technologies for new source
performance standards under the CWA for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory at this time, EPA is requesting comments and data
regarding the feasibility of TCF processes for this subcategory,
especially the range of products made and their specifications. In that
proposal EPA is also requesting comments and data regarding the
effluent reduction performance of TCF processes for this subcategory.
DATES: In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, the regulations shall become effective June 15,
1998. For compliance dates, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
under the heading ``Compliance Dates.''
ADDRESSES: Air Dockets. The Air Dockets are available for public
inspection between 8 a.m. and 4 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, Room M-1500, Waterside
Mall; telephone: (202) 260-7548.
Water Docket. The complete public record for the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards rulemaking is available for
review, Monday through Friday except for federal holidays, at EPA's
Water Docket, Room M2616, 401
[[Page 18505]]
M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. For access to Docket materials, call
(202) 260-3027. The Docket staff requests that interested parties call
between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm for an appointment before visiting the
docket.
For additional information about the dockets, see section X.A
below.
Background and support documents containing technical, cost,
economic, and health information, as well as EPA's response to public
comments, are available for public use. A listing and how to obtain
these background documents is provided in section XI in this notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding air emissions
standards for chemical wood pulping mills, contact Ms. Penny Lassiter,
Emissions Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-
5396; or Mr. Stephen Shedd, at the same address, telephone number (919)
541-5397. For information concerning the final air standards for
mechanical pulping processes, secondary fiber pulping processes, and
nonwood fiber pulping processes, contact Ms. Elaine Manning, at the
same Research Triangle Park address, telephone number (919) 541-5499.
For questions on compliance, enforcement and applicability
determinations, contact Ms. Maria Eisemann, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (2223A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone number (202) 564-7106.
For questions regarding wastewater standards, contact Mr. Donald
Anderson at the following address: Engineering and Analysis Division
(4303), EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone
number (202) 260-7189; or Ms. Wendy D. Smith at the same address,
telephone number (202) 260-7184.
For additional information on the economic impact analyses, contact
Dr. William Wheeler, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division
(4303), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC, 20460, (202) 260-7905.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview
The preamble summarizes the legal authority for these rules,
background information, the technical and economic methodologies used
by the Agency to develop these rules, the impacts of the rules,
regulatory implementation, and the availability of supporting
documents.
Regulated Entities
Entities regulated by today's action are those operations that
chemically pulp and nonchemically pulp wood and nonwood fibers for pulp
and paper production. EPA projects that approximately 490 mills are
subject to the air regulations promulgated today. Of these mills, 155
will be affected by MACT standards for mills that chemically pulp wood.
Within that group, 96 are subject to the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated today. Regulated categories and
entities include:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Rule Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... NESHAP.............................. Pulp mills and integrated mills (mills that
manufacture pulp and paper/paperboard)
that: chemically pulp wood fiber (using
kraft, sulfite, soda, or semi-chemical
methods); pulp secondary fiber; pulp
nonwood fiber; and mechanically pulp wood
fiber.
Effluent Guidelines................. Subset of mills subject to the NESHAP that
chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft,
sulfite, or soda methods to produce
bleached papergrade pulp and/or bleached
paper/paperboard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The foregoing table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by the NESHAP and effluent limitations guidelines and standards
promulgated today. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is
now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your facility or company is regulated by this NESHAP, you
should carefully examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.440 of
the air rule and the applicability criteria in part 63, Subpart A of
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in
Sec. 430.20 and Sec. 430.50 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
If you have questions regarding the applicability of the NESHAP or
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards, see the section
entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Judicial Review
In accordance with 40 CFR Sec. 23.2, the water portion of today's
rule shall be considered promulgated for the purposes of judicial
review at 1 pm Eastern time on April 29, 1998. Under section 509(b)(1)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA), judicial review of today's effluent
limitations guidelines and standards is available in the United States
Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review within 120 days from
the date of promulgation of those guidelines and standards. Under
section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the NESHAP is
available only by petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's publication
of this NESHAP. Under section 509(b)(2) of the CWA and section
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements in this regulation may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.
Compliance Dates
Existing direct dischargers must comply with limitations based on
the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) as soon as
such requirements are imposed in their National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The water regulation also
establishes specific deadlines for compliance with best management
practices (BMPs), which apply to all sources. The new reporting and
recordkeeping requirements promulgated today are not effective until
the Office of Management and Budget approves Information Collection
Requests for those requirements.
Except as provided in today's BMP regulation, existing indirect
dischargers subject to today's water regulations must comply with the
pretreatment standards for existing sources being promulgated today by
April 16, 2001. In addition, these dischargers must continue to comply
with the pretreatment standards for existing sources for
pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol.
[[Page 18506]]
Except as provided in today's BMP regulation, new direct and
indirect discharging sources must comply with applicable treatment
standards on the date the new source begins operation. For purposes of
new source performance standards (NSPS), a source is a new source if it
meets the definition of ``new source'' in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and if it
commences construction after June 15, 1998. For purposes of
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), a source is a new source
if it meets the definition of ``new source'' in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and if
it commenced construction after December 17, 1993.
The following compliance dates apply to the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program being codified today as part of the water
regulations for Subpart B. Each existing direct discharging mill that
enrolls in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program must
comply immediately with limitations based on the mill's existing
effluent quality or its current technology-based permit limits for the
baseline BAT parameters, whichever are more stringent. Participating
mills must also comply with mill-specific interim milestones by the
dates specified in their NPDES permits. They must also achieve the
baseline BAT effluent limitations for dioxin, furan, chloroform, 12
specified chlorinated organic pollutants and, for mills enrolled at the
Tier II or Tier III level, AOX no later than April 15, 2004. Finally,
participating mills must achieve BAT limitations corresponding to the
most stringent phase of the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program by the dates specified below:
Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier I must be achieved by April 15,
2004.
Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier II must be achieved by April 15,
2009.
Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier III must be achieved by April
15, 2014.
For new direct discharging mills in Subpart B, EPA is promulgating
Voluntary NSPS at the Tier II and Tier III levels. Participating new
sources must achieve NSPS at the selected level upon commencing
operation.
Compliance dates for the NESHAP are as follows: Existing sources
must comply with the NESHAP no later than April 16, 2001 except for the
following cases. Equipment in the high volume low concentration (HVLC)
system at existing sources at kraft mills (e.g., pulp washer systems,
oxygen delignification systems) must comply no later than April 17,
2006. Bleach plants at existing source kraft and soda mills
participating in the effluent limitations guidelines Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program must comply with the first stage of the
NESHAP no later June 15, 1998 and with the second stage no later than
April 15, 2004.
Once today's rules take effect on June 15, 1998, new sources must
comply with applicable MACT requirements upon start-up. For a
discussion of the circumstances under which a source becomes a new
source for compliance with new source air emissions standards, see
Sections II.B.2.b. and VI.A.1.
Technology Transfer Network
The Technology Transfer Network (TTN) is one of EPA's electronic
bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and technology exchange
in various areas of air pollution control. New air regulations are now
being posted on the TTN through the world wide web at ``http://
www.epa.gov/ttn.'' For more information on the TTN, call the HELP line
at (919) 591-5384.
Information on the water regulations may be accessed through the
world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/OST/Rules/#final.
Organization of This Document
I. Legal Authority
II. Scope of This Rulemaking
A. EPA's Long-Term Environmental Goals
B. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP)
C. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
III. Background
A. Prior Regulations, Proposal, Notices of Data Availability,
and Public Participation
B. Clean Air Act Statutory Authority
C. Clean Water Act Statutory Authority
D. Other EPA Activities Concerning the Pulp and Paper Industry
IV. Changes in the Industry Since Proposal
V. Summary of Data Gathering Activities Since Proposal
A. Data Gathering for the Development of Air Emissions Standards
B. Data Gathering for the Development of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
VI. Summary of the Major Changes Since Proposal and Rationale for
the Selection of the Final Regulations
A. Air Emission Standards
B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
VII. Environmental Impacts
A. Summary of Sources and Level of Control
B. Air Emissions and Water Effluent Reductions
C. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards (BAT, PSES, and BMPs)
D. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of New Source
Performance Standards and Pretreatment Standards for New Source
(NSPS and PSNS)
VIII. Analysis of Costs, Economic Impacts, and Benefits
A. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts
B. Overview of Economic Analysis
C. Costs and Economic Impacts for Air Emissions Standards
D. Costs and Economic Impacts for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
E. Costs and Impacts for the Integrated Rule
F. Costs and Impacts of Rejected BAT/PSES Options for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
G. Benefits
H. Comparison of Costs and Benefits
I. Costs and Benefits of Rejected Options for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory--Option B and TCF
J. Benefit-Cost Comparison Using Case Studies
IX. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements
A. The Voluntary Advances Technology Incentives Program
B. Incentives Available After Achievement of Advanced Technology
BAT Limitations and NSPS
X. Administrative Requirements and Related Government Acts or
Initiatives
A. Dockets
B. Executive Order 12866 and OMB Review
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Pollution Prevention Act
G. Common Sense Initiative
H. Executive Order 12875
I. Executive Order 12898
J. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
XI. Background Documents
I. Legal Authority
These regulations are being promulgated under the authority of
sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361, and
sections 112, 114, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sections
7412, 7414, and 7601.
II. Scope of This Rulemaking
Today's Cluster Rules consist of effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for the control of wastewater pollutants and national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. The final rules issued
today are based on extensive information gathered by the Agency and on
comments received from interested parties during the development of
these regulations.
Section VI of this notice discusses the major changes since
proposal and the rationale for the regulatory decisions
[[Page 18507]]
underlying the rules promulgated today. This summary section highlights
the technology bases and other key aspects of the final rules. More
detailed descriptions are included in the supporting documents listed
in section XI.
In addition, the Agency is today codifying the subcategorization
scheme that was proposed for 40 CFR parts 430 and 431, see 58 FR 66078,
66098-100 (Dec. 17, 1993) and is redesignating the section and subpart
numbers in 40 CFR part 430 accordingly.
A. EPA's Long-Term Environmental Goals
EPA has integrated the development of the regulations discussed
today to provide greater protection of human health and the
environment, reduce the cost of complying with the wastewater
regulations and air emissions controls, promote and facilitate
coordinated compliance planning by industry, promote and facilitate
pollution prevention, and emphasize the multimedia nature of pollution
control.
The Agency envisions a long-term approach to environmental
improvement that is consistent with sound capital expenditures. This
approach, which is presented in today's notice, stems from extensive
discussions with a range of stakeholders. The effluent limitations
guidelines and standards and air emissions standards are only one
component of the framework to achieve long-term environmental goals.
The overall regulatory framework also includes incentives to reward and
encourage mills that implement pollution prevention beyond regulatory
requirements. The Agency will continue to encourage mill-specific
solutions to remaining environmental problems through water quality-
based requirements in permits and enforcement of those requirements. In
addition, continuing research on minimum impact technologies, such as
closed-loop and totally chlorine-free bleaching processes, will help to
identify economical ways of furthering environmental improvement in
this industry.
EPA's long-term goals include improved air quality, improved water
quality, the elimination of fish consumption advisories downstream of
mills, and the elimination of ecologically significant bioaccumulation.
An integral part of these goals is an industry committed to continuous
environmental improvement--an industry that aggressively pursues
research and pilot projects to identify technologies that will reduce,
and ultimately eliminate, pollutant discharges from existing and new
sources. A holistic approach to implementing these pollution prevention
technologies would contribute to the long-term goal of minimizing
impacts of mills in all environmental media by moving mills toward
closed-loop process operations. Effective implementation of these
technologies is capable of increasing reuse of recoverable materials
and energy while concurrently reducing consumption of raw materials
(e.g., process water, unrecoverable chemicals, etc.), and reducing air
emissions and generation of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. EPA
expects that this combination of regulation, research, pilot projects,
and incentives will foster continuous environmental improvement with
each mill investment cycle. For this reason, EPA is including an
incentives program as part of the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards being promulgated today for bleached papergrade kraft and
soda mills that accept enforceable permit limits requiring effluent
reductions well beyond the rule's regulatory baseline (see Section IX).
To ensure that today's air emission standards do not present barriers
or disincentives to mills in choosing technologies beyond baseline BAT,
EPA is providing additional time to comply with MACT beyond the three-
year compliance time for certain process units. See Sections VI.A.3.b
and VI.A.7 for details on MACT compliance times.
B. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
1. Purpose of the NESHAP
The main purposes of the Clean Air Act (CAA) are to protect and
enhance the quality of our Nation's air resources, and to promote the
public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the
population. See CAA, section 101(b)(1). To this end, section 112(d) of
the CAA directs EPA to set standards for stationary sources emitting
greater than ten tons of any one HAP or 25 tons of total HAPs annually
(one ton is equal to 0.908 megagrams). EPA is promulgating this NESHAP
because pulp and paper mills are major sources of HAP emissions.
Individual mills are capable of emitting as much as several hundred
tons per year (tpy) of HAPs. The HAPs emitted may adversely affect air
quality and public health. The HAPs controlled by this rule are
associated with a variety of adverse health effects including cancer; a
number of other toxic health effects such as headaches, nausea, and
respiratory distress; and possible reproductive effects.
a. Hazardous Air Pollutants. Table II-1 lists the 14 HAPs emitted
in the largest quantities from pulp and paper mills. A few HAPs emitted
from pulp and paper mills have been classified as possible, probable,
or known human carcinogens. These include acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroform, formaldehyde, and methylene chloride. The
total reduction in national HAP emissions by compliance with the NESHAP
is estimated to be 139,000 megagrams per year (Mg/yr).
Table II-1.--Highest Emitted Hazardous Air Pollutants From Pulp and
Paper Mills
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Air Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein.................................. Methanol.
Acetaldehyde.............................. Methylene chloride.
o-Cresol.................................. Methyl ethyl ketone.
Carbon tetrachloride...................... Phenol.
Chloroform................................ Propionaldehyde.
Cumene.................................... 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.
Formaldehyde.............................. o-Xylene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Volatile Organic Compounds. Emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) have been associated with a variety of health and
welfare impacts. Volatile organic compound emissions, together with
nitrogen oxides (NOX), are precursors to the formation of
tropospheric ozone. Exposure to ozone is responsible for a series of
health impacts, such as alterations in lung capacity; eye, nose, and
throat irritation; malaise and nausea; and aggravation of existing
respiratory disease. Among the welfare impacts from exposure to ozone
include damage to selected commercial timber species and economic
losses for commercially valuable crops, such as soybeans and cotton.
The total reduction in national VOC emissions by compliance with the
NESHAP is estimated to be 409,000 Mg/yr.
c. Total Reduced Sulfur Compounds. Total reduced sulfur (TRS)
compound emissions are responsible for the malodors often associated
with pulp and paper production. The total reduction in TRS compound
emissions estimated as a result of compliance with this NESHAP is
79,000 Mg/yr. Surveys of odor pollution caused by pulp mills have
supported a link between odor and health symptoms such as headaches,
watery eyes, nasal problems, and breathing difficulties.
2. Summary of the NESHAP
The MACT standards apply to pulp and paper mills that have the
potential to emit ten tons per year of any one HAP
[[Page 18508]]
or 25 tons per year of all HAPs (one ton is equal to 0.908 megagrams).
Potential to emit is based on the total of all HAP emissions from all
activities at the mill.
The NESHAP specifies emission standards for pulping processes and
bleaching processes. The emission standards for pulping and bleaching
processes provide several options for compliance, including an
alternative pollution prevention option (the ``clean condensate
alternative'') for the kraft pulping process. The standards specify
compliance dates for new and existing sources, require control devices
to be properly operated and maintained at all times, and clarify the
applicability of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A) to sources subject to this rule.
The rule subcategorizes the industry to specify different emission
standards based on the type of pulping process (kraft, sulfite, semi-
chemical, soda, mechanical wood pulping, secondary fiber pulping, or
non-wood pulping) and bleaching process (papergrade or dissolving
grade). Mills that chemically pulp wood using kraft, semi-chemical,
sulfite, or soda processes are referred to in later sections as MACT I
mills. Mills that mechanically pulp wood, or that pulp secondary fiber
or non-wood fibers, or that produce paper or paperboard from purchased
pulp are referred to in later sections as MACT III mills.
The emission control requirements for new and existing sources
within each subcategory are the same, except that more emission points
are covered for sources subject to the new source provisions. Where two
or more subcategories are located at the same mill site and share a
piece of equipment, that piece of equipment would be considered a part
of the subcategory with the more stringent MACT requirements for that
piece of equipment. For example, the foul condensates from an
evaporation set processing both kraft weak black liquor and spent
liquor from a semi-chemical process would have to comply with the kraft
subcategory requirements for foul condensate. This more stringent
requirement is appropriate because there is no way to isolate the
emissions for each pulping source to determine compliance separately.
These standards do not address emissions from recovery area
combustion sources (referred to in later sections as MACT II). These
sources are being regulated under a separate NESHAP, which is proposed
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. A summary of the specific
provisions that apply to each of the subcategories is given in the
later parts of this section.
a. Definition of Affected Source. At chemical wood pulping mills,
the affected source is all emission points in the pulping and bleaching
systems. At mills that mechanically pulp wood, secondary fibers, or
non-wood materials, the affected source is all emission points in the
bleaching system. For kraft mills complying with the clean condensate
alternative, the affected source is the pulping system, bleaching
system, causticizing system, and papermaking system.
b. New Source MACT. New source MACT applies to: (1) An affected
source that commenced construction or reconstruction after initial
proposal; (2) pulping or bleaching systems that are reconstructed after
initial proposal; and (3) new pulping systems, pulping lines, bleaching
systems, and bleaching lines that are added to existing sources after
initial proposal. The initial proposal date for mills that chemically
pulp wood is December 17, 1993. The initial proposal date for mills
that mechanically pulp wood, pulp secondary fibers, or pulp non-wood
materials is March 8, 1996.
Descriptions of equipment in each subcategory subject to new source
MACT requirements are presented in later sections of this preamble.
c. Compliance Times. The rule requires existing sources to comply
with the NESHAP no later than April 16, 2001, except for the following
cases. Existing kraft sources are required to control all the equipment
in the HVLC collection system no later than April 17, 2006. Dissolving-
grade mills are required to comply with bleaching system standards no
later than three years after publication of the wastewater effluent
limitations guidelines and standards under 40 CFR part 430, subparts A
and D.
In addition, the NESHAP sets out a two-phased standard for existing
source papergrade kraft and soda bleach mills that elect, under the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, to control wastewater
discharges to levels surpassing today's BAT baseline. The first phase
for existing source MACT requires no increase in the existing HAP
emission levels from the papergrade bleaching system--i.e., no
backsliding--during the initial period when the mill is working toward
meeting its Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT requirements. EPA has
determined that immediate compliance with this requirement is
practicable because the requirement reflects, for each mill, the
performance level it is presently achieving. Therefore, the effective
date of the first phase requirements is June 15, 1998. The second phase
of existing source MACT requires the mill either to comply with BAT for
all pollutant parameters at the baseline level for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, or to certify that chlorine and
hypochlorite are not used in the bleach plant, in order to achieve the
MACT standard for chloroform emission reduction; it also requires the
mill to apply controls for other chlorinated HAPs. All such mills that
enroll in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program must
comply with the second phase of existing source MACT no later than
April 15, 2004.
Once today's rules take effect on June 15, 1998, new sources must
comply with applicable MACT requirements upon start-up.
d. Kraft Pulping Standards. For existing sources, the kraft pulping
standards promulgated today apply to the following equipment systems:
The low volume high concentration (LVHC) system, the pulp washing
system, the oxygen delignification system, decker systems that do not
use fresh water or whitewater from papermaking systems or that use
process water with HAP concentrations greater than or equal to 400
parts per million by weight (ppmw), and knotter systems and screening
systems that have total system emissions greater than or equal to 0.05
and 0.10 kilograms of HAP per megagram of oven-dried pulp (ODP)
produced, respectively (or have total [i.e., knotter and screening]
system emissions greater than or equal to 0.15 kilograms of HAP per
megagram of ODP produced combined). For new sources, the kraft pulping
standards apply to the equipment systems listed above for existing
sources, plus weak liquor storage tanks, all knotter systems, all
screening systems, and all decker systems.
Sources subject to the kraft pulping standards must enclose open
process equipment and route all emissions through a closed-vent system
to a control device. The closed-vent system must be designed and
operated with no detectable leaks. The rule provides three control
device options, as follows: (1) Reduce the HAP content by 98 percent by
weight (or, for thermal oxidizers, to a level of 20 parts per million
volume [ppmv] of total HAP, corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry
basis); (2) reduce HAPs by using a properly operated design thermal
oxidizer (operated at a minimum temperature of 1,600 deg.F and a
minimum residence time of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by using a
boiler, lime kiln, or recovery
[[Page 18509]]
furnace that introduces all emission streams to be controlled with the
primary fuel or into the flame zone.
The kraft condensate standards apply to condensate streams
generated in the following kraft pulping processes: Digester system,
evaporator system, turpentine recovery system, LVHC collection system,
and the high volume-low concentration (HVLC) collection system. The HAP
mass loading in the condensates from these systems must be reduced by
92 percent, based upon performance of steam stripping. The NESHAP also
includes the following four alternative ways to meet the kraft
condensate standard: (1) Recycle applicable condensate streams to
process equipment that is controlled in accordance with the kraft
pulping standards; (2) reduce the concentration of HAP (measured as
methanol) in the condensate to 330 ppmw for kraft mills with bleaching
systems, or 210 ppmw for kraft mills without bleaching systems; (3)
remove at least 5.1 kilograms of HAP (measured as methanol) per
megagram of ODP produced for kraft mills with bleaching systems, or
remove at least 3.3 kilogram of HAP per megagram of ODP produced for
kraft mills without bleaching systems; or (4) discharge pulping process
condensates to a biological treatment system achieving at least 92
percent destruction of total HAP.
The pulping process condensates must be conveyed to the treatment
system in a closed collection system that is designed and operated to
meet the individual drain system requirements specified in
Secs. 63.960, 63.961, 63.962, and 63.964 of subpart RR. These
essentially require that the means of conveyance be leak-free. Air
emissions of HAP from vents on any condensate treatment systems (except
biological treatment systems) that are used to comply with the
standards must be routed to a control device meeting the kraft pulping
standards.
All the pulping process condensates from the LVHC and HVLC
collection systems must be treated. However, the facility has the
option of minimizing the condensate volume sent to treatment from the
digester system, turpentine recovery system, and weak liquor feed
stages in the evaporator system (i.e., condensate segregation). If
sufficient segregation is not achieved, then the entire volume of
condensate from the digester system, turpentine recovery system, and
weak liquor feed stages in the evaporator system and the LVHC and HVLC
collection systems must be treated.
Two options are provided in the rule for determining if sufficient
segregation has been achieved. The first option is to isolate at least
65 percent of the total HAP mass in the total of all condensates from
the digester system, turpentine recovery system, and weak liquor feed
stages in the evaporator system.
The second option requires that a minimum total HAP mass from the
high HAP-concentrated condensates from the digester system, turpentine
recovery system, and weak liquor feed stages in the evaporator system
and the LVHC and HVLC collection system condensates be sent to
treatment.
e. Clean Condensate Alternative Standards for Kraft Pulping. The
final rule provides an alternative compliance option to the kraft
pulping standards for subject equipment in the HVLC systems. This
alternative compliance option is referred to as the clean condensate
alternative (CCA). The CCA focuses on reducing the HAP concentration in
process water (such as from the digestion and liquor evaporation areas)
that is introduced into process equipment throughout the mill. By
reducing the amount of HAP in the process water, reductions in HAP
emissions will also be achieved since less HAP will be available to
volatilize off the process to the atmosphere. To demonstrate
compliance, the mass emission reduction of HAPs achieved by the
alternative technology must equal or exceed that which would have been
achieved by implementing the kraft pulping vent controls.
Eligibility for this compliance alternative is determined on a
case-by-case basis during the permitting process.
For purposes of developing a compliance strategy, sources may use
either emission test data or engineering assessment to determine the
baseline HAP emission reductions that would be achieved by complying
with the kraft pulping vent standard. To demonstrate that the
alternative technology complies with the emission reduction
requirements of the standards, emission test data must be used. Two
conditions must be met for a CCA compliance demonstration: (1) Owners
and operators that choose this alternative must first comply with
pulping process condensate standards before implementing the
alternative technology; and (2) the HAP emission reductions cannot
include reductions associated with any control equipment required by
local, state, or Federal agencies' regulations or statutes or with
emission reductions attributed to equipment installed prior to December
17, 1993 (i.e., the date of publication of the proposed rule).
For purposes of the CCA, the rule provides an alternative
definition of the affected source. The alternative definition allows
for the CCA to apply to process systems outside of the kraft pulping
system. The expanded source includes the causticizing system and the
papermaking system. The mill must specify the process equipment within
the expanded source with which to generate the required HAP emissions
reductions using the CCA. The mass emission reduction of HAPs must
equal or exceed the reduction that would have been achieved through
application of the kraft pulping vent standards. The final
determination of equivalency shall be made by the permitting authority
based on an evaluation of the HAP emission reductions.
f. Sulfite Pulping Standards. For existing sources, the sulfite
pulping standards apply to the digester system vents, evaporator system
vents, and the pulp washing system. The sulfite pulping standards also
apply to air emissions from the effluent from any equipment used to
reduce HAP emissions to comply with the standards (e.g., acid plant
scrubber and nuisance scrubber). For new sources, the sulfite pulping
standards apply to the equipment systems listed for existing sources,
plus weak liquor tanks, strong liquor storage tanks, and acid
condensate storage tanks.
Sources subject to the sulfite pulping standards for equipment
systems must enclose open process equipment and route all HAP emissions
through a closed-vent system to a control device. The closed-vent
system must be designed and operated with no detectable leaks. The
total HAP emissions from the equipment systems and from the effluent
from any control device used to reduce HAP emissions must meet a mass
emission limit or a percent reduction requirement. Calcium- and sodium-
based sulfite pulping mills must meet an emission limit of 0.44
kilograms of methanol per megagram of ODP or achieve a 92 percent
methanol reduction. Ammonium- and magnesium-based sulfite pulping mills
must meet an emission limit of 1.1 kilograms of methanol per megagram
of ODP limit or achieve an 87 percent methanol removal.
g. Semi-Chemical Pulping Standards. For existing sources, the semi-
chemical pulping standards apply to the LVHC vent system. For new
sources, semi-chemical pulping standards apply to the LVHC system and
the pulp washing system.
Sources subject to the semi-chemical pulping standards must enclose
open process equipment and route all emissions through a closed-vent
system
[[Page 18510]]
to a control device. Positive-pressure portions of the closed-vent
system must be designed and operated with no detectable leaks. The rule
provides three control device options, as follows: (1) Reduce the HAP
content by 98 percent by weight (or, for thermal oxidizers, to a level
of 20 ppmv of total HAP, corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry
basis); (2) reduce HAPs by using a properly operated thermal oxidizer
(operated at a minimum temperature of 1,600 deg.F and a minimum
residence time of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by using a boiler,
lime kiln, or recovery furnace that introduces all emission streams to
be controlled with the primary fuel or into the flame zone.
h. Soda Pulping Standards. For existing sources, the soda pulping
standards apply to the LVHC vent system. For new sources, the soda
pulping standards apply to the LVHC system and the pulp washing system.
Sources subject to the soda pulping standards must enclose open
process equipment and route all emissions through a closed-vent system
to a control device. Positive pressure portions of the closed-vent
system must be designed and operated with no detectable leaks. The rule
provides three control device options, as follows: (1) Reduce the HAP
content by 98 percent by weight (or, for thermal oxidizers, to a level
of 20 ppmv of total HAP, corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry
basis); (2) reduce HAPs by using a properly operated thermal oxidizer
(operated at a minimum temperature of 1,600 deg.F and a minimum
residence time of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by using a boiler,
lime kiln, or recovery furnace that introduces all emission streams to
be controlled with the primary fuel or into the flame zone.
i. Bleaching System Standards. The bleaching provisions apply to
bleaching systems that use elemental chlorine to bleach pulp. At kraft,
sulfite, and soda pulping processes, the bleaching system provisions
also apply to bleaching systems that use chlorinated compounds to
bleach pulp. At mechanical pulping, non-wood fiber pulping, and
secondary fiber pulping mills, only bleaching systems that use
elemental chlorine or chlorine dioxide to bleach pulp are subject to
the NESHAP. Bleaching systems that do not use chlorine or chlorinated
compounds are considered to be in compliance with the bleaching system
requirements. For the applicable systems (i.e., bleaching or
brightening in the different subcategories), the chlorinated HAP
emissions from bleaching systems that use elemental chlorine or
chlorinated compounds must be controlled. Existing source and new
source requirements are the same.
Sources subject to the bleaching system standards must enclose
process equipment in the bleaching stages and route all emissions
through a closed-vent system to a control device that achieves either a
99 percent reduction of chlorinated HAP's (other than chloroform), an
outlet concentration at or below 10 ppmv total chlorinated HAP (other
than chloroform), or a mass emission limit at or below 0.001 kg of
total chlorinated HAP (other than chloroform) per Mg ODP produced.
Chlorine may be used as a surrogate for measuring total chlorinated
HAP. The closed-vent system must be designed and operated with no
detectable leaks.
With respect to chloroform emissions from bleaching systems, EPA is
closely correlating the air and water standards. This is because EPA is
relying on the same process change technology basis to control both
chloroform emissions to air and pollutant discharges to water. Thus,
MACT to control chloroform for bleaching systems requires a mill either
to meet the applicable baseline effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for all pollutants being promulgated today under the Clean
Water Act or to certify that chlorine and hypochlorite are not used in
the bleaching system.
However, EPA at present lacks sufficient information to establish
new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for dissolving grade
mills, and also lacks information to reliably ascertain what a MACT
standard for chloroform air emissions would be for this unit operation.
(It is not appropriate to set MACT standards for chloroform based on
the control technology in use today to comply with current effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for dissolving grade mills because
these technologies are at the wastewater treatment system, rather than
in the bleaching process where the chloroform-emitting vents are
located.) EPA intends to set new effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for dissolving grade mills after analyses currently underway
by EPA are complete, and is deferring establishing MACT standards for
chloroform until these effluent limitations guidelines and standards
are established. Therefore, dissolving grade mills will be required to
control chloroform air emissions three years after the new effluent
limitations guidelines and standards are promulgated.
In a related action, EPA is also deferring establishing MACT for
chlorinated HAPs other than chloroform from dissolving grade bleaching
operations until three years after promulgation of new effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for mills performing those
operations. The Agency is doing so in order to avoid imposition of CAA
requirements which would be inconsistent with, or superseded by,
forthcoming CWA regulations.
EPA is not aware of any control presently in place or any available
control technology for reducing chloroform air emissions at mechanical,
secondary fiber, and non-wood pulping mills. Therefore, MACT for
chloroform at these mills is no control. Today's water rule does not
set new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for control of
chloroform at mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-wood pulping mills,
but EPA will evaluate whether it is appropriate to do so at a later
time. At that time, EPA will also determine whether it is appropriate
to revise MACT (pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)) in order to control
chloroform emissions at those mills.
In addition, EPA is establishing MACT in two phases for bleach
plant emissions from existing source papergrade kraft and soda
bleaching plants which elect, under the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program, to control wastewater discharges to levels
surpassing the baseline BAT limitations being promulgated today under
the CWA. Phase one represents the present MACT floor for existing
sources, i.e., no backsliding from existing controls during the initial
period when a mill is working toward meeting its Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT requirements; phase two requires the mill either to meet
baseline BAT requirements for all pollutants for bleached papergrade
kraft and soda mills or to certify that chlorine and hypochlorite are
not used in the bleaching system. EPA is establishing MACT in two
phases in order to avoid discouraging plants from electing
environmentally superior levels of wastewater treatment represented by
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. These points are
discussed in detail in section VI.A.7.
j. Mechanical Pulping Mill, Secondary Fiber Pulping Mill, Non-wood
Pulping Mill, and Papermaking System Standards. Mechanical pulping
(groundwood, thermomechanical, pressurized) mills, secondary fiber
pulping mills, and non-wood pulping mills must comply with the
bleaching system standards described in section II.B.2.i. There are no
control requirements for pulping systems or process condensates at
these mills. For
[[Page 18511]]
papermaking systems, there are no control requirements.
k. Test Methods. The standards specify test methods and procedures
for demonstrating that process equipment and condensate streams are in
compliance with the MACT standards or are exempt from the rule. The
rule also includes provisions to test for no detectable leaks from
closed-vent systems. Because the majority of all non-chlorinated HAP
emissions from process equipment and in pulping process condensates is
methanol, in most cases the owner or operator has the option of
measuring methanol as a surrogate for total HAP. For demonstrating
compliance using biological treatment or the CCA, the owner or operator
must measure total HAP. To demonstrate compliance with the
concentration limit requirements, mass emission limit requirements, and
percent reduction requirements for bleaching systems, chlorine may be
measured as a surrogate for total chlorinated HAP emissions (other than
chloroform).
l. Monitoring Provisions. Sources subject to the NESHAP are
required to continuously monitor specific process or operating
parameters for control devices and collection systems. Continuous
emissions monitoring is not required, except as an alternative to
certain control requirements. Parameter values are to be established
during an initial performance test. Alternative monitoring parameters
must be demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction to comply with
the standards. As at proposal, excursions outside the selected
parameter values are violations except for biological treatment
systems. If a biological treatment system monitoring parameter is
outside the established range, a performance test must be performed.
The parameters that must be monitored for vent and condensate
compliance are explained below.
Mills using a thermal oxidizer must install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a temperature monitoring device and continuous recorder to
measure the temperature in the firebox or in the ductwork immediately
downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
Mills using gas scrubbers at bleaching systems or sulfite processes
must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device to monitor and
continuously record (1) pH or the oxidation/reduction potential of
scrubber effluent, (2) vent gas inlet flow rate, and (3) scrubber
liquid influent flow rate. As an alternative to monitoring these
parameters, mills complying with the bleaching system outlet
concentration option must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
device to monitor and continuously record the chlorine outlet
concentration. Mills complying with the bleaching system outlet mass
emission limit option must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
device to monitor and continuously record the chlorine outlet
concentration and the scrubber outlet vent gas flow. Bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills enrolling in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program in the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards portion of today's rule must monitor the application
rates of chlorine and hypochlorite to demonstrate that no increase in
chlorine or hypochlorite use occurs between June 15, 1998 and April 15,
2004.
Mills using steam strippers must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a device to monitor and continuously record process water feed
rate, steam feed rate, and process water feed temperature. As an
alternative to monitoring those parameters, mills complying with the
steam stripper outlet concentration option may install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a device to monitor the methanol outlet
concentration. In addition to monitoring around the stream stripper,
mills that choose to treat a smaller, more concentrated volume of
condensate rather than the whole volume of subject condensates must
also continuously monitor the condensates to demonstrate that the
minimum mass or percent of total mass is being treated. This practice
is often referred to as condensate segregation. Mills complying with
the condensate segregation requirements shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate monitors for appropriate parameters as determined
during the initial performance test.
Mills using a biological treatment system to treat pulping process
condensates must monitor on a daily basis samples of outlet soluble
BOD5 concentration (maximum daily and monthly averages),
inlet liquid flow, mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS),
liquid temperature, and the horsepower of aerator units. Additionally,
inlet and outlet grab samples from each biological treatment system
unit must be collected and stored for 5 days. These samples must be
collected and stored since some of the monitoring parameters (e.g.,
soluble BOD5) cannot be determined within a short period of
time. These samples are to be used in conjunction with the WATER8
emissions model to demonstrate compliance if the soluble
BOD5, MLVSS, or the aerator horsepower monitoring parameters
fall outside the range established during the initial performance test.
Monitoring requirements for the pulping process condensate
collection systems include initial and monthly visual inspections of
individual drain system components and vent control devices (if used),
and repair of defects. Additionally, inspection and monitoring
requirements from Sec. 63.964 of subpart RR (National Emission
Standards for Individual Drain Systems) are incorporated in the final
rule. Monitoring requirements for vent collection systems are (1) a
visual inspection of the closed-vent system and enclosure opening seals
initially and every 30 days, (2) demonstration of no detectable leaks
initially and annually for positive pressure systems or portions of
systems, and (3) repair of defects and leaks as soon as practical.
For the CCA, EPA is not specifying the parameters to be monitored
in the final rule since the types of equipment that would be used in
the CCA are not known at this time. Consequently, the final rule
specifies that owners or operators choosing to use the CCA must conduct
an initial performance test to determine the appropriate parameters and
corresponding parameter values to be monitored continuously. Rationale
for the parameter selection must also be provided for the
Administrator's approval.
m. Reporting and Recordkeeping Provisions. Sources subject to the
NESHAP are required to comply with recordkeeping and reporting
provisions in the part 63 General Provisions, and other specified
requirements in the NESHAP.
Sources subject to the rule are required to keep readily accessible
records of monitored parameters. The monitoring records must be
maintained for five years (two years on-site, three years off-site).
For each enclosure opening, closed-vent system, and pulping process
condensate storage tank, the owner or operator must record the
equipment type and identification; results of negative pressure tests
and leak detection tests; and specific information on the nature of the
defect and repairs. The position of bypass line valves, the condition
of valve seals, and the duration of the use of bypass valves on
computer controlled valves must also be recorded.
Sources subject to the NESHAP are required to submit the following
types of reports: (1) Initial Notification, (2) Notification of
Performance Tests, (3) Exceedance Reports, and (4) Semi-annual Summary
Reports. Exceedance and summary reports are not required
[[Page 18512]]
for emission points that are exempt from the rule. Kraft mills must
also submit, initially and bi-annually, a non-binding compliance
strategy report for pulping sources electing to comply with the eight-
year compliance extension (including the CCA) and for bleaching sources
at bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills electing to comply with the
Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT requirements. The compliance strategy
report must contain, among other information, a description of the
emission controls or process modifications selected for compliance and
a compliance schedule indicating when each step toward compliance will
be reached. For mills complying with the CCA, the report must contain a
description of alternative control technology used, identify each piece
of equipment affected by the alternative technology, and estimate total
HAP emissions and emission reductions.
C. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
1. Subcategorization and Schedule
EPA is replacing the subcategorization scheme under the former
effluent limitations guidelines for this industry (in 40 CFR parts 430
and 431) with a revised subcategorization scheme. EPA is redesignating
the Builders' Paper and Roofing Felt category, formerly regulated in 40
CFR part 431, to a subcategory in part 430. This eliminates CFR part
431. The Agency is also redesignating the previous subpart numbers and
section numbers, which are shown in Table II-2.
EPA is making no substantive changes to the limitations and
standards for any newly redesignated subcategory except for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory (new subpart B) and the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory (new subpart E). The rationale for
changing the existing subcategorization scheme is discussed in the
proposal (58 FR at 66098-66100), the Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper and
Paperboard Point Source Category, also referred to as the proposal
Technical Development Document (EPA 821-R93-019), and EPA's response to
comments on this issue (DCN 14497, Vol. 1).
Although the Agency is codifying the revised subcategorization
scheme for the whole industry today, EPA will promulgate revised
effluent limitations guidelines and standards, as appropriate, for this
industrial category in stages consisting of several subcategories at a
time. The Agency has labeled these groupings of subcategories as
``Phase I,'' ``Phase II,'' and ``Phase III.'' The schedule for these
phases is explained below and in the following table.
Table II-2.--Final Codified Subcategorization Scheme (With Previous Subparts Noted) and Schedule for
Promulgating Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (by Phase)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of facilities covered including Promulgation
Final codified subpart Final subcategorization previous subcategories (with previous 40 schedule
scheme CFR part 430 subparts noted) (phase)*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A....................... Dissolving Kraft........ Dissolving Kraft (F)....................... III
B....................... Bleached Papergrade Market Bleached Kraft (G), BCT Bleached I **
Kraft and Soda. Kraft (H), Fine Bleached Kraft (I), Soda
(P).
C....................... Unbleached Kraft........ Unbleached Kraft (A)....................... II
Linerboard
Bag and Other Products
Unbleached Kraft and Semi-Chemical (D, V)
D....................... Dissolving Sulfite...... Dissolving Sulfite (K)..................... III
Nitration
Viscose
Cellophane
Acetate
E....................... Papergrade Sulfite...... Papergrade Sulfite (J, U).................. I **
Calcium-, Magnesium-, Blow Pit Wash
and Sodium-based pulps. Drum Wash
Ammonium-based pulps..
Specialty grade pulps.
F....................... Semi-Chemical........... Semi-Chemical (B).......................... II
Ammonia
Sodium
G....................... Mechanical Pulp......... Groundwood-Thermo-Mechanical (M), II
Groundwood-Coarse, Molded, News (N),
Groundwood-Fine Papers (O), Groundwood-
Chemi-Mechanical (L).
H....................... Non-Wood Chemical Pulp.. Miscellaneous mills not covered by a II
specific subpart.
I....................... Secondary Fiber Deink... Deink Secondary Fiber (Q).................. II
Fine Papers
Tissue Papers
Newsprint
J....................... Secondary Fiber Non- Tissue from Wastepaper (T), Paperboard from II
Deink. Wastepaper (E).
Corrugating Medium
Non-Corrugating Medium
Wastepaper-Molded Products (W)
Builders' Paper and Roofing Felt (40 CFR
Part 431, Subpart A)
K....................... Fine and Lightweight Non integrated Fine Papers (R)............. II
Papers from Purchased Wood Fiber Furnish
Pulp. Cotton Fiber Furnish
Nonintegrated Lightweight Papers (X)
Lightweight Papers
Lightweight Electrical Papers
[[Page 18513]]
L....................... Tissue, Filter, Non- Non integrated............................. II
Woven, and Paperboard Tissue Papers (S)
from Purchased Pulp. Filter and Non-Woven (Y)
Paperboard (Z)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Phase I: Promulgation today; Phases II and III: Promulgation dates to be determined.
** Certain parameter limits to be promulgated as part of Phase II.
a. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and Papergrade
Sulfite Subcategory (subparts B and E). Under the consent decree
entered in the case Environmental Defense Fund and National Wildlife
Federation v. Thomas, Civ. No. 85-0973 (D.D.C.), and subsequently
amended, EPA was required to use its best efforts to promulgate
regulations addressing discharges of dioxins and furans from 104
bleaching pulp mills by June 17, 1995. Despite making its best efforts,
EPA was not able to promulgate final effluent limitations guidelines
and standards applicable to those mills by that date. However, in
today's rule, EPA is promulgating effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory (subpart B) and the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory (subpart
E), thereby addressing discharges from 96 of the mills covered by the
consent decree. Regulating the discharge of dioxins and furans from the
mills in the dissolving kraft and dissolving sulfite subcategories
remains a very high priority; as discussed in more detail below, EPA
will promulgate effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
discharges of dioxins and furans from those mills as soon as possible.
b. Dissolving Kraft Subcategory and Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
(subparts A and D). EPA is evaluating comments and preliminary new data
received since proposal affecting the Dissolving Kraft and Dissolving
Sulfite subcategories. The Agency anticipates that the final effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for these subcategories will be
based on different technologies than those that served as the basis for
the proposed limitations and standards. For example, EPA has received
data suggesting that oxygen delignification is not a feasible process
for making some dissolving pulp products, particularly high grade
products. In addition, some use of hypochlorite appears to be necessary
to maintain product quality for some products. Affected companies have
undertaken laboratory studies and mill trials to develop alternative
bleaching processes and to document the effects on wastewater and air
emissions. The Agency expects to receive data on these studies and
trials as the companies' efforts progress.
Because EPA's record presently is incomplete, EPA is not
promulgating final effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
these subcategories now. Even in the absence of these limitations and
standards, however, EPA anticipates that alternative bleaching
processes developed as a result of these studies and trials should
contribute to substantial reductions in the generation and release of
pollutants, when compared to current operating practices. Among the
pollutants EPA expects to be reduced are dioxin, furan, and chlorinated
phenolic pollutants at levels comparable to those achieved by subpart B
mills. The Agency also expects to see significant reductions in AOX and
chloroform. EPA encourages mills in these subcategories to
expeditiously complete developmental work that will facilitate
installation of alternative process technologies that achieve these
pollution prevention goals.
As defined today, the Dissolving Sulfite subcategory (subpart D)
applies to discharges from dissolving sulfite mills, including mills
that manufacture dissolving grade sulfite pulps and papergrade sulfite
pulps at the same site. See 40 CFR 430.40. This definition is based on
EPA's analysis of data collected in the ``1990 National Census of Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Facilities.'' Data from the survey
indicate that most sulfite mills that produce dissolving grade pulp do
so at a very high percentage (typically greater than 85 percent) of
their total pulp output. It has come to EPA's attention, however, that
some specialty grade papergrade sulfite mills now have the capability
to produce low percentages of dissolving grade pulp. EPA does not
intend for these mills to be regulated under subpart D; rather, they
are specialty grade sulfite mills within the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory (subpart E).
c. Schedule for the Remaining Subcategories. EPA is assessing
comments and data received since proposal for the remaining eight
subcategories. These eight subcategories are: (1) Unbleached Kraft; (2)
Semi-Chemical; (3) Mechanical Pulp; (4) Non-Wood Chemical Pulp; (5)
Secondary Fiber Deink; (6) Secondary Fiber Non-Deink; (7) Fine and
Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp; and (8) Tissue, Filter, Non-
Woven, and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp. For example, EPA has
received additional information from an industry-sponsored survey of
secondary fiber non-deink mills. The Agency also has received
additional data from mills in other subcategories, including semi-
chemical, unbleached kraft, and secondary fiber deink. EPA plans to
promulgate effluent limitations guidelines and standards for these
subcategories in the near future. It should be noted that air emission
standards are being promulgated today for these subcategories.
2. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite
Subcategory
Although the Agency has the statutory authority to revise BPT
effluent limitations guidelines, the Agency is exercising its
discretion not to revise BPT for Subparts B and E at this time. In
addition, none of the technologies that EPA evaluated for the purpose
of setting more stringent effluent limitations for the conventional
pollutants biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total
suspended solids (TSS) passed the BCT cost test for either subcategory.
Therefore, EPA is not revising BCT effluent limitations guidelines for
Subparts B and E in this rulemaking.
[[Page 18514]]
3. Final Regulations for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory (Subpart B)
a. Pollutants Regulated. In this rule, EPA is promulgating effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (``dioxin''),
2,3,7,8-TCDF (``furan''), 12 specific chlorinated phenolic pollutants,
the volatile organic pollutant, chloroform, and adsorbable organic
halides (AOX). EPA is also promulgating new source performance
standards for BOD5 and TSS. As explained in section VI.B.3
below, the Agency is not promulgating effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for chemical oxygen demand (COD) at this time. EPA is
also not promulgating effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), acetone, or color. See
Section VI.B.3.
b. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT). After
re-evaluating technologies for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda subcategory, EPA has determined that the model technology for
effluent limitations based on best available technology economically
achievable (BAT) should be complete (100 percent) substitution of
chlorine dioxide for chlorine as the key process technology, along with
other in-process technologies and existing end-of-pipe biological
treatment technologies. See Section VI.B.5.a.
c. New Source Performance Standards. The Agency has determined that
the technology basis defining new source performance standards (NSPS)
for toxics and non-conventional pollutants is the BAT model technology
with the addition of oxygen delignification and/or extended cooking.
See Section VI.B.5.b. EPA is also promulgating NSPS for the
conventional pollutants BOD5 and TSS.
As discussed elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA also is
soliciting comment and intends to gather additional data with respect
to totally chlorine-free processes that may be available for the full
range of market products. EPA will determine whether to propose
revisions to NSPS based upon TCF and, if appropriate, flow reduction
technologies.
In this rule, NSPS are effective June 15, 1998. A source is a new
source if it meets the definition of new source in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and
if it commences construction after that date.
d. Pretreatment Standards. The Agency is promulgating pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES) based on the BAT model
technology, excluding biological treatment. EPA is promulgating
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) based on the model
technology for NSPS, excluding secondary biological treatment. A source
is a new source for purposes of PSNS if it meets the definition of new
source in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and if it commences construction after the
date of proposal, i.e., December 17, 1993. However, a new indirect
discharger is not required to meet PSNS for subpart B until those
standards become effective, i.e., June 15, 1998.
e. Voluntary Incentives Program Based on Advanced Technology. As
noted earlier in this notice, EPA's vision of long-term environmental
goals for the pulp and paper industry includes continuing research and
progress toward environmental improvement. EPA recognizes that
technologies exist, or are currently under development at some mills,
that have the ability to surpass the environmental protection that
would be provided by compliance with the baseline BAT effluent
limitations guidelines and NSPS promulgated today. The Agency believes
that individual mills could be encouraged to explore and install these
advanced technologies. Accordingly, EPA is establishing a Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program for direct discharging mills in
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. This program is
discussed in Section IX.
4. Final Regulations for the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory (Subpart E)
a. Segmentation of Subpart E and Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT). After assessing comments and data
received after the proposal, EPA is segmenting the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory to account for production of specialty grade pulps and the
applicability of technologies to ammonium-based pulping processes.
The Agency is segmenting this subcategory and establishing BAT
technology bases set forth below. (EPA has established the same
segments for new source performance standards and pretreatment
standards for subpart E.)
(1) For production of pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills
using an acidic cooking liquor of calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite
(unless the mill is a specialty grade sulfite mill), the BAT technology
basis is totally chlorine-free bleaching. EPA is promulgating
limitations for AOX for this segment. See Section VI.B.6.b.
(2) For production of pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills
using an acidic cooking liquor of ammonium sulfite (unless the mill is
a specialty grade sulfite mill), the BAT technology bases for this
segment are elemental chlorine-free (ECF) technologies (complete
substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine, peroxide
enhanced extraction, and elimination of hypochlorite) and biological
wastewater treatment. EPA is promulgating effluent limitations for
dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants for this segment,
but is reserving promulgation of chloroform, AOX, and COD limitations
until sufficient performance data are available. See Section VI.B.6.b.
(3) For production of pulp and paper at specialty grade sulfite
mills, the BAT technology bases for this segment are ECF technologies
(complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine,
oxygen and peroxide enhanced extraction, and elimination of
hypochlorite) and biological wastewater treatment. EPA is promulgating
effluent limitations for dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated phenolic
pollutants for this segment, but is reserving promulgation of
chloroform, AOX, and COD limitations for this segment until sufficient
performance data are available. See Section VI.B.6.b.
b. New Source Performance Standards. For each segment identified
above, EPA is establishing NSPS based on the model BAT technologies
selected for the particular segment. The pollutants are the same as
those regulated by BAT for the applicable segment. EPA is also
exercising its discretion not to revise NSPS for BOD5, TSS,
and pH. See Section VI.B.6.c.
c. Pretreatment Standards. The Agency is promulgating pretreatment
standards for the segments identified above. The pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSES) control the same pollutants controlled by
BAT for the particular segment. EPA is promulgating pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) for the same toxic and nonconventional
pollutants controlled by NSPS for the particular segment. A source is a
new source for purposes of PSNS if it meets the definition of new
source in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and if it commences construction after the
date of proposal, i.e., December 17, 1993. However, a new indirect
discharger is not required to meet PSNS for subpart E until those
standards become effective, i.e., June 15, 1998. The technology bases
for PSES and PSNS for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are the same
as those chosen for the particular segments at the BAT and NSPS levels,
respectively, excluding secondary biological treatment. For the
ammonium-based and specialty grade segments, EPA is deferring making a
pass-through determination, and hence,
[[Page 18515]]
promulgating pretreatment standards, for chloroform and AOX until it
has sufficient performance data to set limitations and standards for
those parameters. EPA is promulgating pretreatment standards for AOX
for the calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based sulfite segment. EPA has
made no pass-through determination at this time for COD for any
segment. More details are described below in section VI.B.6.d.
5. Best Management Practices for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
EPA is codifying best management practices (BMPs) applicable to
direct-and indirect-discharging mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. In response to comments,
EPA changed the scope of the BMPs to focus on spent pulping liquor,
turpentine, and soap control and to allow for more flexibility in
implementation. See Section VI.B.7.
III. Background
A. Prior Regulations, Proposal, Notices of Data Availability, and
Public Participation
The regulations that EPA developed for the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry prior to this date are discussed in the proposal.
See 58 FR at 66089-92.
In a Federal Register notice published on December 17, 1993 (58 FR
66078), EPA proposed integrated air and water rules that included
proposed limitations and standards to reduce the discharge of toxic,
conventional, and nonconventional pollutants in wastewaters and to
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry. These proposed integrated regulations subsequently
became known as ``the Cluster Rules.'' EPA held a public hearing in
Washington, D.C., on February 10, 1994, to provide interested persons
the opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments
concerning the proposed pretreatment standards. On March 17, 1994 (59
FR 12567), EPA published a correction notice to the proposed rules and
extended the comment period to April 18, 1994.
In the preamble to the proposed rules, EPA solicited data on
various issues and questions related to the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards and air emissions standards. The
Agency received and added new material to the Air and Water Dockets. In
a notice of data availability published on February 22, 1995 (60 FR
9813), EPA announced the availability of new data related to the
proposed air emissions standards. Those new data are located in Air
Docket A-92-40.
In a second notice of data availability published on July 5, 1995
(60 FR 34938), EPA announced the availability of new information and
data related to the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. Those new data are located starting at Section 18.0 of the
Post-Proposal Rulemaking Record, which is a continuation of the
proposal record. The Post-Proposal Rulemaking Record is located in the
Water Docket. EPA did not solicit comment on the new air and water data
in either notice.
On March 8, 1996, EPA published a Federal Register notice
pertaining to the air portions of the proposed rules and announced the
availability of supplemental information (61 FR 9383). The comment
period for that notice closed on April 8, 1996. EPA also proposed MACT
standards for mechanical pulping mills, secondary fiber pulping
(deinked and non-deinked) mills, and non-wood mills, and asked for
additional information on these mills. Furthermore, EPA announced that
it was continuing to investigate paper machines and that no MACT
standard for paper machines was being proposed at the time. EPA
acknowledged an industry testing program was underway; EPA also
acknowledged its request to States for data on non-wood pulping mills.
EPA requested additional data on HAP emissions from, and control
technologies for, paper machines to supplement information previously
collected under the MACT process.
On July 15, 1996, the Agency published a Federal Register notice
announcing the Agency's thinking, based on preliminary evaluation of
the supplemented record and stakeholder discussions, regarding the
technology options being considered as a basis for final effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the proposed Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories (61 FR
36835). Data were added to the record and comments were solicited from
interested parties. The comment period for that notice closed on August
14, 1996.
The Agency has held numerous meetings on these proposed integrated
rules with many pulp and paper industry stakeholders, including a trade
association (American Forest and Paper Association, or AF&PA), numerous
individual companies, environmental groups, States, laboratories,
consultants and vendors, labor unions, and other interested parties.
EPA has added materials to the Air and Water Dockets to document these
meetings.
B. Clean Air Act Statutory Authority
Section 112(b) of the CAA lists 189 HAPs and directs EPA to develop
rules to control all major and some area sources emitting HAPs. Major
sources are facilities that emit 10 tons of any single HAP or 25 tons
of total HAPs annually. On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), EPA published a
list of major and area sources for which NESHAP are to be promulgated.
The goal of NESHAP is to require the implementation of maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) to reduce emissions and,
therefore, reduce public health hazards from pollutants emitted from
stationary sources. Pulp and paper production was listed as a category
of major sources. On December 3, 1993 (58 FR 83941), EPA published a
schedule for promulgating standards for the listed major and area
sources. Standards for the pulp and paper source category were
scheduled for promulgation by November 1997.
NESHAP established under section 112 of the Act reflect MACT or:
* * * the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the [HAP] * *
* that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is
achievable for new or existing sources in the category or
subcategory to which such emission standard applies * * * (See CAA
section 112(d)(2)).
C. Clean Water Act Statutory Authority
The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters.'' CWA Section 101(a). To assist in achieving this
objective, EPA issues effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment
standards, and new source performance standards for industrial
dischargers. The statutory requirements of these guidelines and
standards are summarized in the proposal. See 58 FR at 66088-89.
D. Other EPA Activities Concerning the Pulp and Paper Industry
1. Land Disposal Restrictions Activities
At the time of proposal, it appeared that many of the surface
impoundments used for wastewater treatment in the pulp and paper
industry might become subject to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulation under the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) program.
See 58 FR at 66091. This program establishes treatment standards that
hazardous wastes must meet before
[[Page 18516]]
they can be land disposed--placement in surface impoundments being a
type of land disposal. This requirement extends not only to wastes that
are identified or listed as hazardous under the RCRA rules when they
are land disposed, but also to wastes that are hazardous when
generated, cease to be hazardous as a result of dilution, and are then
disposed. Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1057 (1993).
The pulp and paper industry has many mills that fit this pattern:
Numerous wastewater streams are generated, some of them exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste (corrosivity or toxicity in
particular), the streams are commingled before centralized wastewater
treatment occurs, and, in the course of commingling, the wastes no
longer exhibit the characteristic, and the commingled wastewaters are
then treated in a surface impoundment. EPA actually took action to
temporarily defer applying LDR rules to this type of situation in the
pulp and paper industry in order to allow unhindered promulgation of
these Cluster Rules. See 61 FR at 15660, 15574 (April 8, 1996).
This issue, however, is now moot, at least for the time being. As
discussed in the April 8, 1996, notice partially withdrawing the LDR
Phase III final rule, 61 FR 15660, the Land Disposal Program
Flexibility Act of 1996 provides, among other things, that RCRA
characteristic wastewaters are no longer prohibited from land disposal
once they are rendered nonhazardous, provided that they are managed in
either a treatment system whose ultimate discharge is regulated under
the CWA (including both direct and indirect dischargers), a CWA-
equivalent treatment system, or a Class I nonhazardous injection well
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Under the Land Disposal
Program Flexibility Act of 1996, the LDR treatment standards for RCRA
characteristic wastes in the pulp and paper industry (or any other
industry) do not apply if the characteristic is removed and the wastes
are subsequently treated in a surface impoundment that is part of a
wastewater treatment system whose ultimate discharge is regulated by
the CWA, or if a mill's treatment system provides wastewater treatment
that is CWA-equivalent.
It should be noted that the Act requires EPA to undertake a five-
year study to determine any potential risks posed by cross-media
transfer of hazardous constituents from surface impoundments that
accept these ``de-characterized'' wastes and warrant RCRA regulation.
The findings of this study, begun by the Agency in April 1996, could
eventually result in RCRA regulations for these units.
2. Land Application of Sludges
Under the Consent Decree entered in the case Environmental Defense
Fund and National Wildlife Federation v. Thomas, Civ. No. 85-0973
(D.D.C.), EPA was required to propose rules under section 6 of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to regulate the use of sludge
produced from the treatment of wastewater effluent of pulp and paper
mills using chlorine and chlorine-derivative bleaching processes (56 FR
21802; Docket OPTS-62100). EPA published the proposed rules on May 10,
1991. The proposed regulations sought to establish a final maximum
dioxin and furan soil concentration of ten parts per trillion (ppt)
toxic equivalents (TEQ) and site management practices for the land
application of bleached kraft and sulfite mill sludge. EPA originally
planned to promulgate the rule by November 1992.
On December 11, 1992, EPA informed the plaintiffs of the Consent
Decree that the decision on the promulgation of the proposed sludge
land application rule was deferred pending promulgation of the
integrated rulemaking for effluent limitations guidelines and standards
and national emission standards. EPA reasoned that the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards and air emissions standards would
have the potential to result in bleach plant process changes that EPA
expected would result in reduced dioxin and furan contamination levels
in sludge. In addition, EPA was awaiting the results of its dioxin
reassessment activities.
In light of the anticipated impact of the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards and air emissions standards on reducing dioxin
in pulp and paper mill sludges, as well as reduction in sludge dioxin
levels from industry-initiated improvements, EPA chose to defer the
decision on promulgation of the final sludge land application rule.
When EPA has determined the final impact of today's effluent
limitations guidelines and standards on sludge dioxin concentration,
EPA will re-evaluate the risk from sludge land application and will
choose the appropriate regulatory or non-regulatory mechanism to
address the situation.
Prior to that determination, however, EPA has taken action to
achieve risk reduction for situations where sludge is being applied to
land.
While awaiting completion of the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards, air emission standards and the dioxin reassessment, EPA
has promoted the establishment of an industry environmental stewardship
program for the practice of sludge land application.
3. Hazardous Listing Determination
Under the consent decree entered in the case of Environmental
Defense Fund v. Browner, Civ. No. 89-0598 (D.D.C.), ``EPA shall
promulgate a listing determination for sludges from pulp and paper mill
effluent on or before the date 24 months after promulgation of an
effluent guideline regulation under the Clean Water Act for pulp and
paper mills. This listing determination shall be proposed for public
comment on or before the date 12 months after promulgation of such
effluent guideline regulation. However, EPA shall not be required to
propose or promulgate such a listing determination if the final rule
for the pending effluent guideline rulemaking (amending 40 CFR part
430) under the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of dioxins
from pulp and paper mills is based on the use of oxygen
delignification, ozone bleaching, prenox bleaching, enzymatic
bleaching, hydrogen peroxide bleaching, oxygen and peroxide enhanced
extraction, or any other technology involving substantially similar
reductions in uses of chlorine-containing compounds. If EPA concludes
that the final effluent guideline regulation is based on use of such a
process and that, as a result, no listing determination is required,
EPA shall so inform plaintiff in writing within 30 days of the
promulgation of the effluent guideline regulation.''
At this time, EPA is assessing whether the technology bases for the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today would
fulfill the condition described in the Consent Decree. If so, the
Agency would conclude that a listing determination is not warranted. If
EPA concludes it does not fulfill the condition, a listing
determination would be conducted.
4. Dioxin Reassessment
In the spring of 1991, EPA initiated an effort to reassess the
scientific bases for estimating dioxin risk. The activities associated
with the dioxin reassessment before proposal are described in the
proposal. See 58 FR at 66092-93. After the proposal, in September 1994,
EPA published a public review draft of this effort, which is commonly
referred to as the EPA Dioxin Reassessment. The draft reassessment
addressed not only the health effects of dioxin-like chemicals
[[Page 18517]]
but also dioxin sources and pathways for human exposure. Since the
draft documents were released, EPA received thousands of pages of
public comments. EPA submitted the documents to formal peer review by
the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB was supportive of the
overall reassessment effort and endorsed the major conclusions of the
exposure document and chapters one through seven of the health
document. They did, however, believe that additional work was needed on
the dose-response modeling chapter and the risk characterization
chapter.
The reassessment is currently being revised and updated in response
to public comments. The two chapters singled out by the SAB are being
revised by specially established panels composed of scientists from
both inside and outside the Agency. Once the work of the special panels
is completed these two revised chapters will be examined by peer review
panels, and then resubmitted to the SAB for final review. EPA currently
anticipates completion and release of the dioxin reassessment in the
spring of 1998.
5. Clean Water Act Section 307(a) Petition
On September 14, 1993, the Natural Resources Defense Council and
the Natural Resources Council of Maine filed with EPA on behalf of 57
individuals and environmental groups a petition to prohibit the
discharge of dioxin by pulp and paper mills. The petitioners ask EPA to
accomplish this prohibition by prohibiting the use of chlorine and
chlorine-containing compounds as inputs in the manufacturing process.
The petitioners believe that the prohibition is warranted by the
dangers to human health and the environment posed by dioxin. The
petitioners invoke CWA section 307(a)(2) for authority for such a
prohibition.
Authority for the petition and requested prohibition derives from a
different section of the Clean Water Act than today's technology-based
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. However, because the
petition raised many issues related to the effluent guidelines
rulemaking, EPA solicited comment on the issues raised in the petition
at the time it proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the pulp and paper industry. See 58 FR at 66174. EPA received
thousands of pages of comments and expects to issue a decision granting
or denying the petition after completion of the dioxin reassessment.
6. Cooling Tower Intake Assessment
EPA is developing regulations under section 316(b) of the Clean
Water Act, which provides that any standard established pursuant to
Section 301 or 306 and applicable to a point source shall require that
the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water
intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing
adverse environmental impact. Section 316(b) applies only to the intake
of water, not the discharge. A primary goal of the regulation that EPA
is developing would be to minimize the destruction of fish and other
aquatic organisms as they are drawn into an industrial facility's water
intake. EPA plans to conduct screening level and detailed surveys to
estimate the number and type of facilities that utilize cooling water
intake structures and thus are within the scope of Section 316(b). The
pulp and paper industry uses a significant amount of cooling water. EPA
intends to gather data on pulp and paper facilities during the Section
316(b) rulemaking through questionnaires and site visits. The Section
316(b) regulation is scheduled for proposal in 1999 with the final rule
due in 2001.
IV. Changes in the Industry Since Proposal
A description of the pulp and paper industry, including
manufacturing processes, pulping processes, bleaching processes, and
papermaking is included in the proposal. See 58 FR at 66095-96.
The proposed water regulation encompassed the entire pulp and paper
industry of approximately 500 facilities. The proposed air regulations
(MACT I and MACT III) covered approximately the same number. Under
today's action, approximately 490 mills will be covered by the final
MACT I and MACT III rules. Of these mills, 155 will be affected by MACT
standards for mills that chemically pulp wood. A subset of these
mills--96 mills--will be covered by the final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated today.
Since the proposal, some facilities have modified their processes.
There has been a substantial move toward elemental chlorine-free (ECF)
bleaching, and mills are continuing to increase their substitution of
chlorine dioxide for chlorine. Additionally, more mills are utilizing
oxygen delignification and extended cooking than at proposal. All these
developments result in decreased discharges of dioxins and furans to
receiving waters.
The U.S. pulp and paper industry's involvement with totally
chlorine-free (TCF) bleaching has not changed substantially since
proposal. As was the case at the time of proposal, only one U.S. mill
produces TCF kraft pulp; however, this mill is now able to attain
higher brightness than was achieved at the time of the proposal.
The number of companies in the industry is constantly changing as
new companies enter the market and other companies leave the industry
or merge with other companies. In the subcategories now designated as
Subparts B and E, only one mill has closed since proposal and one has
changed subcategories. No new Subpart B or E mills have commenced
construction since the time of proposal.
For more details on the technology status of mills covered by the
final Cluster Rules, see the ``Supplemental Technical Development
Document,'' DCN 14487.
V. Summary of Data Gathering Activities Since Proposal
A. Data Gathering for the Development of Air Emissions Standards
To develop today's standards, extensive data collection and
technical analyses were conducted. Prior to proposal, EPA used
information in a 1990 census of pulp and paper mills, a 1992 voluntary
mill survey, an EPA sampling program, site visits at a number of mills,
and a review of State and local regulations to obtain information on
emissions, emission control technologies, and emission control costs
for pulp and paper mill emission points. After proposal, EPA obtained
additional information from the industry. This information included
test reports from a variety of testing programs, as well as numerous
reports, studies, and memoranda on other issues related to the
development of emission control requirements. The information collected
before and after proposal was used as the technical basis in
determining the MACT level of control.
EPA also used information on pulp and paper mill production
processes available in the general literature and information on
control technology performance and cost information developed under
other EPA standards to determine MACT.
Industry commenters indicated that they would be completing a
comprehensive emission testing program after proposal, and EPA
considered this information to be vital to the development of the final
regulation. Therefore, EPA agreed to consider the new data and issued
two notices of availability of supplemental information on February 22,
1995 (60 FR 9813) and March 8, 1996 (61 FR
[[Page 18518]]
9383) announcing the information and offering the likely implications
to the final rule. The opportunity for a public hearing was offered on
the March 8, 1996 action, but no request for a hearing was received.
Public comments on the March 8, 1996 action were accepted from March 8,
1996 to April 8, 1996. Commenters included industry representatives,
States, environmental organizations, and other members of the public.
In the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice, EPA solicited additional
data and comments on proposed changes to the December 17, 1993 proposed
rule.
Data added to Air Docket A-92-40 since the March 8, 1996
supplemental notice are located in section IV of this docket. These
items include additional information on sulfite mills (IV-D1-98, IV-D1-
100), comments on definitions (IV-D1-97, IV-D1-99, IV-D1-104), comments
on the emission factor document (IV-D1-102), clarification of the 1992
MACT survey responses (IV-D1-101), and other information.
B. Data Gathering for the Development of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
EPA has gathered a substantial amount of new information and data
since proposal in connection with today's water regulations. Much of
this information was collected with the cooperation and support of the
American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) and the National Council
of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), and with
the assistance of many individual mills in the United States.
Additional information also has been submitted by environmental groups.
EPA has gathered additional information from pulp and paper mills
outside of the United States, primarily in Canada and Europe.
Some of the new information and data were generated through EPA-
sponsored field sampling or visits at individual mills in the United
States, Canada, and Europe. Additional sampling data were voluntarily
supplied by many facilities, and information from laboratory and pilot-
scale studies was shared with the Agency. In order to clarify comments
on the proposal, the Agency also gathered information from several
surveys administered by AF&PA and NCASI, including data on secondary
fiber mill processes, recovery furnace capacities, best management
practices, capital and operating costs, process operations, and impacts
of technology on the recovery cycle.
The data gathering activities for this final rule are summarized in
detail in the proposal, see 58 FR at 66096, and in the July 15, 1996,
notice of data availability, see 61 FR at 36837.
VI. Summary of the Major Changes Since Proposal and Rationale for
the Selection of the Final Regulations
A. Air Emission Standards
At proposal, the standards for mills that chemically pulp wood were
based on the MACT floor control level. A uniform set of requirements
would have applied to all mills that chemically pulp wood using the
kraft, sulfite, soda, or semi-chemical process. The proposed standards
would have required that, with the exception of some with very low
volumetric and mass flow rates, all emission points in the pulping and
bleaching area of these mills be controlled. The proposed standards
also would have required that all wastewater streams produced in the
pulping area of the mill be controlled except for those with a
specified low concentration of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The
proposed control technology basis was to enclose any open process
equipment in the pulping and bleaching areas and route all vents and
pulping wastewater to a control device. The proposed control technology
basis was combustion for pulping area vent sources, scrubbing for
bleaching area vent sources, and steam stripping for pulping
wastewater.
Following proposal, EPA received a large number of comments and
data to support the need for subcategories with separate MACT standards
for each. After considering the data and comments, the final rule
specifies separate MACT requirements for each of the four types of
pulping processes subject to the standard. The low volumetric and mass
flow rates for pulping and bleaching vents and the low concentration
value for pulping wastewater are no longer used to determine
applicability to the standard. Rather, for each subcategory, the
standard lists the specific equipment and pulping area condensates that
require control.
For each subcategory, the Agency determined the MACT floor level of
control for existing and new sources, and analyzed the cost and impacts
for control options more stringent than the floor. This analysis is
presented in chapter 20 of the background information document for the
promulgated NESHAP, and is also discussed in the proposal preamble.
Based on the results of this analysis, the Agency determined that it
was not reasonable to go beyond the MACT floor level of control for
sources at kraft, semi-chemical, and sulfite pulp mills, bleaching
systems, or kraft condensate systems. The Agency determined that
control beyond the floor at soda mills was technically feasible and
could be achieved at a reasonable cost. A discussion of the Agency's
decision for soda mills is presented in the March 8 supplemental notice
and in section VI.A.5.
In response to comments received on the proposed standards, several
changes have been made to the final rule. While some of these changes
are clarifications designed to make the Agency's intent clearer, a
number of them are significant changes to the compliance requirements.
A summary of the substantive comments and changes made since the
proposal are described in the following sections. Detailed Agency
responses to public comments and the revised analysis for the final
rule are contained in the background information document and docket.
See Section X.A.
1. Definition of Source
At proposal, EPA defined a single broad source that was subject to
both existing and new source MACT. That single source included the
pulping processes, the bleaching processes, and the pulping and
bleaching process wastewater streams at a pulp and paper mill. EPA also
considered and solicited comments on the concept of multiple smaller
sources that would be subject to the existing and new source MACT
requirements.
In defining the source at proposal, EPA considered the impact of
the definition on mills making changes to existing facilities. In
general, the narrower the definition of source, the more likely it is
that changes to existing facilities would be deemed ``new sources''
under the CAA. With limited exceptions, these new sources must be in
compliance with new source MACT standards on the date of startup or
June 15, 1998, whichever is later. However, the CAA and the CWA differ
regarding applicability requirements and compliance deadlines for new
sources. As such, EPA was concerned that a pulp and paper mill planning
to construct or reconstruct a source of HAPs between proposal and
promulgation of these integrated regulations would find it necessary to
plan for compliance with the NESHAP (required on the date it becomes
effective) without knowing the requirements of the effluent guidelines
for the industry. This situation appeared to be inconsistent with one
objective of the integrated rulemaking: allowing facilities to do
integrated compliance planning. EPA thus determined that the
[[Page 18519]]
best solution to these concerns was to define a single broad source at
proposal.
In the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice, EPA indicated a
continuing inclination for a broad, single source definition. EPA also
discussed broadening the source definition further to include
papermaking systems and causticizing equipment and solicited comments
on these additions. EPA's reason for considering the addition of these
two equipment systems was to facilitate implementation of the clean
condensate alternative for kraft mills.
Commenters on the proposed standards and on the March 8 notice
largely agreed with the broad, single source definition. One commenter
supported a narrow source definition, noting it was inappropriate for
new construction at an existing source to be classified as a
modification (and hence subject to existing source MACT). The commenter
further stated that the final regulation should specify a narrow source
definition for determining applicability to new source MACT. Some
commenters also stated that EPA should clarify for the final regulation
that mill processes not included in the source definition should not be
subject to future case-by-case MACT requirements under CAA section
112(g).
EPA considered all of the comments received on this issue since
proposal and maintains that the definition of source should be broad
enough such that small changes to an existing mill do not trigger new
source requirements in the NESHAP. However, EPA also agrees with the
commenter that at some point, changes to an existing mill are
substantial enough that new source MACT should apply.
In considering how best to define the source, EPA did not want to
define it so narrowly that changes to or additions of individual pieces
of equipment would be subject to new source MACT and be required to be
in compliance with new source MACT at startup. In fact, EPA was
concerned that to do so could discourage mills from implementing
pollution-prevention changes as soon as practicable after promulgation
of the Cluster Rules. Such changes might include replacing an existing
rotary vacuum washer system with a low-flow washer system or installing
an oxygen delignification system, both of which, if subject to existing
source requirements, would get the eight-year compliance time,
discussed later in section VI.A.3.b. Once mills are complying with the
existing source MACT requirements, it also did not seem reasonable that
they should have to tear out and rebuild that vent collection system to
accommodate small equipment changes in the future unless those changes
occurred along with other substantial changes that would justify
rebuilding the vent collection system.
For the final regulation, EPA is defining the affected source to
which existing MACT requirements apply to include the total of all HAP
emission points in the pulping and bleaching systems (including pulping
condensates). In considering how mills might engineer their vent
collection systems and control devices, EPA has concluded that the
following actions occurring after proposal are substantial enough that
new source MACT requirements apply:
A pulping or bleaching system at an existing mill is
constructed or reconstructed; or
A new pulping line or bleaching line is added to an
existing mill.
The proposal date for mills that chemically pulp wood is December
17, 1993. The proposal date for mills that mechanically pulp wood, pulp
secondary fibers, or pulp non-wood materials is March 8, 1996.
The final regulation also provides for an alternative definition of
source to facilitate implementation of the clean condensate
alternative. For mills using the alternative to comply with the kraft
pulping standards, the final regulation defines a single broad source
that includes the total of all pulping, bleach, causticizing, and
papermaking systems. A more detailed discussion of the clean condensate
alternative is given in section VI.A.3.d.
EPA agrees with the commenters that certain emission points that
are excluded from the definition of affected source in today's rule, or
are subject to a determination that MACT for these operations is no
control, should not be required to undergo CAA section 112(g) review.
The sources that have been so identified are wood yard operations
(including wood piles); tall oil recovery systems at kraft mills;
pulping systems at mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-wood fiber
pulping mills; and papermaking systems. With regard to wood yard
operations, tall oil recovery systems, and pulping systems at
mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-wood fiber pulping mills, EPA has
determined that these sources do not emit significant quantities of
HAPs and EPA is not aware of any reasonable technologies for
controlling HAPs from these sources. For papermaking systems, EPA has
not identified any reasonable control technology, other than the clean
condensate alternative, that can reduce HAP emissions attributable to
HAPs present in the pulp arriving from the pulping and bleaching
systems. Additionally, EPA has determined that the use of papermaking
systems additives and solvents do not result in significant emissions
of HAPs (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-27). Therefore, based on the
applicability requirements of section 112(g) [40 CFR 63 part B,
63.40(b)], the following sources would not be required to undergo
section 112(g) review: wood yard operations; pulping systems at
mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-wood fiber mills; tall oil
recovery systems; and papermaking systems.
2. Named Stream Approach
At proposal, the rule proposed applicability cutoff values (i.e.,
volumetric flow rate and mass flow rate) as a way to distinguish the
vent and condensate streams that would be required to meet the rule.
Since proposal, the pulp and paper industry submitted additional data
that allowed EPA to better characterize the vent and condensate streams
that should be controlled.
In the final rule, the applicability cutoffs contained in the
proposed rule have been replaced in favor of specifically naming
process equipment and condensate streams that would be required to meet
the rule, with the exception of decker, knotter, and screen systems at
existing sources. For these systems, the additional industry data was
used to determine applicability cutoffs in the form of HAP emission
limits (for knotter and screen systems) and HAP concentration limits in
process water (for decker systems) to identify the systems that should
be controlled at existing sources. A description of the vent and
condensate streams to be controlled is presented in sections II.B.2,
VI.A.3.a, and VI.A.4-7. The Agency added language in the definitions
for the named systems to make the definitions applicable to equipment
that serves a similar function as those specifically listed. This
addition was made because there are no standard names for process
equipment. The EPA's intent was to include the equipment that function
the same as the equipment specifically named in the definitions, even
though the mill may use a different name for that piece of equipment.
The different approach used in the final rule does not
significantly change the number of emission points controlled from
those intended to be controlled in the proposed rule. The emission
points and condensate streams that are being controlled in the final
rule are fundamentally the same emission sources that EPA intended to
be controlled in the proposed rule. EPA
[[Page 18520]]
concluded that the revised approach is easier and less costly to
implement, for both the affected industry and the enforcement
officials, since extensive emission source testing is not required to
identify the vent and condensate streams to be controlled.
3. Kraft Pulping Standards
a. Applicability for Existing Kraft Sources. In the December 17,
1993 proposal, all pulping system equipment, with some exceptions,
would have been required to be controlled. The exceptions were for
deckers and screens at existing sources and small vents below specified
volumetric mass flow rates and mass loadings. EPA proposed to require
that treatment of all pulping wastewater streams except those with HAP
concentrations below 500 ppmw and flow rates below 1.0 liter per
minute.
In the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice, the Agency presented
potential changes to the kraft mill standards. These changes included
specifically naming equipment systems and pulping wastewater subject to
the standards. For existing sources, the named equipment systems in the
supplemental notice included: the LVHC system, pulp washing system,
oxygen delignification system, the pre-washer knotter and screening
system, and weak liquor storage tanks. The subject wastewater streams
are the pulping process condensates from the digester, evaporator,
turpentine recovery, LVHC collection, and the HVLC collection systems.
EPA identified these systems and condensates to be controlled based on
information presented in responses to industry surveys available prior
to proposal and on updates and clarifications to survey responses
submitted by the pulp and paper industry after proposal. At proposal,
EPA did not have sufficient information to define these equipment
systems.
At proposal, the Agency solicited comments on its determination of
the control technology basis for the MACT floor and for MACT. The
proposed MACT floor level of control at existing kraft sources was 98
percent reduction of emissions from the LVHC system, pulp washing
system, and oxygen delignification system. In considering information
received after proposal, the Agency continued to have questions, which
were discussed with representatives of the pulp and paper industry, on
the data provided in the survey responses on weak liquor storage tanks,
the knotter and screening system, and the decker system at existing
sources (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-D1-101). In the March 8, 1996 notice,
the Agency requested further information on whether to distinguish
between types or ages of weak liquor storage tanks, methods and costs
of controlling them, and the level of control that represents the MACT
floor for the different tanks. The Agency also requested data on the
type of controls present on knotter and screening systems.
Commenters to the March 8 notice provided additional information on
the kraft mills which control vents from knotter system, screen
systems, decker systems, weak liquor storage tanks, and oxygen
delignification systems. The commenters noted that many of the mills
surveyed originally had misinterpreted survey questions for these
systems. The commenters concluded that the revised information
indicated that less than 6 percent of the knotter and screen systems,
decker systems, and weak liquor storage tanks were actually controlled;
they concluded, therefore, that the existing source floor for these
vents is no control. Additionally, the commenters asserted that it
would not be cost-effective to go beyond the floor to control weak
liquor storage tanks because tanks at existing sources would not have
the structural integrity to withstand a vacuum on them caused by the
vent collection system. The commenters asserted that, to control
emissions, these tanks would either need to be replaced or be
retrofitted with expensive add-on controls that would not be cost-
effective. One commenter supported using age as a means to indicate
structural integrity and, therefore, rule applicability for weak liquor
storage tanks. Several commenters disagreed that age was an appropriate
indicator.
The Agency has evaluated the information submitted by the
commenters on the control level for the knotter system, screen system,
decker system, and weak liquor storage tanks. Information submitted by
the commenters indicated that of the 597 weak liquor storage tanks in
the survey only 28 (4.7 percent) actually had emissions routed to a
control device (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-D1-106). Some respondents had
previously included other types of controlled tanks, such as washer
filtrate tanks, in their totals because EPA's original survey did not
provide a definition of weak liquor storage tanks. The Agency,
therefore, has concluded that the MACT floor level of control for weak
liquor storage tanks at existing sources is no control. While some
tanks are controlled, available information does not support the
supposition that age is a good parameter for distinguishing structural
integrity. In addition, the Agency evaluated the cost of going beyond
the floor to control weak liquor tanks. The results of EPA's analysis
indicated that a significant cost would be incurred for a limited
emission reduction. This analysis is presented in Chapter 20 of the
background information document for the promulgated NESHAP. Therefore,
the Agency agrees with the commenters that control beyond the floor is
not justified. Weak liquor tanks at new sources are required to be
controlled.
The Agency disagrees with the comments that decker systems are not
controlled at the floor at existing sources. Information supplied by
the pulp and paper industry indicates there are 170 decker systems in
mills responding to EPA's industry survey questionnaires. All the
decker systems are associated with bleached mills. Of the 170 decker
systems, 14 are controlled (8 percent) (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-16).
The majority of decker systems controlled at the floor (10 systems)
are associated with oxygen delignification systems or are being used as
an additional stage of pulp washing. The Agency believes that these
types of decker systems are operated similarly to and have similar
emissions as pulp washers. Decker systems used in this manner receive
contaminated condensates or filtrates that may be recycled from other
processes, such as the oxygen delignification system or combined
condensate tanks. The process water may have a HAP concentration that
would release significant amounts of HAP to the air from the air-water
interface. The Agency characterized the emissions from this source to
identify the types of decker systems with high emissions. Information
supplied in NCASI technical bulletin 678 provided a relationship
between air emissions and methanol concentrations in process water used
in rotary vacuum drums. EPA evaluated this relationship and determined
that decker controls and higher HAP emission rates were associated with
deckers that used process water with HAP concentrations greater than or
equal to 400 ppmw, or that did not use fresh water or ``whitewater''
from papermaking systems (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-22).
Therefore, the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to make
a distinction among types of decker systems at existing sources for the
purpose of setting the MACT standard. Decker systems at existing
sources using fresh water or ``whitewater'' from papermaking systems,
or using process
[[Page 18521]]
water with HAP concentrations less than 400 ppmw, are not required to
be controlled. Decker systems at new sources are required to be
controlled regardless of the HAP concentration in the process water
introduced into the decker.
EPA has reviewed available data on knotter and screen systems and
has concluded that these systems are controlled sufficiently to
establish a MACT floor level of control, and also that control more
stringent than the floor is not warranted. Data used to reach this
conclusion include survey responses from the 1992 voluntary survey,
follow-up telephone surveys conducted by the National Council of the
Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), and emissions
data from the NCASI 16-mill study. Although the data indicate that many
of these systems are currently controlled to some degree, the survey
responses were not detailed enough in their equipment system
descriptions and the test data were too limited for the Agency to use
these two sources of information alone to develop the MACT control
requirements. Because these equipment systems, nomenclature, and
control configurations vary across the industry, the Agency decided
that a HAP emissions limit would be the best way for mills to determine
which systems would require control. EPA lacks sufficient data,
however, to pinpoint any single value that represents the MACT floor.
Rather, based on the survey and test data, there are a range of values
from which EPA could choose. EPA further considered the costs of
control in choosing from this zone of reasonable values.
Of the 171 knotter systems reported in the 1992 voluntary survey,
12 knotter systems at 5 mills were reported as controlled and ducted
into the noncondensible gas (NCG) collection system and another 49
knotter systems at 23 mills were reported as having no vents. NCASI
followed up by telephone surveys with these 28 mills (Air Docket A-92-
40, IV-D1-101, IV-D1-112, IV-D1-114). The follow-up surveys indicated a
fair amount of misreporting at these 28 mills. NCASI did not resurvey
for all 171 knotter systems. Therefore, the following knotter system
floor determination assumes that the mills not resurveyed that
originally reported no knotter system controls did not control any
vents.
From the 28 mills resurveyed, it was determined that six knotter
systems or 3.6 percent (6/171) route all vents into the NCG collection
system; another two knotter systems or 1.2 percent (2/171) route all
knotter hood vents into the NCG collection system; another eight
knotter systems or 4.7 percent (8/171) use only pressure knotters; and
another two knotter systems or 1.2 percent (2/171) route all vents to
the smelt dissolving tank scrubber. Industry collected data at seven
pressure/open (also referred to as pressure/vibrating) knotter systems
and found the methanol emissions to range from 0.005-0.07 kilograms per
megagram of oven-dried pulp (ODP) produced, and collected data at one
pressure knotter system and found the methanol emissions to be 0.0042
kilograms per megagram ODP produced. Emissions data are summarized in
the Chemical Pulping Emission Factor Development Document (Air Docket
A-92-40, IV-A-8). Because the pressure knotter system emissions were
lower than the emissions at the pressure/open systems, pressure systems
can be considered a type of controlled system. Therefore, 18 or 10.5
percent (6+2+8+2 = 18/171) of the knotter systems have some level of
emissions control. The Agency believes that this estimate of the number
of knotter systems controlled may be somewhat low because it is
uncertain how many of the mills not resurveyed may have had the lower
emitting pressure systems.
The 1992 voluntary MACT survey responses indicated that 96
screening systems out of the 199 reported are not vented. NCASI
resurveyed by telephone 41 of these 96 mills. Assuming that the 55
mills not resurveyed look similar to the 41, the follow-up survey
determined that seven percent (6/41 x 96/199) route their vents to
the NCG collection system and 41 percent (35/41 x 96/199) have closed
screens that vent through auxiliary tanks. Therefore, 48 percent of the
screening systems have some level of control.
Industry collected data at one closed screen system and one open
screen system. The closed screen system tested had methanol emissions
of 0.004 kilograms per megagram of ODP produced. The open screen system
tested had methanol emissions of 0.22 kilograms per megagram of ODP
produced.
The Agency considered how best to characterize the average
emissions limitation achieved by the best controlled 12 percent of the
knotter systems and screen systems given the wide variety of control
scenarios present in the industry. Either collecting and controlling
vents on an open system or using closed equipment results in lower air
emissions. The Agency decided to select the emissions limitation using
the test data from the closed and open equipment systems. The Agency's
decision is due in part to the fact that the technology basis for the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards being promulgated in
these Cluster Rules at 40 CFR Part 430 for bleached papergrade kraft
and soda mills include closing the screening areas and returning
wastewater to the recovery system. Thus, it is likely that many mills
will move toward wider use of the lower air emitting pressure systems.
Because there is only one test data point for the pressure knotter
systems and that emissions value is similar to the low end of the range
of data points for the pressure/open knotter systems, the Agency did
not believe it would be appropriate to set the emission limit equal to
the one pressure knotter system. Similarly, because there is only one
test data point for closed screens, the Agency did not believe it would
be appropriate to use that single data point to set the emission limit
for screening systems. The Agency could have selected any emission
limit within the range of all available data for knotters (i.e., 0.0042
to 0.07 kilograms per megagram of ODP produced) and screens (i.e.,
0.004 to 0.22 kilograms per megagram of ODP produced). However,
recognizing the limited data available, the Agency also considered the
cost effectiveness of controlling these systems to aid in setting the
emission limits within the range of reasonable values (Air Docket A-92-
40, IV-B-21).
Based on considering all available data, the final rule requires
that existing kraft sources are required to control knotter systems
with total mass emission rates greater than or equal to 0.05 kilograms
of HAP per megagram ODP produced. Existing kraft sources are required
to control screening systems with total mass emission rates greater
than or equal to 0.10 kilograms of HAP per megagram ODP produced. Since
it is often difficult to distinguish between the knotter system and
screening system at mills, a mill may also choose to meet a total mass
emissions limit of 0.15 kilograms of HAP per megagram ODP produced
across the knotting and screening combined system. New sources are
required to control all knotter and screen systems, regardless of
emissions level.
b. Compliance Times for Kraft Mills. In the March 8, 1996
supplemental notice, the Agency discussed that it was considering
allowing kraft mills an extended compliance time of five additional
years (eight years total) for pulp washing and oxygen delignification
systems (61 FR at 9394-95). The notice discussed how the additional
time would encourage the
[[Page 18522]]
maximum degree of overall multi-media pollution reduction and, in
particular, would avoid discouraging mills from installing oxygen
delignification equipment to reduce water pollution. The notice
recognized the time constraints mills would face in trying to comply
with both air and water rules essentially at the same time and that too
short a compliance time could preclude mills from considering pollution
prevention techniques with considerable environmental benefits, such as
oxygen delignification and low-flow washers. These technologies reduce
the amount of pollutants discharged into the wastewater. The March 8,
1996 notice also solicited comment on whether this compliance extension
should be extended only to mills that commit to install these
technologies (if EPA were to decide not to include that equipment as
part of its BAT model technology).
Commenters supported the extension of compliance time for pulp
washing and oxygen delignification systems at existing sources. Several
commenters also requested that the compliance time be extended for weak
liquor tanks, knotter and screening systems, and other HVLC vent
streams because emissions from these sources will be transported and
controlled by the same HVLC collection and incineration system as the
pulp washing and oxygen delignification systems. The commenters noted
that extension of the compliance period for all HVLC sources also
allows for proper consideration of the full range of emerging
innovative water and air pollution control options. Comments were not
received on whether to provide the compliance extension only to mills
that elect to install more stringent control technologies than
necessary to comply with the baseline BAT requirements.
The Agency reviewed the comments and agrees that vents included in
the HVLC system should be allowed a similar compliance time as the pulp
washing and oxygen delignification systems. The majority of emissions
and vent gas flow from equipment associated with the HVLC vent streams
occur from the pulp washing system and the oxygen delignification
system. Therefore, the design of the HVLC collection and transport
system would be significantly influenced by these two systems. The
Agency determined if different compliance times were provided for the
components of the HVLC system, an affected source would expend
significant amounts of capital to control systems required to comply in
the three-year time frame. The source would have to re-design the gas
transport and control devices five years later to accommodate
controlling the washing system and oxygen delignification system. This
entire cost could discourage the implementation of low-flow washing
systems and oxygen delignification.
This would serve as an obvious disincentive to installation of
advanced wastewater treatment technology since mills would be
understandably reluctant to replace a newly installed air pollution
control system. Therefore, EPA concluded that additional compliance
time is appropriate and necessary for the remaining equipment
controlled by the HVLC collection and transport system as well as the
pulp washing system and the oxygen delignification system. See
generally 61 FR at 9394-95. The final rule thus allows affected sources
to control all the equipment in the HVLC system at kraft pulping
systems at the same time, not later than April 17, 2006. A mill that
installs an oxygen delignification system at an existing source after
April 17, 2006 must comply with the NESHAP upon commencing operation of
that system.
Regarding EPA's solicitation of comments on providing a compliance
extension to all kraft mills, no negative comments were received.
Therefore, EPA has decided to extend the compliance time for all kraft
mills.
The final rule includes requirements for kraft mills to submit a
non-binding control strategy report along with the initial notification
required by the part 63 General Provisions. The purpose of the control
strategy report is to provide the Agency and the permitting authority
with the status of progress towards compliance with the MACT standards.
The control strategy report must contain, among other information, a
description of the emission controls or process modifications selected
for compliance with the control requirements and a compliance schedule.
The information in the control strategy report must be revised or
updated every two years until the mill is in compliance with the
standards.
c. Condensate Segregation. The proposed standards for process
wastewater would have required that all pulping wastewaters that met
the mass emission rate and flow rate applicability criteria had to be
treated to achieve the specified control options. Comments and data
submitted to EPA indicated that kraft mills typically steam stripped
the condensates from the digester, turpentine recovery, LVHC, and HVLC
systems, and certain evaporator condensates. The data also indicated
that mills that use steam strippers also practiced varying degrees of
condensate segregation in order to minimize the flow rate and maximize
the HAP mass in condensate streams sent to treatment.
In the March 8, 1996 Federal Register supplemental notice, EPA
presented a discussion of condensate segregation and included
definitions for condensate segregation and a segregated condensate
stream. Commenters on the March 8 notice supported the definitions for
condensate segregation and segregated condensate stream. Commenters
also submitted additional information suggesting definitions for
condensate segregation and segregated condensate stream as well as
options for demonstrating compliance with the condensate segregation
requirements. EPA evaluated the information and included some of the
concepts in the final rule.
The final rule states that the condensates from pulping process
equipment at kraft mills must be treated and allows a number of
alternative methods of complying with the standards, all of which
represent MACT. The final rule also states that the entire volume of
condensate generated from the named pulping process equipment at kraft
mills must be treated unless the volume from the digester, turpentine
recovery, and weak liquor feed stages in the evaporator systems can be
reduced using condensate segregation. If adequate segregation (as
specified in the rule) is performed, only the high-HAP fraction streams
from the digester system, turpentine recovery system, and the weak
liquor feed stages in the evaporator system and the non-segregated
streams from the LVHC and HVLC collection systems must be sent to
treatment.
Discussions with the pulp and paper industry after the March 8,
1996 supplemental notice indicated that some mills might not be able to
achieve the proposed 65 percent mass isolation with their existing
equipment even though they are achieving high levels of HAP removal in
the steam stripper system (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-E-84). Therefore, the
final rule contains two options for demonstrating compliance with the
segregation requirements. The first option is to isolate at least 65
percent of the HAP mass in the total of all condensates from the
digester system, turpentine recovery system, and the weak liquor feed
stages in the evaporator system (condensate streams from the LVHC and
HVLC collection systems are not segregated). The second option requires
that a minimum total HAP mass from the high HAP concentrated
condensates from the digester system, turpentine recovery
[[Page 18523]]
system, and the weak liquor feed stages in the evaporator system and
the total LVHC and HVLC collection system condensates be sent to
treatment. The second option was included in the final rule because it
achieves the same objective by sending a large enough mass to treatment
to meet the floor-level control requirements.
For a detailed explanation of the concept of condensate segregation
readers are referred to the docket (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-D1-107).
d. Clean Condensate Alternative. The proposed rule did not contain
any provisions for emissions averaging. Industry comments on the
proposal indicated support for incorporating an emission averaging
approach in the final rule. After the public comment period, the pulp
and paper industry submitted a comparison between an option developed
by industry and the proposed MACT standards. The option formed the
basis for the clean condensate alternative (CCA) in the final rule. The
CCA focuses on reducing HAP emissions throughout the mill by reducing
the HAP mass in process water streams that are recycled to various
process areas in the mill. By lowering the HAP mass loading in the
recycled streams, less HAP will be volatilized to the atmosphere.
The March 8, 1996 Federal Register supplemental notice presented a
discussion of the industry's alternative (referred to as the ``clean
water alternative'' in the notice). In the March 8 notice, EPA
indicated that while the industry's concept was innovative, additional
information would need to be submitted to the Agency to make the
concept a viable compliance option, such as specific design parameters
and data supporting the relationship between condensate stream HAP
concentrations and HAP emissions from process equipment receiving the
condensates.
Design specifications for the CCA were not available since no mills
to date have implemented such a technology. However, the test data
collected by the pulp and paper industry following the December 17,
1993 proposal included data on vent emissions and process water HAP
concentrations that were used by industry to develop equations showing
the relationship between HAP emissions from specific process equipment
(e.g., pulp washers) and the HAP concentrations present in the process
water sent to the equipment.
EPA evaluated these data and concluded that sufficient relationship
appears to exist between HAP concentrations in recycled process
wastewater and HAP emissions from process equipment, such that the CCA
has the potential to achieve or exceed the requirements of the final
standards. However, EPA has determined that the correlation equations
developed by industry, because they were derived from small data sets,
would not be sufficient for demonstrating compliance or equivalency
with the final standards at a specific mill. Variability at a specific
mill, such as types of process equipment, operating practices, process
water recycle practices, and even type of wood pulped, can strongly
influence the relationship between concentration in the process water
and the process emissions.
The final rule contains provisions for using the CCA as a
compliance option to the kraft pulping standards for the subject
equipment in the HVLC system. An owner or operator must demonstrate to
the Administrator's satisfaction that the total HAP emissions
reductions achieved using the CCA are equal to or greater than the
total HAP emission reductions that would have been achieved by
compliance with the kraft pulping system standards for equipment in the
HVLC system. The baseline HAP emissions for each equipment system and
the total of all equipment systems in the CCA affected source (which is
the existing MACT affected source expanded to include the causticizing
and papermaking systems) must be determined after compliance with the
pulping process condensate standards; after consideration of the
effects of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in 40 CFR
part 430, subpart B; and after all other applicable requirements of
local, State, and Federal agencies or statutes have been implemented.
While engineering assessments or test data may be used to determine the
feasibility of using the CCA, only test data may be used to demonstrate
compliance with the kraft pulping system standards using the CCA.
e. Biological Treatment. At proposal, owners or operators using a
biological treatment system to comply with the MACT requirements for
pulping wastewater would have been required to measure the HAP or
methanol concentration in the influent and effluent across the unit
every 30 days and to identify appropriate parameters to be monitored to
ensure continuous compliance. The proposed standards would have
required that during the initial performance test, mills collect
samples and analyze them using Method 304 to calculate a site-specific
biorate constant. That constant, along with the operating parameters
associated with the biological treatment system were to be entered into
the WATER7 (updated to WATER8 since proposal) emissions model to
demonstrate that the biological treatment system could achieve the
treatment level required by the standards. Those operating parameters
measured during the initial performance test were then to be monitored
continuously to demonstrate compliance.
EPA acknowledged at proposal that industry was collecting
information on the performance of biological treatment systems and
monitoring techniques. EPA also noted that the industry was
investigating the possibility of monitoring inlet and outlet soluble
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5). EPA requested comments on
applicable monitoring parameters for biological treatment systems and
supporting data on biorates and corresponding parameters for
monitoring.
EPA received a number of comments on testing and monitoring
requirements for biological treatment systems. The industry submitted
studies on biological treatment systems and on monitoring soluble
BOD5. Discussions were also held with the industry
representatives on this issue.
In general, commenters objected to the proposed requirements to use
Method 304 to calculate the site-specific biorate constants. Commenters
felt that the laboratory-scale simulation of the biological treatment
unit, which is basically what Method 304 requires, does not accurately
reflect the biological degradation rates of the full-scale system.
Commenters also stated that according to data collected, performance
testing to demonstrate that biological treatment systems can meet the
standards does not appear to be warranted given that methanol is highly
biodegradable. Commenters further requested that if they had to conduct
a performance test, they should also be permitted to use the inlet and
outlet concentration procedures for calculating a site-specific
biological degradation rate (biorate) constant as set forth in Appendix
C of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON). See 59 FR 19402 (April 22,
1994). Commenters also objected to having to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the operating parameters, pointing out that a parameter
could be exceeded and the biological treatment system could still be
meeting the standards.
Following proposal, industry also submitted data on soluble
BOD5 across biological treatment system units. Industry
stated that their data indicated that as long as the biological
treatment system was achieving at least 80 percent
[[Page 18524]]
removal of soluble BOD5, the biological treatment system was
operating properly and that the unit would be meeting the standards.
However, industry argued that soluble BOD5 removal should
not be a continuous monitoring parameter that if exceeded, would
indicate a violation of the standards. Rather, a mill should be allowed
to start measuring methanol removal across the system to verify
compliance.
The Agency considered the comments and data received and agrees
that the provisions in Appendix C of the HON are an acceptable
alternative to Method 304 for calculating site-specific biorate
constants. However, EPA disagrees with the commenters on the issue of
the need to conduct performance testing. While EPA agrees that methanol
degrades more rapidly than many compounds, there are other HAPs present
in the condensate streams subject to the standards, and biological
treatment systems can vary widely in their operation and performance,
depending on their design, maintenance, and even their geographical
location. As such, the final regulation retains the proposed
requirements for performance testing.
EPA also became concerned that allowing the use of methanol as a
surrogate for total HAP may not be appropriate for this particular
treatment technology. Because methanol is one of the most difficult
HAPs to remove with a steam stripper (the technology on which the
standards are based), even greater removals of total HAP would occur
when a steam stripper is used. Thus, methanol is a reasonable surrogate
under such conditions. The opposite is true for biological treatment
systems, where methanol is one of the easier HAPs to degrade. As such,
the final regulation specifies that a total HAP removal (not just
methanol) of 92 percent be achieved by biological treatment systems.
EPA agrees with the commenters that soluble BOD5 is an
appropriate monitoring parameter for biological treatment systems.
However, EPA disagrees with the commenters on their position regarding
the monitoring of soluble BOD5 and operating parameters for
demonstrating continuous compliance. After discussion with the industry
on this issue, EPA has concluded that soluble BOD5 and
operating parameters are the most appropriate means available for
monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance (A-92-40, IV-E-87). EPA
understands the concerns raised on this point, and as such the final
regulation provides flexibility. The regulation allows mills to
establish, through performance testing, their own range of treatment
system outlet soluble BOD5 and operating parameter values to
monitor. The final rule also allows owners and operators to demonstrate
compliance with the standard using the WATER8 model and inlet and
outlet samples from each biological treatment system unit when the
specified monitoring parameters are outside of the range established
during the initial performance test.
4. Sulfite Standards--Emission Limits for Sulfite Pulping Processes
In the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice (61 FR 9383), the Agency
presented potential changes to the proposed standards for sulfite
pulping processes. EPA had proposed that all pulping equipment at
kraft, sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical processes must be enclosed and
routed to a control device achieving 98 percent reduction in emissions.
In the March 8 notice, the Agency proposed that the MACT floor level of
control at existing sulfite processes was control of vents from the
digester system, evaporator system, and pulp washing system. The MACT
floor level of control at new sulfite processes would be control of the
equipment systems listed for existing sources, plus weak liquor tanks,
strong liquor storage tanks, and acid condensate storage tanks. In the
March 8 notice, the Agency discussed in detail its preliminary
determination that the sulfite standards should instead apply to the
total emissions from specific named vents and to any wastewater
emissions associated with air pollution control devices used to comply
with the rule. For calcium-based sulfite pulping processes, the new
proposed emission limit was 0.65 lb methanol/ODTP and the percent
reduction was 92 percent. For ammonium-and magnesium-based sulfite
pulping processes, the new proposed emission limit was 1.10 lb
methanol/ODTP, and the percent HAP reduction was 87 percent. The Agency
developed applicability cutoffs based on methanol because only methanol
emissions data were obtained for all of the equipment systems and
wastewater streams considered for control at sulfite mills. The test
data from sulfite mills also indicated that for the equipment systems
tested for other HAPs, methanol comprised the majority of HAP
emissions. Therefore, the Agency believes that the maximum control of
HAP emissions will be achieved by controlling methanol as a surrogate.
Several commenters objected that the proposed emission limits were
not appropriate because they were based on data that only indicated
possible levels of methanol emissions and not a rigorous assessment of
emission rates. The commenters contended that the proposed emission
limits were derived from limited data which may not be representative
of the range of mills in the industry; therefore, they argued, the
limits did not account for variability in emissions and are not
achievable. The commenters provided the Agency with emissions test data
that illustrated fluctuations in the methanol mass emissions over an
extended time period due to variations in products and process
conditions.
The Agency evaluated the information provided by the commenters and
subsequently agreed with the commenters regarding process variability
at sulfite mills. The Agency determined the amount of variability
associated with a 99.9 percent confidence level in the data supplied by
the commenters (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-20). This amount of
variability (confidence interval), therefore, was applied to the
average emission limits from the best controlled mills to develop the
final emission limit.
For ammonium- and magnesium-based sulfite pulping processes, the
final emission limit is 1.1 kilograms of methanol per megagram of ODP
produced. After the close of the March 8, 1996, Federal Register
supplemental notice comment period, additional information was provided
to the Agency that indicated that the sodium-based sulfite pulping
process is in use at some mills (A-92-40, IV-E-94). No emissions
information was available for this process. However, the Agency
determined, that due to the similarities in processes between calcium-
and sodium-based sulfite pulping processes, the same limit developed
for calcium-based mills would be applicable to sodium-based mills. For
calcium- and sodium-based sulfite pulping processes, the final emission
limit is 0.44 kilograms of methanol per megagram of ODP produced.
Because the variability is incorporated into the mass emission limit,
these emission limits and corresponding monitoring parameters are
never-to-be-exceeded values.
5. Soda and Semi-chemical Mill Standards
The proposed standards would have required the owners or operators
of new or existing kraft, semi-chemical, soda, and sulfite mills to
comply with the same emission standards. In the March 8, 1996 notice,
EPA proposed to subcategorize the pulp and paper industry by pulping
type and develop different MACT control requirements for soda and semi-
chemical mills based
[[Page 18525]]
on emission characteristics. Existing soda and semi-chemical mills
would be required to control the digester and evaporator systems (LVHC
system). New soda and semi-chemical mills would be required to control
the LVHC and the pulp washing systems. EPA solicited comments on this
proposed change.
Information provided by the pulp and paper industry in survey
responses and after proposal confirmed that the MACT floor level of
control at existing semi-chemical mills is collection and control of
the LVHC system. The Agency determined that it was not reasonable to
control other emission points at existing semi-chemical mills (Air
Docket A-92-40, IV-B-12). Data indicated that the best-controlled semi-
chemical mills combust LVHC system emissions and emissions from pulp
washing systems. Therefore, the final rule requires that existing semi-
chemical mills control the LVHC system, and new semi-chemical mills
control the LVHC and the pulp washing systems.
As discussed in the March 8, 1996 notice, the MACT floor level of
control for soda mills is no control. The Agency has determined that
HAP emissions from soda mills are similar to kraft mills (with the
exception that TRS compounds are not emitted from the soda pulping
process) and control of LVHC system vents is technically feasible and
can be achieved at a reasonable cost. The Agency has also determined
that controlling additional vents at existing sources cannot be
achieved at a reasonable cost. However, controlling the pulp washing
system at new soda mills can be achieved at a reasonable cost (Air
Docket A-92-40, IV-B-12). Therefore, the final rule requires that
existing soda mills control the LVHC system, and new soda mills control
the LVHC and the pulp washing system.
6. Mechanical Pulping Mill, Secondary Fiber Pulping Mill, Non-wood
Fiber Pulping Mill, and Papermaking System Standards
In the March 8, 1996 Federal Register notice, EPA proposed
standards for pulping and bleaching processes at mechanical pulping
mills, secondary fiber pulping mills, and non-wood fiber pulping mills.
As discussed in the proposal, EPA believes that there are no air
pollution control technologies in use on these processes except for
those installed on bleaching systems using chlorine. The March 8 notice
proposed no add-on controls for pulping systems (and the associated
wastewater), papermaking systems, and nonchlorine bleaching systems for
these mills. For traditional bleaching systems using chlorine, the
proposed control was based on the performance of caustic scrubbers. The
proposal stated that EPA would continue to investigate the use of HAP
chemicals in papermaking, the magnitude of HAP emissions, and the
viability of chemical substitution to reduce HAP emissions from
papermaking systems.
Some commenters questioned EPA's proceeding with the rule in
advance of the receipt of additional industry data that was being
collected. The commenters cautioned that EPA did not have sufficient
data on which to base a rule. Since the March 8, 1996 Federal Register
proposal, EPA has received the results of the NCASI-sponsored testing
program from these sources (A-92-40, IV-J-80 through IV-J-85). These
data have been used in the determination of the final standards for
these sources in today's rule. EPA has concluded that sufficient data
have been collected to include these sources in today's action.
Commenters agreed with EPA's March 8, 1996 proposal for bleaching
systems at these mills. Comments on the March 8 proposal supported the
conclusion that caustic scrubbers are in use only on chlorine and
chlorine dioxide bleaching systems. Furthermore, information available
to EPA indicate that non-wood pulping mills typically use chlorine or
chlorine dioxide bleaching systems. For chlorine and chlorine dioxide
bleaching systems, EPA determined that scrubbers are used to control
chlorinated compound emissions for process and worker safety reasons.
Thus, the control achieved by this technology represents the floor for
chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaching systems at these mills and is
the technological basis for the standard in today's rule. As stated in
the December 17, 1993 proposal, EPA analyzed more stringent controls,
such as combustion of bleaching vent gases after caustic scrubbing, for
bleaching systems at kraft, soda, and sulfite mills. EPA has determined
that these more stringent options are unreasonable considering cost and
environmental impacts. Because of the operational similarities of the
chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaching systems at non-wood fiber mills
to those at kraft, soda, and sulfite mills, EPA has concluded that
combustion following caustic scrubbers is also not cost-effective at
non-wood fiber mills. In addition, data available to EPA indicate that
HAP emissions from chlorine bleaching systems at these mills are
relatively low. In fact, the data show that the three largest non-wood
pulping mills, of the ten currently in operation, use elemental
chlorine in their bleaching systems and total HAP emissions from each
of these three mills is less than five tons of total HAP per year (Air
Docket A-95-31, IV-B-5).
For chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaching systems at mechanical
pulping mills, secondary fiber pulping mills, and non-wood pulping
mills, today's rule requires the same level of control required for
bleaching systems at kraft, soda, and sulfite mills. Those requirements
are specified in Sec. 63.445 (a)-(c) of today's rule. However,
Sec. 63.445 (d) and (e) do not apply to these mills since there are no
effluent limitation guidelines for control of chloroform at mechanical,
secondary fiber, and non-wood fiber pulping mills. Additional
requirements for the control of chloroform emissions, based on the
effluent limitation guidelines for best available technology
economically achievable, are required in the standards for bleaching
systems for kraft, soda, and sulfite mills. However, EPA is not aware
of any controls presently in place or available for reducing chloroform
air emissions at mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-wood pulping
mills. Therefore, MACT is no control for chloroform air emissions from
bleaching systems at mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-wood fiber
pulping mills.
Since the March 8 proposal, EPA has also determined that while
mechanical pulping, secondary fiber pulping, and other non-wood pulping
mills do not typically use chlorine or chlorine dioxide bleaching,
these mills may brighten the pulp stock through the use of hypochlorite
and non-chlorine bleaching compounds. However, data available to EPA
indicate that HAP emissions from these systems are relatively low, and
that none of the bleaching systems that use hypochlorite and non-
chlorine compounds have installed emission controls. Based on these
findings, EPA established the MACT floor for bleaching systems at these
mills that use hypochlorite and non-chlorine bleaching to be no
control. EPA considered going beyond the floor and requiring HAP
control through incineration of vent streams for these sources but
determined that the minimal level of HAP emission reductions that would
be achieved did not justify going beyond the floor (Air Docket A-95-31,
IV-B-5).
In the March 8, 1996 Federal Register notice, EPA proposed no
standards for papermaking systems. The three potential sources of HAP
emissions from papermaking systems are HAPs contained in the pulp
stock, HAPs contained in the whitewater, and HAPs from additives and
solvents. Information available to EPA indicated no papermaking systems
are operating with HAP controls; thus the floor level
[[Page 18526]]
of control for papermaking systems is no control. EPA evaluated two
possible control options for papermaking systems: (1) Removal of HAPs
from the pulp stock and whitewater before the papermaking system; and
(2) control of papermaking system vent streams. Analysis of these
control options showed that there are no demonstrated methods for
removing HAPs from the pulp stock or whitewater and that applying HAP
control to the vent streams of papermaking systems is not cost-
effective (Air Docket A-95-31, IV-B-8). Therefore, EPA is not requiring
HAP control beyond the floor.
In the March 8, 1996 notice, EPA indicated that it was
investigating the use of HAP-containing additives in papermaking
systems, the magnitude of HAP emissions resulting from the use of
papermaking system additives, and the viability of a MACT standard
based on additive substitution. EPA has concluded that based on
emission test reports and a survey conducted on additive use, additives
do not contribute significantly to HAP emissions (Air Docket A-95-31,
Item IV-B-6). The amount of HAPs contained in additives used by the
paper industry for papermaking systems is relatively low, an estimated
236 tpy in 1995. Furthermore, less than 20 percent of HAPs contained in
the additives is emitted to the air. About 80 percent of the HAPs
remain on the paper or in the whitewater. Consequently, total annual
HAP emissions attributable to additives are an estimated 50 tons per
year, industry-wide. In comparison to the baseline emission level of
210,000 tons per year of total HAPs from the entire pulp and paper
industry, the contribution of HAPs from papermaking system additives is
negligible (Air Docket A-95-31, IV-B-6).
In a meeting between EPA and several representatives of the
Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), CMA stated that members have
been working to reduce HAP and solvent use in papermaking system
additives over the past 15 years, even in the absence of regulations.
Reductions have been achieved and CMA expects these efforts to
continue. CMA noted that HAP-free alternatives may not be possible for
all types of additives, as some HAPs are critical to product
performance. EPA believes that low-HAP additive substitution is
product-specific and it is not clear from the available information
that substitution options are technically feasible (Air Docket A-95-31,
IV-E-5). Therefore, EPA has concluded that a MACT standard for
papermaking systems based on low-HAP additive substitution is not
warranted.
In the March 8, 1996 notice, EPA proposed no standards for pulping
systems at mechanical, secondary fiber, or non-wood fiber pulping
mills. Information available to EPA indicated that no pulping systems
at these mills are operating with HAP controls. Therefore, EPA has
concluded that the floor for pulping systems at these mills is no
control. EPA evaluated the feasibility of going beyond the floor and
requiring HAP controls for these sources. Specifically, EPA
investigated the feasibility of routing vent streams from these pulping
systems to a combustion device for HAP control. EPA determined that the
cost of combusting the vent streams was not justified by the HAP
emission reductions achieved, and that requiring HAP control beyond the
floor was not justified. Furthermore, pulping chemical usage, which
correlates with HAP emission levels at kraft, semi-chemical, soda, and
sulfite pulping mills, is much lower at non-wood fiber and secondary
fiber pulping mills and minimal at mechanical pulping mills; thus the
potential for HAP emissions is lower (Air Docket A-95-31, IV-B-7).
7. Bleaching System Standards
In the proposed rule, bleaching systems would have been required to
control all HAP emissions by 99 percent using a caustic scrubber. In
the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice, the Agency revised the proposal
for the bleaching system requirements based on information and comments
received after proposal. The new data indicated that caustic scrubbing
reduces emissions of chlorinated HAP compounds (except chloroform), but
does not control non-chlorinated HAP emissions. The Agency determined
that no other option was feasible to control non-chlorinated HAPs. EPA
has determined that reduction of chloroform emissions through the use
of additional, add-on air pollution control technology is cost
prohibitive. The only feasible option for controlling chloroform
emissions is process modification, such as chlorine dioxide
substitution and elimination of hypochlorite use.
In the March 8 notice, the Agency proposed to require chlorinated
HAP emissions other than chloroform to be controlled by 99 percent
(with chlorine as a surrogate for chlorinated HAP) based on the
performance of a caustic scrubber. As an alternative to the percent
reduction standard, the Agency also proposed an emission limit of 10
ppmv chlorinated HAP at the caustic scrubber outlet (with chlorine as a
surrogate for chlorinated HAP). The Agency also solicited comments on
providing a mass emission limit alternative to the percent reduction
and the outlet concentration standards.
Commenters on the March 8, 1996 notice supported the changes to the
scrubber requirements in the proposed rule. Commenters also expressed
concern that bleaching systems with new low-flow vent systems would not
be able to meet either the percent reduction or the outlet
concentration standards. Therefore, they asserted, these standards
would discourage the use of new low-flow bleaching vent technologies.
Based on this concern, one commenter advocated a chlorinated HAP mass
emission limit for bleaching systems of 0.023 lb of chlorinated HAP
(excluding chloroform) per ODTP produced. The commenter claimed that a
mass emission limit would not penalize new low-flow bleaching vent
systems.
Based on available data, the Agency has concluded that low-flow
bleaching vent systems can achieve the 99 percent reduction and the 10
ppmv outlet concentration requirements for total chlorinated HAP (other
than chloroform). Based on a review of the information provided by the
commenter and the available data on bleaching system emissions, the
Agency has concluded that the commenter's recommended mass emission
limit of 0.023 lb of chlorinated HAP (excluding chloroform) per ODTP
produced is too high. The Agency evaluated the available data used to
develop the percent reduction and outlet concentration requirements for
bleaching systems (A-92-40, II-I-24). From this evaluation, the Agency
determined that a scrubber outlet mass emission rate of 0.001 kg of
total chlorinated HAP (other than chloroform) per Mg ODP produced
(0.002 lb/ODTP) would provide reductions equivalent to 99 percent
reduction standard (A-92-40, IV-B-29). The mass emission limit of 0.001
kg of chlorinated HAP (other than chloroform) per Mg ODP produced
represents a mass emission limit achievable by all units that also
achieved 99 percent reduction of chlorine. Furthermore, the available
data show that some of the scrubbers achieving the 99 percent chlorine
reduction standard, and the 10 ppmv outlet concentration limit, were
also operating on low-flow bleaching vent systems.
For the final rule, the Agency has provided a mass emission limit
option for bleaching systems of 0.001 kg of chlorinated HAP (excluding
chloroform) per Mg ODP produced (0.002 lb/ODTP). The Agency maintains
that this option
[[Page 18527]]
allows more flexibility for sources affected by this rule, does not
penalize bleaching systems operating with low-flow technology, and will
provide reductions in chlorinated HAP emissions (other than chloroform)
equivalent to the 99 percent reduction standard. Therefore, the final
rule allows sources to comply with the bleaching system requirements if
they achieve an scrubber outlet mass emission limit at or below 0.001
kg of total chlorinated HAP (other than chloroform) per Mg ODP
produced. Chlorine may be used as a surrogate for measuring total
chlorinated HAP.
After proposal, the Agency also evaluated the effect of process
modifications on chloroform emissions. The results of this analysis
indicated that the technology basis for MACT control of chloroform is
complete chlorine dioxide substitution and elimination of hypochlorite
as a bleaching agent. These process modifications were determined to
reduce chloroform emissions significantly. At the same time, EPA was
proposing complete chlorine dioxide substitution and hypochlorite
elimination as the technology bases for the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards under Subparts B and E (see 58 FR at 66109-11,
14-15). Since the control technologies that would be installed to
comply with effluent limitations guidelines and standards and MACT
would likely be the same for these bleached papergrade mills, EPA
therefore proposed in the March 8 notice that chloroform air emissions
at bleached papergrade mills be controlled by complying with the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards applicable to those
mills. No adverse comments were received on this proposal.
In the March 8, 1996 notice, the Agency solicited comments on
whether an alternative numerical air emission limit for chloroform
(i.e., besides complying with the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards) was needed. Some commenters contended that a numerical air
emissions limit for chloroform would be unnecessary because the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards would achieve the
requisite reductions. The Agency did not receive any indication of any
benefit from a numerical air emission limit for chloroform.
Additionally, the Agency did not have sufficient data and did not
receive any further data after the March 8 notice to develop a
numerical air emission limit (and hence is finding that a numerical
standard is not feasible for purposes of CAA Sec. 112(h)). Therefore,
the final rule does not include a numerical air emission limit for
chloroform (see the proposal at 58 FR 66142 for a discussion on setting
MACT standards in a format other than an emission standard). The Agency
is, however, providing an alternative compliance mechanism in the form
of a work practice standard of complete substitution of chlorine
dioxide for elemental chlorine and complete hypochlorite elimination--
the technical basis for BAT. (EPA also notes that although the Agency's
technical judgment is that compliance with BAT also will result in
control of air emissions to reflect the MACT level of control, the
Agency will continue to investigate whether this proves correct as the
rule is implemented.)
Because MACT for new sources is equivalent to MACT for existing
sources, the new source MACT standards for bleaching systems require
compliance with BAT/PSES requirements (or implementation of 100 percent
substitution and elimination of hypochlorite). This requirement applies
even if the mill or bleaching system also meets the definition of new
source under the effluent guidelines limitations and standards, and
thus is required to meet the more stringent new source effluent
requirements of NSPS/PSNS. Although achievement of the NSPS/PSNS may
result in installation of technologies that reduce effluent loading
beyond what is achieved by 100 percent substitution and elimination of
hypochlorite, EPA is not aware that these advanced technologies will
provide air emission reductions beyond what the BAT/PSES requirements
will achieve.
EPA notes that an affected bleached papergrade mill must comply
with the existing source MACT requirements no later than April 16, 2001
even if the mill's existing Clean Water Act NPDES permit does not yet
reflect the corresponding effluent limitations guidelines and standards
because its existing terms have not expired or it has been
administratively extended. Put another way, even if a mill's existing
NPDES permit serves as a shield (until reissuance) against imposition
of new limits based on new effluent limitations guidelines (see CWA
Section 402(k)), the MACT requirement for bleached papergrade mills to
control chloroform emissions through compliance with all parameter
requirements in the effluent limitations guidelines and standards takes
effect to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Similarly, if
a bleached papergrade mill's NPDES permit is reissued sooner than the
expiration of the 3-year compliance schedule authorized for the
chloroform MACT requirements and calls for immediate compliance with
the BAT limitations, that deadline would prevail. The same principles
will apply when effluent limitations guidelines and MACT standards are
promulgated for dissolving grade mills. EPA's plans for promulgating
MACT standards for these mills are discussed immediately below.
An additional issue relating to compliance dates concerns bleaching
systems at existing source papergrade kraft and soda mills which have
elected, under the Clean Water Act portion of this rule, to treat
wastewater to levels surpassing baseline BAT requirements (such as
adding oxygen delignification prior to bleaching, and in some cases,
engaging in additional reduction of process wastewater and further
reductions in chlorinated bleaching chemicals used and bleaching system
modifications than are necessary to meet BAT baseline limitations). As
an incentive to make this election, EPA is not requiring participating
mills to achieve compliance with the more stringent portions of the
``Advanced Technology'' BAT limitations for six, eleven, and sixteen
years (for Tiers I, II, and III, respectively) in order to afford these
mills sufficient time to develop, finance, and install the Advanced
Technologies. In light of this, the Agency is concerned that requiring
bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills to comply in three years with
MACT standards based on process substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine would discourage these mills from electing to
participate in the Advanced Technology program. This is largely because
a mill that implements process substitution before it installs oxygen
or other extended delignification systems is likely to construct more
chlorine dioxide generating capacity than it ultimately will need. A
mill thus compelled to invest first in process substitution may be very
reluctant to abandon a portion of that investment soon afterwards in
order to participate in the voluntary incentives program.
EPA also believes that requiring compliance in three years with a
chloroform MACT standard based on baseline BAT for bleached papergrade
kraft and soda mills would present similar disincentives to achieving
greater effluent reductions. A mill in those circumstances will have
made a substantially larger capital investment than it will need to
control chloroform once its array of advanced water technologies is
installed. Also, depending on the degree of process modifications the
mill makes, the mill may need a much smaller scrubber for
[[Page 18528]]
the non-chloroform chlorinated HAPs and, in some cases, a scrubber may
not be needed at all to meet the MACT standards for chlorinated HAP
concentration limit. Thus, a mill otherwise interested in participating
in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program will find
itself diverting capital to environmental controls that it ultimately
will not need, instead of employing that capital to make more advanced
process modifications that will benefit both the water and the air.
Under these unusual circumstances where imposition of MACT
requirements could likely result in foregoing substantial cross-media
environmental benefits, EPA believes that a two-stage MACT compliance
scheme is justified for existing sources at bleached papergrade kraft
and soda mills that enroll in the water Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program (see 61 FR 9394 for a similar argument relating to
compliance with MACT for washers and oxygen delignification systems).
The first stage is an interim MACT of no backsliding--which reflects
the current level of air emissions control. The second stage requires
compliance with revised MACT based on baseline BAT requirements for all
parameters for bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills. (The second
stage in effect revises MACT to reflect the control technologies which
will be available at this later date. See CAA Sec. 112 (d)(6).) The no-
backsliding provisions apply to the period from June 15, 1998 until
compliance with the second-stage MACT standards is required April 15,
2004. This two-step alternative is available only to bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills actually making the binding decision to
comply with Tier I, II, or III water limitations.
EPA believes that providing these mills six years to comply with
second-stage MACT (i.e., baseline BAT requirements for all parameters)
is an appropriate and logical outgrowth of the discussions set forth in
the March 8, 1996 supplemental MACT notice (61 FR 9393) and the July
15, 1996 supplemental effluent guidelines notice (61 FR 36835-58). In
the March 8 notice, EPA solicited comments on its preliminary findings
that MACT for chloroform air emissions should be compliance with
baseline BAT. Commenters agreed with this preliminary determination. In
the July 15 notice, EPA set forth its vision of more stringent BAT for
mills that voluntarily enter the Advanced Technologies Incentives
program. As part of that voluntary program under the water standards,
EPA is promulgating a requirement that mills in Tiers II and III, at a
minimum, meet all the limitations promulgated as baseline BAT no later
than April 15, 2004. See Section IX.A. Thus, more stringent air
emission controls than stage one MACT will likewise be available at
this time since compliance with these interim BAT limitations will
result in compliance with MACT. For Tier II and Tier III mills, this
means that the second stage MACT requirement is compliance with the
baseline BAT limitations by April 15, 2004. The same is the case for
Tier I mills, even though under the water regulation Tier I mills will
be required to achieve more stringent limitations at that time. EPA is
defining MACT to be the baseline BAT limitations even in this situation
because compliance with the more stringent AOX limitations and other
requirements unique to Tier I are unnecessary to control chloroform
emissions at these mills.
EPA further believes that most plants likely to elect to comply
with a tier option already control air emissions of chlorinated HAPs
(both chloroform and other chlorinated HAPs) through application of the
MACT technologies (process substitution for chloroform and caustic
scrubbing for the remaining chlorinated HAPs). Thus, there will be some
control of the emissions from these bleaching operations during the
time preceding compliance with the second stage of MACT. To ensure that
there is no lessening of existing controls, EPA also is promulgating a
no backsliding requirement as an interim MACT--reflecting current
control levels. During the extended compliance period, mills thus may
not increase their application rates of chlorine or hypochlorite above
the average rates determined for the three-month period prior to June
15, 1998.
In the March 8 notice, the Agency proposed making a distinction
between requirements for bleaching systems at papergrade and dissolving
grade mills. The Agency solicited data concerning chloroform emissions
from dissolving grade bleaching processes and requested comment on an
appropriate chloroform MACT for dissolving grade bleaching systems.
Several commenters suggested that a separate MACT standard for
chloroform be developed for bleaching systems at dissolving grade
mills. Some commenters requested that the Agency defer chloroform
control requirements for dissolving grade mills until effluent
limitations guidelines and standards are established at those mills.
As stated in the July 15, 1996 Federal Register notice (61 FR
36835), EPA is evaluating new data on the technical feasibility of
reducing hypochlorite usage and implementing high levels of chlorine
dioxide substitution on a range of dissolving grade pulp products.
Therefore, EPA is deferring issuing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for dissolving grade mills until the comments and data can be
fully evaluated. EPA expects to promulgate final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for dissolving grade subcategories at a later
date.
EPA has decided to delay establishing these MACT standards for
chloroform and for other chlorinated HAPs for dissolving grade
bleaching operations until promulgation of effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for those operations, for the following
reasons. With respect to the MACT standard for chloroform, first, as
explained above and in the March 8 notice, the control technology basis
for the effluent limitations guidelines and standards and the MACT
requirements will be the same. Second, at present, the Agency is unsure
what level of chlorine substitution and hypochlorite use is achievable
for dissolving grade mills. Thus, although EPA has a reasonably good
idea what the technology basis of MACT and effluent limitations
guidelines and standards is likely to be for dissolving grade mills,
the precise level of the standards remains to be determined.
Consequently, at present, EPA is unable to establish what the MACT
floor would be for chloroform emissions from bleaching systems at these
mills, and there is no conceivable beyond-the-floor technology to
consider. EPA will make these determinations based on data being
developed, and then promulgate for these mills effluent limitations
guidelines and standards and, concurrently, MACT standards based on
those effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Covered mills
would therefore be required to comply with the MACT standards
reflecting performance of the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards no later than three years after the effective date of those
standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(i)(3)(A).
The basis for delaying MACT requirements for chlorinated HAPs other
than chloroform (again, from dissolving-grade bleach operations only)
differs somewhat. As noted above, the technology basis for control of
these HAPs is use of a caustic scrubber. However, when plants
substitute chlorine dioxide for chlorine and eliminate hypochlorite (in
order to control chloroform emissions and discharges to water, as
explained above), a different scrubber will be needed that can
adequately control both the chlorine dioxide emissions for
[[Page 18529]]
worker safety reasons and the emissions of chlorinated, non-chloroform
HAPs. The Agency's concern (shared by the commenters who addressed this
question) is that immediate control of the non-chloroform chlorinated
HAPs could easily result in plants having to install and then replace a
caustic scrubber system in a few years due to promulgation of effluent
limitations guidelines and standards and MACT requirements for
chloroform. This result would be an inappropriate utilization of scarce
pollution control resources.
8. Test Methods
At proposal, the Agency proposed to require that Methods 308 and
26A be used to test for compliance with the provisions of the NESHAP.
Method 308 is used to measure methanol in the vent stream. Method 308
had not been validated using Method 301 at the time the NESHAP was
proposed. Method 26A is used to measure chlorine in vent streams.
At proposal, commenters objected to the rule referencing an
unvalidated test method (Method 308). The commenters also contended
that Method 26A should not be used for measuring chlorine in the
bleaching system because chlorine dioxide, which is expected to be
present in bleaching system vents, is listed as a possible interferant
in Method 26A. The commenters suggested using a modified Method 26A
developed by the pulp and paper industry.
Since proposal, Method 308 was revised to incorporate suggestions
made and data provided by representatives of the pulp and paper
industry.
Since proposal, Method 308 has also been validated using Method 301
validation criteria. The validation was conducted by the Atmospheric
Research and Environmental Analysis Laboratory in EPA's Office of
Research and Development. The results of the validation were reported
in the January 1995 issue of the Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association. The Agency has also evaluated the commenters'
claims regarding Method 26A. The Agency agrees that chlorine dioxide is
a potential positive interferant to the method (i.e., concentration
measurement could potentially be higher than actual emissions). The
final rule includes modifications to Method 26A (based on an NCASI
method) to eliminate potential problems with chlorine dioxide
interference.
In March 1997, industry informed EPA that it had not used Method
305 to obtain the methanol steam stripper performance data (which was
used as the basis for the proposed pulping process condensate
standards). For the liquid sampling analysis, NCASI used a direct
aqueous injection gas chromatography/flame ionization detection (GC/
FID) method described in NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 684, Appendix I.
Consequently, the industry contends that Method 305 should not be
specified in the final rule for determining compliance with the pulping
process condensate standards. However, the NCASI test method has not
been validated using EPA Method 301 procedures and it is unlikely that
the test method validation would be completed before promulgation of
the MACT standard.
The Agency has considered industry's argument and has decided to
proceed with specifying Method 305 in the final rule to demonstrate
compliance with the pulping process condensate standards. However, if
the Agency approves the Method 301 validation procedures for NCASI's
GC/FID test method, this method will be referenced as either an
alternative or a replacement for Method 305 (for determining methanol
concentration only) with a supplemental Federal Register notice. EPA
believes that this course of action will adequately address the
industry's concerns. This decision was reached since the Method 301
validation procedures for NCASI's GC/FID method would likely be
completed before kraft mills would have to demonstrate compliance with
the pulping process condensate standards.
9. Backup Control Devices and Downtime
The proposal would have required emission limits for the NESHAP to
be met at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. Allowance for control device or collection system downtime
was not specified in the proposed rule, and the need for backup control
devices was not addressed.
Commenters asserted that EPA should recognize that control
technologies on which the proposed rule was based are not designed to
operate 100 percent of the time. Therefore, commenters requested
downtime allowances to account for safety related venting and periods
when the control device is inoperable. Otherwise, the commenters
asserted that costly backup control devices would be necessary to
achieve compliance with the NESHAP at all times. They further contended
that the environmental benefit for the additional cost associated with
the backup controls would be minimal. Commenters recommended a one
percent downtime for the LVHC system, four percent for the HVLC system,
and ten percent for steam stripper systems. Commenters contended that
while most of the LVHC systems had backup controls, very few of the
HVLC systems had backup controls. Several commenters added that the
Part 63 General Provisions do not address safety venting and downtime
necessary for trouble-shooting. Another commenter contended that the
Part 63 General Provisions already allow significant emissions and
should not be further weakened.
Since proposal, EPA has re-evaluated the need to incorporate
downtime or excess emission allowances for LVHC, HVLC, and steam
stripper systems into the final rule. Based on data submitted by the
pulp and paper industry, EPA has concluded that some allowance for
excess emissions is part of the MACT floor level of control. For the
final rule, EPA established appropriate excess emission allowances to
approximate the level of backup control that exists at the best-
performing mills and the associated period of time during which no
control device is available. The excess emission allowances in the
final rule include periods when the control device is inoperable and
when the operating parameter values established during the initial
performance test cannot be maintained at the appropriate level.
Based on an analysis of the public comments and the available data
regarding excess emissions and the level of backup control in the
industry, EPA has determined that an appropriate excess emissions
allowance for LVHC systems would be one percent of the operating hours
on a semi-annual basis for the control devices used to reduce HAP
emissions. The best-performing mills achieve a one percent downtime in
their LVHC system control devices. For control devices used to reduce
emissions from HVLC systems, EPA has concluded that an appropriate
excess emissions allowance would be four percent. The best-performing
mills achieve a four percent downtime in the control devices used to
reduce emissions from their HVLC system to account for flow balancing
problems and unpredictable pressure changes inherent in HVLC systems.
For control devices used to control emissions from both LVHC and HVLC
systems, the Agency has determined that a four percent excess emissions
allowance is appropriate. This decision was made because the control
device would be used for the HVLC system, which has the higher
emissions allowance. For LVHC and HVLC system control devices, the
excess emissions allowances do not include scheduled
[[Page 18530]]
maintenance activities that are discussed in the Part 63 General
Provisions. The allowances address normal operating variations in the
LVHC and HVLC system control devices for which the equipment is
designed. The variations would not be considered startup, shutdown, or
malfunction under the Part 63 General Provisions (Air Docket A-92-40,
IV-D1-103, IV-D1-110, IV-D1-115, IV-E-85, and IV-E-88).
The appropriate excess emissions allowance for steam stripper
systems was determined to be 10 percent. The allowance accounts for
stripper tray damage or plugging, efficiency losses in the stripper due
to contamination of condensate with fiber or black liquor, steam supply
downtime, and combustion control device downtime. This downtime
allowance includes all periods when the stripper systems are inoperable
including scheduled maintenance, malfunctions, startups, and shutdowns.
The startup, shutdown, malfunction allowances are included in the
stripper allowances because information was not available to
differentiate these emissions from normal stripper operating emissions.
Regarding the commenters' discussion of whether the startup,
shutdown, or malfunction provisions of the General Provisions would
cover maintenance and troubleshooting downtime, EPA has taken public
comment and is currently revising the requirements of the General
Provisions. Among the changes to the language, EPA intends to
incorporate safety-related venting requirements into the General
Provisions. However, scheduled maintenance activities are not
considered by EPA to qualify for excess emissions allowances. The
start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan specified in the General
Provisions should address the periods of excess emissions that are
caused by unforeseen or unexpected events.
10. Equipment Enclosures, Closed-Vent Systems, and Control Equipment,
and Condensate Conveyance System
a. Requirements for Closed-Vent Systems. At proposal, the Agency
required specific standards and monitoring requirements for closed-vent
systems. The standards required: (1) Maintaining a negative pressure at
each opening, (2) ensuring enclosure openings that were closed during
the performance test be closed during normal operation, (3) designing
and operating closed-vent systems to have no detectable leaks, (4)
installing flow indicators for bypass lines, and (5) securing bypass
line valves. Monitoring requirements included visual inspections of
seal/closure mechanisms and closed-vent systems, and demonstrations of
no detectable leaks in the closed-vent system.
Commenters to the proposed NESHAP contended that visual inspections
were not necessary due to durability of the materials used by this
industry to construct the collection system. In addition, commenters
contended that leak detections were not necessary since systems are
typically operated at negative pressure. The commenters also opposed
requirements for seals and locks on bypass lines because the bypass
lines are installed for purposes of personnel safety, equipment
protection, and to prevent explosions.
The Agency evaluated the comments and has decided to make the
following changes to the closed-vent system requirements. The Agency
agreed with the commenters that most closed-vent systems will be under
negative pressure. Any leaks, therefore, would pull air into the
collection system rather than release HAPs to the atmosphere.
Therefore, the Agency revised the requirement for demonstration of no
detectable emissions to apply only to portions of the closed-vent
system operated under positive pressure. The Agency also agreed that
requiring a lock and key-type seal on bypass lines would be
overburdensome and could potentially pose a safety hazard. The
intention of the requirements was to prevent circumvention of the
control device by venting directly to the atmosphere. The Agency
believes that this assurance can be achieved using car seals or seals
that could easily be broken, to indicate when a valve has been turned.
Proper recordkeeping is also necessary to demonstrate proper operation.
Therefore, the Agency revised the bypass line requirements to allow the
use of car seals but require log entries recording valve position, flow
rate, and other parameters. The Agency has modified the enclosure
requirements to allow for short-term openings for pulp sampling and
maintenance.
The final rule retains the visual monitoring requirements. The
requirements are necessary to ensure proper operation of collection
systems and can be conducted at a reasonable cost.
b. Concentration Limit for Combustion Devices and Design
Incinerator Operating Parameters. At proposal, the NESHAP would have
required vent streams to be controlled in a combustion device that
achieves 98 percent reduction of HAPs or outlet HAP emission
concentrations of 20 ppmv corrected to three percent oxygen.
Alternatively, mills could comply with the control requirements by
routing vent streams to a design incinerator operating at 1,600 deg.F
and a residence time of 0.75 seconds, or to a boiler, lime kiln, or
recovery furnace.
Commenters on the proposed rule objected to the 20 ppmv limit at a
three percent oxygen correction factor. Some commenters claimed that
incinerator exhaust streams in the pulp and paper industry have an
oxygen content in excess of 10 percent. Therefore, if the outlet
concentration was corrected to three percent oxygen, the concentration
level would not be achievable. Some commenters recommended increasing
the correction factor to 10 percent oxygen.
The 20 ppmv limit represents the performance that is achieved on
low concentration streams by a well designed combustion device. This
limit was based on previous EPA studies (Air Docket A-79-32, II-B-31).
The three percent oxygen correction factor at proposal was based on
stream characteristics of other industries, such as the synthetic
organic chemical manufacturing industry. The three percent correction
factor has been used on many previous standards for controlling organic
pollutants. EPA re-evaluated the three percent correction factor to
ensure that it is appropriate for the pulp and paper industry. Test
data supplied by the industry confirmed their comments that the oxygen
content of the incinerator flue gas is typically greater than ten
percent at pulp and paper mills. Based on the industry data and the
thermodynamic models, EPA changed the oxygen correction factor to ten
percent (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-19). Therefore, the final rule allows
combustion devices to be in compliance if they reduce HAP
concentrations to 20 ppmv at ten percent oxygen. Information supplied
by the pulp and paper industry indicates that many of the existing
incinerators meet this limit.
Commenters on the proposed rule objected that the requirements for
the design incinerator were too stringent and that equivalent control
could be achieved at lower temperatures. Many commenters requested that
the Agency allow incinerators meeting the operating conditions in the
kraft NSPS of 1,200 oF and 0.5 seconds residence time to be
used for the NESHAP.
EPA has decided not to change the proposed design incinerator
operating parameters for the NESHAP because the parameters are
necessary to meet the MACT floor. EPA would first like to clarify that
the final rule does not limit owners or operators of incinerators to
operate at the specified temperatures and residence times. Any control
device
[[Page 18531]]
that is demonstrated to achieve 98 percent destruction of HAPs will
comply with the rule. Any thermal oxidizer which reduces HAP emissions
to a concentration of 20 ppmv at ten percent oxygen will also comply
with the rule. The 98 percent destruction requirement represents the
control level achieved by well-operated combustion devices. The 20 ppmv
limit represents the performance achieved by well-operated combustion
devices on low concentration vent streams.
Second, EPA has made this part of the rule as flexible as possible
while still achieving a level of control reflecting MACT. In the
December 17, 1993 proposal and in this final rule, EPA developed
compliance alternatives in order to reduce the compliance testing
burden. The compliance alternatives (i.e., operating thermal oxidizers
at a temperature of 1,600 deg.F and a residence time of 0.75 seconds)
were developed to ensure that the thermal oxidizers perform at a level
that would meet the destruction efficiency requirements. The operating
parameters are based on previous Agency studies that show that these
conditions are necessary to achieve 98 percent destruction of HAPs.
However, the NSPS operating parameters (1,200 deg.F and 0.5 seconds
residence time) do not destroy HAPs to this extent.
The purpose of the kraft NSPS was to reduce emissions of TRS
compounds. EPA has evaluated the temperature and residence time
required by the NSPS to determine whether the NSPS temperature and
residence time are sufficient to achieve 98 percent reduction of HAPs.
EPA's analysis indicates that while the NSPS requirements are
sufficient to achieve 98 percent destruction of TRS compounds, kinetic
calculations for methanol (the majority of HAP in pulping vent gases)
show that the NSPS criteria will not achieve 98 percent reduction of
HAPs (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-18). Additionally, EPA evaluated
incinerator performance data submitted by industry (Air Docket A-92-40,
IV-J-33). The data indicated that the NSPS operating parameters were
not sufficient for achieving 98 percent destruction of methanol. This
conclusion was reached by EPA since the operating conditions (i.e.,
temperature and residence time) of the incinerators that achieved 98
percent methanol destruction were greater than the levels specified in
the kraft NSPS. Therefore, the NSPS specifications will not meet the
requirements of MACT for new and existing sources.
c. Condensate Collection System. In the December 17, 1993 proposal,
EPA proposed to require pulping process condensate collection systems
to be designed and operated without leaks. EPA proposed that all tanks,
containers, and surface impoundments storing applicable condensate
streams were required to be enclosed and all vent emissions must be
routed to a control device by means of a closed-vent system. A
submerged fill pipe would have been required on containers and tanks
storing an applicable condensate stream or any stream containing HAP
removed from a condensate stream. All drain systems that received or
managed applicable condensate streams would have been required to be
enclosed with no detectable leaks and any HAP emissions from vents were
required to be routed to a control device. Several commenters on the
proposed pulp and paper NESHAP contended that the proposed requirements
were overly burdensome and, in some cases, unnecessary.
After the pulp and paper NESHAP was proposed, the Agency
promulgated a separate rulemaking in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart RR
(National Emission Standards for Individual Drain Systems). This rule
established emission control, inspection and monitoring, and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for individual drain systems.
The individual drain system requirements specify that air emissions
from collection systems must be controlled using covers or seals, hard-
piping, or venting of individual drain systems through a closed-vent
system to a control device or a combination of these control options.
The emission control techniques specified in the individual drain
system standard (i.e., covers/seals and vent combustion) are common
techniques that are applicable to a variety of wastewater collection
systems, regardless of the type of process that produced the wastewater
streams.
EPA compared the collection system requirements contained in the
proposed pulp and paper NESHAP with the individual drain system
requirements in subpart RR. Since the subpart RR requirements are
consistent with the intent of the proposed standards, EPA concluded
that the requirements of subpart RR constitute MACT for the pulp and
paper industry. The control costs presented in the ``Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Industry-Background Information for Promulgated Air Emission
Standards, Manufacturing Processes at Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, Semi-
Chemical, Mechanical, and Secondary and Non-wood Fiber Mills, Final
EIS''(EPA-453/R-93-050b) were based on industry estimates for hard-
piping systems. The Agency has concluded that these costs would be the
same or greater than would be needed for complying with the
requirements of subpart RR.
The final pulp and paper NESHAP references 40 CFR Subpart RR for
the standards for individual drain systems for the pulping process
condensate closed collection system. The Subpart RR standards provide
uniform language that simplifies compliance and enforcement.
The final rule requires tanks to be controlled as at proposal, but
containers and surface impoundments are not required to be controlled.
Public comments indicated that containers are not used in the pulp and
paper industry. The Agency's intention in the proposed rule was not to
require surface impoundments to be controlled, except when used as part
of the condensate collection system. After further review of this
issue, the Agency has determined that mills do not use and are unlikely
to use surface impoundments as part of their closed collection system
for condensate streams and therefore that the language on control of
surface impoundments does not need to appear in the rule.
11. Interaction With Other Rules
a. Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review (PSD/
NSR). To comply with the MACT portion of the pulp and paper cluster
rule, mills will route vent gases from specified pulping and condensate
emission points to a combustion control device for destruction. The
incineration of these gases at kraft mills has the potential to
generate sulfur dioxide (SO2) and, to a lesser degree,
nitrogen oxides (NOX). The emission increases of
SO2 and NOX may be of such magnitude to trigger
the need for preconstruction permits under the nonattainment NSR or PSD
program (hereinafter referred to as major NSR).
Industry and some States have commented extensively that in
developing the rule, EPA did not take into account the impacts that
would be incurred in triggering major NSR. Commenters indicated that
major NSR would: (1) Cost the pulp and paper industry significantly
more for permitting and implementation of additional SO2 or
NOX controls than predicted by EPA; (2) impose a large
permitting review burden on State air quality offices; and (3) present
difficulties for mills to meet the proposed NESHAP compliance schedule
of 3 years due to the time required to obtain a preconstruction permit.
Industry commenters have stated that the pollution control project
[[Page 18532]]
(PCP) exemption allowed under the current PSD policy provides
inadequate relief from these potential impacts and recommended
including specific language in the pulp and paper rule exempting MACT
compliance projects from NSR/PSD.
In a July 1, 1994 guidance memorandum issued by EPA (available on
the Technology Transfer Network; see ``Pollution Control Projects and
New Source Review (NSR) Applicability'' from John S. Seitz, Director,
OAQPS to EPA Regional Air Division Directors), EPA provided guidance
for permitting authorities on the approvability of PCP exclusions for
source categories other than electric utilities. In the guidance, EPA
indicated that add-on controls and fuel switches to less polluting
fuels qualify for an exclusion from major NSR. To be eligible to be
excluded from otherwise applicable major NSR requirements, a PCP must
on balance be ``environmentally beneficial,'' and the permitting
authority must ensure that the project will not cause or contribute to
a violation of a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) or PSD
increment, or adversely affect visibility or other air quality related
values (AQRV) in a Class I area, and that off-setting reductions are
secured in the case of a project which would result in a significant
increase of a non-attainment pollutant. The permitting authority can
make these determinations outside of the major NSR process. The 1994
guidance did not void or create an exclusion from any applicable minor
source preconstruction review requirements in an approved State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Any minor NSR permitting requirements in a
SIP would continue to apply, regardless of any exclusion from major NSR
that might be approved for a source under the PCP exclusion policy.
In the July 1, 1994 guidance memorandum, EPA specifically
identified the combustion of organic toxic pollutants as an example of
an add-on control that could be considered a PCP and an appropriate
candidate for a case-by-case exclusion from major NSR. For the purposes
of the pulp and paper MACT rule, EPA considers that combustion for the
control of HAP emissions from pulping systems and condensate control
systems to be a PCP, because the combustion controls are being
installed to comply with MACT and will reduce emissions of hazardous
organic air pollutants. EPA also considers the reduction of these
pollutants to represent an environmental benefit. However, EPA
recognizes that the incidental formation of SO2 and
NOX due to the destruction of HAPs will occur. Consistent
with the 1994 guidance, the permitting authority should confirm that,
in each case, the resultant emissions increase would not cause or
contribute to a violation of a NAAQS, PSD increment, or adversely
affect an AQRV.
The EPA believes that the current guidance on pollution control
projects adequately provides for the exclusion from major NSR of air
pollution control projects in the pulp and paper industry resulting
from today's rule. Such projects would be covered under minor source
regulations in the applicable state implementation plan (SIP), and
permitting authorities would be expected to provide adequate safeguards
against NAAQS and increment violations and adverse impacts on air
quality related values in Federal Class I areas. Only in those cases
where potential adverse impacts cannot be resolved through the minor
NSR programs or other mechanisms would major NSR apply.
The EPA recognizes that, where there is a potential for an adverse
impact, some small percentage of mills located near Class I PSD areas
might be subject to major NSR, i.e., the permitting authority
determines that the impact or potential impact cannot be adequately
addressed by its minor NSR program or other SIP measures. If this
occurs, there is a question whether MACT and NSR compliance can both be
done within the respective rule deadlines. EPA believes, however, that
the eight year compliance deadline provided in the final MACT rule for
HVLC kraft pulping sources substantially mitigates the potential
scheduling problem. The equipment with the eight year compliance
deadline are the primary sources of the additional SO2 and
NOX emissions. The additional time should be sufficient to
resolve any preconstruction permitting issues.
While the Agency believes that eight years is sufficient for kraft
mills with HVLC systems to meet permitting requirements, industry has
raised concerns that there could be a potential problem for a few mills
in Class I attainment areas that are required to comply with the final
rule in three years. The PCP exemption and extended compliance schedule
may not resolve all NSR conflicts for every mill. Although too
speculative to warrant disposition in this rule, EPA is alert to this
potential problem and will attempt to create implementation flexibility
on a case-by-case basis should a problem actually occur.
Commenters requested that the PCP exclusion also be expanded to
actions undertaken at mills that enroll in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology (AT) Incentives Program in the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards portion of today's rule. In the July 23, 1996
notice on changes to the NSR Program (61 FR 38250), EPA solicited
comments on the appropriate scope of the PCP exclusion. EPA also
solicited comments in the July 15, 1996 supplemental pulp and paper
effluent guidelines notice (61 FR 36857) on whether advanced water
pollution control technologies implemented by the pulp and paper
industry should be eligible for an exclusion from major NSR and if so,
whether the exclusion should be implemented under the provisions of the
PCP exclusion under the NSR proposed regulations. In the context of
these notices, EPA received several comments in favor of extending the
PCP exclusion to multi-media activities, such as those that would be
undertaken for the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program but
received little information on appropriate criteria for determining the
relative benefits of reduced water pollution to potential coincident
increases in air pollution.
The Agency believes that, depending on the control technologies
selected by a mill, the potential exists for an overall environmental
benefit to result from control strategies implemented under the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. However, unlike the
MACT rule in today's action, where the controls that would be installed
to reduce hazardous air pollutants are fairly well known and the
potential pollutant tradeoffs within the same environmental media are
fairly well understood, the Agency is less certain about the controls
that might be installed to comply with this Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program and the potential pollutant tradeoffs
that may occur across environmental media. Therefore, while the Agency
is continuing to consider extending this PCP status to activities
undertaken to implement the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program, the Agency is not extending that status in today's action
because the Agency currently lacks sufficient information to establish
a process and set of criteria by which a determination could be made as
to whether these advanced control technologies result in an overall
environmental benefit at individual mills that participate in this
program. The Agency intends to continue discussions with stakeholders
on a process and set of criteria by which a determination could be made
as to the appropriateness of extending the PCP exclusion to controls
installed at
[[Page 18533]]
individual mills to comply with the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program. Because the control technologies that could be
installed to implement the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program may vary significantly from one mill to another, mills that
want controls implemented within the context of the Voluntary Advanced
Technology effluent program to be considered PCP will likely need to
make a site-specific demonstration that such controls result in an
overall environmental benefit. When a mill would need to make such a
demonstration would depend upon that particular mill's compliance
timeline--dictated by the AT Incentives Tier to which they commit and
the time necessary to get applicable permits approved. While it is not
possible at this time to identify the criteria the Agency would use for
approving a PCP exclusion, the Agency would not consider projects which
result in any increases in emissions of highly toxic compounds to be an
acceptable candidate PCP. For example, the Agency believes it would not
be environmentally acceptable to give the PCP exclusion to an activity
which results in a chlorinated material being sent to a boiler that
would result in the release of a chlorinated toxic air pollutant. The
Agency also believes that the public should be provided an opportunity
to review and comment on mill-specific cases where a PCP exclusion is
being considered for these advanced water technologies, particularly if
there would be a potentially significant emissions increase of criteria
air pollutants such as SO2 or NOX.
Since mills must declare within one year of promulgation of the
cluster rules whether they will participate in the Voluntary AT
Incentives Program, the Agency is aware that mills would like to know
whether a mechanism exists whereby they may apply for a PCP exclusion
among the many factors that may influence their participation in this
incentives program. In order for the Agency to proceed further on this
issue, the Agency again is requesting that interested stakeholders
submit information on the types of control technologies that could be
installed under the Voluntary AT Incentives Program along with
information on the type and potential magnitude of collateral air
pollutant increases that may occur at mills. The Agency requests
information from stakeholders that could be useful for developing a
process by which mills would apply for the PCP exclusion and for
setting forth criteria for determining whether an activity performed
under the Voluntary AT Incentives Program qualifies for the PCP
exclusion. Given the potentially varying control strategies that could
be adopted by participating mills, the Agency also requests information
that may be useful in assessing whether generic guidance on when a PCP
exclusion may be appropriate should be set forth within the context of
the NSR Reform effort or whether NSR determinations should more
appropriately be made in the context of mill-specific applications. The
EPA needs this information within 60 days of the publishing of this
notice to evaluate the information and proceed with this issue in a
useful time period for mills to make their decisions on participation
in the Voluntary AT Incentives Program. Stakeholders should submit
information on this topic directly to Ms. Penny Lassiter, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
b. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)/Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces (BIF). One of the options for controlling emissions
from pulping process condensates is to steam strip HAPs, primarily
methanol, from kraft pulping process condensate streams. After the HAPs
are removed, the vent gas from the steam stripper is required to be
sent to a combustion device for destruction. Several commenters pointed
out that some mills may choose to concentrate the methanol in the steam
stripper vent gas, using a rectification column, and burn the
condensate as a fuel.
However, the concentrated methanol condensate that would be derived
from the steam stripper overheads may be identified as hazardous waste
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) because it
exhibits the ignitability characteristic. See 40 CFR 261.21. Boilers
burning such a hazardous waste fuel would ordinarily be required to
comply with emission standards set out in 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart H
(the so-called BIF regulation, i.e., standards for boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste). Several commenters
recommended incorporating a ``clean fuels'' exclusion into the pulp and
paper NESHAP so that the condensate can be burned for energy recovery
without the combustion unit also being subject to the RCRA rules. The
``clean fuels'' exclusion is a recommendation from EPA's Solid Waste
Task Force to allow recovery of energy from waste-derived fuels that
are considered hazardous only because they exhibit the ignitability
characteristics and do not contain significant concentrations of HAP.
For background information see 61 FR at 17459-69 (April 19, 1996),
where EPA proposed such an exclusion based on similarity of waste-
derived fuels to certain fossil fuels.
The Agency proposed to exclude this practice from RCRA regulation
in the March 8, 1996 notice and solicited comments on this
determination (61 FR at 9396). All of the comments supported granting
this exemption. As stated in the notice, EPA does not believe that RCRA
regulation of the rectification and combustion of the condensate is
appropriate or necessary. The rectification practice would not increase
environmental risk, would reduce secondary environmental impacts, and
would provide a cost savings. Moreover, the burning of condensate will
not increase the potential environmental risk over the burning of the
steam stripper vent gases prior to condensation. (See generally 61 FR
at 9397.) Finally, consideration of risk would more appropriately be
handled as part of the section 112(f) residual risk determination
required for all sources after implementation of MACT standards. For
these reasons, EPA will exclude specific sources at kraft mills that
burn condensates derived from steam stripper overhead vent gases from
RCRA, including condensates from the steam stripper methanol
rectification process. The scope of this exclusion is limited to that
requested by commenters, combustion at the facility generating the
stream. (Limitation of the scope of the exclusion to on-site burning
also eliminates questions about whether RCRA regulation is needed to
assure proper tracking and transport of the material.)
B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
1. Subcategorization
The subcategorization scheme being promulgated today for effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry replaces the subcategorization of this industry
that dates back to 1974. EPA's reasons for combining and reorganizing
the 26 old subcategories (formerly found in Parts 430 and 431) into 12
new subcategories are set forth below, in the proposal, see 58 FR at
66098-100, and in ``Selected Issues Concerning Subcategorization'' (DCN
14497, Volume 1).
In reorganizing Part 430 to comport with the new subcategorization
scheme, EPA has reprinted in their entirety the current effluent
limitations guidelines and standards applicable to the newly
[[Page 18534]]
formed subcategories. The only substantive changes to the current
effluent limitations guidelines and standards are the BAT limitations,
NSPS, PSES, PSNS, and best management practices being promulgated today
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory (subpart B) and
the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory (subpart E). In addition, EPA is
promulgating the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program
applicable to subpart B. EPA is making no changes to the BPT and BCT
limitations previously promulgated for what are now subparts B and E.
Similarly, EPA is retaining the NSPS promulgated in 1982 in new
Subparts B and E for new sources that commenced discharge that met the
1982 NSPS after June 15, 1988 but before June 15, 1998 provided that
the new source was constructed to meet those standards. EPA is also
retaining, without substantive revision, the new source pretreatment
standards previously promulgated for subparts B and E for facilities
constructed between June 15, 1988 and June 15, 1998.
These limitations and standards are recodified at subparts B and E
in the form of segments corresponding to the old subcategorization
scheme. (In re-codifying these limitations and standards, EPA has
simplified the text introducing the limitations tables, but has not
changed the former regulations' substance.) Direct discharging mills
currently subject to the 1982 NSPS remain subject to those standards
until the date ten years after the completion of construction of the
new source or during the period of depreciation or amortization of such
facility, whichever comes first. See CWA section 306(d). After such
time, the BAT limitations promulgated today apply for toxic and
nonconventional pollutants. Limitations on conventional pollutants will
be based on the formerly promulgated BPT/BCT limitations corresponding
to the BPT/BCT segment applicable to the discharger or on the 1982 NSPS
for conventional pollutants, whichever is more stringent.
EPA is making no substantive changes to the limitations and
standards applicable to any other subcategory. EPA will promulgate new
or revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards, as
appropriate, for the remaining subcategories at a later date. See Table
II-2. Until then, the previously promulgated effluent limitations
guidelines and standards remain in effect.
EPA is making one non-substantive revision in each subpart. Where
the existing regulation includes a narrative statement describing the
procedure to calculate the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for non-continuous dischargers, e.g., 40 CFR 430.13, 430.15,
430.62(a)-(d), 430.65 (1996 ed.), EPA has performed the calculations
and presented the results in tables. The resulting effluent limitations
and standards are the same; this procedure was done simply to
streamline the regulation and to make it easier to apply for the permit
writer.
In order to ensure that any facilities that would not have been
subject to the previous subparts will not inadvertently be subject to
limitations and standards set forth in the newly redesignated subparts,
EPA is using the applicability language of each previously promulgated
subpart to define the applicability of the newly redesignated subparts
that consolidate them. For example, rather than promulgate the
applicability statement proposed for subpart C, see 58 FR at 66199, EPA
has instead codified as a single applicability statement, the
applicability statements of former subparts A, D and V, which new
subpart C now comprises. See 40 CFR 430.30.
The Agency received comments that the groupings comprising the new
subcategories are unreasonable because they purportedly ignore
distinctions among facilities that affect their ability to implement
the technologies that form the basis of the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated for subparts B and E. Thus, some
commenters asserted, these facilities would be unable to meet the same
limits as other mills in the same new subcategory. EPA considered these
comments in detail where they involved mills subject to new effluent
limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today in order to
determine whether the groupings of the mills into subparts B and E were
appropriate. In response to these comments, EPA segmented subpart E.
See section VI.B.6.a. When EPA develops the final regulations for the
remaining subcategories, EPA similarly will consider if it is
appropriate to fine-tune these initial groupings to better respond to
material differences between facilities.
EPA also acknowledges that the subcategorization scheme promulgated
today was developed based on data received in the ``1990 National
Census of Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Facilities,'' and
that there have been changes in the industry since that data gathering
effort. Because the resubcategorization has no substantive effect on
any mill other than those with production in subparts B and E (for whom
revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards are promulgated
today), EPA believes that changes in the industry affecting the
remaining subparts are best addressed when EPA makes the decision
whether to revise the regulations for those subcategories.
a. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. The Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, for which regulations are
promulgated in this rulemaking at 40 CFR part 430 subpart B,
encompasses the former subparts G (market bleached kraft), H (BCT
bleached kraft), I (fine bleached kraft), and P (soda). EPA has
retained the applicability statements associated with those former
subparts. See 40 CFR 430.20. EPA intends for this merged subcategory to
apply to mills that chemically pulp wood fiber using a kraft method
with an alkaline sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide cooking liquor to
produce bleached papergrade pulp and/or bleached paper/paperboard. It
also applies to mills that chemically pulp wood fiber using a soda
method with an alkaline sodium hydroxide cooking liquor. Principal
products of bleached kraft wood pulp include papergrade kraft market
pulp, paperboard, coarse papers, tissue papers, uncoated free sheet,
and fine papers, which include business, writing, and printing papers.
Principal products of bleached soda wood pulp are fine papers, which
include printing, writing, and business papers, and market pulp.
b. Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. The Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory, for which regulations are promulgated in this rulemaking,
is defined as 40 CFR part 430 subpart E and encompasses former subpart
J (papergrade sulfite-blow pit wash) and subpart U (papergrade sulfite-
drum wash). EPA has retained the applicability statements associated
with those former subparts. See 40 CFR 430.50. EPA intends for this
merged subcategory to apply to mills that chemically pulp wood fiber
using a sulfite method, with or without brightening or bleaching, using
an acidic cooking liquor of calcium, magnesium, ammonium, or sodium
sulfites to produce bleached papergrade pulp and/or bleached paper/
paperboard. The provisions of this merged subpart apply regardless of
whether blow pit pulp washing techniques or vacuum or pressure drum
pulp washing techniques are used.
2. BPT/BCT for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and
the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
a. Background. EPA proposed to revise effluent limitations for the
conventional pollutants biochemical
[[Page 18535]]
oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) based
on the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT)
for all of the proposed subcategories, including Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite. As presented in the proposal, 58
FR at 66105, EPA highlighted several controversial issues concerning
the BPT limitations, their calculation, and their interpretation. EPA
also presented a rationale and methodology and identified related
controversies for establishing limitations based on the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
b. BPT. In December 1993, the Agency proposed to revise BPT for
conventional pollutants for subparts B and E and specifically solicited
comment on that proposed decision. See 58 FR at 66105-06. In response,
EPA received comments claiming that EPA lacks the legal authority to
revise BPT once BPT effluent limitations guidelines have been
promulgated. EPA also received other comments asserting that the Clean
Water Act compels EPA to revise BPT. Although the Agency believes that
it has the statutory authority to revise BPT, the Agency also believes
that it has the discretion to determine whether to revise BPT effluent
limitations guidelines in particular circumstances. The question of
EPA's legal authority is not relevant here, however, because EPA has
decided, in the exercise of its discretion, that it is not appropriate
to revise BPT effluent limitations guidelines for conventional
pollutants for subparts B and E at this time. Instead the current BPT
effluent limitations guidelines for conventional pollutants will
continue to apply to these subcategories.
EPA bases this decision on its determination that the total cost of
applying the proposed BPT model technology is disproportionate in this
instance to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved. See CWA
section 304(b)(1)(B). When setting BPT limitations, EPA is required
under section 304(b) to perform a limited cost-benefit balancing to
make sure that costs are not wholly out of proportion to the benefits
achieved. See, e.g., Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C.
Cir. 1978). It therefore follows that EPA is authorized to perform such
balancing when determining whether to revise existing BPT limitations.
Mills in subparts B and E have significantly reduced their loadings
of BOD5 and TSS since promulgation of the current BPT
effluent limitations guidelines in 1977. Although additional removals
could be achieved if BPT were revised, EPA has determined for subpart B
and, separately, for subpart E that the costs of achieving that
incremental improvement beyond either the current BOD5 and
TSS limitations or the current long term average for BOD5
and TSS are disproportionate to the benefits. A single mill might have
to spend as much as $17.4 million in order to upgrade to advanced
secondary treatment. See the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487. These expenditures are particularly significant
when one considers the cumulative costs of this rulemaking. Therefore,
EPA has decided not to revise BPT limitations for conventional
pollutants for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory at this time.
EPA's decision not to revise BPT limitations for subpart B at this
time is also informed by the Agency's long-term goal for this industry:
that the industry will continuously improve its environmental
performance primarily through sound capital planning and expenditures.
EPA has determined that this interplay between potentially more
stringent revised BPT limitations and the industry's long-term
environmental improvement is an appropriate factor to be considered in
this rulemaking with respect to BPT. See CWA section 304(b)(1)(B). It
is also consistent with the Clean Water Act's overarching objective,
which calls upon EPA to implement the statute's provisions with the
goal of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into the Nation's
waters. See CWA Section 101(a). In this rulemaking, EPA has determined
that the baseline regulatory requirements--effluent limitations
guidelines and standards and air emissions standards--are only one
component of the framework to achieve long-term environmental goals.
EPA believes that the mills of the future will approach closed loop
operations, thus achieving minimal impact on the aquatic environment.
To promote this, EPA is promulgating an incentives program to encourage
subpart B mills to implement pollution prevention leading to the mill
of the future. See Section IX.
EPA believes that near-term investments to achieve more stringent
BPT effluent limitations for conventional pollutants would divert
limited resources away from environmentally more preferable investments
in advanced pollution prevention technologies. Thus, EPA is concerned
that revising BPT effluent limitations guidelines at this time could
discourage mills from achieving even greater environmental results
through the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. Moreover,
EPA estimates that, even without revising BPT limitations for subpart
B, loadings of BOD5, for example, will decline by
approximately 20 percent when mills meet the baseline BAT limitations
and best management practices requirements promulgated today.
Incidental removals are even greater for subpart B mills implementing
more advanced technologies (e.g., loadings of BOD5 are
estimated to decline by approximately 30 percent at the Tier I level,
and EPA expects substantially greater reductions from Tiers II and
III). See Table IX-1. EPA also expects comparable TSS loading
reductions to occur. See the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program Technical Support Document, DCN 14488. In short, because
sufficient additional removals of conventional pollutants from subpart
B mills can be obtained without revising BPT at this time, EPA has
determined that, on balance, the incremental benefits attributable to
revised BPT limits do not justify the comparatively high costs
associated with achieving those limits. For these additional reasons,
EPA has decided not to revise BPT for conventional pollutants for mills
in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory at this time.
Finally, if additional removals of BOD5 and TSS are
needed to protect particular receiving waters, CWA section 301(b)(1)(C)
requires mills on a case-by-case basis to meet more stringent
limitations as necessary to achieve applicable water quality standards.
For the foregoing reasons, therefore, EPA has decided, in the
exercise of its discretion, that it is not appropriate to revise BPT
limitations for conventional pollutants for subparts B and E at this
time. Rather, the BPT effluent limitations guidelines promulgated for
former subparts G, H, I, and P (now Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory, subpart B) and former subparts J and U (now Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory, subpart E) remain in effect. These limitations are
recodified at subparts B and E in the form of segments corresponding to
the old subcategorization scheme. See 40 CFR 430.22 and 430.52.
c. BCT Methodology. In considering whether to promulgate revised
BCT limits for subparts B and E, EPA considered whether there are
technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants
than the current BPT effluent limitations guidelines, and whether those
technologies are cost-reasonable according to the BCT cost test. At
[[Page 18536]]
proposal, EPA presented two alternative methodologies for developing
BCT limitations. The first assumed that BPT limits would be revised in
the final rulemaking; the alternative analysis was based on the
assumption that BPT limits would not be revised. See 58 FR at 66106-07.
The principal difference between the two methodologies involved the BPT
baseline that EPA would use to compare the incremental removals and
costs associated with the candidate BCT technologies. Because the
Agency is not revising BPT, EPA used the second alternative to
determine whether to revise the current BCT limits for subparts B and
E.
d. BCT Technology Options Considered. For the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA identified two candidate BCT
technologies for the final rule. These were: (i) The technology
required to perform at the level achieved by the best 90 percent of
mills in the subcategory; and (ii) the technology required to perform
at the level achieved by the best 50 percent of mills in the
subcategory.
The Papergrade Sulfite subcategory was not divided into segments
for the purpose of conducting a BCT analysis because EPA found that
treatability of BOD5 and TSS in the wastewater generated by
the three segments does not differ. EPA identified one candidate BCT
technology for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. This was the
technology required to perform at the average level achieved by three
mills in the subcategory with at least 85 percent of their production
in the segment. Development of candidate BCT technology options based
on the best 90 and 50 percent of mills, which EPA used for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, is not appropriate for this
subcategory because there are only 11 mills in this subcategory and
only four of these have at least 85 percent of their production in the
subcategory. The wastewater treatment performance of three of these
mills was determined to reflect BCT level performance for the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. EPA did not consider the wastewater
treatment performance of the fourth mill to be representative of the
subcategory as a whole because it treats wastewater from liquor by-
products manufactured on site, and thus is unique among papergrade
sulfite mills.
e. Results of BCT Analysis. EPA evaluated the candidate BCT
technologies for both the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory and concluded that
none of the candidate options passed the BCT cost test. For more
details, see the Supplemental Technical Development Document, Section
12, DCN 14487. Therefore, at this time, the Agency is not promulgating
more stringent BCT effluent limitations guidelines for the newly
constituted subparts B and E. Rather, the BCT limitations promulgated
for former subparts G, H, I, and P (now Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory, subpart B) and former subparts J and U (now
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, subpart E) remain in effect. These
limitations are recodified at subparts B and E in the form of segments
corresponding to the old subcategorization scheme. See 40 CFR 430.23
and 430.53.
3. Pollutant Parameters for BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS
a. Dioxin, Furan, and Chlorinated Phenolic Pollutants. EPA is
promulgating effluent limitations guidelines and standards for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD (``dioxin''), 2,3,7,8-TCDF (``furan''), and 12 specific
chlorinated phenolic pollutants for subparts B and E (except for those
mills regulated by TCF limitations). For a discussion of EPA's
rationale for regulating these parameters, see the proposal, 58 FR at
66102-03 and the proposal Technical Development Document (EPA 821-R-93-
019). For a discussion of EPA's pass-through analysis regarding these
pollutants, see Section VI.B.5.c(2) and VI.B.6.d.
b. Volatile Compounds. EPA is promulgating effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for chloroform for subpart B. For a discussion
of EPA's rationale for regulating chloroform, see the proposal, 58 FR
at 66102 and the proposal Technical Development Document (EPA 821-R93-
019). EPA is not promulgating effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for chloroform for subpart E at this time. For a discussion
of EPA's pass-through analysis regarding chloroform, see Section
VI.B.5.c(2). For the reasons set forth below and in the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487, EPA is not promulgating
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the discharge of
acetone, methylene chloride, and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). EPA
received no adverse comments in response to its preliminary
determination, presented in the July 1996 Notice of Availability, 61 FR
at 36839, not to regulate these pollutants.
EPA has reviewed data from both hardwood and softwood mills
employing a variety of bleaching processes in an effort to identify
factors that contribute to the formation of acetone, methylene
chloride, and MEK in the bleach plant. The bleaching processes
evaluated included bleaching using elemental chlorine, BAT Option A
(elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching using 100 percent chlorine
dioxide), BAT Option B (oxygen delignification plus ECF bleaching using
100 percent chlorine dioxide), ECF bleaching using ozone, and totally
chlorine-free bleaching. The ranges of loadings for each pollutant were
similar across the different bleaching technologies and for both
hardwood and softwood mills. The average loadings for these pollutants
do not exhibit a performance trend with regard to the bleaching
technologies.
In the EPA/Industry long-term study, methylene chloride was found
to be a sample- and laboratory-contaminant in certain cases. Among the
more recent data reviewed by EPA, methylene chloride was detected in
the bleach plant effluent at ten percent of the sampled mills. Where
detected, methylene chloride was present at low concentrations.
Therefore, because methylene chloride is infrequently detected, because
its formation processes are not fully understood, and because the cases
in which it is detected are often attributed to sample and laboratory
contamination, EPA has decided not to promulgate effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for methylene chloride in this rulemaking.
EPA had proposed limitations for acetone and MEK based on limited
data indicating that these parameters may be affected by the technology
options being considered. EPA has decided not to promulgate effluent
limitations guidelines or standards for these parameters because
additional data have shown that this is not the case. Moreover, EPA
believes that the limitations and new source performance standards
being promulgated today for adsorbable organic halides for subpart B
mills will ensure that mills will continue to operate their biological
wastewater systems at levels necessary to achieve very high removals of
these pollutants, thus obviating the need for separate limitations.
In view of the efficacy of biological wastewater treatment in
removing acetone and MEK and the fact that process changes have no
effect on the levels at which they are generated, EPA is not convinced
that these pollutants pass through POTWs. Therefore, EPA is also not
setting pretreatment standards for acetone or MEK for subpart B at this
time.
With respect to papergrade sulfite mills, EPA expects that, once
promulgated, the limitations and standards for AOX based on, among
other things, efficient biological
[[Page 18537]]
treatment, will ensure that treatment systems are operated at levels
necessary to obviate the need for separate limitations for acetone and
MEK. Therefore, EPA is deferring its decision on whether to regulate
acetone and MEK until that time.
c. Adsorbable Organic Halides (AOX). EPA is establishing BAT
limitations, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for the control of
adsorbable organic halide (AOX) discharges from mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. EPA is also establishing BAT
limitations, NSPS, and pretreatment standards to control AOX discharges
from mills in the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based segment of the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. For a discussion of EPA's pass through
analysis for AOX discharges from these mills, see Sections VI.B.5.c(2),
VI.B.6.d, and the Supplemental Technical Development Document, Section
8, DCN 14487. As discussed in more detail in those sections, EPA is not
setting effluent limitations guidelines and standards for AOX for other
mills in subpart E at this time.
AOX is a measure of the total chlorinated organic matter in
wastewaters. At pulp and paper mills, almost all of the AOX results
from bleaching processes. Even though dioxin and furan are no longer
measurable using today's analytical methods at the end of the pipe at
many mills, the potential for formation of these pollutants continues
to exist at pulp and paper mills as long as any chlorine-containing
compounds (including chlorine dioxide) are used in the bleaching
process. The record demonstrates a correlation between the presence of
AOX and the amount of chlorinated bleaching chemical used in relation
to the residual lignin in the pulp (expressed as the kappa factor). The
record further shows that there is a correlation between the kappa
factor and the formation of dioxin and furan. Therefore, EPA concluded
that reducing AOX loadings will have the effect of reducing the mass of
dioxin, furan, and other chlorinated organic pollutants discharged by
this industry. For further discussion of EPA's rationale for regulating
AOX, see the Supplemental Technical Development Document (DCN 14487)
and response to comments on justification for establishing limitations
for AOX (DCN 14497, Vol. I).
EPA's decision to regulate AOX is also based on the fact that AOX,
unlike most of the chlorinated organic compounds regulated today, is
comparatively inexpensive to monitor for and is easily quantified by
applicable analytical methods. Thus, while EPA could have decided to
control the formation of dioxin, furan, chloroform, and the 12
regulated chlorinated phenolic pollutants by requiring mills to monitor
for those pollutants on a daily basis, EPA also recognizes that testing
for those pollutants is expensive and time consuming. In contrast,
daily monitoring for AOX as required in today's rule is considerably
less expensive. See Section VI.B.8.b(4) and DCN 14487. Additionally,
under the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, enrolled
mills are eligible for reduced AOX monitoring. See Section IX.B.2 and
DCN 14488. Moreover, the presence of AOX can be readily measured in
mill effluent, in contrast to the presence of many of the chlorinated
organic compounds regulated in today's rule, which for the most part
are likely to be present at levels that cannot be reliably measured by
today's analytical methods. See Section VI.B.5.a(4). Thus, although EPA
is not required under the Clean Water Act to consider the environmental
or human health effects of its technology-based regulations, EPA has
also determined that regulating AOX as part of BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS
provides further assurance that human health and the environment will
be protected against the potential harm associated with dioxin, furan,
and the other chlorinated organic pollutants.
d. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). The proposed rule included end-of-
pipe BAT limitations and PSES for COD. EPA continues to believe that
COD limitations can be used to ensure the operation of processes that
minimize the discharge of all organic compounds, including toxic
organic compounds that are not readily biodegraded. However, the
limited data available at this time do not adequately characterize
other sources of COD that may be present at some complex mills,
although it appears that the COD contributed by these sources may be as
great as the COD contribution from the pulp mill and bleach plant areas
of the mill. These other sources of COD could include paper machines,
mechanical pulping, other on-site chemical pulping, and secondary fiber
processing (including deinking). See DCN 13958 and DCN 14495. Even if
sufficient data were now available to establish COD limitations and
standards for pulp mill operations in subparts B and E, EPA does not
have sufficient information at present to evaluate the other sources of
COD and the performance of control technologies to limit COD at those
sources in order to set national effluent limitations guidelines and
standards.
For this reason, EPA is not establishing final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for COD at this time. EPA does, however,
intend to promulgate COD limitations and NSPS for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories in a
later rulemaking. For this purpose, EPA will gather additional data to
characterize other sources of COD that may be present at complex mills
subject to subparts B or E. This effort will be undertaken concurrently
with data gathering to assess the need for establishing COD limits for
mills operating in other subcategories (Phase II rulemaking). EPA
believes that this data-gathering effort will facilitate setting limits
in permits for complex mills with other onsite process operations. EPA
will also decide as part of the Phase II rulemaking whether COD passes
through or interferes with the operation of POTWs and, therefore,
whether pretreatment standards for COD would be appropriate for
subparts B and E.
While EPA does not have sufficient data to issue national
technology-based regulations for COD at this time, EPA strongly urges
permitting authorities to consider including COD limitations in NPDES
permits for Subpart B and E mills on the basis of best professional
judgment. See 40 CFR 125.3(c)(3). Pretreatment authorities should
establish COD local limits if COD passes through or interferes with the
POTWs within the meaning of the general pretreatment regulations. See
40 CFR 403.5(c). EPA believes that permitting or pretreatment
authorities should address COD for the following reasons. Chronic
sublethal toxic effects have been found to result from the discharge of
treated effluent from bleached and unbleached kraft, mechanical, and
groundwood/sulfite pulp mills (see DCNs 3984, 13985, 13975, 13976,
13979, and 00012). These chronic toxic effects were measured as
increased liver mixed-function oxydase activity and symptoms of altered
reproductive capacity in fish (DCN 60002). This toxicity is associated
at least in part with families of non-chlorinated organic materials
that are measured by the existing COD analytical method. Some of these
materials, including several wood extractive constituents found in
pulping liquors, are refractory (i.e., resistant to rapid biological
degradation) and thus are not measurable by the five-day biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5) analytical method.
In order to assist permitting or pretreatment authorities in
developing
[[Page 18538]]
COD limitations, EPA describes below various processes that mills can
use to control COD. The major sources of COD (which includes slowly
biodegradable and non-biodegradable organic material) at a pulp mill
are the pulp mill and bleach plant areas. Pulping sources of COD
include digester condensates and spent pulping liquor. Open screening
processes can be a major source of COD discharges. Spent pulping liquor
can also be lost from the process through process spills and equipment
leaks. Bleach plant filtrates, the recovery area, leaks from turpentine
processing areas at softwood mills, and pulp dryers are examples of
other sources of COD at pulp mills.
The process changes that form the basis of the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated today include processes that can
reduce discharges of primarily non-chlorinated organic compounds. These
as yet unidentified refractory organic compounds have been correlated
with chronic sublethal aquatic toxicity from pulp mill effluents. By
recovering much of the non-chlorinated organic compounds prior to
bleaching, discharges of chlorinated organic compounds also are
reduced. For example, improved brownstock washing, which is part of the
model technology basis for today's regulations, can be operated (for
the purposes of achieving COD limitations) to minimize black liquor
carryover to the bleach plant and thus reduce the formation of AOX and
toxic chlorinated compounds. Another process technology effective at
reducing organic discharges associated with pulping liquors is for a
mill to return all water from pulp screening to the process, termed a
closed screen room.
EPA intends for the best management practices promulgated today for
Subparts B and E to lead mills to retain spent pulping liquors in the
process, to the maximum extent practicable, through preventing leaks
and spills and through capturing those leaks and spills that do occur
and returning the organic material to the recovery system. The BMPs are
also intended to lead mills to collect intentional diversions of spent
pulping liquors and return those materials to the process. However, the
BMP regulations do not require that the contained leaked and spilled
material be recovered in the process, nor are intentional diversions
required to be returned to the process. In the absence of COD
limitations, significant quantities of this organic material could be
metered to the wastewater treatment system. As a result, while the BMP
program will effectively prevent releases of pulping liquors (and soap
and turpentine) that would upset or otherwise interfere with the
operation of the wastewater treatment system, refractory organic
material believed to cause chronic toxic effects could still be
discharged at levels greater than the levels achievable through
optimized process technologies and effective end--of-pipe treatment.
For this additional reason, EPA believes that COD limitations
established on a best professional judgment basis would be appropriate.
The COD data considered by EPA are presented in the support
document, Analysis of Data for COD Limitations, DCN 13958, for this
rule. This support document also presents EPA's estimates (based on
data available today) of the ranges of COD effluent load believed to be
contributed by other mill operations, which EPA is supplying as limited
guidance to permitting and pretreatment authorities. EPA urges
permitting authorities to include--and exercise--reopener clauses in
NPDES permits for mills subject to Subpart B or E in order to impose or
revise COD effluent limitations once effluent limitations guidelines
for COD are promulgated.
e. Color and Other Pollutants. EPA proposed BAT limitations and
PSES for color for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory
only. Commenters asserted that EPA should not establish effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for color because it is a concern
more appropriately addressed in individual permits based on applicable
water quality standards. EPA agrees with this comment. The potential
for significant aesthetic or aquatic impacts from color discharges is
driven by highly site-specific conditions and is best dealt with on a
case-by-case basis through individual NPDES permits or, when
appropriate, through local limits. Therefore, the Agency is not
promulgating technology-based limitations or standards for color. See
DCN 14497, Vol. I.
EPA did not propose effluent limitations for four pollutants,
including biphenyl, carbon disulfide, dimethyl sulfone, and mercury,
and indicated in the Technical Development Document (at Section 7.3.5)
that these four pollutants were remaining under consideration for
regulation. Based on limited data available to date, EPA has decided
not to establish effluent limitations and standards for these
pollutants. EPA has reached this decision because these pollutants are
not found consistently in effluents and thus they are not directly
related to pulping and bleaching processes serving as the basis for BAT
and NSPS. EPA notes that where mercury was found to be present, the
concentrations at which it was found suggests that a possible source of
this pollutant may be contaminants of purchased chemicals. However, the
Agency did not obtain any information or data which would either
clearly identify the source or sources of mercury or the other
pollutants, or provide a basis for identifying applicable control
technologies or establishing effluent limitations. Therefore, EPA is
not developing effluent limitations and standards. Individual mills may
still receive water quality based effluent limitations (Section
301(b)(1)(C)) for any of these pollutants where necessary to protect
local water quality.
f. Biocides. EPA is retaining the current effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the biocides pentachlorophenol and
trichlorophenol for former subparts G, H, I, and P (now Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, subpart B) and former subparts J
and U (now Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, subpart E). These
limitations and standards are recodified at subparts B and E. See 40
CFR 430.24(d), 430.25(d), 430.26(b), 430.27(b), 430.54(b), 430.55(c),
430.56(b), 430.57(b). For subpart B, the limitations and standards are
presented in the form of segments corresponding to the old
subcategorization scheme. (EPA did not need to track the old
subcategorization scheme for subpart E because the limitations and
standards for former subparts J and U were the same.) EPA is not
codifying any minimum monitoring frequency for these pollutants. See 40
CFR 430.02. In addition, unless the permitting or pretreatment
authority decides otherwise, EPA expects that mills would demonstrate
compliance with these limitations at the end of the pipe.
As before, the regulations continue to provide that a discharger is
not required to meet the biocides limitations or standards if it
certifies to the permitting or pretreatment authority that it is not
using these compounds as biocides. See, e.g., 40 CFR 430.24(d). (These
certification provisions have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 2040-0033. See 40 CFR 9.1.) EPA notes,
however, that mills using chlorine-containing compounds in their
bleaching processes are required to meet separate limitations or
standards for pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol in connection with the new effluent limitations and
standards promulgated today for subparts B and E regardless whether
these compounds are
[[Page 18539]]
also used as biocides. See, e.g., 40 CFR 430.24(a)(1). (Those compounds
are included within the list of the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants
discussed in Section VI.B.3.a.) EPA is requiring dischargers to
demonstrate compliance with these limitations and standards by
monitoring for those pollutants at the point where the wastewater
containing those pollutants leaves the bleach plant. See, e.g., 40 CFR
430.24(e).
EPA believes it is appropriate to codify separate limitations and
standards for those pollutants, even though in very rare cases a mill
may be required to comply with both sets. First, although for the same
pollutants the two sets of limitations arise from different chemical
applications in different parts of the mill. As biocides,
pentachlorophenol or trichlorophenol could be used virtually anywhere
in a mill's industrial process, but were typically used as slimicides
in whitewater recirculation systems. In the limitations and standards
promulgated today, however, pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol are being regulated because they are found in
bleach plant wastewater when chlorine-containing compounds are used for
bleaching. Second, EPA expects these pollutants to be reduced to
quantities below the minimum level of the applicable analytical method
as a result of bleach plant process changes, which is not the case when
they are used as biocides. Thus the different limitations and standards
found in subparts B and E for these pollutants respond to different
situations and reflect different model process technologies. Finally,
EPA believes that mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory or the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory generally do not use
pentachlorophenol or trichlorophenol as biocides today. See the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. Therefore, EPA
expects that each mill will be able to certify that it is not using the
compounds as biocides and therefore will not be subject to the
biocides-related limitations.
4. Analytical Methods
In this rule, EPA is promulgating Method 1650 for the analysis of
AOX and Method 1653 for the analysis of certain chlorinated phenolic
compounds.
a. Authority. The analytical methods in this final rule are
promulgated under the authority of CWA sections 301, 304(h), 307, 308,
and 501(a). Section 301 of the Act prohibits the discharge of any
pollutant into navigable waters unless the discharge complies with an
NPDES permit issued under section 402 of the Act. Section 301 also
specifies levels of pollutant reductions to be achieved by certain
dates. Section 304(h) of the Act requires the EPA Administrator to
``promulgate guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis
of pollutants that shall include the factors which must be provided in
any certification pursuant to section 401 of this Act or permit
applications pursuant to section 402 of this Act.'' These test
procedures for the analysis of pollutants also assist in the
implementation of Section 301. Section 501(a) of the Act authorizes the
Administrator to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry
out her function under this Act.
The Administrator has also made these test procedures (methods)
applicable to monitoring and reporting of NPDES permits (40 CFR part
122, Secs. 122.21, 122.41, 122.44, and 123.25), and implementation of
the pretreatment standards issued under section 307 of CWA (40 CFR part
403, Secs. 403.10 and 403.12). Section 308 provides authority for
information gathering.
b. Background and History. In the December 17, 1993 proposal, EPA
referenced a compendium entitled ``Analytical Methods for the
Determination of Pollutants in Pulp and Paper Industry Wastewater.''
This compendium contained methods that had not been promulgated at 40
CFR part 136, but would be applicable for monitoring compliance with
the limitations and standards proposed for part 430 at that time. The
compendium included methods for the analysis of CDDs and CDFs (i.e.,
dioxin and furans), AOX, chlorinated phenolics, and color. These
methods were proposed for promulgation at 40 CFR part 430 to support
the proposed regulation and were included in the docket for the
proposed pulp and paper rule.
EPA received more than 200 individual comments and suggestions
concerning the proposed analytical methods. Some of these were comments
on the methods not being promulgated today. Many of the comments and
suggestions were technically detailed, ranging from suggestions on
changing the integration time in Method 1650 (for AOX) to reducing the
spike levels for labeled compounds used in Method 1653 (for chlorinated
phenolics). Other comments raised questions about EPA's approach to
technical issues and policies regarding the handling of analytical
data. EPA has included a summary of the detailed comments and specific
responses to those comments in the record for today's rule.
On July 15, 1996, EPA published a notice of availability that,
among other things, summarized the changes the Agency intended to make
to the proposed or promulgated analytical methods and stated that
detailed revisions to the methods would be added to the record at a
later date. See 61 FR at 36848-49. In promulgating today's rule, EPA
has implemented the changes identified in the July 1996 Notice. These
changes are summarized below and detailed in the response to comments
provided in the record.
c. Analytical Methods Promulgated Today. EPA has revised the
analytical methods compendium entitled ``Analytical Methods for the
Determination of Pollutants in Pulp and Paper Industry Wastewater'' to
incorporate revisions to the methods made since proposal. This
compendium (EPA-821-B-97-001, August 1997) contains the analytical
methods to be used for monitoring compliance with the limitations and
standards promulgated today for subparts B and E. The compendium
includes Method 1650 for the determination of AOX and Method 1653 for
the determination of chlorinated phenolics. These two analytical
methods are being promulgated today as appendices to 40 CFR part 430.
They have not yet been promulgated at 40 CFR part 136.
(1) Method 1650: AOX by Adsorption and Coulometric Titration
Method 1650 can be used to measure AOX in water and wastewater. AOX
is a measure of halogenated organic compounds that adsorb onto granular
activated carbon (GAC). The method involves adsorption of the organic
halides (chlorine, bromine, iodine) in water onto GAC, removal of
inorganic halides by washing, combustion of the organic halides (along
with the GAC) to form hydrogen halides, and titration of the hydrogen
halides with silver ions in a microcoulometer. The results are reported
as organic chlorine even though other halides may be present because
chlorine is the halide of concern in pulp and paper wastewaters. EPA
studies have demonstrated a Method Detection Limit (MDL) of 6.6
g/L. Based on this MDL and on calibration of the
microcoulometer, the minimum level (ML) in Method 1650 has been
determined to be 20 g/L. The minimum level and other
performance attributes for this method have been validated in single
laboratory method validation studies and by use in data gathering for
today's final rule. All laboratories that used Method 1650 in the data
gathering effort calibrated their instruments at the ML.
[[Page 18540]]
Since proposal, EPA has made changes to Method 1650 to improve the
ease of use and the reliability of this method. These changes are
reflected in the version of Method 1650 being promulgated today and
they largely reflect comments and suggestions made following proposal
of the method. In response to comments, EPA made several changes to
Method 1650, including: adjustment of the breakthrough specification to
25 percent based on recent data; allowance of a 100- or 25-mL
adsorption volume, provided the sensitivity requirements in the method
are met; provision of greater flexibility in allowable glassware sizes;
use of 100-mL volumes of standards for calibration and other purposes
to conserve reagents; use of only 2-mm columns to make the column
procedure more reproducible; adjustment of the QC acceptance criteria
based on an industry interlaboratory method validation study; and the
addition of a minimum integration time of 10 minutes to assure that all
AOX is measured. In addition, the format of the method has been
modified to reflect the standardized format recommended by EPA's
Environmental Monitoring Management Council (EMMC). For a more detailed
discussion of the changes made to Method 1650 since proposal, see DCN
14497, Vol. VII.
EPA disagreed with several comments on EPA's proposed Method 1650
and therefore did not make the changes suggested by commenters. In
particular, EPA disagrees that the method detection limit (MDL) should
be increased to 20 g/L to allow for blank contamination. In
EPA's view, blank contamination can be controlled to levels well below
20 g/L. EPA also disagrees that it should eliminate Section
8.1.2 of the proposed method. (Section 8.1.2 contained provisions for
flexibility.) EPA has received a large number of requests that
analytical methods be ``performance-based,'' and has attempted to
implement the means for allowing changes in Section 8.1.2 (Section
9.1.2 in the version of Method 1650 being promulgated today). Under
Section 8.1.2, the laboratory can make minor modifications to Method
1650 provided that the laboratory performs all quality control (QC)
tests and meets all QC acceptance criteria. In addition, contrary to a
suggestion from a commenter, EPA has not included examples of cell
maintenance in Method 1650 because EPA believes that analysts who
maintain the coulometric cell must be familiar with the cell
maintenance procedures provided by the instrument manufacturer. For
more information on these issues, see DCN 14497, Vol. VII.
(2) Method 1653: Chlorophenolics by In-Situ Derivatization and
Isotope Dilution GC/MS
Method 1653 can be used to measure chlorinated phenolic compounds
in water and wastewater amenable to in situ acetylation, extraction,
and determination by HRGC combined with low-resolution mass
spectrometry (LRMS). In this method, chlorophenolics are derivatized in
situ to form acetic acid phenolates that are extracted with hexane,
concentrated, and injected into the HRGC/LRMS where separation and
detection occurs.
EPA studies have demonstrated MDLs of 0.09-1.39 g/L for
chlorophenolics in water. Based on these MDLs and on calibration of the
GCMS instrument, minimum levels have been determined for the 12
chlorinated phenolics in today's rule. These minimum levels of 2.5 or
5.0 g/L depend on the specific compound and have been
validated in single laboratory validation studies and by use in data
gathering for today's final rule. All laboratories that used Method
1653 in the data gathering effort calibrated their instruments at the
ML.
Since proposal, EPA has made changes to Method 1653 to improve the
reliability of the method and to lower costs of measurements. These
changes are incorporated into the version of the method being
promulgated today; they largely reflect comments and suggestions made
following proposal of the method.
In response to comments, EPA made several specific changes to
Method 1653, the most significant of which are as follows: lowering the
spike level of the labeled compounds to reduce interferences with trace
levels of the analytes of interest and to lower the cost of labeled
compounds; specifying more appropriate solvents for the analytical
standards containing labeled and native analytes; requiring
laboratories to add the labeled compounds to the sample prior to pH
adjustment; restating the quality control acceptance criteria for
recovery in terms of percent instead of concentration; and reducing
method flexibility in certain critical areas. In addition, as with
Method 1650, the method has been revised into the standardized EMMC
format.
EPA disagreed with several comments on EPA's proposed Method 1653
and therefore did not make changes suggested by commenters. EPA
received comments that Method 1653 has not been validated adequately.
EPA disagrees. Method 1653 has been validated in multiple single-
laboratory method validation studies and extensively validated in field
studies for this final rule. EPA believes that these extensive studies
are more than adequate to validate Method 1653 for use in data
gathering to support this final rule and for use in monitoring under
this final rule. EPA also disagrees with comments that Method 1653 is
inadequate for chlorocatechols. EPA believes that Method 1653 provides
more reliable data for catechols and the other chlorophenolics than any
other method available, and the commenter provided no suggestions for
how Method 1653 could be improved for determination of chlorocatechols.
EPA has, therefore, kept chlorocatechols in Method 1653. EPA also
disagrees with comments that initial precision and recovery (IPR) and
ongoing precision and recovery (OPR) tests should be replaced with
initial calibration (ICAL) and calibration verification (VER) tests.
(The ICAL and IPR are different in both form and function. The
calibration test is for calibrating the analytical system while the IPR
test is conducted to check performance. The OPR and VER tests are the
same; only the terminology is different. EPA has retained use of the
OPR terminology to be consistent with other methods.) EPA also
disagrees with comments that use of labeled compounds is not worth the
benefit and that all phenols and guaiacols should be quantitated
against 3,4,5-trichlorophenol. EPA believes that data gathered to
support today's final rule and in other studies demonstrate that
isotope dilution provides the most precise and accurate measurement of
chlorophenolics and other compounds determined by gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry. EPA also received comments urging EPA not to allow
modifications to the method. However, EPA also received a large number
of requests that analytical methods be ``performance-based,'' and has
attempted to implement the means for allowing changes to improve
detection and quantitation or to lower costs of measurements. Limited
changes may be made, except where specifically prohibited in Method
1653, provided that the performance tests are repeated and the results
produced by the change are equivalent or superior to results produced
with the unmodified method. EPA has also decided to retain the mention
of field duplicates in the method in the event that a laboratory or
discharger desires to measure sampling precision. Finally, EPA has not
added the requirement that laboratories should be forced to overcome
emulsions. EPA believes that nearly all emulsions can be overcome and
provides specific steps in
[[Page 18541]]
the method that the laboratory must take to break the emulsion.
However, EPA does not wish to impose such a requirement on laboratories
in the event that a future sample is encountered that produces an
emulsion that cannot be broken. If all efforts to break the emulsion
fail, Method 1653 allows the use of a dilute aliquot. For more
discussion, see Comment Response Document, Vol. VII, DCN 14497.
d. Other Methods. In addition to the methods promulgated today, the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards also call for the use of
Method 1613 (for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF)) and any of the approved methods
for chloroform to monitor compliance. These methods are discussed
below.
(1) Method 1613: CDDs and CDFs by HRGC/HRMS
Method 1613 uses isotope dilution and high-resolution gas
chromatography combined with high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/
HRMS) for separation and detection of 17 tetra-through octa-substituted
dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran isomers and congeners that are
chlorinated at the 2, 3, 7, and 8 positions. Separate procedures are
available for the determination of these analytes in water and solid
matrices. In the procedure, a 1-L sample is passed through a 0.45-
glass fiber filter. The filter is extracted with toluene in a
Soxhlet/Dean-Stark (SDS) extractor. The aqueous filtrate is extracted
with methylene chloride in a separatory funnel. Extracts from the SDS
and separatory funnel extractions are combined and concentrated. To
remove interferences, the combined, concentrated extract is cleaned up
using various combinations of acid and base washes, acidic and basic
silica gel, gel permeation chromatography (GPC), high-performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC), and activated carbon. The cleaned up
extract is concentrated to 20 L and a 1-2 L aliquot
is injected into the HRGC/HRMS.
The MDL determined for TCDD is 4.4 part-per-quadrillion (ppq).
Minimum levels for Method 1613 are 10 ppq for TCDD and TCDF. These MLs
have been validated through an interlaboratory study and by use in the
analysis of mill effluents.
EPA recently promulgated Method 1613 for the determination of CDDs
and CDFs at 40 CFR 136, Appendix A in a final rule published on
September 15, 1997 (62 FR 48394). Of the 17 congeners that may be
measured with this method, only TCDD and TCDF are regulated under this
final rule. Method 1613 was first proposed for general use in
compliance monitoring and for other purposes at 40 CFR part 136 on
February 7, 1991 (56 FR 5090) and was proposed for use in pulp and
paper industry wastewaters at 40 CFR part 430 on December 17, 1993 (58
FR 66078). EPA received extensive comments and suggestions on both
proposals of Method 1613; in several cases, the same set of comments
was submitted. EPA updated the final Method 1613 based on suggestions
and comments received on the original proposal (56 FR 5090) and on the
proposal of Method 1613 for use at 40 CFR part 430 (58 FR 66078). In
the docket supporting promulgation of Method 1613, EPA provided a
listing of detailed comments received on both proposals of Method 1613,
along with detailed responses to all of those comments. Because Method
1613 was promulgated in a final rule prior to promulgation of today's
final rule, and because EPA received comments and provided responses in
support of that final rule, EPA is not promulgating Method 1613 as part
of today's final rule. See the final rule promulgating Method 1613 (62
FR 48394) for all information concerning that method.
(2) Method 1624: Volatiles by Purge-and-Trap and Isotope Dilution GC/MS
Method 1624 is used for the determination of volatile pollutants in
water and wastewater. It employs a gas chromatograph coupled to a mass
spectrometer (GC/MS) to separate and quantify volatile pollutants.
Detected pollutants are quantified by isotope dilution. Samples of
water or solids suspended in water are purged of volatile organic
pollutants by a stream of inert gas into the gaseous phase where they
are concentrated onto a trap. Subsequent heating of the trap introduces
the concentrated volatile organics into a GC/MS for separation and
quantification.
With no interferences present, minimum levels of 10-50 g/L
can be achieved, depending on the specific pollutant. For chloroform,
the minimum level is 10 g/L. This minimum level has been
validated by use.
When EPA initially proposed today's rule, it proposed to regulate
four volatile organic pollutants. Method 1624, Revision C was proposed
for monitoring the presence of these pollutants in effluent discharges.
Revision C contained updates and improvements to Method 1624, Revision
B, which was promulgated October 26, 1984 (49 FR 43234).
In today's final rule, EPA is regulating only one of the originally
proposed volatile pollutants (chloroform); this pollutant can be
measured by already-approved EPA Methods 601, 624, and 1624B and
Standard Methods 6210B and 6230B. Therefore, EPA has not included
Method 1624C in today's final rule and has not formally addressed
comments concerning Method 1624C. EPA will consider comments on Method
1624C when this version of the method is promulgated for general use at
40 CFR 136 or when the method is further revised.
(3) Other Issues Concerning Analytical Methods Promulgated in Today's
Final Rule
The overall comments received from the regulated industry and
others provide suggestions for method improvement but, in some cases,
question EPA's approach to technical issues in the methods and the
handling of data. For example, commenters suggested that quality
control tests be performed at the minimum level (ML), that a 3-point
calibration should be used for labeled compounds in isotope dilution
methods, and that additional QC tests should be required. Commenters
also stated that all methods must be subjected to interlaboratory
validation, and that the compliance monitoring detection limit (CMDL)
and compliance monitoring quantitation limit (CMQL) should be used in
place of EPA's method detection limit (MDL) and ML, respectively. EPA
responded to these suggestions by providing specific reasons why they
are inconsistent with the provisions in other methods, are more
extensive than required to assure reliable results, or that they would
not substantively alter the conclusions of studies and data gathering
used to support this final rule. The detailed responses to these issues
are in the record for this rule.
5. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
a. BAT. (1) Technology Options Considered.
(a) Options Proposed. The Agency considered many combinations of
pollution prevention technologies as regulatory options to reduce the
discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants from bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills. These options are discussed in the
proposal and the Notice of Availability published on July 15, 1996. See
58 FR at 66109-11 and 61 FR at 36838-39, 36848. Five different options
were presented in the proposal.
The Agency proposed BAT effluent limitations guidelines based on an
option that included the use of oxygen delignification or extended
cooking
[[Page 18542]]
with elimination of hypochlorite and complete (100 percent)
substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine as the key
process technologies. Complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine and elimination of hypochlorite is known as
elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching. EPA's definition of ECF
bleaching includes high shear mixing to ensure adequate mixing of pulp
and bleaching chemicals, as well as other technology elements.
EPA proposed this option because it believed, based on the record
at the time, that this combination of technologies was both available
and economically achievable and that no other available and
economically achievable option resulted in greater effluent reductions.
See 58 FR at 66110. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA identified this
technology option as Option B. See 61 FR at 36838.
EPA also considered at proposal another option based on
conventional pulping--complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine, but without the use of oxygen delignification or
extended cooking (i.e., conventional pulping). See 58 FR at 66111. At
the time of proposal, EPA was unable to fully analyze this alternative
because very limited performance data were available from mills using
this technology. Therefore, EPA solicited further data and comments on
this option, Id. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA published preliminary
findings regarding this option, which it identified as Option A. See 61
FR at 36838-42.
The Agency also considered a totally chlorine-free (TCF) option for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory at proposal. See 58
FR at 66109. TCF bleaching processes are pulp bleaching operations that
are performed without the use of chlorine, sodium hypochlorite, calcium
hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, chlorine monoxide, or any other
chlorine-containing compound. EPA concluded that TCF was not an
available pollution prevention technology at the time of proposal
because of limited worldwide experience with this process and a lack of
data for TCF bleaching of softwood to full market brightness. To
encourage continuing innovation in the development of processes to
reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants from the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, however, EPA proposed
alternative BAT limits for mills adopting TCF processes.
In the July 1996 Notice, EPA also described an incentives program
that it was considering for Subpart B mills in order to promote more
widespread use of advanced pollution prevention technologies. See 61 FR
at 36849-58. As part of this voluntary program, EPA proposed to
establish up to three sets of alternative BAT limitations that would
complement the compulsory baseline BAT requirements. EPA identified the
proposed alternative BAT limitations as Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III
BAT limitations. See 61 FR at 36850. EPA considered basing Tier I
limits on BAT Option B technology (if Option A were chosen as the basis
for the baseline BAT limitations). The Tier II and Tier III
limitations, in turn, would be based on technologies and processes that
EPA expected to achieve substantial reductions in pulping area
condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach plant wastewater flow.
(b) Final ECF Options Evaluated. For this final rule, EPA
considered two ECF technology options--Option A and Option B--as the
basis for BAT effluent limitations. Option A consists of conventional
pulping followed by complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine, as well as the following nine elements:
(i) Adequate chip thickness control;
(ii) Closed brownstock pulp screen room operation, such that
screening filtrates are returned to the recovery cycle;
(iii) Use of dioxin- and furan-precursor-free defoamers (i.e.,
water-based defoamers or defoamers made with precursor-free oils);
(iv) Effective brownstock washing, i.e., washing that achieves a
soda loss of less than or equal to 10 kg Na2SO4
per ADMT of pulp (equivalent to approximately 99 percent recovery of
pulping chemicals from the pulp);
(v) Elimination of hypochlorite, i.e., replacement of hypochlorite
with equivalent bleaching power in the form of additions of peroxide
and/or oxygen to the first extraction stage and/or additional chlorine
dioxide in final brightening stages;
(vi) Oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced extraction, which allows
elimination of hypochlorite and/or use of a lower kappa factor in the
first bleaching stage;
(vii) Use of strategies to minimize kappa factor and dioxin- and
furan-precursors in brownstock pulp;
(viii) High shear mixing during bleaching to ensure adequate mixing
of pulp and bleaching chemicals; and
(ix) Efficient biological wastewater treatment, achieving removal
of approximately 90 percent or more of influent BOD5. These
elements are discussed in detail in the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487. Option B is identical to Option A,
with the addition of extended delignification (oxygen delignification
and/or extended cooking). EPA also considered a TCF option, see
subsection (c) immediately below, and, in the context of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program, three sets of voluntary
alternative BAT limitations. See Section IX.A.
In a slight change from the definition of the proposed BAT option,
EPA has defined Option B not only in terms of the presence of extended
delignification technology (i.e., oxygen delignification or extended
cooking) but also by the pre-bleaching kappa number achieved by
extended delignification. Kappa number is the measure of lignin content
in unbleached pulp and is commonly used by the industry. Many
researchers have shown (and EPA has confirmed) strong correlations
between the kappa number of the pulp entering the first stage of
bleaching and the bleach plant effluent loads of AOX and COD. See DCN
14497, Vol. I. EPA concluded that merely employing extended
delignification technologies, without reducing the unbleached pulp
kappa number, is not sufficient to achieve the low effluent loadings of
AOX and COD characteristic of Option B. Therefore, EPA has redefined
Option B as ECF with extended delignification resulting in a kappa
number at or below 20 for softwoods and below 13 for hardwoods (see the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487). EPA found that
these kappa numbers are achievable by virtually all mills that
currently have installed and are effectively operating extended
delignification technology.
As part of the nine elements common to both Option A and Option B,
EPA has included strategies for minimizing kappa factor and dioxin- and
furan-precursors in brownstock pulp. These strategies are part of
Options A and B because EPA has determined that they minimize the
generation of dioxin, furan, and AOX and, hence, are part of the model
process sequence to achieve those limitations. See 61 FR at 36848 and
the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
Kappa factor, also known as active chlorine multiple, is the ratio
of chlorine bleaching power to the pulp kappa number. (The kappa factor
is different from the kappa number discussed above.) The kappa factor
used on a particular bleach line depends on the fiber furnish, final
product specifications, pre-bleaching processes employed, and
optimization of bleaching costs. At the mills whose data were used to
characterize Option A performance, kappa factors for softwood
[[Page 18543]]
furnish averaged 0.17 and all were less than 0.2. At the mills whose
data were used to characterize Option B performance, kappa factors for
softwood furnish averaged 0.23, with all but one at less than 0.21.
Well-operated and maintained mills using comparable kappa factors will
be capable of achieving limitations corresponding to Option A or B,
respectively. Based on certain site-specific factors, such as furnish,
some mills will be capable of achieving today's limitations with higher
kappa factors. There are numerous strategies a mill can employ to
minimize its kappa factor. See the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487.
In addition, there are numerous strategies a mill can employ to
minimize precursors of dioxin and furan contained in brownstock pulp.
These strategies include, but are not limited to, improved brownstock
washing, improved screening to produce cleaner pulp, eliminating
compression wood (knots) from brownstock pulp, and using only
precursor-free condensates in brownstock washers. The strategy or
strategies appropriate for the production of a given pulp depend on the
raw material (wood species and the form it takes, i.e., chips, waste
wood, or sawdust), process equipment, and the specifications of the
final pulp product (brightness, cleanliness, strength, absorbency, and
others). For a discussion of these strategies, see the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
(c) Totally Chlorine-Free (TCF) Bleaching Option Evaluated. The
Agency received many comments that it should continue to investigate
TCF bleaching because dioxin and furan are not generated at any level
with TCF bleaching, thus assuring that these pollutants are not
released to the environment. The Agency conducted two sampling programs
at the one U.S. mill that produces TCF bleached kraft softwood pulp.
EPA collected samples of bleach plant filtrates but could not collect
samples of treated effluent because the mill does not employ secondary
treatment. The Agency also conducted a sampling program at a Nordic
mill that produces hardwood and softwood kraft pulp on two bleach lines
that alternate between ECF and TCF bleaching. Samples collected at this
mill could not be used to characterize treated TCF bleaching effluents
because they are combined with ECF bleaching effluents for treatment.
Both of the sampled TCF softwood fiber lines employed oxygen
delignification followed by multiple stages of peroxide bleaching. The
Nordic mill also uses extended cooking, and was able to reduce the
lignin content of unbleached pulp to a very low kappa number of four.
At the time of sampling, this mill bleached pulp to a brightness of 83
ISO. The U.S. mill's unbleached pulp kappa number was between seven and
ten. Bleached pulp brightness was approximately 79 during the first
sampling episode at the U.S. mill, but by the time of the second
sampling episode, the mill had improved its process to achieve a pulp
brightness of 83 ISO.
At both mills, chloroform or chlorinated phenolic pollutants were
not detected in samples collected by EPA. At the U.S. mill, dioxin,
furan, and AOX were not detected above the analytical minimum level
during sampling fully representative of TCF operations. The average
bleach plant AOX loading measured by EPA at the Nordic mill was 0.002
kg/ADMT (compared to a long-term average of 0.51 kg/ADMT for Option A).
EPA's dioxin sampling results for the Nordic mill were surprising.
Dioxin was detected at a concentration just above the minimum level in
one sample of combined bleach plant filtrate, when the mill was
bleaching without the use of chlorine or any chlorinated compounds.
Furan was not detected. EPA believes the dioxin results were unique to
the operation of this mill and does not conclude that TCF bleaching
generates dioxin.
Neither of the two sampled mills produced softwood pulp at full
market brightness. In the last three years, however, several non-U.S.
mills have reported the production of TCF softwood kraft pulp at full
market brightness. EPA's data are insufficient to confirm that TCF
processes are technically available for the full range of market
products currently served by ECF processes. See DCN 14497, Vol. I.
Further, EPA's data are insufficient to define a segment of the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory where TCF processing is
known to be technically feasible and thus could be the basis of
compulsory BAT limitations. Despite these impediments, EPA believes
that the progress being made in TCF process development is substantial,
and that additional data may demonstrate that TCF processes are indeed
available for the full range of market products. For this reason, EPA
also evaluated the performance of TCF mills in order to establish
alternative limitations for mills that voluntarily choose to employ TCF
processes. See Section VI.B.5.a(4).
(2) Costs of Technology Options Considered. The Agency estimated
the cost for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory to
achieve each of the technology options considered today. These
estimated costs are summarized in this section and are discussed in
more detail in several technical support documents. (See the BAT Cost
Model Support Document, DCN 13953; Memorandum: Costing Revisions Made
Since Publication of July 15, 1996 Notice of Data Availability, DCN
14493; Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487; Analysis
of Impacts of BAT Options on the Kraft Recovery Cycle, DCN 14490;
Effect of Oxygen Delignification on Yield of the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft Pulp Manufacturing Process, DCN 14491; and the Technical Support
Document for Best Management Practices for Spent Pulping Liquors
Management, Spill Prevention, and Control, DCN 14489.) (For a
discussion of the costs associated with the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program BAT technologies, see the Technical
Support Document, DCN 14488.) All cost estimates in this section are
expressed in 1995 dollars. The cost components reported in this section
are engineering estimates of the cost of purchasing and installing
equipment and the annual operating and maintenance costs associated
with that equipment. See Section VIII of this preamble for a discussion
of the costs used in the economic impact analysis.
Because EPA considers efficient biological wastewater treatment to
be current industry practice, EPA has not included its costs in the
estimates of costs of BAT. See the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487. As discussed in Section VI.B.5.c. below, for PSES
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA evaluated
the same process change technology options that it evaluated for BAT,
with the exception of biological wastewater treatment. As a result, EPA
used the same cost model to estimate the costs of PSES and BAT. Set
forth below are the total costs for all mills in the subcategory
(direct and indirect dischargers) to complete the process changes that
are the technology bases for the options considered for BAT and PSES.
The costs of complying with today's BMP requirements are also included.
(i) Additional Data Gathering and Analysis Since Proposal. EPA
updated its database of mill process information by reviewing comments
on the proposed rule and the July 15, 1996 Notice, by examining
information from publicly available sources as well as information
gathered by AF&PA and NCASI, and by contacting mills directly. The
Agency revised the cost estimates it made at
[[Page 18544]]
proposal in many ways but retained two major assumptions: (1) Mills
would continue to make the same quantities and grades of pulp; and (2)
mills already using the technology bases for the BAT technology options
generally would incur only monitoring costs to comply with regulations
based on those options. See the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487.
EPA received comments that it severely underestimated the costs of
its proposed option (now identified as Option B). Commenters contended
that this underestimate derived in large part from EPA's underestimate
of the increase in load of black liquor solids that will be routed to
the recovery system after installation of oxygen delignification,
closing screen rooms, improving brownstock washing, and recovering
additional pulping liquors through a best management practices (BMP)
program. In addition to underestimating the increase in load,
commenters claimed that EPA also underestimated the costs for recovery
boilers to accommodate the increased load. Commenters asserted that
most mills are recovery boiler-limited and, to employ the proposed BAT,
would have to install new recovery boilers at a very high cost.
In response to these and other comments on the proposed rule, EPA
and NCASI undertook several data gathering efforts aimed specifically
at obtaining information to improve EPA's cost estimates. In late 1994,
NCASI distributed a survey to collect information about recovery
furnace capacity and a second survey about the implementation and cost
of pulping liquor spill prevention and control programs (i.e., BMPs).
Based on this and other information, EPA concluded that there is no
foreseeable set of circumstances where implementation of either Option
A or B would force a mill to replace or even rebuild an existing
recovery boiler. Therefore, EPA strongly disagrees with comments that
it severely underestimated the costs of what is now known as Option B.
Based on data reported in the NCASI survey, almost 60 percent of the
recovery boilers operated by the industry have sufficient capacity to
accommodate the increased loads that would result from implementing
either Option A or B, in combination with the BMP program promulgated
today. At most of the remaining 40 percent of the recovery boilers, any
increased thermal load can be accommodated through improved boiler
operation requiring no capital expenditures, by increasing pulp yield
by using anthraquinone, or by reducing the caloric value of the black
liquor burned in the boiler by using oxygen-black liquor oxidation. EPA
estimates that only one boiler operated by a bleached papergrade kraft
and soda mill would need to be upgraded regardless which option is
selected as the technology basis for today's rule. The cost of the
upgrade is small in comparison to the cost of building or replacing a
boiler. See the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487,
and Analysis of Impacts of BAT Options on the Kraft Recovery Cycle, DCN
14490.
For the purposes of estimating the costs of Option B, EPA estimated
costs for implementation of oxygen delignification (OD) based on the
record as a whole that shows that OD does not have an impact on yield
of bleached pulp. Although some stakeholders asserted that EPA's yield
estimates were in error, the entire record on yield supports EPA's
basis for estimating the cost of BAT Option B. Some commenters asserted
that EPA overestimated the costs for Option B presented in the July
1996 Notice by failing to account for the increase in yield that would
result from implementation of OD. Industry commenters asserted that OD
would result in reduced bleached pulp yields. In response to these
comments, EPA reviewed all available literature reports and contacted
companies operating mills with OD systems. Although some laboratory and
modeling analyses indicate that OD following a modified kraft cooking
could increase yields by one to two percent, EPA found no documentation
that full-scale OD systems are being operated in this manner. One of
the two U.S. companies that operate more mills with OD systems than any
other has found no statistical difference in yield measured at the end
of the bleach plant with the installation of OD. The other company
offered no specific data on yield, but has seen no substantial impact
on recovery boilers, indicating that no appreciable change in yield has
been experienced. See DCN 14491.
EPA also collected additional information about the costs of
process equipment and updated its information about the costs of
chemicals, wood, energy, and labor (record sections 21.1.2 to 21.1.6).
EPA used this information to revise the cost model spreadsheet. See the
Memorandum: Costing Revisions Made Since Publication of July 15, 1996
Notice of Data Availability, DCN 14493, and BAT Cost Model Support
Document, DCN 13953. These changes are discussed immediately below.
(ii) Major Changes Since Proposal. Among other changes since
proposal, EPA's cost estimates for Option B now include the costs for
new or incremental increases in OD systems for mills unable to achieve
the kappa numbers used to characterize the Option B technology. In its
July 1996 Notice, EPA described this change and additional changes to
the cost model. See 61 FR at 36840-41 and BAT Cost Model Support
Document, DCN 13953.
In response to comments on the July 1996 Notice, EPA corrected
mill-specific information and made additional changes to the cost
model. See the Memorandum: Costing Revisions Made Since Publication of
July 15, 1996 Notice of Availability, DCN 14493. Among those changes
was a correction of errors in the costs of caustic and hydrogen
peroxide that resulted from a unit conversion error (this error carried
through the proposal and the Notice cost estimates). As a result of the
changes, including the correction made to the cost of caustic and
hydrogen peroxide, the net engineering operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs for Option B for all mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory increased from the savings of $7 million/year
presented in the July 1996 Notice, to the $2 million/year increased
costs estimated today. See the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487.
For the purpose of estimating the cost of the regulations, EPA
excluded the costs of process changes that were either completed or
under construction as of mid-1995. EPA incorrectly stated in the July
1996 Notice that costs for process changes committed to but not yet
under construction as of mid-1995 were also excluded from the cost of
this regulation. These latter costs have been included. See the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
(iii) Final Cost Estimates of the Options Considered. EPA's final
cost estimates for Option A and B for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory (BAT, PSES, and BMPs) follow in Table VI-1.
Table VI-1.--Total Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Capital and Engineering O&M Costs for BAT, PSES and BMPs
[1995 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final cost
estimates
--------------------
Option
A Option B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital ($ million)................................ 966 2,130
[[Page 18545]]
Engineering O&M ($ million/yr)..................... 113 2.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For both Option A and Option B, EPA excluded costs for the use of
dioxin- and furan-precursor-free defoamers, adequate wood chip size
control, and efficient biological wastewater treatment in its estimates
of the costs of the final BAT technology options. These processes
represent current industry practice. See the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487. However, EPA's estimate of the costs
of BAT also includes a general allowance for increased technical
supervision and process engineering that could be used, in part, to
design and implement a chip quality control program or to improve
operation of existing biological wastewater treatment. In addition, any
mill not currently using dioxin- and furan-precursor-free defoamers can
use them without incurring significant costs. See the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. EPA evaluated the costs of
retrofitting U.S. bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills to TCF
bleaching to provide perspective on the likelihood of TCF processes
being found to be economically achievable once they are shown to be
technically available. EPA investigated the costs of two TCF bleach
sequences. These bleach sequences included all common elements that are
part of Option A and Option B (adequate chip thickness control, closed
brownstock pulp screen room operation, use of dioxin- and furan-
precursor-free defoamers, effective brownstock washing, elimination of
hypochlorite, oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced extraction, use of
strategies to minimize kappa factor and dioxin- and furan-precursors in
brown stock pulp, high-shear mixing during bleaching, and efficient
biological wastewater treatment). The bleaching sequences also include
medium-consistency oxygen delignification. One TCF bleach sequence was
based on peroxide bleaching (OQPP) and the other was based on ozone and
peroxide bleaching (OZEopQPZP). EPA's final cost estimates
for TCF bleach sequences for the total Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory (BAT, PSES, and BMPs) are as follows. See the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
Table VI-2.--Total Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Capital and Engineering O&M Costs of TCF Options for BAT, PSES, and BMP
[1995 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated costs
-----------------------
Peroxide-
TCF Ozone-TCF
(OQPP) (OZEopQPZP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital ($ million)............................. 3,090 5,630
Engineering O&M ($million/yr)................... 660 849
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Effluent Reductions Associated with Technology Options
Considered. The Agency estimated the effluent reductions for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory that will result from
the BAT options it analyzed. These estimated reductions are summarized
in this section and are discussed in more detail in the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
As discussed in the July 1996 Notice, EPA recalculated the effluent
reduction benefits using a new baseline of mid-1995. See 61 FR at
36840. In addition, EPA revised and simplified the methodology used to
estimate that baseline (using a model mill approach). Id. EPA also used
a second approach to estimate the effluent loads of dioxin and furan
using data for individual mills as compiled in the NCASI 1994 Dioxin
Profile (see DCN 13764). The baseline calculation methodology
revisions, along with details of the effluent reduction calculations,
are described in record section 22.6.
As explained in DCN 14487, after July 1996, EPA again recalculated
the effluent reductions. The baseline remains mid-1995. As before, EPA
used one-half of the minimum level specified in 40 CFR 430.01(i) or
one-half of the reported detection limits to estimate effluent
discharge loadings when pollutant concentrations were below minimum
levels. EPA considers this a reasonable approach for estimating mass
loads because the actual concentration of the sample is too small to
measure by current analytical methods, but is between zero and the
detection limit. Furthermore, ECF processes use and generate
chlorinated compounds, so EPA expects that chlorinated compounds were
present (i.e., with a concentration value greater than zero) in the
samples. Thus, EPA believes that it is appropriate to substitute a
value at the midpoint between zero and the detection limit (i.e., the
upper bound of the concentration in the sample) for ECF mills. The
methodology was modified slightly for mills that use TCF bleaching
sequences. Because chlorinated compounds are not used and are not
generated by TCF processes, EPA assumed that TCF mills would discharge
zero kilograms per year of AOX and the individual chlorinated
pollutants rather than an amount equivalent to one-half the minimum
level or detection limit multiplied by an appropriate production-
normalized flow rate.
EPA's revised baselines, which were again found to be comparable to
NCASI's industry-wide estimates for dioxin and furan, were used to
calculate effluent reductions summarized in Table VI-3. The table shows
the estimated baseline and the reduction from baseline expected if the
option were implemented by all the existing direct discharging mills in
the subcategory (i.e., those mills to which BAT will apply). The
slightly greater removals of the bleach plant pollutants by Option B
are a result of the reduced bleach plant flow found at mills employing
Option B technology.
Table VI-3.--Baseline Discharges and Estimated Reductions of Pollutants for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Mills Complying With BAT Technology Options Considered a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-1995 Estimated Estimated Estimated
Pollutant parameter Units baseline reductions: reductions: reductions:
discharge option A option B TCF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-TCDD................... g/yr 14.0 9.88 10.8 14.0
2,3,7,8-TCDF................... g/yr 105 98.0 99.5 105
Chloroform..................... kkg/yr 43.6 35.5 35.5 43.6
[[Page 18546]]
12 Chlorinated phenolic kkg/yr 51.7 42.3 44.1 51.7
pollutants.
AOX............................ kkg/yr 33,300 22,100 27,900 33,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The TCF calculations assumed that chlorinated pollutants will not be present. For all other calculations, EPA
assumed that pollutants reported as ``not detected'' were present in a concentration equivalent to one-half
the minimum level specified in 40 CFR 430.01(i) or one-half of the reported detection limit.
The effluent reductions described and shown above are used in
Section VII to estimate reduced human health and environmental risk
attributable to today's rules. These estimates also form the basis for
estimating monetized benefits in Section VIII.
(4) Development of Limitations. The proposed BAT regulations
included limitations for dioxin, furan, 12 chlorinated phenolic
pollutants, acetone, chloroform, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and
methylene chloride (based on BAT process changes); and limitations for
color, COD, and AOX (based on BAT process changes and biological
wastewater treatment). In today's rule, EPA is promulgating limitations
for dioxin, furan, 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants, chloroform, and
AOX. See 40 CFR 430.24(a)(1). As discussed in Section VI.B.3. above,
EPA is not promulgating limitations for acetone, MEK, methylene
chloride, or color. EPA intends to promulgate effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for COD in a later rulemaking.
In addition to the new effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory
promulgated today and discussed immediately below, mills in this
subcategory continue to be subject to existing limitations and
standards for pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol (now denominated as
supplemental limitations and standards). These mills continue to have
the opportunity to be exempt from these supplemental limitations and
standards if they certify to the permitting or pretreatment authority
that they are not using these chemicals as biocides. See 40 CFR
430.24(d).
Except where noted, the following discussion of BAT limitations
also applies to EPA's procedures for setting NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for
Subpart B.
(a) Performance Data. EPA revised the proposed limitations and
standards based on data collected after proposal (see Pulp and Paper
Mill Data Available for BAT Limitations Development, DCN 13951) and
presented the revisions in the July 1996 Notice. See 61 FR at 36841-42.
Today's TCDF, chloroform, and AOX limitations and standards have been
further revised since the July 1996 Notice as a result of the selection
of data sets used for the long-term averages, variability factors, and
limitations. See DCN 14494, 14496, and Record Section 22.5. The
rationale for changes in the data set selections is provided
immediately below. See DCN 14487.
(i) Dioxin, Furan, and Chlorinated Phenolic Pollutants. For non-TCF
mills, EPA had proposed mass-based limitations and standards for furan;
in July 1996, EPA presented preliminary revised limitations and
standards that were concentration-based. EPA has determined that a
limitation on the concentration of furan is a more direct, and hence, a
more reasonable measurement of the presence of furan than a mass-based
limitation would be. When detected, furan typically is present in the
effluent of Subpart B mills that use ECF bleaching at levels at or only
slightly above the minimum level specified in the applicable analytical
method. In this case, the value of mass-based limitations and standards
are predominantly influenced by the variability in the bleach plant
effluent flow rate and thus may not be a consistent and reliable
measurement of the presence of furan. Since the July 1996 Notice, EPA
has used one additional data set to calculate the furan limitation;
this data set was from an Option B bleach line with a typical
unbleached kappa number of 20. Because of this change and because of
changes to assumptions used in the statistical analysis and changes to
the computer programs, see Section VI.B.5.a(4)(b), the value of the
furan limitations and standards has changed slightly from that
presented in the July 1996 Notice.
EPA has made no changes to the limitations for dioxin and the 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants presented in the July 1996 Notice. Upon
further review after the July 1996 Notice, EPA discovered that some
sample-specific minimum levels for some chlorinated phenolic pollutants
were incorrectly entered into the databases. These values have been
corrected. See DCN 14496, and Record Section 22.5.
EPA has determined that TCF bleaching processes do not result in
the generation of dioxin, furan, chloroform or chlorinated phenolic
pollutants. For this reason, EPA is not setting limitations for these
pollutants as part of the voluntary alternative BAT limitations and
standards promulgated today for mills that certify to the use of TCF
bleaching processes. See 40 CFR 430.24(a)(2).
(ii) AOX. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA presented preliminary
revised AOX BAT limitations and NSPS for non-TCF mills.
In the July 1996 Notice, EPA indicated that although it was
presenting revised limitations and standards it would continue to
analyze data from two mills representing the performance of BAT Option
A. These data were submitted to EPA by the industry without sufficient
time for the results to be reflected in the preliminary limitations and
standards presented in the July 1996 Notice.
Commenters encouraged EPA to use the newly acquired data for the
two Option A mills, but also questioned why certain other data in the
record were not used to develop the preliminary revised AOX limitations
and standards. EPA continued its analysis of the new data and obtained
new information about mill operations associated with the other data
addressed by comments. As a result, EPA added data from the two Option
A mills to the data used to characterize the performance of Option A
and added data from two other mills to the data used to characterize
the performance of Option B. EPA ultimately used data from six mills to
develop the AOX limitations for each option, including at least one
mill for each option for which long-term monitoring data (for about one
and a half years) were available. The mills used to represent each
option pulp
[[Page 18547]]
primarily softwood and most of them subsequently bleach the pulp to
high brightness (i.e., greater than 88 ISO). Tables presented in DCN
14494 show several statistics for each mill (reflecting the mill
characteristics during the sampling period), including furnish, kappa
number, kappa factor, brightness, type of wastewater treatment system,
and approximate AOX removal in the treatment system. For a discussion
of EPA's development of pretreatment standards for AOX, see section
VI.B.5.c(6).
Another factor that has contributed to revisions in today's AOX
limitations and standards is the adjustment for autocorrelation in the
data. See DCN 14496. EPA intended that this adjustment be made to the
preliminary AOX limitations presented in the July 1996 Notice; however,
comments on that notice stated correctly that this adjustment had been
excluded from the calculations. This oversight has been corrected in
the calculations of today's final AOX limitations and NSPS.
Since proposal, EPA has gathered additional data in order to
establish a final limitation for AOX for TCF bleaching processes. See
40 CFR 430.24(a)(2). EPA sampled at two mills with TCF bleaching
processes, one U.S. mill and one European mill. Analytical data from
sampling these two mills during periods representative of TCF processes
indicate that AOX concentrations were consistently below minimum levels
in bleach plant wastewaters. See DCN 14494 and DCN 14488. Therefore,
EPA has concluded that TCF bleaching processes are capable of achieving
concentrations less than the minimum level for AOX in process
wastewaters, whether measured at the bleach plant or after secondary
biological treatment, and is setting AOX limitations and standards
accordingly for TCF bleaching processes. See 40 CFR 430.24(a)(2).
(iii) Chloroform. EPA proposed a monthly average chloroform
limitation of 2.01 g/kkg based on sampling results from one mill that
used extended delignification and complete substitution of chlorine
dioxide for elemental chlorine, and that did not use hypochlorite
during bleaching. Data collected by EPA after proposal indicated that
bleach plant loads of chloroform did not differ between mills that used
conventional pulping (Option A) and extended delignification (Option
B), as long as bleaching was carried out without elemental chlorine or
hypochlorite. However, these data indicate that the type of pulp
washers used in a mill's bleach plant influence the partitioning of
chloroform between the air and effluent. Use of low air flow washers
results in less emission of chloroform to the air and greater loads of
chloroform in bleach plant effluent than use of high air flow washers.
See DCN 14494. In general, modern low air flow washers (such as
pressure diffusion) also use less water to accomplish equivalent
washing, i.e., they are more efficient than conventional vacuum drum
washers (high air flow washers). See DCN 14494, and DCN 14497, Vol. I.
Because of their efficient use of water and their potential to reduce
non-water quality environmental impacts, EPA encourages industry to use
modern low air flow washers. For this reason, EPA developed revised
chloroform limitations and standards using only data from mills that
use low air flow washers. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA presented a
revised bleach plant monthly average chloroform limitation of 2.80 g/
kkg. This limitation was developed using data from four mills that did
not use elemental chlorine or hypochlorite during bleaching, and that
used low air flow bleach plant washers.
EPA received comments that the revised chloroform limitations and
standards were not consistently achievable by mills with the process
technologies serving as the basis for Options A and B. As a result of
these comments, EPA re-evaluated the chloroform limitations and
standards presented in the July 1996 Notice.
EPA has revised the long-term average and variability factors used
to calculate the chloroform limitations and standards after considering
data from five mills that did not use elemental chlorine or
hypochlorite during bleaching and that used low air flow bleach plant
washers (data from four of these mills were used in the July 1996
Notice). In developing the long-term average, EPA used data from two
mills that bleach pulp to a high brightness (88 to 90 ISO). In
developing the variability factors, EPA also considered data from the
other three mills with low air flow washers to obtain a more realistic
estimate of variability associated with operating low air flow washers.
Two of these mills bleach pulp to a lower brightness (80 to 85 ISO).
EPA believes that the resulting limitations and standards can be met by
all well-operated and maintained ECF mills regardless of the type of
bleach plant washers used. (EPA's revised bleach plant monthly average
chloroform limitation is now 4.14 g/kkg.) The data in the record
indicate that it is highly unlikely that a mill employing elemental
chlorine or hypochlorite in its bleach plant could comply with the
chloroform limitations promulgated in this rule. See DCN 14494.
(iv) COD. As discussed in VI.B.3.d., EPA is reserving limitations
for COD at this time.
(b) Changes to Statistical Methodology. After the July 1996 Notice,
EPA performed a detailed review of the results of the statistical
analyses, the documentation of the statistical methodology, the
computer programs, and the data for all of the limitations and
standards. As a result of this review, EPA revised the assumptions
regarding statistical analysis of data to ensure that long-term
averages for TCDF and chloroform were greater than or equal to the
minimum level of the analytical methods. EPA made other revisions to
the statistical assumptions and the computer programs that resulted in
minor changes to the values of the limitations and standards. All of
these revisions are identified and described in the Statistical Support
Document for the Pulp and Paper Industry: Subpart B, DCN 14496. In the
record, EPA has also provided detailed responses to comments about the
statistical methodology. See DCN 14497, Vol. VI.
(c) Definition of Limitations and Standards Expressed at Less Than
the Minimum Level. In today's rulemaking, EPA is establishing
limitations and standards for Subparts B and E for 12 chlorinated
phenolic pollutants and dioxin that are expressed as less than the
minimum level (``g/L
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol............. 1653 5.0 g/L
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol............. 1653 5.0 g/L
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol............. 1653 2.5 g/L
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol............. 1653 2.5 g/L
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol............. 1653 2.5 g/L
2,4,5-trichlorophenol............... 1653 2.5 g/L
2,4,6-trichlorophenol............... 1653 2.5 g/L
Tetrachlorocatechol................. 1653 5.0 g/L
Tetrachloroguaiacol................. 1653 5.0 g/L
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol........... 1653 2.5 g/L
Pentachlorophenol................... 1653 5.0 g/L
AOX................................. 1650 20 g/L
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Limitations. Table VI-5 presents the final effluent limitations
for Options A and B for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory that are based on in-plant process changes. These
limitations are based on data obtained from bleach plant effluent prior
to mixing with other mill wastestreams.
Table VI-5.--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Limitations Comparison of Options A and B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily maximum limitation Monthly average
----------------------------------------------------- limitation
-------------------------
Option A Option B Option A Option B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCDD (pg/L)...................... g/L).
Chloroform (g/kkg)............... 6.92 6.92 4.14 4.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Trichlorosyringol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol, 3,4,5-
trichloroguaiacol, 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol, 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol, 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol,
tetrachlorocatechol, tetrachloroguaiacol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, and pentachlorophenol.
ML or Minimum level--the level at which the analytical system gives recognizable signals and an acceptable
calibration point. See 40 CFR 430.01(i).
N/A Not applicable.
EPA did not establish monthly average limitations and standards for
dioxin and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants because the daily
maximum limitations and standards for these pollutants are expressed as
less than the Minimum Level (5 and TSS based on the single best
demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater treatment system. See 58
FR at 66116-18, 66197. To encourage continuing innovation in the
development of processes to reduce or eliminate the discharge of
pollutants from the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA
also proposed alternative NSPS limits for mills adopting TCF processes.
See 58 FR at 66111.
(2) Options Considered. In addition to the option proposed for
NSPS, EPA considered three other options for the technology basis of
NSPS for toxic and nonconventional pollutants. These options are
summarized below. For further discussion of these options, see the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. The first
alternative option is identical to BAT Option B, described above. This
revised NSPS option includes extended delignification (i.e., oxygen
delignification and/or extended cooking) to produce softwood pulps with
a kappa number of approximately equal to or less than 20 (approximately
13 for hardwoods), followed by complete (100 percent) substitution of
chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine and elimination of hypochlorite
for bleaching. EPA concluded that there are no performance differences
between the proposed NSPS option and this revised option. See the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
EPA also considered an ECF technology used at two U.S. mills
consisting of oxygen delignification followed by ozone bleaching,
enhanced extraction, and final chlorine dioxide brightening. This
technology is used to produce pulps of somewhat lower brightness than
market pulps. Finally, the Agency considered a TCF process technology
that one U.S. mill is currently using to produce pulps with brightness
up to 83 ISO.
For conventional pollutants, EPA considered the proposed NSPS
option based on the single best available demonstrated end-of-pipe
secondary wastewater treatment and a second option based on the best
available demonstrated performance of a
[[Page 18553]]
secondary wastewater treatment system as characterized by the average
of the best 50 percent of the existing mills in the subcategory.
(3) Option Selected, Pollutants Regulated, and Costs. EPA is
promulgating NSPS for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory for toxic and nonconventional pollutants based on the NSPS
option equivalent to BAT Option B. EPA has determined that Option B
technology represents the best demonstrated control technology,
process, operating method, or other alternative available at this time.
The toxic and nonconventional pollutants regulated by NSPS are the same
as those regulated by BAT. For further discussion of the NSPS model
technology, the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
EPA rejected as possible NSPS technologies the technologies that
have not been demonstrated to achieve full market pulp specifications.
EPA knows of two ECF bleach lines using ozone-based bleaching in the
U.S. One line uses an OZEoDD bleach sequence to bleach
hardwood to 83 GE brightness (less than 82 ISO). The other line uses an
OZEoD bleach sequence to bleach softwood to 84 ISO, somewhat
less than full market brightness. EPA collected data from this line
that confirm that OZEoD bleaching results in much lower
water use and pollutant loadings than either Option A or Option B.
Because of this level of performance, EPA strongly encourages further
development of ozone-based bleaching sequences--as part of either ECF
or TCF sequences. It is possible that lines using ozone-based bleaching
sequences will achieve the AOX limits promulgated as part of the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, which is described in
Section IX of this Notice.
With respect to TCF bleaching processes, several non-U.S. mills
have reported the production of TCF softwood kraft pulp at full market
brightness. However, EPA's data are not sufficient to confirm that TCF
bleaching processes are technically demonstrated for the full range of
market products currently served by the kraft process. EPA is also
unable to define a segment of the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory for which TCF bleaching processes are known to be
technically feasible and thus could be the basis for NSPS. EPA believes
that progress being made in developing TCF bleaching processes is
substantial, however, and that additional data may demonstrate that TCF
processes are indeed available for the full range of market products.
To this end, elsewhere in today's Federal Register Notice, EPA is
inviting additional data and comment on the full range of market
specifications currently being achieved for TCF kraft pulp (e.g.,
brightness, strength, and cleanliness). EPA will evaluate whether the
performance of this technology will result in greater removals than the
performance of the NSPS technology option being selected today.
Depending on these findings, EPA will determine whether to propose
revisions to NSPS based upon TCF and, if appropriate, flow reduction
technologies.
In addition to NSPS relating to the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program, which is discussed below in this section, EPA is
also promulgating alternative NSPS for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda mills voluntarily choosing to use TCF technologies. See 40 CFR
430.25(b)(2).
For the conventional pollutants BOD5 and TSS, EPA is
basing NSPS upon the best available demonstrated performance of a
secondary wastewater treatment system as characterized by the average
of the best 50 percent of the existing mills in the subcategory. EPA
has determined that the performance of the single best mill does not
account for all sources of process-related variability in conventional
pollutant generation and treatability expected in the entire
subcategory, including raw materials (i.e., furnish), process
operations, and final products. In selecting the final NSPS technology
basis for conventional pollutants, EPA found it necessary to consider
the secondary wastewater treatment performance of the best 50 percent
of the existing mills in this subcategory in order to ensure that the
resulting standards reflect the full range of processes and raw
materials to produce the full range of products covered by this
subcategory. For further discussion, see the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487, and DCN 14497, Vol. I and II.
EPA is not revising NSPS for pH for subpart B; however, for the
convenience of the permit writer, EPA has recodified the 1982 NSPS for
pH as part of the table of newly promulgated NSPS for toxic, non-
conventional, and other conventional pollutants. See 40 CFR 430.25(b).
In selecting its model NSPS technologies, EPA considered all of the
factors specified in CWA section 306, including the cost of achieving
effluent reductions. The incremental capital cost of complying with the
selected NSPS for all pollutants, as compared to the costs of complying
with standards based on the next best technology, BAT Option A, is only
0.5 to 2.0 percent of the total capital cost of constructing either a
new source fiber line at an existing mill or a new greenfield mill.
Moreover, the process technologies that form the basis for NSPS result
in lower pollutant loadings requiring biological treatment. Loadings of
BOD5 from a bleach line employing NSPS will be approximately
30 percent lower than loadings from a conventional bleach line.
Compared to the cost of treating wastewater from a conventional bleach
line to meet current BPT/BCT effluent limitations guidelines, the cost
of treating wastewater from a NSPS bleach line to meet NSPS for
conventional pollutants will be the same or lower. Finally, as of mid-
1995 there are 14 existing mills representing approximately 16 percent
of the bleached papergrade kraft production that employ the Option B
technology. For these reasons, EPA concludes that the costs of
complying with NSPS for toxic, non-conventional or conventional
pollutants do not present a barrier to entry. See the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. See also Section VIII and
Chapter 6 of the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649.
The Agency also considered energy requirements and other non-water
quality environmental impacts for the selected NSPS option. EPA
concluded that increased chemical recovery and reduced energy
consumption and operating costs would occur for this option. EPA also
concluded that non-water quality environmental impacts were only
marginally different than for the selected BAT technology option and
are acceptable. Thus, EPA concluded that none of the statutory factors
justified selecting a different NSPS model technology than the one
chosen. See Section VII. See also the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487.
EPA is also promulgating NSPS as part of the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program with standards set at the Tier II and
Tier III levels. See 40 CFR 430.25(c). For a discussion of this
program, see Section IX. A new source may choose to enroll in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program at the Tier II or Tier
III NSPS level and therefore to commit to achieve those standards at
the time it commences operation. Alternatively, a new source may choose
to commence operation at the compulsory NSPS level and then later
enroll in the Incentives Program at the Tier II or Tier III level as an
existing source, or enroll in the Incentives Program once Tier II or
Tier III limitations are achieved.
Finally, EPA notes that the previously promulgated NSPS for the
biocides pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol
[[Page 18554]]
continue to apply to all new sources. See 40 CFR 430.25(d).
(4) Limitations and Point of Compliance Monitoring. EPA is
promulgating NSPS for dioxin, furan, chloroform, the 12 chlorinated
phenolic pollutants, and AOX for Subpart B at the levels set forth in
Tables VI-5 and VI-6 for BAT Option B. See 40 CFR 430.25(b)(1). For a
discussion of EPA's development of those standards (presented in the
context of possible BAT limitations derived from Option B
technologies), see Section VI.B.5.a(4). The numerical values of today's
NSPS for BOD5 and TSS for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory have been revised from those provided in the July notice.
For a discussion of these changes, see the Statistical Support
Document, DCN 14496. The final NSPS for BOD5, TSS and pH are
presented in Table VI-7 below.
Table VI-7.--New Source Performance Standards for Conventional Pollutants for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSPS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers Non-
-------------------------------- continuous
dischargers
Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly ---------------
any 1 day (kg/ average (kg/ Annual average
kkg) kkg) (kg/kkg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................................................ 4.52 2.41 1.73
TSS............................................................. 8.47 3.86 2.72
pH.............................................................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
EPA is requiring mills to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS for
dioxin, furan, chloroform and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants
inside the discharger's facility at the point where the wastewater
containing those pollutants leaves the bleach plant. See 40 CFR
430.25(e). EPA bases this decision on the reasons discussed in Section
VI.B.5.a(6) for BAT limitations. EPA is not specifying a point of
compliance monitoring for AOX, BOD5, TSS, pH, or the
biocides.
c. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) and
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS). (1) Background. EPA
proposed the same technology option for PSES as it did for BAT. This
proposed option would have set PSES for the same pollutants controlled
by BAT. For new indirect discharging facilities, EPA proposed that PSNS
be set equal to NSPS for the toxic and nonconventional pollutants. At
proposal, EPA also discussed three options for implementing the
pretreatment standards. See 58 FR at 66123-25. EPA also solicited
comment on whether pretreatment standards for BOD5 and TSS
were warranted to ensure that pass-through of these and other
pollutants (e.g., AOX) did not occur.
(2) Pass-through Analysis for PSES and PSNS. EPA promulgates
pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass through or interfere
with POTWs. EPA performed a pass-through analysis as part of this
rulemaking, which is summarized below. See also the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. EPA has determined for
subpart B mills that dioxin, furan, chloroform, the 12 chlorinated
phenolic pollutants, and AOX pass through POTWs. Therefore, the Agency
is promulgating PSES and PSNS for these pollutants. See 40 CFR
430.26(a)(1) and 430.27(a)(1).
EPA's record shows that both direct discharging mills and POTWs
accepting wastewaters from pulp and paper mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory operate secondary biological
treatment systems. The indirect discharging mills in this subcategory
contribute the majority of the pollutant loading and up to 90 percent
of the flow to these POTWs. (EPA refers to these POTWs as ``industrial
POTWs.'') EPA has reviewed data available in the record for
BOD5 and TSS, among other pollutants, and has determined
that the biological treatment systems at these POTWs are comparable to
the biological treatment systems operated by direct discharging mills
in subpart B. See the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN
14487.
EPA reviewed all available data in the record to conduct a pass-
through analysis. EPA compared the percent of removals achieved by
subpart B mills implementing the BAT technologies to the percent of the
same pollutants removed by the industrial POTWs receiving effluent from
subpart B mills. EPA's record shows that dioxin and furan are not
removed by biological treatment systems and so are not removed by the
POTW. Therefore, these pollutants pass through untreated and are
discharged to receiving streams, where dioxin and furan bioaccumulate
in aquatic organisms. EPA bases this conclusion on data reported in the
``104-Mill Study,'' which EPA undertook in cooperation with industry in
1988/89. That study shows that direct discharging bleached papergrade
kraft and soda mills operating secondary biological treatment systems
(without the addition of bleach plant process controls) discharge
dioxin and furan in detectable quantities. When mills in that
subcategory later implemented bleach plant process changes and controls
comparable to the model BAT technologies considered in promulgating
today's BAT effluent limitations guidelines, the data show that dioxin
and furan discharges dropped below the minimum level at which those
pollutants can be reliably measured. This was the case even where there
was no concurrent change to the secondary biological treatment systems.
(Indeed, EPA's candidate BAT technologies assume secondary biological
treatment systems operating at the 1989 level). Because, as discussed
above, the industrial POTWs receiving effluent from bleached papergrade
kraft and soda mills operate biological treatment systems that are
comparable to those operated by direct discharging mills in the ``104-
Mill Study,'' EPA concluded that subpart B mills implementing the
selected in-plant BAT model technology achieve substantially greater
reductions of dioxin and furan than industrial POTWs can achieve from
effluent not subject to BAT-level process controls. EPA finds that in
the absence of PSES equivalent to BAT levels of control, dioxin and
furan would pass through POTWs. EPA also believes that the presence of
these pollutants in the POTWs' secondary
[[Page 18555]]
sludge could possibly interfere with their sludge disposal options.
For chloroform, EPA also evaluated the removal efficiencies
achieved by POTWs by comparing the removals achieved by direct
discharging mills using BAT process technologies to the removals
achieved by POTWs receiving effluent from subpart B mills. The record
shows that, without the BAT process changes, a very high percentage of
chloroform volatilizes from collection, conveyance, and aeration
systems. EPA has consistently refused in these circumstances to regard
such transfers of pollutants from wastewater to air as treatment. See,
e.g., 59 FR 50638, 50665 (Sept. 28, 1993) (pesticides chemicals
guidelines); 58 FR 36872, 36886-88 (July 9, 1993)(organic chemicals,
plastics, and synthetic fibers guidelines). Therefore, because of this
volatilization of chloroform in the absence of bleach plant process
changes, the quantity of chloroform actually available to be removed by
the POTWs' secondary treatment works is less than the quantity of that
pollutant removed by the direct discharger employing BAT. Accordingly,
EPA concludes that there is pass-through of chloroform in the absence
of pretreatment standards for this pollutant, as well as unacceptable
non-water quality environmental impacts from air emissions. For a
detailed discussion of chloroform volatilization, see Section 8.8 of
the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487, and the Air
Docket, No. A-92-40, Item IV-A-8.
EPA's determination that the chlorinated phenolic pollutants pass
through the POTW is based on data in the record showing that the
selected BAT process technology option (Option A) reduces all 12 of the
chlorinated phenolic pollutants to concentrations less than minimum
levels for these pollutants in bleach plant wastewaters, prior to end-
of-pipe biological wastewater treatment systems. While biological
wastewater treatment systems comparable to POTW treatment systems have
been found to remove a portion of these chlorinated phenolic
pollutants, the removals achieved are less than the removals achieved
by the BAT process changes alone. Therefore, because overall
chlorinated phenolic pollutant removals with implementation of the
model BAT technologies are substantially greater than removals achieved
by POTWs, chlorinated phenolic pollutants pass through POTWs.
EPA has also determined that AOX passes through. EPA bases this
conclusion on its review of all available data regarding removals of
AOX achieved by industrial POTWs that receive a majority of their flow
or a majority of their BOD5 or TSS loadings from indirect
dischargers covered by subpart B. Although the data show that the
performance of these POTWs in removing AOX is comparable to the
performance of end-of-pipe biological treatment systems operated by
direct dischargers in this subcategory, the data also show that direct
dischargers meeting limitations based on the model BAT technology
consistently achieve far greater AOX removals than biological treatment
alone can achieve (e.g., at a POTW). (See the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487.) Therefore, in the absence of
pretreatment standards analogous to BAT, the affected POTWs receiving
pulp and paper wastewaters cannot achieve the same overall removals of
AOX as achieved by direct dischargers complying with the BAT
limitations for AOX. The same is also true when considering removals
achieved by new sources complying with NSPS. Therefore, contrary to the
preliminary finding in the July 1996 Notice, EPA concludes that AOX
passes through POTWs and is setting pretreatment standards for AOX for
new and existing indirect discharging mills. See 40 CFR 430.26(a) and
430.27(a).
The pretreatment standards promulgated today for AOX are equivalent
to the AOX loadings present in the bleach plant wastewaters of mills
employing the BAT/NSPS technologies prior to biological treatment
systems at direct discharging mills. EPA expects that removals achieved
by indirect dischargers employing the PSES or PSNS model technology, in
combination with removals achieved by biological treatment systems at
POTWs, will be comparable to the removals achieved by direct
dischargers complying with BAT limitations or NSPS.
In reviewing the information available in the record for the
pollutants BOD5 and TSS, EPA concluded that pollutant
reductions attained by direct dischargers' biological wastewater
treatment systems and by POTWs accepting similar wastewaters are
comparable and that pass-through of these pollutants does not occur. As
a result, EPA is not promulgating national PSES or PSNS for
BOD5 and TSS for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory. Other regulatory authorities may determine, based on a
site-specific review of treatment system performance, that locally
imposed limits are necessary to prevent the POTW from violating its
NPDES permit. See 40 CFR 403.5.
(3) Options Considered. In this final rule, EPA considered the same
process technology options and best management practices for PSES and
PSNS as it did for BAT and NSPS. In a change from the proposal, EPA did
not consider for PSES/PSNS the biological treatment technology that
forms part of the candidate BAT and NSPS technologies. Since proposal,
EPA has made new findings with respect to the pass-through of
BOD5 and TSS. EPA has also received comments indicating that
the lack of sufficient land for the installation of biological
treatment at some indirect dischargers makes such systems infeasible
and unavailable. This finding, combined with EPA's finding that
biological wastewater treatment systems at POTWs treating pulp and
paper wastewaters are comparable to the biological wastewater treatment
systems operated by direct discharging mills in subpart B, has lead EPA
to conclude that biological wastewater treatment should not be included
as part of the PSES or PSNS candidate technologies.
(4) Effluent Reductions. As discussed in Section VI.B.5.a.(3)
above, after proposal EPA recalculated the effluent reductions
attributable to its PSES technology options using a new baseline of
mid-1995. See the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN
14487.
Table VI-8 shows the estimated baseline and the reduction from
baseline expected if the presented options were implemented by all the
existing indirect discharging mills in the subcategory (i.e., those
mills to which PSES will apply).
Table VI-8.--Baseline Discharges and Estimated Reductions of Pollutants for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Mills for Technology Options Considereda
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated Estimated
Pollutant parameter Units Baseline reductions: reductions: Reductions:
discharge Option A Option B TCF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-TCDD................... g/yr................... 1.25 0.92 1.00 1.25
[[Page 18556]]
2,3,7,8-TCDF................... g/yr................... 9.47 8.94 9.04 9.47
Chloroform..................... kkg/yr................. 4.89 4.28 4.28 4.89
12 Chlorinated phenolic kkg/yr................. 3.58 2.81 2.97 3.58
pollutants.
AOX............................ kkg/yr................. 3,010 2,100 2,600 3,010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The TCF calculations assumed that chlorinated pollutants will not be present. For all other calculations, EPA
assumed that pollutants reported as ``not detected'' were present in a concentration equivalent to one-half
the minimum level of the analytical method.
(5) PSES/PSNS Option Selection. EPA is promulgating PSES and PSNS
for dioxin, furan, chloroform, 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and
AOX based on the process technologies that form the bases for BAT and
NSPS, respectively.
The Agency considered the age, size, processes, other engineering
factors, and non-water quality environmental impacts pertinent to
Subpart B mills in developing PSES/PSNS. None of these factors provided
any basis for establishing different PSES/PSNS. EPA has no data to
suggest that the combination of technologies upon which today's PSES/
PSNS are based results in unacceptable non-water quality environmental
impacts.
Because the costs of the selected BAT and PSES model technologies
are attributable solely to process changes, the costs for an existing
indirect-discharging bleached papergrade kraft and soda mill to comply
with PSES are comparable to a similar direct-discharging bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mill. See Section VI.B.5.a(2). As discussed
in Section VI.B.5.a(5), EPA found PSES based on BAT Option A to be
economically achievable. Similarly, EPA considered the cost of the PSNS
technology for new mills (based on BAT Option B) and determined that
such costs do not present a barrier to entry, as reflected in the
barrier to entry discussion for NSPS in Section VI.B.5.b(3).
The rationale for choosing BAT Option A as the basis for PSES is
set forth in Section VI.B.5.a(5). The rationale for selecting NSPS
Option B as PSNS is the same as that provided in Section VI.B.5.b for
selecting that model technology as the basis for NSPS for this
subcategory. Although for the reasons set forth in those sections EPA
is not selecting TCF bleaching processes as the model technology for
PSES or PSNS, EPA nevertheless is promulgating voluntary alternative
pretreatment standards based on TCF bleaching processes in order to
encourage mills to use those processes when possible. See 40 CFR
430.26(a)(2) and 430.27(a)(2).
The pretreatment standards for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory also include best management practices. See 40 CFR
430.03. These regulations are described in Section VI.B.7. For a
discussion of the pass through of pollutants controlled by BMPs, see
Section VI.B.7. In addition, the previously promulgated PSES and PSNS
for former subparts G, H, I and P for the biocides pentachlorophenol
and trichlorophenol continue to apply unless the discharger certifies
that it does not use those compounds as biocides. See 40 CFR 430.26(b)
and 430.27(b).
(6) Limitations. With the exception of AOX, the limitations
promulgated as PSES for Subpart B are identical to those promulgated as
BAT limitations for this subpart. See 40 CFR 430.26(a)(1). For a
discussion of the development of those pretreatment standards see
Section VI.B.5.a(4).
EPA found that while end-of-pipe biological treatment systems at
industrial POTWs and at direct dischargers achieve comparable removals
of AOX, the total AOX removals achieved by direct discharging mills are
greater because of the process changes that are part of the model BAT/
PSES technologies. Therefore, EPA has established AOX pretreatment
standards based on the performance of process changes alone (biological
treatment is not a component of PSES/PSNS). EPA has developed AOX
limits for PSES based on bleach plant data for eight mills that employ
the process technologies incorporated in Option A. These pretreatment
standards are presented in Table VI-9.
Table VI-9.--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory PSES AOX
Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Monthly
maximum average
Pollutant parameter limitation limitation
(kg/kkg) (kg/kkg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOX............................................. 2.64 1.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, with the exception of AOX, the PSNS promulgated for
Subpart B for toxic and nonconventional pollutants are identical to the
NSPS promulgated for this subpart. See 40 CFR 430.27(a)(1). For a
discussion of the development of those pretreatment standards, see
Section VI.B.5.a(4). EPA has developed AOX limits for PSNS based on
bleach plant data for six mills that employ the process technologies
incorporated in Option B. These pretreatment standards are presented in
Table VI-10.
Table VI-10.--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory PSNS AOX
Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Monthly
maximum average
Pollutant parameter limitation limitation
(kg/kkg) (kg/kkg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOX............................................. 1.16 0.814
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(7) Point of Compliance Monitoring. For many of the same reasons
set forth in Section VI.B.5.a(6) above in connection with EPA's
decision to specify an in-plant point of compliance monitoring for many
of the BAT parameters, EPA is requiring indirect discharging mills
subject to Subpart B to demonstrate compliance with pretreatment
standards for dioxin, furan, chloroform, the chlorinated phenolic
pollutants, and AOX at the bleach plant. See 40 CFR 430.26(c) and
430.27(c). As is the case for direct dischargers, data for indirect
discharging mills show that standards imposed at the point of discharge
to the POTW would make it impractical for the permitting authority to
assure that
[[Page 18557]]
the indirect discharger is achieving removal of the pollutants as
required by the pretreatment standards. Moreover, EPA is concerned that
dioxin and furan, even when present in nondetectable amounts at the
point of discharge to the POTW, could pass through the POTW and
accumulate in the biosolids, thus possibly interfering with the
beneficial reuse of that biosolids material. The extent to which sludge
can be beneficially reused is the subject of a separate ongoing
rulemaking under CWA Section 405. Finally, under EPA's regulations,
indirect dischargers are prohibited from substituting dilution for
treatment, except where dilution is expressly authorized by the
applicable pretreatment standard. See 40 CFR 403.6(d). (That is not the
case here.) This prohibition theoretically could be enforced on a
pollutant-by-pollutant, case-by-case basis. However, EPA is concerned
that such a solution to the effluent's detection and dilution problems
may impose an unnecessary financial and technical burden on POTWs.
At the time of proposal, EPA proposed that compliance with PSES/
PSNS AOX limitations would be demonstrated at the point of discharge to
the POTW. Since biological treatment is no longer part of the model
technology for PSES/PSNS, AOX limitations based upon the performance of
the PSES/PSNS technology are more appropriately set, and compliance
demonstrated, at the bleach plant, prior to mixing with other
wastestreams. This will reduce the burden on the pretreatment authority
in implementing the PSES/PSNS limitations, as no additional allowance
will need to be factored into the AOX limitations that would apply due
to sources of AOX beyond the bleach plant. In this respect, the
decision to establish in-plant points of compliance monitoring for all
PSES/PSNS regulated parameters also furthers the goals of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act. For all of these reasons, EPA is establishing in-
plant points of compliance monitoring for PSES/PSNS on a nationwide
level.
6. Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
a. Segmentation of the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory. In this
final rule, EPA is dividing the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory into
three segments to better reflect product considerations, the variation
in manufacturing processes, and the demonstration of pollution
prevention process changes within the category for the purpose of
establishing BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. EPA's reasons for doing so are
discussed in the July 1996 Notice, 61 FR at 36844-45, and in paragraphs
b(1)-(2) below. EPA is promulgating final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for each segment. The three segments are:
(1) Production of pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills that
use an acidic cooking liquor of calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite,
unless those mills are specialty grade sulfite mills. See 40 CFR
430.51(c)(1). Mills in this segment are ``calcium-, magne- sium-, or
sodium-based sulfite mills;''
(2) Production of pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills that
use an acidic cooking liquor of ammonium sulfite, unless those mills
are specialty grade sulfite mills. See 40 CFR 430.51(c)(2). Mills in
this segment are ``ammonium-based sulfite mills;'' and
(3) Production of pulp and paper at specialty grade sulfite mills,
or ``specialty grade sulfite mills.'' Specialty grade sulfite mills are
those mills where a significant portion of production is characterized
by pulp with a high percentage of alpha cellulose and high brightness
sufficient to produce end products such as plastic molding compounds,
saturating and laminating products, and photographic papers. EPA
considers a significant portion of production to be 25 percent or more.
The specialty grade segment also includes those mills where a major
portion of production is 91 ISO brightness and above. EPA considers a
major portion of production to be 50 percent or more.
See 40 CFR 430.51(c)(3). In order to determine whether a sulfite
mill belongs in the specialty grade segment, permitting authorities
should consider the expected production mix over the full permit term.
For mills that are converting to production in the specialty grade
segment, EPA expects these mills will be subject to these limits prior
to the time that these mills achieve the production mixes described
above.
b. BAT. (1) Options Considered. EPA had proposed BAT effluent
limitations for AOX and COD for the entire Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory based on totally chlorine-free bleaching processes. Totally
chlorine-free (TCF) bleaching processes are bleaching operations that
are performed without the use of chlorine, sodium or calcium
hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, chlorine monoxide, or any other
chlorine-containing compound. After concluding that the proposed
technology was not demonstrated for the full range of products produced
by mills using ammonium sulfite cooking liquor or for specialty grade
products, EPA segmented the subcategory and considered other BAT
options as set forth below. EPA also included for all segments the
performance of existing secondary biological wastewater treatment as
part of the basis for nonconventional and conventional pollutant
effluent limitations and NSPS. For a more detailed discussion of these
options, see the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN
14487.
(i) Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-Based Sulfite Mills. The
technology option considered for papergrade sulfite products made by
this segment was TCF bleaching, as proposed. See 58 FR at 66114-15.
Existing TCF mills in this segment produce the same products they had
been able to produce using elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching
processes, at up to 91 ISO brightness. Therefore, EPA did not consider
ECF bleaching as a technology option for this segment, because, while
technically available and economically achievable, it was not the best
such technology for this segment.
(ii) Ammonium-Based Sulfite Mills. The technology options
considered for this segment were TCF bleaching and ECF bleaching. ECF
bleaching is any process for bleaching pulps that does not employ
elemental chlorine or hypochlorite. There are numerous variations of
ECF bleaching processes. The ECF process considered for the ammonium-
based segment includes peroxide-enhanced extraction.
(iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Mills. The technology bases
considered for this segment were TCF bleaching and ECF bleaching. The
ECF process considered for the specialty grade segment includes oxygen-
and peroxide-enhanced extraction.
(2) Selection of BAT Technologies. In evaluating and selecting BAT
technologies for the segments in this subcategory, EPA considered the
age, size, processes, other engineering factors, and non-water quality
environmental impacts pertinent to Subpart E mills. None of these
factors provided a basis for selecting different BAT technologies. For
each segment, EPA selected the best technology available to produce the
products in each segment. Each of the selected BAT technologies is
economically achievable and has no unacceptable adverse non-water
quality environmental impacts. See the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487. The reasons discussed below also
support EPA's decision to select the BAT model technology for each
segment as the basis for PSES for that segment.
(i) Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-Based Sulfite Mills. As
proposed, EPA has concluded that TCF bleaching is the
[[Page 18558]]
appropriate technology basis for BAT limitations for the calcium-,
magnesium-, or sodium-based segment of the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory. (The following discussion also applies to PSES.) For this
segment, TCF technology consists of oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced
extraction, followed by peroxide bleaching, and with all chlorine-
containing compounds eliminated (e.g., elemental chlorine,
hypochlorite, chlorine monoxide, etc.). Although still TCF, the
bleaching sequence is a change from proposal, when TCF bleaching was
based on an oxygen stage with peroxide addition, followed by a peroxide
bleaching stage. This change to the TCF bleaching sequence reflects the
more common approach to TCF bleaching within this segment of the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory and also reflects the technology basis
of the mill from which TCF performance data have been collected. EPA
also included pulp cleaning to ensure that existing product quality
specifications would continue to be achieved. EPA has selected this
technology because it is technically available and economically
achievable for mills in this segment.
In evaluating the technical availability of TCF processes for this
segment, EPA developed a database of mills in the United States and
Europe that produce pulp using TCF bleaching technology. There is at
least one mill in the United States and 13 in Europe using acid cooking
liquors of calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite that are using TCF
bleaching processes. Among them, these mills produce a full range of
paper products at up to 91 ISO brightness using TCF bleaching. These
mills are able to produce the same products using TCF technology that
they produced prior to converting to TCF, with no negative impact on
product quality. EPA has incorporated pulp cleaners as an element of
TCF technology to ensure that pulp quality requirements are maintained.
See the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. For
these reasons, EPA concluded that TCF bleaching is technically
available for the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based segment. See
the record at section 21.2.1. (As noted above, EPA has established a
separate segment for specialty grade sulfite mills using these cooking
liquors.)
In order to evaluate the economic achievability of TCF bleaching
for this segment, EPA considered the costs that existing mills would
incur to convert to TCF processes. However, costs for secondary
biological treatment systems have not been included because these
systems already are in place at direct discharging mills. (This is true
for the other papergrade sulfite segments as well.) As part of that
analysis, EPA also included the costs of complying with today's BMP
regulations. Because of the small size of this segment, EPA is not
disclosing here the estimated capital costs, operation and maintenance
costs, or post-tax annualized costs for this segment in order to
protect confidential business information. However, EPA has determined
that no mills are projected to close and no firms are projected to fail
as a result of today's BAT limitations and PSES for this segment. This
result obtains both when the impacts of today's BAT/PSES are considered
together with the impacts of compliance with the MACT I costs, and when
they are considered alone. Therefore, EPA has concluded that TCF
bleaching is economically achievable for the calcium-, magnesium-, or
sodium-based sulfite pulp segment. See DCN 14376 and DCN 14388 (both
CBI).
For these reasons, EPA has selected the model TCF bleaching
processes described above as the basis for BAT limitations and PSES for
the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based sulfite pulp segment.
(ii) Ammonium-Based Sulfite Mills. EPA had proposed BAT based on
TCF bleaching technology for all mills in the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory, including those mills using ammonium-based acidic cooking
liquor. EPA received comments and data challenging the applicability of
TCF bleaching to ammonium-based sulfite mills. After reviewing these
comments and data, EPA concluded that TCF bleaching is not demonstrated
and may not be feasible for the full range of products produced by
ammonium-based sulfite mills in the United States. See DCN 14497, Vol.
I. (The following discussion also applies to PSES for this segment.)
This conclusion is based primarily on the greater difficulty in
bleaching ammonium-based sulfite pulps (especially those pulps derived
from softwood) without the use of chlorine-containing compounds
compared to other sulfite pulps, and the inability to maintain product
specifications for certain products within this segment using TCF
bleaching. TCF bleaching has not been demonstrated for products with a
high percentage of ammonium-based sulfite pulp that also require low
dirt count and high strength. Laboratory scale data submitted by a firm
producing such products indicate that such products can be produced
with elemental chlorine-free (ECF) technologies. See DCN 14497, Vol. I,
DCN 14494, and DCN 14118 in the record at Section 21.11.3.
Therefore, for papergrade sulfite mills using an acidic cooking
liquor of ammonium sulfite, EPA is promulgating BAT limitations and
PSES based on an ECF bleaching technology. The technology basis for BAT
limitations for this segment is use of dioxin- and furan-precursor-free
defoamers, complete (100 percent) substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine, peroxide-enhanced extraction, and elimination of
hypochlorite. ECF bleaching also includes high shear mixing to ensure
adequate mixing of pulp and bleaching chemicals. This technology basis
reflects the results of laboratory trials showing the ability to
produce the full range of products manufactured by mills in the
ammonium segment, with acceptable final product characteristics. See
the record at section 30.11, DCN 14497, Vol. I, and DCN 14494. (The
only exception is specialty grade sulfite mills using ammonium cooking
liquors.)
EPA is also promulgating voluntary alternative BAT limitations and
PSES based on TCF bleaching processes in order to encourage mills to
use this technology whenever it is consistent with their product mix.
See 40 CFR 430.54(a)(2) and 430.56(a)(2). Alternative TCF limitations
are also available for new sources in this segment.
In addition to finding that the ECF bleaching process described
above is technically available for the ammonium-based segment, EPA has
also determined that it is economically achievable. In order to
evaluate the economic achievability of ECF bleaching for this segment,
EPA considered the costs that existing mills would incur to convert to
the ECF process under consideration. As part of that analysis, EPA also
included the costs of complying with today's BMP regulations. Because
of the small size of this segment, EPA is not disclosing here the
estimated capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, or post-tax
annualized costs for this segment in order to protect confidential
business information. However, EPA has determined that no mills are
projected to close and no firms are projected to fail as a result of
today's BAT limitations and PSES for this segment. This result obtains
both when the impacts of today's BAT/PSES are considered together with
the impacts of compliance with the MACT I costs, and when they are
considered alone. Therefore, EPA has concluded that ECF bleaching is
economically achievable for the ammonium-based segment. See DCN 14376
and DCN 14388 (both CBI).
[[Page 18559]]
For the foregoing reasons, EPA has selected the model ECF bleaching
processes described above as the basis for BAT limitations and PSES for
the ammonium-based segment.
(iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Mills
EPA received comments and data indicating that key pulp and product
characteristics for specialty grade sulfite pulps have not been
achieved using TCF bleaching technologies. Firms producing specialty
grade pulps indicate that required product characteristics are
achievable using certain ECF bleaching technologies. See the record at
sections 19.1 and 21.11.6; DCN 25502; DCN 20071a8; DCN 14497, Vol. I;
and DCN 14494. As indicated in the July 1996 Notice, EPA has continued
to monitor research efforts of specialty grade pulp producers in the
field of pollution-preventing process changes. These research efforts
have progressed to the point where data are available at this time to
promulgate limitations for this segment for dioxin, furan, and
chlorinated phenolic pollutants. For specialty grade sulfite mills, the
technology basis for limitations is use of dioxin- and furan-precursor-
free defoamers, complete (100 percent) substitution of chlorine dioxide
for elemental chlorine, oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced extraction, and
elimination of hypochlorite. ECF bleaching also includes high shear
mixing to ensure adequate mixing of pulp and bleaching chemicals. This
technology basis reflects the results of laboratory trials showing the
ability to produce the full range of products manufactured by specialty
grade mills, with acceptable final product characteristics. (This
discussion also applies to PSES for this segment.)
EPA is also promulgating voluntary alternative BAT limitations
based on TCF bleaching processes in order to encourage mills to use
this technology whenever it is consistent with their product mix. See
40 CFR 430.54(a)(3) and 430.56(a)(3). Alternative TCF limitations are
also available for new sources in this segment.
In addition to finding that the ECF bleaching process described
above is technically available for the specialty grade segment, EPA has
also determined that it is economically achievable. In order to
evaluate the economic achievability of ECF bleaching for this segment,
EPA considered the costs that the one mill currently in this segment
would incur to convert to ECF processes. As part of that analysis, EPA
also included the costs of complying with today's BMP regulations.
Because of the small size of this segment, EPA is not disclosing here
the estimated capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, or post-
tax annualized costs for this segment in order to protect confidential
business information. However, EPA has determined that the sole
existing mill in this segment is not projected to close, nor is its
firm projected to fail, as a result of today's BAT limitations and PSES
for this segment. This result obtains both when the impacts of today's
BAT/PSES are considered together with the impacts of compliance with
the MACT I costs, and when they are considered alone. Therefore, EPA
has concluded that ECF bleaching is economically achievable for the
specialty grade segment. See DCN 14376 and DCN 14388 (both CBI).
For the foregoing reasons, EPA has selected the model ECF bleaching
process described above as the basis for BAT limitations and PSES for
the specialty grade segment.
(3) Pollutant Parameters Regulated for Each Segment. (i) Calcium-,
Magnesium-, or Sodium-Based Sulfite Mills. Because the Agency is
promulgating BAT effluent limitations for this segment based on TCF
bleaching technology, the maximum reduction in the discharge of
chlorinated pollutants from bleaching operations will be achieved. This
is because no chlorine or chlorine-containing bleaching chemicals are
used and, hence, no chlorinated pollutants are generated during
bleaching. For this reason, EPA is not setting effluent limitations for
dioxin, furan, chloroform, or the 12 specified chlorinated phenolic
pollutants for TCF bleaching. However, EPA is setting limitations on
AOX (expressed as a level below the Minimum Level identified in today's
analytical method for AOX) for mills in the calcium-, magnesium-, or
sodium-based sulfite pulp segment of the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory
in order to reflect the performance of TCF bleaching processes. See 40
CFR 430.54(a)(1). EPA is reserving promulgation of COD limitations for
this segment until such time that sufficient performance data are
available because the performance of the BAT technology basis on this
parameter cannot be accurately predicted from laboratory-scale data.
(ii) Ammonium-Based Sulfite Mills. EPA is promulgating effluent
limitations for dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants
for the ammonium-based segment. See 40 CFR 430.54(a)(2). EPA is
reserving promulgation of chloroform limitations, AOX limitations, and
COD limitations for this segment until such time that sufficient
performance data are available because the performance of the BAT
technology basis on these parameters cannot be accurately predicted
from laboratory-scale data. One mill is currently installing, on a full
scale, the promulgated BAT technology basis. EPA expects to have data
to develop chloroform, AOX, and COD limitations for this segment once
this installation is complete, the mill is operating the new equipment
in a routine manner, and appropriate samples are collected and
analyzed.
(iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Mills. EPA is promulgating effluent
limitations for dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants
for the specialty grade segment, based on laboratory scale data. See 40
CFR 430.54(a)(3). EPA is reserving promulgation of chloroform, AOX, and
COD limitations for this segment until such time that sufficient full
scale performance data are available because the performance of the BAT
technology basis on these parameters cannot be accurately predicted
from laboratory scale data.
(4) Costs. As discussed in the July 1996 Notice, EPA revised its
cost estimates for mills in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory by using
the revised bleaching sequences outlined in paragraph (2) above. EPA
also updated equipment cost curves and unit operating costs. See 61 FR
at 36845. The detailed basis of these revised cost estimates are
provided in the record.
The following cost estimates reflect the total costs that mills in
the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are likely to incur as a result of
today's BAT limitations, PSES, and BMP regulations, and are the bases
for EPA's economic impact analyses discussed in paragraph (2) above.
For this subcategory, EPA's estimated capital costs are $73.8 million,
operation and maintenance costs are $7 million, and post-tax annualized
costs are $9.8 million. (The general and administrative costs discussed
in Section VIII.B.1.c are already included here.) See Section VIII for
additional discussion of costs and economic impacts.
(5) Effluent Reductions. EPA has updated the calculation of
effluent reductions for each papergrade sulfite mill, adjusting the
baseline to mid-1995. EPA used methodology similar to that used for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. As a result of the BAT
limitations and PSES promulgated today, EPA estimates that for the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, discharges of dioxin and furan will be
reduced by seven grams to less than one gram per year. (EPA expects no
discharges of dioxin and furan from TCF bleaching.) Total discharges of
chlorinated phenolic pollutants will be
[[Page 18560]]
reduced by 1,770 kilograms to 240 kilograms per year. As a result of
the TCF limitations and PSES on mills in the calcium-, magnesium-, or
sodium-based sulfite segment and as an incidental result of
implementing the ECF model technology by direct and indirect
discharging mills in the other two segments, discharges of AOX will be
reduced by 4,010 metric tons to 370 metric tons per year. For a
discussion of the environmental benefits resulting from these
reductions, see Section VIII.G.2, and Chapter 8 of the Economic
Analysis, DCN 14649.
(6) Development of Limitations. All of the limitations and
standards promulgated today for Subpart E are expressed as ``5 discharge was
used to characterize the best demonstrated performance. EPA concluded
that data in the record is not representative of the performance that
can be achieved in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory as a whole. For
this reason, the new source performance standards for conventional
pollutants promulgated today for each segment of the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory are the same as those promulgated in the 1982 NSPS
regulation. See 47 FR 52006, 52036 (Nov. 18, 1982) (for former Subpart
O); 48 FR 13176, 13177 (Mar. 30, 1983) (for former Subpart J).
In selecting its NSPS technology, EPA considered all of the factors
specified in CWA section 306, including the cost of
[[Page 18561]]
achieving effluent reductions. The selected NSPS technologies are
presently being employed at mills in each segment of this subcategory.
Moreover, the cost of the NSPS technology is an insignificant fraction
of the capital cost of a new mill (less than one percent). Finally, EPA
has determined that the costs of including the selected NSPS
technologies at a new source are substantially less on a per-ton basis
than the costs of retrofitting existing mills. See Chapter 6 of the
Economic Analysis document (DCN 14649). Therefore, EPA has concluded
that such costs do not present a barrier to entry. The Agency also
considered energy requirements and other non-water quality
environmental impacts for the selected NSPS options and concluded that
these impacts were no greater than for the selected BAT technology
options and are acceptable. See the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487. EPA therefore concluded that the NSPS technology
bases selected for each segment of the papergrade sulfite segment
constitutes the best available demonstrated control technology for that
segment.
d. Pretreatment Standards. EPA is promulgating pretreatment
standards for new and existing sources for three segments of the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory based on the BAT and NSPS technologies
selected for each segment. In determining PSES, EPA considered the age,
size, processes, other engineering factors, and non-water quality
environmental impacts pertinent to Subpart E mills. None of these
factors provided a basis for selecting different PSES technologies. For
each segment, EPA selected the best technology available to produce the
products in each segment. Each of the selected PSES technologies is
economically achievable and has no unacceptable adverse non-water
quality impacts. With respect to PSNS for these segments, EPA concluded
that the selected technologies represent the best available
demonstrated control technologies that are capable of producing each
segment's products. EPA also concluded that there was no barrier to
entry for the reasons set forth in section VI.B.6.c. above for NSPS for
this subcategory.
In order to determine which pollutants to regulate under PSES and
PSNS, EPA used the same pass-through analysis it employed for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory described in section
VI.B.5.c(2) above. EPA concluded that dioxin, furan, and the 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants pass through or interfere with POTW
operations for the ammonium and specialty grade segments for the
reasons set forth in section VI.B.5.c(2) for Subpart B. This reasoning
applies because the BAT/PSES model technologies for Subparts B and E
are both based on ECF process technologies; the same is also true for
the NSPS/PSNS technologies (although in neither subpart does the model
pretreatment technology include secondary biological wastewater
treatment). Based on its pass-through determination, EPA is
promulgating national pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources for those pollutants for those segments. These standards are
expressed as `` The requirement to develop BMPs should be limited to spent
pulping liquor (e.g., kraft black liquor, sulfite red liquors) and
should exclude kraft green and white liquors and fresh sulfite pulping
liquors;
The proposed regulation was overly prescriptive in general
and, in particular, the requirement for secondary containment was
unnecessary to meet the objectives of the proposed regulation;
EPA underestimated the costs for implementing BMPs;
EPA lacks the authority to establish BMPs to control
pollutants that are not identified as toxic under CWA section 307(a) or
hazardous under CWA section 311; and
EPA lacks the authority to impose BMPs on indirect
dischargers.
In response to comments, EPA undertook several initiatives to
understand industry's concerns about the proposed BMP requirements; to
better understand the status of the industry with respect to pulping
liquor management and spill prevention and control; and to better
assess the BMP compliance costs. To supplement its understanding of
industry's spent pulping liquor management and spill prevention and
control practices, EPA visited more than 25 chemical pulp mills in the
United States and 15 mills in Canada and Europe following its 1993
proposal. These mills included bleached and unbleached kraft mills and
papergrade sulfite mills (see Docket Sections 21.5.1 and 21.5.3). EPA
also reviewed the results of the NCASI BMP questionnaire distributed to
the industry. Questionnaire responses were received from approximately
70 bleached and unbleached kraft, soda, and sulfite mills. Through this
NCASI questionnaire EPA received a substantial amount of additional
information about mill practices and costs for equipment, monitoring
systems, and facility modifications (see Docket Section 21.1.3). In
addition, EPA held detailed discussions with stakeholders regarding
options for BMPs and associated costs. Much of this information was
included in the Docket and made available to the public in conjunction
with the Notice of Data Availability published in the Federal Register
on July 5, 1995 (60 FR 34938). Additional information related to
development of the BMP requirements, including changes in the wording
and organization of the proposed rule, was discussed in the July 1996
Notice. See 61 FR at 36835.
Based on the information and data received since proposal, EPA
revised the scope of the BMP requirements to focus on control of spent
pulping liquor, turpentine, and soap. The BMP requirements were
restructured to allow greater flexibility in how BMPs are implemented
to address site-specific circumstances in achieving meaningful
prevention and control of leaks and spills. EPA also reorganized the
regulatory text from that presented in the record for the July 1996
Notice to provide greater ease of use by mill operators and permit
writers, and to clarify the intent of particular BMP requirements. The
most significant changes since proposal are discussed below.
In December 1993, EPA proposed BMPs for seven subcategories of the
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry (58 FR at 66078), all of which
chemically pulp wood and non-wood fibers. EPA still believes BMPs are
appropriate for each of these chemical pulping subcategories; however,
to be consistent with the effluent limitations guidelines and standards
promulgated in this final rule, the BMPs promulgated today are
applicable only to the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. EPA expects to promulgate BMPs for
the remaining five chemical pulping subcategories [(Subparts A
(Dissolving Kraft), C (Unbleached Kraft), D (Dissolving Sulfite), F
(Semi-chemical), and H (Non-wood Chemical Pulp)] as it promulgates new
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for these subcategories.
Until new regulations for Subparts A, C, D, F, and H are promulgated,
permit writers may wish to use the BMP regulations in this rule as a
guide to issuing permits containing BMPs based on best professional
judgment for mills with production covered by these other subparts. See
CWA Section 402(a)(1); 40 CFR 122.44(k). POTWs may need to impose BMPs
as local limits to facilities in these subcategories. See 40 CFR 403.5.
The BMP provisions in the proposed rule were structured to apply to
all pulping liquors. In response to comments, EPA has revised the scope
of the BMPs and for the final rule is limiting the BMP applicability to
spent pulping liquors, turpentine, and soap. EPA has determined that
spent pulping
[[Page 18564]]
liquors contain toxic components and that these materials, if
uncontrolled, pass through or interfere with the operation of POTWs and
may interfere with industrial wastewater treatment systems at mills
that discharge directly to surface waters. EPA has excluded green,
white and other intermediate pulping liquors (e.g., fresh sulfite
pulping liquors) from this BMP rule because the data in the record does
not indicate that these materials pass through wastewater treatment
systems. Turpentine and soap are included in the BMP rule because, if
spilled or lost, these materials can interfere with wastewater
treatment operations and lead to increased discharges of toxic,
nonconventional, and conventional pollutants.
In December 1993, EPA proposed to require mills to provide
secondary containment for all pulping liquor bulk storage tanks. EPA
has since determined that spill prevention can be adequately achieved
for spent pulping liquor bulk storage tanks by substituting annual tank
integrity testing and other containment or diversion structures (e.g.,
curbs and berms) in place of secondary containment. The final rule
provides flexibility for mills to choose either secondary containment
or annual tank integrity testing, coupled with other containment or
diversion structures, to comply with this requirement for spent pulping
liquor bulk storage tanks. See 40 CFR 430.03(c)(7). EPA determined that
secondary containment should be required at all times for turpentine
bulk storage tanks because of the extreme toxic effects a turpentine
spill would have on the biological treatment system, and because the
size of turpentine bulk storage tanks is such that secondary
containment is easily achieved. In fact, EPA has found that most mills
already provide secondary containment for their turpentine bulk storage
tanks. No secondary containment is required for soap bulk storage
tanks.
As discussed in the July 1996 Notice, EPA also proposed adding a
requirement to the BMP regulation that would require mills to implement
a monitoring program for the purpose of detecting leaks and spills,
tracking the effectiveness of the BMPs, and detecting trends in spent
pulping liquor losses. EPA proposed requiring mills to monitor
wastewater treatment system influent for a short-term measure of
organic content that can be completed on a daily basis (e.g., Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) or Total Organic Carbon (TOC)). EPA has promulgated
this requirement (see 40 CFR 430.03 (h) and (i)), but in response to
comments, EPA is also allowing mills to use an alternative parameter
related to spent pulping liquor losses that can be measured
continuously and averaged over 24 hours (e.g., specific conductivity or
color). See 40 CFR 430.03(h)(2)(i). In conjunction with this
monitoring, mills are required by today's regulation to establish
action levels (using the measure of daily pollutant loading) that, when
exceeded, trigger investigative and corrective action, as appropriate,
to reduce the wastewater treatment system influent mass loading. See 40
CFR 430.03(h).
The proposed rule would have required certification of the BMP plan
by a registered professional engineer (P.E.) and approval by the mill
manager. The intent of the proposed P.E. certification was to assure
preparation of a comprehensive BMP Plan that is tailored to the site-
specific circumstances at the mill. Industry commented that many mills
have no registered professional engineers on site. For mills without a
P.E. onsite, the proposed requirement would result in the plan being
certified by someone not involved with the mill on a daily basis, and
someone not responsible for its operation. EPA has determined that
requiring certification by a P.E. is unnecessarily prescriptive and may
have unintended results. The final regulation deletes the requirement
for certification by a registered P.E. and now requires the BMP Plan to
be reviewed by the senior technical manager at the mill and approved
and signed by the mill manager. See 40 CFR 430.03(f).
The regulation was proposed to be self-implementing for both direct
and indirect dischargers. EPA has revised the regulation to make it
clear that BMPs imposed on direct dischargers are not self-
implementing, but rather apply only when incorporated into NPDES
permits. See 40 CFR 430.03(j). This is consistent with CWA sections
304(e) and 402. The final regulation remains self-implementing for
indirect dischargers. Id.
The final regulation extends compliance schedules for plan
preparation and plan implementation to grant more time for the
preparation of the initial BMP Plan and installation of monitoring and
alarm systems. Based on information supplied by industry regarding the
time required in past efforts to develop spill prevention programs, EPA
determined that 12 months was reasonable to complete the development of
the BMP Plan and includes that deadline in the regulation. Similarly,
EPA determined that it is reasonable to require mills to commence
operation of any new monitoring systems no later than 24 months
following publication of the final rule. This compliance date provides
sufficient time between BMP Plan preparation and operation of new
monitoring systems (i.e., 12 months) to allow implementation of BMPs in
a rational and effective manner.
The final BMP regulation is less prescriptive than proposed with
regard to inspection, repair and log-keeping requirements. While many
of the elements included in the proposed rule remain, EPA determined
that the specificity of the language in the proposed regulation could
be redundant to existing practices in place at some mills and be
unnecessarily burdensome. EPA believes the language in the final rule
will achieve the same results as it intended in the proposed rule while
allowing mills to use existing maintenance and repair tracking systems
to fulfill the requirement. See 40 CFR 430.03(c).
As discussed in the July 1996 Notice, EPA used the information
obtained since proposal to revise its cost estimates for BMPs. See 61
FR at 36840. At proposal, EPA's estimated costs were based on the
reported total project costs for two older bleached kraft mills to
install spill prevention and control systems. After adjusting the costs
to reflect the size of a ``typical'' mill, EPA then assumed that these
costs reflected the average cost incurred by bleached papergrade kraft
and soda and papergrade sulfite mills to install BMPs. EPA then imputed
to some mills compliance costs less than that average cost depending on
the extent EPA judged they had implemented BMPs (see Technical Support
Document for Proposed Best Management Practices Programs: Pulping
Liquor Management, Spill Prevention and Control, November 1993. Docket
Section 17.4, DCN 08307).
EPA improved its estimates of industry-wide costs for compliance
with the BMP requirements in the final rule, compared to the cost
methodology used for the proposed regulation. These changes were
discussed in the July 1996 Notice and in the accompanying Draft
Technical Support Document for Best Management Practices Programs:
Spent Pulping Liquor Management, Spill Prevention and Control, May 1996
(DCN 13894). EPA's supplemental mill visits and the NCASI survey
responses have resulted in a more accurate status of the existing BMP
infrastructure and programs at mills. This information was used to
create model BMP mill requirements for each level of mill complexity
and to classify mills by complexity level. EPA then used data
[[Page 18565]]
provided by the industry in comments and the NCASI survey to develop
unit costs for major equipment items, facility modifications,
monitoring systems and BMP Plan preparation, rather than using the
total project costs reported by two mills as was done at proposal.
Finally, EPA incorporated the estimates of net operating and
maintenance costs of BMPs into the BAT/PSES cost model. The cost model
tracked the impacts of increased pulping liquor recovery on the
evaporators and chemical recovery system and determined the need for
equipment upgrades resulting from the combined effect of BAT/PSES
process changes and BMPs. The savings from reduced load on the
wastewater treatment system and increased recovery of fiber, chemicals
and energy were subtracted from the BMP operating costs (i.e.,
increased evaporation energy, tank integrity testing, operator
training, and O&M costs for new equipment).
EPA disagrees with comments asserting that EPA lacks authority to
establish BMPs for pollutants that are not identified as toxic under
CWA section 307(a) or hazardous under CWA section 311. First, the non-
toxic and non-hazardous pollutants controlled by these BMPs are found
in the same wastestreams bearing pollutants specifically identified as
toxic pollutants or hazardous substances under sections 307(a) and 311
and implementing regulations. Although reductions of these pollutants
are significant in environmental effect, their control is incidental to
the control of all the pollutants subject to section 304(e). Second,
EPA has independent authority under section 402(a)(1) to establish
NPDES permit conditions, including BMPs, for any pollutant when such
conditions are necessary to carry out the provisions of the statute.
See 40 CFR 122.44(k). This authority operates independently of section
304(e). Indeed, when Congress enacted section 304(e) specifically for
toxic pollutants and hazardous substances, it acknowledged that section
402(a)(1) already provided authority for imposing BMPs in NPDES
permits. See Statement of Sen. Muskie (Dec. 15, 1977), reprinted in
Legislative History of the Clean Water Act of 1977, at 453. EPA's
authority to establish permit conditions under section 402(a)(1) is
very broad. See NRDC v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
EPA has determined that mills without an adequate BMP program, such as
that codified today, may experience undetected and uncontrolled leaks
and spills that could disrupt the efficiency of their treatment
systems, thus resulting in exceedances of the BAT limitations and NSPS
promulgated today for subparts B and E. Moreover, the BMPs control
pollutants that are not explicitly regulated under BAT and NSPS.
Therefore, EPA determined that BMPs applicable to all pollutants in a
mill's spent pulping liquor, turpentine, and soap were necessary in
order to carry out the purposes of the Clean Water Act and hence are
authorized under section 402(a)(1) and 40 CFR 122.44(k). Similarly, as
discussed below, BMPs are authorized as pretreatment standards for
pollutants in the spent pulping liquor, turpentine, and soap when they
pass through or interfere with POTW operations.
Some commenters also objected to EPA's decision to establish the
BMP program by regulation rather than deferring to the case-by-case
determinations of permit writers. EPA agrees that a requirement to
establish and implement BMPs of the type required by this rule could be
imposed on a case-by-case basis under CWA section 402(a)(1) and 40 CFR
122.44(k). However, EPA rejected this approach for a number of reasons.
First, section 304(e) expressly authorizes EPA to promulgate BMPs by
regulation on a categorical basis. The spent pulping liquors, soap, and
turpentine covered by these BMPs contain numerous toxic pollutants and
hazardous substances subject to section 304(e) and hence may be
controlled by regulation. Moreover, EPA determined that implementing
the BMP program by regulation is necessary to ensure that each pulp and
paper mill with pulp production in subparts B or E implements the type
of BMPs that EPA has determined are fundamental to an effective BMP
program for this industry. While the BMP regulation is intended to
provide considerable flexibility to mills in designing their BMP
programs, EPA has also determined that the various BMPs specified in
the regulation are necessary to assure uniform and fair application of
the requirements. Finally, EPA believes that the regulation represents
an appropriate and efficient use of its technical expertise and
resources that, when exercised at the national level, will relieve
permit writers of the burden of implementing this aspect of the Clean
Water Act on a case-by-case basis.
EPA also disagrees with comments asserting that EPA lacks authority
to impose BMPs on indirect discharges. These BMPs are pretreatment
standards under section 307(b) and (c). Pretreatment standards for new
and existing sources under section 307 are designed to prevent the
discharge of pollutants that pass through POTWs or that interfere with
or are otherwise incompatible with treatment processes or sludge
disposal methods at POTWs. To determine whether pollutants associated
with spent kraft and sulfite pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine that
are indirectly discharged by mills with pulp production in subparts B
or E interfere with POTW operations or pass through untreated, EPA
reviewed data collected from 1988 through 1992 at a POTW that receives
effluent from a bleached papergrade kraft mill. Prior to 1990-91, the
mill had virtually no facilities for control and collection of spent
pulping liquor leaks and spills. POTW discharge monitoring records show
the fully treated effluent exhibited consistent chronic toxicity to
Daphnia from April 1988 until June 1991. The data further show that the
toxic effects of the POTW's effluent have been reduced since
implementation by the mill of effective spent pulping liquor management
and spill prevention and control. These effluent toxicity effects can
be related to the wood extractive components that are measurable by COD
and are found in leaks and spills of spent kraft and sulfite pulping
liquors that interfere with the performance of biological treatment
systems and allow toxic pollutants to pass through inadequately
treated. Indeed, evidence of such interference and pass-through was
found in data from this mill and the POTW, which showed higher mass
effluent loadings for COD, TSS and BOD5 before the mill
implemented a BMP program. After the BMP program was implemented, mass
effluent loadings of these pollutants were reduced. Data for COD, in
particular, indicated that short-term interference of POTW operations
previously observed at higher COD levels was being mitigated. EPA also
bases its pass-through finding on an incident occurring in 1993 at a
different mill where an intentional diversion of spent pulping liquor
debilitated the mill's secondary treatment system and killed fish in
the receiving waters. These data led EPA to conclude that inadequate
management and control of leaks and spills of spent pulping liquor,
soap, and turpentine interfered with POTW operations and caused pass-
through of pollutants. Because direct discharging mills using these
BMPs achieve very high removals and because POTWs cannot achieve
similar removals in the absence of BMPs employed by the indirect
discharger, EPA has determined that pollutants in spent pulping liquor,
soap, and turpentine, in the absence of controls on leaks, spills, and
intentional diversions, can cause disruption and interference and do
indeed pass through
[[Page 18566]]
at POTWs. For this reason, EPA is including as part of its pretreatment
standards the requirement that indirect discharging mills implement
BMPs in accordance with this regulation.
8. Regulatory Implementation for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards
a. Applicability of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards.
Effluent limitations act as a primary mechanism to control discharges
of pollutants to waters of the United States. These limitations are
applied to individual mills through NPDES permits issued by EPA or
authorized States under section 402 of the CWA. In addition, the
pretreatment standards are directly applicable to indirect dischargers.
Once today's regulations become effective, the effluent limitations and
standards for the appropriate subcategory must be applied in all
Federal and State NPDES permits issued to direct dischargers affected
by this rule. See Section 301(b)(2), 402(a). This section describes the
applicability of these limitations and standards to process and other
wastewaters generated by the mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories, defines new sources subject
to today's NSPS and PSNS, defines non-continuous dischargers and the
applicable limitations, and describes the retention of the previously
promulgated limitations and standards.
(1) Applicability of Limitations to Process and Other Wastewaters.
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the pulp and
paper industry apply to discharges of process wastewaters directly
associated with the manufacturing of pulp and paper. See 40 CFR 430.00.
EPA proposed a definition of process wastewater as any water that,
during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with or
results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate
product, finished product, byproduct, or waste product. The proposed
definition specifically included boiler blowdown; wastewaters from
water treatment and other utility operations; blowdown from high rate
(e.g., greater than 98 percent) recycled non-contact cooling water
systems to the extent they are mixed and co-treated with other process
wastewaters; and stormwaters from the immediate process areas to the
extent they are mixed and co-treated with other process wastewaters.
The proposed definition specifically provided that contaminated
groundwaters from on-site or off-site groundwater remediation projects
would not be process wastewaters. EPA proposed to require separate
permitting for the discharge of such groundwaters. The proposed
definition also specifically excluded certain process materials from
the definition of process wastewater. These process materials included:
Green liquor at any liquor solids level; white liquor at any liquor
solids level; black liquor at any liquor solids level resulting from
processing knots and screen rejects; black liquor after any degree of
concentration in the kraft or soda chemical recovery process;
reconstituted sulfite and semi-chemical pulping liquors prior to use;
any pulping liquor at any liquor solids level resulting from spills or
intentional diversions from the process; lime mud and magnesium oxide;
pulp stock; bleach chemical solutions prior to use; and papermaking
additives prior to use (e.g., alum, starch and size, clays and
coatings). The proposed regulation then would have prohibited the
discharge of these materials into POTWs or waters of the United States
without an NPDES permit or other authorization.
In this final rule, EPA is promulgating a definition of process
wastewater applicable to subparts B and E. In response to the comments
opposing the exclusion of these process materials, EPA revised the
proposed definition of process wastewaters to eliminate the exclusion
of the named process materials. See 40 CFR 430.01(m). The proposed
language would have effectively required ``closed cycle'' mills, which
was not EPA's intent. The exclusion of contaminated groundwater has
been retained. Because the quantity and quality of such groundwaters
are likely to be highly variable on a site-specific basis, the Agency
concluded that their discharge to surface waters should be regulated
separately from, or in addition to, process wastewaters on a case-by-
case basis. EPA also has included leachate wastewaters from landfills
owned and operated by mills generating wastes associated with
manufacturing or processing subject to subparts B and E, where these
leachate wastewaters are commingled with other process wastewaters.
These leachate wastewaters typically comprise a very small proportion
of the total volume received in end-of-pipe wastewater treatment
facilities. In cases where the volumes or pollutants found in leachate
wastewaters are of concern, permit writers may develop individual
permit limitations on a case-by-case basis. EPA's definition continues
to define process wastewater in terms of manufacturing or processing.
EPA has promulgated a subcategory-specific definition of process
wastewater in order to clarify the applicability of subparts B and E
and to assist permit writers and pretreatment authorities in developing
limitations and standards. The effluent limitations guidelines and
standards promulgated today do not apply to discharges that are not
associated with manufacturing or processing. Any mill wishing to
discharge such wastewaters would need to obtain authorization in an
NPDES permit or individual control mechanism administered by a POTW.
EPA's use of the term ``during manufacturing or processing'' should
not be taken to exclude wastewaters generated during routine
maintenance, including maintenance occurring during a scheduled
temporary mill shut-down. Maintenance wastewaters were not explicitly
excluded from the definition of process wastewater at proposal, nor are
they excluded from the definition promulgated today. Wastewaters
generated during routine maintenance are a result of pulp manufacturing
processes and as such are included in the definition of process
wastewater.
(2) Definition of New Source. In today's rule, EPA is promulgating
a definition of ``new source'' applicable to Part 430, subparts B and
E. See 40 CFR 430.01(j). This definition restates the definition set
forth in 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1), but with the additional reference to
certain process changes that, in and of themselves, would not cause a
mill to become a new source. See 40 CFR 430.01(j)(2). EPA intends that
permit writers will consult the specific ``new source'' criteria in
Part 430, rather than the more general criteria set forth in 40 CFR
122.29(b)(1) and 403 when determining whether pulp and paper mills
subject to subparts B or E are new sources. The other provisions of 40
CFR 122.29 continue to apply to these subparts, as do 40 CFR 122.2 and
40 CFR 403.3(k). The definition of ``new source'' in Part 430 does not
affect the definition of ``new source'' for purposes of the NESHAP
portion of these integrated rules.
EPA is aware that application of the definitions in Part 122 to
pulp and paper mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories has sometimes caused controversy,
leading to disagreement between the permitting authority and the
facility whether a particular change at the mill triggers NSPS or PSNS.
EPA is promulgating a definition of ``new source'' specifically for
subparts B and E in order to set forth the specific factors relevant to
a new source determination for covered mills and thus, EPA hopes, to
end the disputes regarding a mill's
[[Page 18567]]
new source status. Indeed, the decision to promulgate subcategory-
specific criteria in this rule is specifically contemplated by the
general criteria codified at 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1). EPA believes this
tailored definition is particularly important in view of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program EPA is also promulgating today
for subpart B mills. Through the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program, EPA is encouraging mills to install new process
technologies and even to redesign bleach plant operations in order to
achieve effluent reductions beyond those required at the baseline BAT
level. EPA does not want existing mills that voluntarily choose to
participate in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program to
be required to meet NSPS simply as a consequence of that election.
Therefore, by promulgating a definition of ``new source'' specifically
for subparts B and E, EPA hopes not only to clarify application of the
Part 122 definitions but also to provide certainty to subpart B mills
choosing to participate in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program that they will not inadvertently become a new source, which
would subject them to compulsory NSPS.
For the convenience of the permit writer, the definition of new
source being codified in part 430 restates the three criteria already
codified in Sec. 122.29(b)(1). The first criterion provides that a
source is a new source if it is constructed at a site at which no other
source is located. Section 430.01 (j)(1)(i); see 40 CFR
122.29(b)(1)(i). As applied to part 430, this criterion is intended to
ensure that a greenfield mill is characterized as a new source and
hence is subject to NSPS or PSNS.
The second criterion specified in today's definition of new source
incorporates the language of 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1)(ii) with two
additions. First, it provides that a fiber line that totally replaces
an existing fiber line is a new source (unless that fiber line is
enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program).
Second, it includes a list of modifications that would not trigger the
new source definition if made by subpart B or E mills. See 40 CFR
430.01(j)(1)(ii) and (2). This criterion provides essentially that a
fiber line that is modified to comply with baseline BAT effluent
limitations or that is totally rebuilt to comply with Advanced
Technology BAT limitations is not a new source. (A fiber line is a
series of operations employed to convert wood or other fibrous raw
material into pulp. If the final product is bleached pulp, the fiber
line encompasses pulping, de-knotting, brownstock washing, pulp
screening, centrifugal cleaning, and multiple bleaching and washing
stages.)
Among the changes specified in the regulation that alone do not
cause an existing fiber line at a mill to be considered a new source
are: Upgrades of existing pulping operations; upgrades or replacement
of pulp screening and washing operations; installation of extended
cooking and/or oxygen delignification systems or other post-digester,
pre-bleaching delignification systems; and bleach plant modifications
including changes in methods or amounts of chemical applications, new
chemical applications, installation of new bleaching towers to
facilitate replacement of sodium or calcium hypochlorite, and
installation of new pulp washing systems. 40 CFR 430.01(j)(2)(i)-(iv).
By expressly excluding these process modifications from the new source
definition, EPA thus allows a mill to implement the baseline BAT/PSES
technologies without triggering NSPS or PSNS. EPA believes that
interpreting process modifications that are designed to achieve
compliance with baseline BAT/PSES limitations as an existing source
modification is consistent with Congress' intentions in the Clean Water
Act concerning the respective roles of standards for existing and new
sources.
As discussed in more detail below in connection with the third new
source criterion, EPA believes it is appropriate to define a new fiber
line as a new source because the construction of the new fiber line
(whether to supplement or replace an existing fiber line) presents the
type of pollution prevention opportunities customarily represented by
NSPS. However, EPA believes it is also appropriate to treat the
replacement fiber line as an existing source if that fiber line is
enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. See
40 CFR 430.01(j)(2)(v). EPA has decided to do this because requiring
the new fiber line to meet baseline NSPS requirements would defeat the
purpose of the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program by
undercutting the more environmentally protective pollution prevention
opportunities and limitations associated with that program. In the
first place, Advanced Technology BAT limitations at the Tier II and
Tier III levels are more stringent than the baseline NSPS requirements;
EPA's definition of new source thus is intended to allow mills to
commit to greater pollutant reductions than EPA could otherwise compel
and to do so incrementally while maintaining use of the existing fiber
line in the interim. Similarly, the Advanced Technology BAT limitations
at the Tier I level promote pollution prevention opportunities not
necessarily assured by NSPS, even though the technology bases for NSPS
and Tier I are similar. EPA has established different limitations for
Tier I than for NSPS because the regulations are intended to achieve
different objectives. The new source performance standards for AOX are
more stringent because, as a statistical matter, EPA determined that
this performance level reflects the best demonstrated performance by
mills using the NSPS technology. The Tier I limitations for AOX, in
contrast, are intended to reflect a more inclusive performance level
that EPA believes existing mills employing extended delignification can
achieve, in order to encourage more mills to implement extended
delignification technologies. The Tier I limitations also require the
recycle of filtrates to the recovery systems and impose limitations on
the lignin content of unbleached pulp, which EPA hopes will promote the
use of particular pollution prevention technologies and, in turn,
encourage mills to look beyond Tier I to the Tier II and Tier III
levels. This goal contrasts with the objective of NSPS, which simply is
to compel mills to achieve certain discharge levels by any combination
of technologies the mill selects, and would be defeated if the
definition of new source would have the effect of moving Tier I mills
into NSPS. Therefore, EPA has decided that, on balance, imposing NSPS
on mills that replace fiber lines for the purpose of participating in
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program would discourage
rather than encourage the long-term goal of achieving even greater
environmental performance.
The third criterion appearing in the definition of new source in
Sec. 430.01(j)(1)(iii) is identical to the third criterion at
Sec. 122.29(b)(1)(iii), and provides that a source is a new source if
its processes are substantially independent of an existing source at
the same site. In determining whether processes are substantially
independent, the permitting or pretreatment authority is directed to
consider such factors as the extent to which the new facility is
integrated with the existing plant, and the extent to which the new
facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the
existing source. For example, if a mill operating in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory builds and operates an entirely
new fiber line that permanently
[[Page 18568]]
supplements the capacity of an existing fiber line (and also,
incidentally, increases the total quantity of pollutants discharged by
the mill), the new fiber line would be considered a new source subject
to NSPS.
EPA believes it is appropriate to subject a new fiber line that is
substantially independent of an existing fiber line to new source
performance standards because a mill designing that new fiber line has
pollution prevention opportunities akin to those available to
greenfield mills. For example, a mill would have the opportunity to
incorporate pollution prevention principles when designing a new fiber
line, including a new flow scheme and water balance. This new fiber
line would provide the opportunity to take advantage of pollution
prevention savings attributable to reduced chemical needs (and costs),
increased energy recovery, the possibility of improving yield, and
other operation and maintenance improvements.
EPA notes that a fiber line that is substantially independent of an
existing fiber line is a new source even if the new fiber line is
enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. EPA
believes that this is appropriate because the supplemental fiber line
increases both the mill's production capacity and its discharge of
pollution to the environment. However, the fiber line could qualify for
incentives if it is enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program for NSPS at the Tier II or Tier III level.
As reflected in the July 1996 Notice, 61 FR at 36848, EPA had
considered excluding from the definition of new source those mills that
renovated existing fiber lines but remained at existing production
levels. In response to comments, EPA has decided not to introduce
production levels as a factor in determining new source status. First,
taking production levels into account in determining whether an
existing source becomes a new source would be a departure from current
practice that EPA believes is not justified in this case. EPA believes
that the new source status of a subpart B or E mill should be
determined by the degree of process and production changes made at a
mill's fiber lines--such as the replacement of existing digesters and
bleach plants with new equipment--because those changes, not production
levels, present the real opportunities for pollution prevention
represented by NSPS or PSNS. Moreover, EPA agrees with comments stating
that mills subject to subpart B or E frequently undergo changes in
various degrees to increase production levels and that many of these
changes do not result in or from substantially independent facilities
or the total replacement of existing facilities. See DCN 25538 at 70-
72. Therefore, the mere fact that a mill increases its production
levels does not mean that it concurrently has the opportunity to
install the type of advanced pollution prevention technologies
represented by NSPS.
(3) Non-Continuous Discharger. EPA is changing the regulatory
language defining non-continuous dischargers as it applies to subparts
B and E. See 40 CFR 430.01(k)(2). EPA is also republishing, without
change, the current definition of non-continuous dischargers because it
continues to apply to the other subparts in part 430 and to the
determination of technology-based effluent limitations on conventional
pollutants for existing dischargers subject to subpart B or E. See 40
CFR 430.01(k)(1).
EPA had proposed a new definition that would have defined as a non-
continuous discharger a mill that stored wastewaters for periods of at
least 24 hours and that released that wastewater on a batch basis. In
the final definition applicable to subparts B and E, EPA is retaining
the storage component of the proposed (and existing) regulation but is
not specifying a minimum 24-hour storage period because EPA determined
that it had no particular significance for these subparts. However, as
indicated in the July 1996 Notice, 61 FR at 36842, EPA is adding
language defining as a non-continuous discharger a discharger that
releases stored wastewater on a variable flow or a pollutant loading
rate basis. Finally, in this new definition, EPA is clarifying that it
applies to storage or release of wastewaters required by the permitting
authority for the purpose of protecting receiving water quality, among
other purposes. See 40 CFR 430.01(k)(2). For subparts B and E only, EPA
also is eliminating the requirement in the existing regulation, at 40
CFR 430.01(c) (1996 ed.), for the NPDES authority to include maximum
day and maximum 30-day average concentration limitations consistent
with BPT, BCT, or NSPS limitations as appropriate. See 40 CFR
430.01(k). EPA will defer to the NPDES authority to establish maximum
day and maximum 30-day average limitations that are necessary to
protect receiving water quality. In later final rulemaking phases (see
section II, table II-2), EPA intends to adopt for remaining
subcategories the same definition for non-continuous dischargers as is
being promulgated today for subparts B and E.
(4) Retention of Previously Promulgated Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards. As discussed in more detail in Section
VI.B.2, EPA is not revising BPT or BCT effluent limitations for
conventional pollutants for subparts B and E. Therefore, EPA is
retaining the previously promulgated limitations for these pollutants
and subparts. See 40 CFR 430.22, 430.23, 430.52, 430.53.
EPA is also retaining previously promulgated NSPS for subparts B
and E because new sources that commenced operation prior to the
effective date of today's NSPS remain subject to the earlier standards
for ten years beginning on the date construction of the new source was
completed. CWA section 306(d); see 40 CFR 430.25(a), 430.55(a).
Finally, as discussed in more detail in Section VI.B.3.f, subparts
B and E include previously promulgated end-of-pipe effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol. EPA
is also retaining the accompanying provisions authorizing mills that do
not use those chemicals as biocides to certify this fact to the
permitting or pretreatment authority with the result that they would
not be subject to those limitations or standards. Id.
In addition to today's new regulations for subparts B and E, EPA is
recodifying the previously promulgated BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and
PSNS for the other subparts of the pulp, paper, and paperboard
category. These limitations regulate the discharges of BOD5,
TSS, zinc, and other analytes. Although EPA is reorganizing the former
subcategories in accordance with the new subcategory designations, EPA
is not changing these limitations and standards. See Section VI.B.1.
b. Determination of Effluent Limitations for Permits. (1)
Definition of Production and Production-Normalizing Parameters. The
Agency has based some of the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards promulgated today on pollutant concentrations. Others are
mass-based, that is, normalized on the basis of an appropriate measure
of production. Limitations and standards for AOX, chloroform,
BOD5, and TSS fall into this category.
This appropriate measure of production is known as the
``production-normalizing parameter.'' The current definition of
``production-normalizing parameter'' is annual off-the-machine
production (including off-the-machine coating, where applicable) of
pulp, paper, and/or paperboard, divided by the number of operating days
that year. Most paper and paperboard production is measured at the off-
the-
[[Page 18569]]
machine moisture content, while market pulp is measured as air-dry
metric tons (10 percent moisture). EPA is not changing this definition
of production as it applies to the effluent limitations and standards
for any subcategory in Part 430 other than subparts B and E. EPA is
also retaining the existing definition of production for the NSPS for
conventional pollutants being promulgated today for subpart B and
subpart E. See 40 CFR 430.01(n)(1).
However, EPA is codifying a new definition of production for the
AOX and chloroform limitations being promulgated today for subparts B
and E. See 40 CFR 430.01(n)(2). Under the new specialized definition,
the production-normalizing parameter to be used by permit writers in
calculating mass-based limitations for chloroform and AOX is air-dried
metric tons of brownstock pulp (10 percent moisture) entering the
bleach plant at the stage during which chlorine or chlorine-containing
compounds are first applied to the pulp. In the case of bleach plants
that use totally chlorine-free bleaching, the production-normalizing
parameter used to calculate mass-based limitations shall be air-dried
metric tons of brownstock pulp (10 percent moisture) entering the first
stage of the bleach plant from which wastewater is discharged. Id.
Production, in turn, is defined as the annual unbleached pulp
production that enters the bleach plant (at ten percent moisture)
divided by the number of operating days of the bleach plant. Id.
The Agency had proposed to change the current definition of
production in part 430 by adding the following statement: ``Production
in each of the foregoing cases shall be determined for each mill based
upon the highest annual production in the past five years divided by
the number of operating days that year.'' See 58 FR at 66189. EPA has
decided not to revise the definition to include a new time basis
because EPA is not revising the current BPT and BCT effluent
limitations guidelines at this time for subparts B and E. Codifying a
new time basis for determining production of AOX and chloroform would
have required permit writers to apply different time bases for
determining production for purposes of calculating BAT limitations and
limitations for conventional pollutants. In EPA's view, this would have
unduly complicated the permitting process. In addition, for NSPS,
introducing a time basis would be illogical because new sources do not
have five years of data from which to determine the one highest year.
(2) Determination of Permit Limitations for Multiple Subcategory
Mills. For facilities with multiple point source categories,
subcategories, and segments, the appropriate guidelines for each
category, subcategory (or subpart), and segment are used to determine a
single permit limit for each pollutant. Chapter 5 of the U.S. EPA NPDES
Permit Writers' Manual (EPA-833-B-96-003, December 1996) provides
guidance in determining permit limits in situations when the effluent
guidelines for one subcategory regulates a different set of pollutants
than the effluent guidelines applicable to another subcategory. For
mill subject to today's rule, this situation may arise in setting
permit limits for AOX when the mill has production in multiple
subcategories.
For pollutants regulated today at the bleach plant (i.e., dioxin,
furan, chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and chloroform, and, for
subpart B PSES/PSNS, AOX), EPA does not believe that multiple
guidelines will be relevant. The bleach plant is unlikely to be used
for more than one subcategory (or segment in subpart E), and thus, the
permit limit will be determined by the limitations and standards for a
single subcategory (or segment).
There may be instances where a pollutant is regulated under the
limitations and standards promulgated today and the permitting
authority also wishes to establish limits for that particular pollutant
have yet to be established. For example, the permitting authority might
need to use best professional judgment to determine end-of-pipe limits
for AOX for a mill with production not only in subpart B or E (for
which AOX limitations are being promulgated today) but also in another
subpart (for which no AOX limitations have been promulgated) that
generates AOX. In these instances, the permitting authority would use
best professional judgment to develop pollutant limits for wastestreams
and pollutants not covered by today's rulemaking and apply those limits
to determine a proper permit limitation for the mill.
Following promulgation of today's rules, EPA will develop and
publish additional guidance for the pulp and paper industry for
determining permit limitations for facilities with production in
multiple categories, subcategories, and segments.
c. Compliance With Effluent Limitations. (1) Compliance
Demonstration for In-Plant Limitations. The effluent limitations and
standards that the Agency is promulgating today for dioxin, furan,
chloroform, the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants and AOX will be
applied (depending on the subcategory and segment) to the total
discharge from each physical bleach line operated at the mill. At most
mills, wastewaters from acid and alkaline bleaching stages are
discharged to separate sewers. At some mills, however, bleach plant
wastewaters are discharged to a combined sewer containing both acid and
alkaline wastewaters.
For dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic compounds, compliance
with the effluent limitations and standards can be demonstrated by
collecting separate samples of the acid and alkaline discharges and
preparing a flow-proportioned composite of these samples, resulting in
one sample of bleach plant effluent for analysis. However, in
determining the limitations, EPA used data from acid and alkaline
bleach plant effluents that had been analyzed separately. (EPA also
used data from combined sewers.) In a comment on Method 1653 (DCN 20095
A8), the commenter reported problems in achieving the Minimum Level in
Method 1653 for samples of composited acid and alkaline filtrates. If
necessary to achieve the Minimum Level, EPA recommends that the
facility test the effluents separately for reliable determination of
the chlorophenolics, TCDD, and TCDF.
For chloroform, however, separate samples and analyses of all
bleach plant filtrates discharged separately are required to prevent
the loss of chloroform through air stripping as the samples are
collected, measured, and composited or through chemical reaction when
the acid and alkaline samples are combined. If separate acid and
alkaline sewers do not exist, compliance samples must be collected from
the point closest to the bleach plant that is or can be made physically
accessible.
(2) Compliance with ML Limitations. In today's rulemaking for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA is establishing
limitations and standards for 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants and
dioxin, and alternative TCF limitations and standards for AOX, that are
expressed as less than the Minimum Level (``<5 ppq.....................="" yes.......................=""><5 ppq="" is="" less="" than="" the="" ml="" of="" 10="" ppq="" specified="" in="" sec.="" 430.01.="" non-detected...............=""><10 ppq....................="" yes.......................="" compliance="" is="" demonstrated="" for="" all="" values="" less="" than="" the="" ml="" specified="" in="" sec.="" 430.01.="" non-detected...............=""><11 ppq....................="" no........................="" the="" sample-specific="" ml="" must="" be="" less="" than="" the="" ml="" of="" 10="" ppq="" specified="" in="" sec.="" 430.01.="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" (3)="" aox="" at="" calcium-,="" magnesium-,="" or="" sodium-based="" sulfite="" mills.="" the="" aox="" limitation="" for="" calcium-,="" magnesium-,="" or="" sodium-based="" papergrade="" sulfite="" mills="" is="" expressed="" as="" less="" than="" the="" minimum="" level="" (ml)="" of="" the="" analytical="" method.="" as="" discussed="" in="" section="" vi.b.6,="" this="" aox="" limitation="" is="" based="" on="" transfer="" of="" data="" collected="" at="" the="" bleach="" plant="" effluent="" to="" the="" end-of-pipe="" for="" bat.="" epa="" received="" comments="" asserting="" that="" this="" transfer="" of="" data="" does="" not="" account="" for="" potential="" sources="" of="" aox="" other="" than="" the="" bleach="" plant.="" examples="" of="" these="" potential="" sources="" of="" aox="" include="" the="" release="" of="" aox="" from="" purchased="" pulp="" used="" in="" papermaking,="" the="" use="" of="" chlorinated="" compounds="" for="" control="" of="" biological="" growth="" on="" paper="" machines,="" chlorine="" use="" in="" water="" treatment,="" and="" bleaching="" colored="" broke="" in="" the="" stock="" preparation="" area.="" hypochlorite="" is="" also="" used="" in="" deinking="" processes="" to="" strip="" color="" from="" post-consumer="" waste.="" aox="" contributions="" from="" deinking="" operations="" are="" not="" covered="" by="" this="" rule="" and="" would="" be="" addressed="" in="" developing="" appropriate="" permit="" limitations="" as="" described="" in="" vi.b.8.b(2)="" above.="" aox="" contributions="" due="" to="" chlorine="" use="" in="" treating="" process="" water="" supplies="" are="" not="" taken="" into="" account="" in="" the="" development="" of="" limitations="" and="" standards="" for="" the="" calcium-,="" magnesium-,="" or="" sodium-based="" [[page="" 18571]]="" sulfite="" pulp="" segment.="" in="" cases="" where="" other="" sources="" of="" aox,="" such="" as="" paper="" machines,="" make="" the="" end-of-pipe="" aox="" limitations="" in="" this="" rule="" impractical="" or="" infeasible="" for="" the="" purpose="" of="" assessing="" the="" contribution="" of="" aox="" from="" bleach="" plant="" sources,="" the="" aox="" limitation="" may="" be="" imposed="" on="" internal="" waste="" streams="" (i.e.,="" bleach="" plant="" effluent)="" before="" mixing="" with="" other="" waste="" streams="" containing="" aox.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 122.45(h).="" (4)="" minimum="" monitoring="" frequencies.="" (a)="" rationale="" for="" establishing="" minimum="" monitoring="" frequencies.="" epa="" proposed="" specific="" minimum="" monitoring="" frequencies="" for="" pollutants="" in="" bleach="" plant="" and="" end-of-pipe="" effluent="" discharges.="" see="" 58="" fr="" at="" 66189.="" although="" epa="" proposed="" minimum="" monitoring="" requirements="" for="">5 and TSS limitations
established as part of NSPS, EPA is not specifying such requirements in
the final rule because permit authorities have ample experience
regulating these pollutants and can determine the appropriate
monitoring frequencies. See Section VI.A.3 for a discussion of
BOD5 monitoring requirements under today's air rule. See
also Section VI.B.7 for a discussion of monitoring requirements
associated with BMPs.
The final rule specifies minimum monitoring frequencies for AOX,
dioxin, furan, chloroform, and chlorinated phenolic pollutants for non-
TCF mills because of the nature and composition of the discharges from
non-TCF bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite
mills. See 40 CFR 430.02 (a) and (b). Wastewaters from these mills have
been found to contain chlorinated organic compounds that are highly
toxic and bioaccumulative (e.g., dioxin, furan, and chlorinated
phenolic pollutants). Process-related variability in generating these
pollutants is clearly reflected in available data. Therefore, given the
environmental significance of these pollutants, minimum monitoring is
both necessary and appropriate to ensure that data are available to
permitting authorities to have an adequate basis to verify compliance
with the technology-based effluent limitations and standards. In
contrast to discharges of BOD5 and TSS, receiving water
effects from discharges of these chlorinated pollutants are not as
easily detected, are not as well understood, and do not manifest
themselves in a manner that enables a mill to quickly become aware of
and react to releases that may be harmful to the environment.
The monitoring requirements imposed in 40 CFR 430.02 will not take
effect until EPA has obtained approval of these information collection
requirements from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. For monitoring
requirements applicable to direct dischargers, EPA will seek to amend
the NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report ICR No. 229, OMB approval number
2040-0004, prior to its expiration on May 31, 1998. For indirect
dischargers, EPA will seek to add specified monitoring requirements for
indirect dischargers to the National Pretreatment Program ICR No. 2,
OMB approval number 2040-0009, when it expires on October 31, 1999. EPA
will not seek to amend this ICR prior to its expiration date because
the monitoring requirements for indirect dischargers do not become
effective until April 16, 2001 for existing indirect dischargers, and
EPA anticipates no new indirect dischargers commencing discharge prior
to the ICR expiration date.
(b) Duration of Minimum Monitoring Frequency. The final rule
includes minimum monitoring frequency requirements for demonstrating
compliance with limitations and standards for dioxin, furan,
chloroform, the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and AOX for non-TCF
mills. See 40 CFR 430.02(a). Permitting and pretreatment authorities
retain authority to specify more frequent monitoring on a case-by-case
basis and must specify AOX monitoring frequency for TCF mills on a best
professional judgment basis. The minimum monitoring frequencies are
applicable to mills in Subparts B and E for a duration of five years
after inclusion in NPDES permits for direct dischargers. See 40 CFR
430.02(b). For existing indirect dischargers, the minimum monitoring
requirements apply until April 17, 2006 which reflects a five-year
monitoring period following the termination of the three-year
compliance period authorized by CWA Section 307(b)(1). Id. For new
indirect dischargers, the five year minimum monitoring period commences
upon operation. Id.
EPA has determined the minimum monitoring frequencies established
by this rule are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today, particularly
considering the degree of change that is expected to occur to pulping
and bleaching processes as this rule is implemented. In establishing
the minimum monitoring frequencies for the regulated pollutants, the
Agency has struck a balance between the cost of the monitoring regimen
and the need to ensure that sufficient data are consistently available
to permitting authorities to provide an adequate basis to verify
compliance with the effluent limitations and standards and to mills to
quickly become aware of and react to releases that may be harmful to
the environment.
The Agency has selected a minimum monitoring frequency of once per
month for dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40
CFR 430.02(a). These pollutants are the most toxic and bioaccumulative
among those regulated yet also are the most costly to analyze (total
cost of approximately $1,325 per sample; $825 per sample for dioxin,
furan, and $500 per sample for all 12 chlorinated phenolic analytes).
EPA expects that 12 data points for each pollutant per year, together
with daily end-of-pipe AOX data and information on process conditions
from detailed mill logs (e.g., unbleached pulp kappa numbers, bleach
plant kappa factors, bleached pulp brightness, etc.) that are
reviewable upon request, will yield a meaningful basis for establishing
compliance with the promulgated limitations through long-term trends
and short-term variability in dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic
pollutant discharge loading patterns.
The Agency has selected a minimum monitoring frequency of once per
week for chloroform. See 40 CFR 430.02(a). This minimum monitoring
frequency has been selected because data available indicate there can
be considerable temporal variability of this pollutant in bleach plant
wastewaters. Therefore, more data are required to adequately assess
compliance with the promulgated limitations and standards on both a
long-term and short-term basis. While the cost for laboratory analysis
of chloroform (approximately $270 per sample) is much lower than for
dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic pollutants, chloroform sampling
requirements are more extensive and rigorous (e.g., sampling of all
bleach plant filtrates using special equipment and containers to
prevent volatilization). Weekly data (52 data points) and information
on process conditions from detailed mill logs that are reviewable upon
request are expected to yield an adequate basis for establishing long-
term compliance trends in chloroform discharge loadings and developing
process control strategies to ensure the short-term compliance in
chloroform discharge loadings.
The Agency has selected a minimum monitoring frequency of once
every day for AOX for non-TCF mills. See 40 CFR 430.02(a). This minimum
monitoring frequency has been selected because there can be
considerable daily variability in chlorinated organic discharge
loadings to receiving streams
[[Page 18572]]
reflecting both bleach plant discharge patterns and secondary
biological treatment system performance that is readily measured at
reasonable cost. At this time, AOX analysis costs $120 per sample. This
cost is likely to decrease after this regulation is promulgated with
increased capacity at commercial laboratories and analytical
laboratories on-site at many mills. While this bulk parameter measures
all chlorinated organic constituents in wastewater and not individual
pollutants, daily monitoring will provide an essentially continuous
data stream on a quick turnaround basis to mill operating personnel and
permit compliance authorities to assess and control process
technologies and manage the performance of end-of-pipe biological
treatment systems.
The minimum monitoring frequencies in this rule as described above
will provide sufficient information to evaluate mill compliance with
the promulgated limitations over the long term and allow permitting and
pretreatment authorities to judge whether a different frequency of
monitoring is warranted after the initial compulsory period of minimum
monitoring has been completed. These data will prove useful to
permitting authorities and also to mill operators in developing a
robust mill-specific compliance data base with which to analyze the
effects of mill processes on effluent trends. The five-year duration of
the minimum monitoring requirements is consistent with permit issuance
cycles, will ease administrative burdens on operators and permitting
authorities, and will provide data useful for establishing appropriate
monitoring requirements during future permit renewals.
Following completion of the compulsory five-year monitoring period
set forth by this rule, the permitting or pretreatment authority has
discretion to adjust monitoring requirements as deemed appropriate on a
case-by-case basis. For those mills consistently demonstrating
reductions superior to those required merely to comply with their
permit requirements, EPA believes that it may be appropriate to allow
less frequent monitoring to reduce the regulatory burden. EPA expects
the permitting or pretreatment authority also to consider the mill's
compliance and enforcement history in determining monitoring
frequencies. This avenue for relief provides incentives for voluntary
reductions of pollutant discharges through such means as reuse and
recycling. EPA also expects permitting and pretreatment authorities to
consider whether poor performance, compliance or enforcement history,
or other site-specific factors indicate a need to impose more frequent
monitoring than that specified in this rule.
EPA has issued interim guidance for performance-based reductions of
NPDES permit monitoring frequencies, which may be useful for permit
writers and pretreatment authorities in determining alternative
monitoring frequencies at the close of the compulsory five-year period
imposed by this rule. (See Interim Guidance for Performance-Based
Reductions of NPDES Permit Monitoring Frequencies, April 1996, EPA-833-
B-96-001). This document provides guidance to permit writers on
implementing EPA's NPDES regulations regarding appropriate monitoring
in permits and describes the conditions under which reduced monitoring
would be justified. Pretreatment control authorities also may find this
guidance useful in setting monitoring frequencies for industrial users
of POTWs. The current guidance applicable to all industrial point
sources is dated April 19, 1996, and is subject to revision.
(c) Certification for TCF Bleaching. Mills certifying in their
permit application process that all bleaching processes are totally
chlorine-free are exempted from the minimum monitoring frequencies
established in this rule, provided that analytical data routinely
submitted as part of the permit application confirm the absence of
chlorinated compounds. See 40 CFR 430.02. EPA believes it is
appropriate to exclude TCF mills from the minimum monitoring
frequencies for chlorinated compounds since any process change that
introduces chlorinated compounds to the bleaching process requires
notification to the permitting authority and would result in reopening
the permit for modification. See, e.g., 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3),
122.21(g)(7), and 122.41(l).
(d) ECF Certification in Lieu of Monitoring. In response to
comments, EPA has considered whether certification of ECF bleaching
processes can be used in lieu of monitoring. Because of the effect that
operation and control of pulping and bleach plant processes have on
generation of chlorinated pollutants, EPA has determined that the
information available at this time does not demonstrate that ECF
certification alone is sufficient to ensure compliance with the
regulations promulgated today. Therefore, this rule does not allow
certification of ECF bleaching to replace monitoring. (See DCN 14497,
Vol. I, and section VI.B.5 of this preamble for a discussion of factors
affecting chlorinated pollutant generation.)
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, however, EPA is proposing to
allow mills to demonstrate compliance with chloroform limitations by
certifying that they use ECF bleaching processes and that these
processes are operated in a manner consistent with certain process and
related factors. In this notice, EPA also is seeking additional
chloroform data, along with corresponding process data, to determine
whether an ECF certification process for chloroform should require
certification of certain process factors; for example, factors relating
to residual lignin content, chemical application rates, and other
process variables.
d. Intake Credits, Upsets, and Bypasses. An intake credit is an
adjustment made to an effluent limitation to reflect the presence of a
pollutant in the discharger's intake water beyond what is removed by an
installed technology that would otherwise meet the technology-based
effluent limitation or standard. EPA's regulations concerning intake
credits are set forth at 40 CFR 122.45 and 40 CFR 403.15.
A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional non-compliance with
technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond
the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations concerning
bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41 (m) and (n).
e. Variances and Modifications to Permits. (1) Variances.
Dischargers subject to the BAT and PSES limitations promulgated in
these final regulations may apply for a Fundamentally Different Factors
(FDF) variance under the provisions of section 301(n) of the CWA. The
FDF variance considers those facility-specific factors that a permittee
believes to be uniquely different from the factors considered by EPA in
developing an effluent guideline to determine whether the effluent
guidelines limitations should be inapplicable to the permittee's
facility. An FDF variance is based only on information submitted to EPA
during the rulemaking establishing the effluent limitations, or on
information the applicant did not have a reasonable opportunity to
submit during the rulemaking process. See CWA section 301(n)(1)(B). If
fundamentally different factors are determined to exist, the
alternative effluent limitations for the petitioner must be no less
stringent than those justified by the fundamental difference. See CWA
section 301(n)(1)(C). The alternative effluent
[[Page 18573]]
limitation must not result in non-water quality environmental impacts
significantly greater than those accepted by EPA in promulgating the
effluent limitations guidelines or pretreatment standards. See CWA
section 301(n)(1)(D). FDF variance requests, along with all supporting
information and data, must be received by the permitting authority
within 180 days after publication of the final effluent limitations
guideline or standard. See CWA section 301(n)(a). The specific
regulations covering FDF variance requirements and administration are
found at 40 CFR 122.21(m)(1), 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart D, and 40 CFR
403.13.
Dischargers may also apply for a variance from the BAT limitations
on non-conventional pollutants in these final regulations under CWA
section 301(c) (for economic reasons) and 301(g) (for water quality
reasons). Regulations for the administration of these variances are
specified in 40 CFR 122.21(m)(2).
New sources subject to NSPS or PSNS are not eligible for variances.
See E.I. DuPont v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977).
(2) Permit Modifications. It may be necessary to modify a permit at
some point after it has been issued. In a permit modification, only the
conditions subject to change are reconsidered. All other permit
conditions remain in effect unchanged. A permit modification may be
triggered in several ways, such as when the regulatory agency inspects
the facility and finds a need for the modification, or when information
submitted by the permittee suggests a need for a modification. Any
interested person may request that a permit modification be made. There
are two classifications of modifications: major and minor. From a
procedural standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public
notice requirements. Major modifications require public notice while
minor modifications do not. See 40 CFR 122.63. Virtually all
modifications that result in less stringent conditions are treated as a
major modification, with provisions for public notice and comment.
Conditions that would necessitate a major modification of a permit are
described in 40 CFR 122.62. Minor modifications are generally non-
substantive changes. The conditions for minor modification are
described in 40 CFR 122.63.
VII. Environmental Impacts
This section of the preamble describes the environmental impacts of
the air and water regulations being promulgated today, and the
environmental impacts of the MACT II regulations being proposed today.
These impacts are described in terms of reductions in air pollution
emissions expected as a result of the final MACT I and proposed MACT II
rules, as well as the reduction in water pollution (effluent)
discharges expected as a result of today's effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for Subparts B and E. (In this section, all
references to MACT I include MACT III unless expressly noted.) The
emissions and effluent reductions described in this section generate
the quantified and monetized benefits described in Section VIII of this
preamble. This section also discusses the non-water quality
environmental impacts of the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards promulgated today, including air emissions, energy
requirements, solid waste generation, water use, and wood consumption.
Sections II.B.2 and VII.A describe air and water pollution control
technologies for each subcategory regulated today: Kraft, Soda,
Sulfite, and Semi-chemical mills that are subject to MACT I and MACT
III standards; and bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade
sulfite mills that are subject to effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. EPA estimates that the application of these technologies by
the 155 mills regulated by today's air rules, including 96 of those
mills also regulated by today's water rules, will substantially reduce
air emissions and water pollution discharges, as described in Section
VII.B.
A. Summary of Sources and Level of Control
Table VII-1 shows a summary of sources and technology bases/level
of control for the final BAT/PSES effluent limitations guidelines and
standards, and the final MACT I standards. The summary of sources and
level of control for MACT II are discussed in the preamble for the
proposed MACT standards elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
[[Page 18574]]
Table VII-1.--Final Cluster Rules--Sources and Technology Bases/Level of Control
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic and nonconventional pollutant effluent control (BAT, PSES, and BMP technology bases) by subcategory Hazardous air pollutant emission control (MACT I and III levels of control)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by subcategory
Papergrade sulfite -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------ Best Management Secondary and
Bleached papergrade kraft and Calcium, Practices (BMP), Soda and semi- nonwood fiber, and
soda magnesium, and Ammonium sulfite Specialty grade (Subparts B and E) Kraft chemical Sulfite mechanical wood
sodium sulfite fiber
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Selected BAT/PSES Spent Pulping
Liquor Spill
Prevention and
Control.
(2)Control LVHC System Vents See Bleach Plant
Block Below.
ECF: 100% Substitution of TCF: Oxygen- and ECF: 100% ECF: 100% .................. Control Selected Control Pulp Control Pulp
Chlorine with Chlorine Dioxide; peroxide-enhanced Substitution of Substitution of HVLC Vents and Washing System Washing System
effective brownstock washing; extraction; Chlorine with Chlorine with Named High HAP Vents at New Vents, and
elimination of hypochlorite; peroxide Chlorine Dioxide; Chlorine Dioxide; Concentrated Sources. Control Liquor
oxygen-and peroxide-enhanced bleaching; peroxide-enhanced oxygen- and Condensate and Acid Tank
extraction; closed brown-stock elimination of extraction; peroxide-enhanced Streams. Vents at New
screening; and other processes all chlorine- elimination of extraction; Sources.
discussed at Section containing hypo-chlorite; elimination of
VI.B.5.a(1). compounds; and and use of dioxin- hypochlorite; and
improved pulp and furan- use of dioxin and
cleaning. precursor-free furan precursor-
defoamers. free defoamers.
(3)Bleach Plant: Control
Chlorinated HAP from Vents at
Stages That Use Chlorinated
Bleaching Chemicals, and
Control Chloroform Emissions by
Complying with BAT codified at
40 CFR 430.24(a) and (e) and 40
CFR 430.54(a) and (c) or by
100% substitution of chlorine
with chlorine dioxide and
elimination of hypochlorite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Air Emissions and Water Effluent Reductions
1. Air Emissions Reductions
The reductions described in this section are derived from estimated
air emissions reductions at all 155 pulp and paper mills in the CAA
kraft, soda, sulfite and semichemical subcategories that are subject to
MACT I and MACT II standards. These mills include the 96 mills subject
to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today.
All references in this section to MACT I air emissions refer to the
expected effects of implementing both the air and water portion of the
final Cluster Rules.
Implementation of the MACT portion of the Cluster Rules is expected
to significantly decrease HAP emissions. Table VII-2 presents the
environmental impacts of the Final Cluster Rules (BAT, PSES, BMPs, and
MACT I) and the Final Cluster Rules in combination with the MACT II
proposed standards.
The air emission impacts presented in Table VII-2 are calculated
based on mill-specific processes and emission control information,
emission factors, and control levels summarized in Table VII-1. A more
detailed discussion of the calculation of the environmental impacts for
the final MACT standards is presented in Chapter 20 of the Background
Information Document described in Section XI of this preamble. A
detailed discussion of the environmental impacts of the proposed MACT
II is contained in the docket for the proposed MACT II standard. As
shown in Table VII-2, these final Cluster Rules not only reduce HAP
emissions from all CAA and CWA subcategories regulated, but they also
result in decreases of volatile organic compounds and total reduced
sulfur using industry data updated to 1996. Emissions of particulate
and carbon monoxide are estimated to increase under the final rules,
but are expected to decrease when combined with the proposed MACT II
standards. Emissions of sulfur dioxides, and, to a lesser degree,
nitrogen oxides are estimated to increase. Sulfur dioxide emissions are
generated primarily from the combustion of sulfur-containing compounds,
such as TRS, in the vent streams at kraft mills. The increases in
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter air emissions
are primarily from the combustion of air vents in the pulping area and
increased energy to produce additional steam for steam strippers and
chlorine dioxide for the bleaching system. However, these emission
increase estimates are likely overstated because they do not account
for the fact that some mills in sensitive areas for sulfur dioxide
already have sulfur dioxide controls in place or may choose alternative
controls available in the final MACT rule that mitigate these
[[Page 18575]]
increases. The health effects and benefits of these emission reductions
and increases are discussed in Section VIII.G.1 of this notice.
Table VII-2.--Air Emission Impacts of Pulp and Paper Rules (All CAA Subcategories)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air emission reductions (Mg/
year)
Baseline air ---------------------------------
Air pollutants emissions (Mg/ Final cluster
year) Final cluster rules and
rules proposed MACT
II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Air Pollutants...................................... 240,000 139,000 142,000
Volatile Organic Compounds.................................... 900,000 409,000 440,000
Total Reduced Sulfur.......................................... 150,000 79,000 79,000
Particulate................................................... aNA b(83) 24,000
Carbon Monoxide............................................... NA (8,700) 49,000
Nitrogen Oxides............................................... NA (5,200) (5,700)
Sulfur Dioxides............................................... NA (94,500) (94,400)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Industry process data was not collected to calculate emissions for these pollutants increases and decreases
for these pollutants reflected in columns to the right are increases or decreases of these pollutants caused
by projected installation of MACT control equipment and secondary air emission impacts of BAT, PSES, and BMPs.
b Values in ( ) are estimated emission increases over baseline air emissions.
2. Water Pollutant Reductions
Table VII-3 shows the estimated baseline (as of mid-1995) and the
reductions from baseline expected from the BMP requirements being
promulgated today for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. (Hereafter, references to BAT/PSES
impacts include impacts associated with today's BMP requirements.)
Calculation of these pollutant reductions is discussed in Sections
VI.B.5.a(3) and VI.B.6.b(5). For a discussion of the estimated effluent
reduction benefits associated with the BAT limitations promulgated for
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, see Section IX. A.6 and Table
IX-1.
Table VII-3.--Estimated Pollutant Reductions From Baseline for BAT/PSES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated
Baseline reductions: Baseline reductions:
Pollutant parameter Units discharge Final BAT/ discharge Final BAT/
for BPK PSES for for PS mills PSES for PS
mills BPK mills mills
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-TCDD........................ g/yr................ 15 11 0.78 0.65
2,3,7,8-TCDF........................ g/yr................ 115 107 6.7 6.4
Chloroform.......................... kkg/yr.............. 48 40 5.4 5.2
Chlorinated Phenolics............... kkg/yr.............. 55 45 2.0 1.8
AOX................................. kkg/yr.............. 36,300 24,200 4,380 4,010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPK--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory.
PS--Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.
g--grams.
kkg--metric ton (1,000 kilograms or 1 megagram (Mg)).
The air quality impacts shown in Table VII-2 and the water
pollutant effluent reductions shown above are used in the following
section to estimate reduced human health and environmental risk
attributable to today's rules. These estimates also form the basis for
estimating monetized benefits in the following section.
C. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards (BAT, PSES, and BMPs)
Sections 304(b)(2)(B) and 306(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act
require EPA to consider the non-water quality environmental impacts of
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. To address these
statutory requirements, EPA analyzed the air emissions, energy
requirements, solid waste generation impacts, and other environmental
impacts of the compulsory BAT, PSES, and BMPs being promulgated today
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite
subcategories. The results of this analysis are presented below. In
performing the analysis, EPA assumed that each mill in the regulated
subcategory would install the model technologies upon which today's
limitations and standards are based.
1. Air Emissions
The air emissions reductions of BAT, PSES, BMPs, and MACT I, in
combination, are presented in Section VII.B.1 above. This section
presents the estimated air emission impacts of BAT, PSES, and BMPs on
the 86 mills with production in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory and the 11 mills with production in the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory. (One mill has co-located operations in both subcategories
that separately contribute to the number of mills in each subcategory.)
The control technologies that form the basis of effluent guidelines
and standards promulgated today involve changes in the processes used
to produce bleached pulp. These changes affect the rate at which air
pollutants, including HAPs, are emitted from the pulping and bleaching
processes that are subsequently controlled by MACT I. As shown in Table
VII-4, the process changes at bleached papergrade kraft
[[Page 18576]]
and soda and papergrade sulfite facilities subject to BAT, PSES, and
BMPs decrease the emissions of some HAPs but have little impact on
others. For example, the elimination of chlorine and hypochlorite from
bleaching processes, part of the basis for BAT and PSES, will reduce
the emission of chloroform in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory by 66 percent [but will have a much smaller impact on the
emission of methanol.] The application of the BAT, PSES, and BMPs
promulgated today for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory will reduce the emission of total HAPs from the sources
controlled by MACT I from 149,000 Mg/year to 139,000 Mg/yr (7 percent
reduction) without taking into account further reductions achieved by
MACT I controls.
Table VII-4.--Impact of BAT, PSES, and BMP: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite Mills Air
Emissions From Sources Subject to Control by MACT I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bleached papergrade Papergrade sulfite (all
kraft and soda [Mg/year] segments) [Mg/year]
---------------------------------------------------
Air pollutants Emission Emission
Baseline reductions Baseline reductions
emissions from BAT/ emissions from BAT/
PSES/BMPs PSES/BMPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Hazardous Air Pollutants.............................. 149,000 10,000 5,190 1,930
Chloroform.................................................. 9,510 6,060 13 8
Volatile Organic Compounds.................................. 569,000 11,000 6,020 2,270
Total Reduced Sulfur........................................ 100,000 1,300 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The process changes that form the basis of BAT, PSES, and BMP's
increase by approximately 1.5 percent the amount of spent pulping
liquor combusted by bleached papergrade kraft mills and papergrade
sulfite mills. See the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN
14487. HAPs and criteria air pollutants (volatile organic compounds,
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur
dioxides) are generated from combustion of spent pulping liquor by
bleached papergrade kraft and sulfite mills. As a result, as shown in
Tables VII-5a and VII-5b, the emission of total HAPs from spent pulping
liquor combustion sources (i.e., recovery boilers) will increase by 1.1
percent at bleached papergrade kraft and soda facilities and 1.9
percent at papergrade sulfite facilities above the 1995 baseline.
However, the net increase in HAP emissions from these combustion
sources (235 Mg/yr) represents 1.1 percent of the HAP emissions from
all sources subject to control by MACT I, II, and III. Although BAT,
PSES, and BMPs result in a small increase in HAP emissions from
recovery boilers, the combined effect of the Cluster Rules (including
proposed MACT II) is a net decrease of 60 percent in total HAP
emissions from all controlled sources. See Table VII-2.
Table VII-5a.--Impact of BAT, PSES, and BMP: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Air Emissions From Recovery
Boilers at Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Mills Subject to Proposed MACT II [Mg/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission
1995 increases MACT II Net change
baseline from BAT/ emission after MACT
emission PSES/BMPs reductions IIa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Air Pollutants................................... 19,900 220 25 195
Volatile Organic Compounds................................. 19,500 213 0 213
Total Reduced Sulfur....................................... 2,650 27 0 27
Particulate Matter......................................... 31,400 360 12,900 (12,540)
Carbon Monoxide............................................ 124,000 1,440 0 1,440
Nitrogen Oxides............................................ 36,100 423 0 423
Sulfur Dioxides............................................ 67,800 784 0 784
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Parentheses indicate emissions decreases below baseline.
Table VII-5b.--Impact of BAT, PSES, AND BMP: Air Emissions From Recovery Boilers at Papergrade Sulfite Mills
Subject to Proposed MACT II [Mg/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission
1995 increases MACT II Net change
baseline from BAT/ emission after MACT
emission PSES/BMPs reductions II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Air Pollutants................................... 2,110 40 N/S 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/S--Not Significant.
[[Page 18577]]
Increases in the emission of criteria pollutants are also listed in
Table VII-5a. The emission of total criteria air pollutants from spent
pulping liquor combustion sources (i.e., recovery boilers) at mills in
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory will increase by 1.2
percent as a result of BAT, PSES, and BMPs and will be only slightly
mitigated by MACT II controls. The increases in nitrogen oxides (423
Mg/yr), sulfur dioxides (784 Mg/yr), and carbon monoxide (1440 Mg/yr)
emissions are minor relative to nationwide emissions, which are 19.8
million Mg/yr for nitrogen oxides, 16.6 million Mg/yr for sulfur
dioxides, and 83.6 million Mg/yr for carbon monoxide (OAQPS, 1995).
EPA concludes that the technologies that form the basis of BAT,
PSES, and BMPs for bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade
sulfite mills pose no significant adverse impacts to and indeed have
some benefits for air quality. EPA bases this determination on the
following:
--Total HAP emissions from the sources subject to control by MACT I and
proposed MACT II from kraft and sulfite pulping and bleaching processes
decrease as a result of BAT, PSES, and BMPs;
--HAP emissions would increase by less than one percent from bleached
kraft combustion sources and increase by less than two percent from
papergrade sulfite combustion sources; and
--The increase in criteria air pollutants for the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories is minor relative
to current national industrial emissions.
EPA examined the effect of BAT combined with BMPs on the generation
of CO2 by considering the overall mill carbon balance and
the energy balance. Anthropogenic generation of water vapor is
minuscule relative to atmospheric recycling and is normally ignored in
greenhouse gas analysis. Therefore, water vapor is ignored here. EPA
concluded that neither option would have an impact on the total
emission of greenhouse gasses from mills due to pulping processing.
There, EPA concludes that the increased CO2 emissions
attributable to BAT pose no significant adverse non-water quality
environmental impact.
2. Energy Impacts
The impacts of BAT, PSES, and BMPs on the energy use of the 86
mills with production in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory and the 11 mills with production in the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory are summarized in Table VII-6. The process changes that
form the basis of the regulations promulgated today are estimated to
result in an increased energy requirement of 3.70 trillion Btu/yr in
oil equivalent at the 96 affected pulp and paper mills. This represents
a 0.82 percent increase from the current total Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategories energy consumption (papergrade sulfite
total energy consumption is minor relative to bleached papergrade
kraft) of 499.4 trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent (DCN 14510). The
increased energy use is due to the increased off-site chemical
manufacturing electrical demand (met by off-site electric generating
stations) and on-site electrical demand (also met by off-site electric
generating stations, and commonly referred to as ``purchased energy'').
These increased demands are partially offset by the decreased steam
demand (met by on-site power boilers and recovery furnaces). Oil
equivalent is used to express the combined effects of changes in
thermal energy and electric power. It is based on the assumption that
marginal changes in electric power demand caused by the regulation will
be supplied by conventional condensing-type oil-fired power stations.
See DCN 14487.
Table VII-6.--Energy Impacts of Bat, PSES, and BMP: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite
Mills
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bleached Papergrade
Energy impacts Units papergrade sulfite (all Combined
Kraft segments) total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Site Electricity Demand*........... Trillion Btu/yr in oil (2.37) (0.0381) (2.41)
equivalent.
Off-Site Electricity Demand*.......... Trillion Btu/yr in oil 10.0 (1.05) 8.95
equivalent.
Steam Demand.......................... Trillion Btu/yr in oil (2.88) (0.010) (2.89)
equivalent.
Total Energy Demand**................. Trillion Btu/yr in oil 4.78 (1.08) 3.70
equivalent.
Total Energy Equivalent............... Number of Households***....... 46,100 (10,400) 35,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate energy savings.
* Assumes an overall electrical generating efficiency of 25 percent. (DCN 14797).
* * Totals do not equal the sum of each line item due to rounding. Refer to Section 11 of the Supplemental
Technical Development Document which presents detailed energy estimates.
* * * Assumes 103.6 million Btu/household/yr (Energy Information Administration (DOE) 1993).
The manufacture of sodium chlorate, the raw material used at pulp
mills to manufacture chlorine dioxide, requires much more electrical
energy than the manufacture of chlorine or other commonly used
bleaching chemicals. As a result, off-site electrical demand increases
by 8.95 trillion Btu/yr (2.61 million MWhr/yr) because of the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today. EPA estimates
of changes in energy demand as mills install advanced technologies can
be found in DCN 14488.
The total increase in energy demand resulting from this rule is
equivalent to the energy required for 35,700 households. Compared to
the most recent data for total national energy consumption, the rule
represents a 0.004 percent increase in energy demand. EPA concludes
that the technologies that form the basis of BAT, PSES, and BMPs for
bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite mills do not
pose significant adverse impacts in nation-wide energy demand.
3. Incidental BOD5 Removal and Sludge
The process changes that form the basis for BAT, PSES, and BMP
increase by approximately 1.5 percent the amount of spent pulping
liquor collected and combusted by bleached papergrade kraft and soda
mills. Spent pulping liquor is a significant source of BOD5
loadings at these mills. The collection and combustion of this spent
pulping liquor results in an approximately 20 percent decrease in
BOD5 load into treatment. (EPA expects that papergrade
sulfite mills will have similar trends, but lacks data to calculate
residuals.)
Sludge is generated as a byproduct of the wastewater treatment
systems used at pulp and paper mills. Primary sludge
[[Page 18578]]
(i.e., solids removed during physical wastewater treatment processes
such as sedimentation prior to biological treatment) is high in wood
fiber and volatile solids. Secondary sludge is the product of
biological treatment in which microorganisms consume organic matter
(BOD5) in the wastewater. Secondary sludge is a gelatinous
mixture of bacterial and fungal organisms. Because of the reduction in
BOD5 load into treatment, the combined application of BAT
limitations, PSES, and BMPs promulgated today will decrease sludge
generation by 35,900 kkg/yr (39,600 short tons/yr), which represents a
2 percent reduction from the mid-1995 baseline for subpart B and E
mills.
Sludge generated at bleached papergrade kraft and soda and
papergrade sulfite mills may contain dioxin and furan if these
pollutants contaminate the wastewater treated at these mills. At
proposal, the Agency estimated that the mills in these two
subcategories generated 177 g/yr TEQ dioxin and furan in their
wastewater treatment sludge. Since the proposal, industry has
significantly reduced the level of dioxin and furan in its wastewater.
The Agency estimates that the dioxin and furan content of the sludge
has decreased similarly, to approximately 50 g/yr TEQ. See the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
The process changes that form the basis of the BAT limitations and
PSES promulgated today limit the concentration of dioxin and furan
allowed to be discharged to the wastewater treatment system. As a
result, the Agency estimates that when fully implemented, the combined
application of BAT limitations and PSES will reduce the present sludge
loading of dioxin and furan TEQ by 43 g/yr, approximately an 85 percent
reduction from current levels. The period of time before individual
mills have reached this level will vary somewhat depending on the
compliance schedule incorporated in the permit and the type of
treatment system in place at each mill. See the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487.
EPA concludes that the technologies that form the basis of BAT,
PSES, and BMPs for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories are beneficial from the standpoint of
solid waste generation. The technologies both reduce the quantity of
solid waste generated and also improve its quality by reducing the
pollutant loading in the sludge generated.
4. Other Environmental Impacts
Wood consumption at the bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills
will be reduced by up to 0.3 percent by the final BAT limitations and
PSES promulgated today. The wood savings results from a reduction in
losses of useful fiber associated with the recovery of liquor spills
and improvements in brownstock washing and screening of pulp. EPA
estimates no change in wood consumption at mills in the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory.
The control technologies that form the basis of the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today will reduce
bleached papergrade kraft and soda mill effluent wastewater flows. The
greatest reductions would be realized in mills presently discharging
the highest flows. In 1995, the average bleached kraft mill discharged
approximately 95 m\3\/metric ton effluent (23,000 gallons/metric ton).
For a 1,000 metric ton/day mill, the average effluent flow is similar
to that from a city of 250,000 people. The effluent limitations
guidelines and standards will reduce total effluent flow in two ways:
(1) Closure of brownstock screening systems, and (2) BMPs. At a mill
with open screening, closure could reduce total effluent flow by 25
percent. BMP implementation could result in further effluent flow
decreases of two percent. EPA estimates a small reduction in wastewater
effluent flow from mills in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.
EPA concludes that the technologies that form the basis of BAT,
PSES, and BMPs for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories are beneficial from the standpoint of
wood use and wastewater generation, and will not produce significant
adverse non-water quality environmental impacts.
D. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of New Source Performance
Standards and Pretreatment Standards for New Source (NSPS and PSNS)
EPA analyzed the projected non-water quality environmental impacts
of BAT for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory for BAT,
PSES, and BMPs based on complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for
chlorine and other technology elements. This section presents the non-
water quality environmental impacts of a second technology
configuration (NSPS and PSNS) which is equivalent to BAT, PSES, and
BMPs with the addition of extended delignification (oxygen
delignification or extended cooking) on a new 1000 tpd bleached
papergrade kraft fiber line.
Table VII-7 presents the non-water quality environmental impacts of
the selected technology basis for NSPS and PSNS, compared to
conventional pulping and bleaching technology. These estimates are
based on the same calculational methodology described under BAT and
PSES, applied to a 1000 tpd model mill. Based on these estimates, EPA
concludes that the process technologies that form the basis for NSPS
and PSNS for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory pose no
significant adverse non-water quality environmental impacts.
Table VII-7.--Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of NSPS/PSNS for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1000 tpd fiber line
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood Consumption....................... No Difference.
Effluent Flow.......................... Moderate Decrease.\1\
BOD to Treatment....................... Decrease by 11,300 kg/day.
Sludge Generation...................... Decrease by 890 kg/day.
Carbon Dioxide......................... Decrease by 21,700 Mg/year.
Energy Impacts:
Total Electricity Demand........... Decrease by 222,600 million BTU/
year in oil equivalent.
Total Steam Demand................. Increase by 60,180 million BTU/
year in oil equivalent.
Total Energy Demand................ Decrease by 162,400 million BTU/
year in oil equivalent.
Air Emissions:
Hazardous Air Pollutants........... Increase by 407 Mg/year.
Chloroform......................... No Difference.
Volatile Organic Compounds......... Increase by 707 Mg/year.
[[Page 18579]]
Total Reduced Sulfur............... Increase by 28 Mg/year.
Particulate Matter................. Decrease by 12 kg/year.
Carbon Monoxide.................... Decrease by 3 Mg/year.
Nitrogen Oxides.................... Decrease by 28 Mg/year.
Sulfur Dioxides.................... Decrease by 56 Mg/year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 See Section 11.4.1.3 of the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487.
NSPS and PSNS that EPA is promulgating today for the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory are equivalent to BAT and PSES. Therefore, the NSPS
and PSNS present no additional non-water quality environmental impacts.
VIII. Analysis of Costs, Economic Impacts, and Benefits
A. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts
This section presents a summary of EPA's evaluation of the costs,
economic impacts, and benefits of the Cluster Rules. A more detailed
analysis is contained in the Economic Analysis for the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category:
Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Category--Phase 1 (DCN 14649; hereafter, the
Economic Analysis).
Today's action is a significant departure from prior EPA
rulemakings in that, for one industry, EPA is considering the
ramifications of implementing two major environmental statutes with
respect to pollution control, industrial technology and operations,
environmental impacts, costs, and economic impacts. As noted in Section
II of this preamble, today's rulemaking establishes regulations that
implement elements of both the CAA and CWA. The objective of this
economic analysis is to provide the most accurate portrayal possible of
the aggregate costs that the industry will face by implementing these
regulations, as well as the economic, financial, and social impacts
that EPA estimates will result from these costs. The economic impacts
of the combined, or joint, costs of the final CWA (BAT, NSPS, PSES,
PSNS, and BMP) requirements and the final and proposed CAA requirements
(MACT I, MACT III, and proposed MACT II) are different than the impacts
that would result from the costs of the CWA or CAA requirements
considered separately. While EPA presents separately the CWA and CAA
compliance costs and the economic impacts of those costs in this
section, the Agency believes the most accurate estimation of the
economic impacts that the pulp and paper industry will experience is
derived by considering total (combined) compliance costs of both the
CAA and CWA rules. Under the CWA, EPA considered the economic impacts
of each option by subcategory, combining indirect and direct
dischargers. EPA combined these groups because there are no differences
between direct and indirect dischargers in each subcategory with
respect to characteristics of wastewater generated or the model process
technologies considered.
The compliance costs described in this section are EPA's best
estimates of the actual costs facilities will incur to comply with the
promulgated and proposed rules.
The total annualized and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
differ somewhat from the engineering cost estimates shown in Section
VI. The annual O&M costs shown in this section include a general and
administrative cost of four percent of capital costs, which makes these
O&M costs significantly higher than the engineering O&M cost estimates
shown in Section VI. The annualized costs shown in Section VIII are
both pre-tax and post-tax. Pre-tax costs, because they capture total
economic losses to society, are considered the social costs of the rule
and are used for examining cost-effectiveness (Sections VIII.D.4 and
VIII.F.1) and for comparing the costs and benefits of the rule (Section
VIII.H). Post-tax costs, which represent the projected costs to a firm
after tax shields for depreciation and other factors are accounted for,
are used in the economic achievability determination under the Clean
Water Act to evaluate facility closures, firm failures, and related
impacts. Post-tax costs are used in Sections VIII.A, VIII.B, VIII.C,
VIII.E, VIII.J, and most of Sections VIII.D and VIII.F.
EPA's financial and economic analyses reflect as accurately as
possible the information that pulp and paper industry managers will
consider in making financial decisions. The economic impacts described
in this section (such as facility closures, job losses, and reduced
shipments) result from the total costs that a facility will bear
(including environmental compliance costs) compared to the facility's
expected revenues. EPA also evaluated the aggregate costs for all
facilities borne by each company to determine if each company will be
in jeopardy of bankruptcy as a result of aggregate compliance costs.
In this section, EPA also describes the qualitative, quantitative,
and monetized benefits of environmental improvements expected to result
from compliance with these rules, and compares these benefits to the
costs of the rules. EPA identified 158 mills at proposal with kraft,
soda, sulfite or semi-chemical pulping processes. Of these, EPA now
projects that 155 mills will bear costs under the final MACT I and 149
mills will bear costs under the proposed MACT II (six mills do not
practice chemical recovery). These numbers could change over time as
mills change processes or close operations.
EPA separately evaluated the compliance costs and economic impacts
of: (1) MACT I for the 155 mills that pulp wood using kraft, soda,
sulfite, or semi-chemical pulping processes; (2) combined final MACT I
and proposed MACT II for those mills; and (3) proposed MACT II for
combustion sources at the 149 mills. Although all of the regulatory
options and alternatives under consideration for MACT II are evaluated
in the EA, only the economic impacts related to the proposed regulatory
alternative are presented here. EPA estimates that there will be no
economic impacts associated with the MACT III regulations, which are
promulgated for mills that practice mechanical, secondary fiber, or
non-wood pulping or that produce paper or paperboard from purchased
pulp, because EPA believes that compliance with MACT III requirements
will neither impose costs nor result in additional emissions
reductions. For this reason, Section VIII presents no
[[Page 18580]]
further analysis of the MACT III regulations.
EPA separately evaluated the impacts of the BAT, PSES, NSPS, PSNS,
and BMP requirements for the 86 mills currently in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory and the 11 mills currently in
three segments of the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. (One mill is in
both CWA subcategories.) Both direct and indirect discharging mills are
subject to BMPs. Hereafter, EPA's reference to BAT/PSES costs includes
the costs of complying with the final BMP requirements.
EPA also evaluated the costs and impacts for the combination of
MACT I and BAT/PSES for the 96 bleached papergrade kraft and soda and
papergrade sulfite mills that are affected by both rules. EPA also
provides an estimate of the economic impacts when the proposed MACT II
costs are combined with the MACT I and BAT/PSES costs for these 96
mills. Finally, the economic impacts and costs for all 155 kraft, soda,
sulfite, and semi-chemical mills affected by air and/or water
regulations are reported.
EPA also evaluated the impacts of NSPS or PSNS costs for new
sources, both singly and in combination with MACT I and proposed MACT
II costs.
EPA evaluated economic achievability based on the relative
magnitude of compliance costs (in the form of total annualized costs)
and the resulting potential facility closures, potential job losses,
firm failures (potential bankruptcies), reduced value of shipments,
balance of trade effects, and indirect effects (reduced regional and
national output and employment which reflect the fact that impacts on
the pulp and paper industry will resonate throughout the economy).
Table VIII-1 presents a summary of annualized costs and projected mill
closures for the various rules and rule combinations. The level of
detail for reporting results in the preamble (and in the EA) is
sometimes constrained in order to protect confidential business
information. For that reason facility closures and job losses, for
example, are not identified for certain combinations of rules. All of
the results are contained in the confidential portion of the rulemaking
record.
Table VIII-1.--Summary: Costs and Economic Impacts of CAA and CWA Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT I and MACT I, BAT/ MACT I, BAT/
Costs and impacts MACT I MACT II BAT/PSES BAT/PSES PSES and PSES and
(final) (proposed) (final) (final) MACT II MACT II
(all mills) (all mills) (BPK&PS) (BPK&PS) (BPK&PS) (all mills)
------------------------------------------------------------------\1\-------------------------------------------
Pre-Tax Annualized Costs ($ MM)
\2\.............................. 125 32 263 351 366 420
Post-Tax Annualized Costs($ MM)... 82 23 172 229 240 277
Mill Closures..................... 0 0 1 2 3 3
Firm Failures..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BPK: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory PS: Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.
\2\ Pre-Tax costs are not used in determining economic achievability.
MACT Costs: Total annualized MACT I costs for 155 facilities in all
subcategories regulated today are $82 million (all annualized costs
presented in Section VIII are post-tax costs in 1995 dollars, except
where noted). These costs differ from the engineering MACT control cost
estimates presented in Section VI, as noted above and in Section
VIII.B.1.c. Total annualized proposed MACT II costs for all
subcategories that EPA proposes to regulate are $23 million. No mill
closures, job losses, or firm failures are projected when either MACT I
or proposed MACT II costs are analyzed individually. When the costs for
final MACT I and proposed MACT II are combined, the (post-tax)
annualized costs are $105 million and result in one estimated mill
closure and losses of up to 700 jobs. No firm failures are predicted as
a result of the combined costs of MACT I and MACT II.
BAT/PSES Costs: EPA estimated economic impacts for three BAT/PSES
options (Option A, Option B, and TCF) for all bleached papergrade kraft
and soda mills. Section VI.B.5.a(1) of this preamble contains a
description of each option. The naming conventions of Option A, Option
B, and TCF, which EPA introduced in that section, are also used here.
EPA selected Option A as the technology basis for BAT/PSES for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory (see Section
VI.B.5.a(5)). For the 11 mills in three segments of the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory, the Agency estimated the economic impacts of one
technology for each segment. EPA selected those technologies as the
bases for BAT/PSES for this subcategory (see Sections VI.B.6.b and d).
EPA presents a summary of the economic impacts of the selected BAT/PSES
technology bases immediately below. A summary of the economic impacts
for the rejected BAT/PSES options in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory is presented in Section VIII.F.
Total annualized costs for the selected BAT/PSES for the 96 mills
in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite
subcategories are $172 million. One mill closure is predicted for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory as a result of
compliance costs. Estimates of job losses are not presented in order to
protect confidential business information. EPA estimates no closures
for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory as a result of compliance costs.
EPA estimates that no firm failures will result from BAT/PSES in these
subcategories. Based on current information, EPA projects that there
may be some new sources, most likely new fiber lines at existing pulp
and paper mills. EPA has identified the per plant NSPS/PSNS costs for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategories. EPA did not have sufficient information to reliably
project the likely number of new sources (see Section VIII.D). EPA also
expects that many replacement fiber lines constructed at Subpart B
mills will be enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program and will therefore be existing sources rather than new sources.
40 CFR 430.01(j)(2). EPA also conducted a barrier to entry analysis for
new sources, discussed below.
Combined Costs: The combined annualized costs for MACT I and BAT/
PSES, affecting 96 bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade
sulfite mills, are $229 million. As a result of these costs, two mills
in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory are projected to
close with an associated loss of 900 jobs. See Table VIII-3. No
[[Page 18581]]
mills are projected to close in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory as a
result of compliance costs. No firm failures are predicted.
The combined annualized costs for the proposed and final rules
(MACT I, BAT/PSES, and proposed MACT II) affecting the 96 bleached
papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite mills are $240
million. With these combined costs, three mills are projected to close.
The associated job losses increase with the additional projected
closure, but the estimate is not reported here in order to protect
confidential business information. No firm failures are expected to
result from the combined costs of MACT I, BAT/PSES, and proposed MACT
II for these mills.
The annualized costs for the proposed and final rules (MACT I, BAT/
PSES, and MACT II) applicable to all 155 kraft, soda, sulfite, and
semi-chemical mills are $277 million. With these combined costs for all
rules and all 155 mills, the impacts are unchanged; i.e., three mills
are projected to close, job losses exceed 900, and no firm failures are
expected.
B. Overview of Economic Analysis
1. Revisions in Analysis From Proposal
a. Subcategories. Based on the subcategorization described in
Sections II.C.1, VI.A and VI.B.1, EPA estimated impacts for four CAA
subcategories--Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, and Semi-Chemical Process--and two
CWA subcategories--Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda. The economic analysis addresses 155 mills in the CAA
subcategories and 96 mills in the CWA subcategories. The 96 CWA mills
are a subset of the 155 CAA mills.
b. Options. (1) Air Emissions Standards. The selected technology
bases for the MACT I & III standards are discussed fully in Section
II.B.2 of this preamble. Regulatory options and alternatives for MACT
II are discussed in Section IV.F of the preamble to the proposed MACT
II standards, which appears elsewhere in today's Federal Register, and
in the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649). EPA's economic analysis presents
results for eight regulatory alternatives. The summary presented here
pertains only to the final MACT I standard and proposed MACT II
standard.
(2) Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards. For the BAT/PSES
analyses for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA's
economic analysis addresses three technology options. The summary
presented in this section of the preamble focuses on Option A, the
selected BAT/PSES option, but a brief discussion of the impacts for the
rejected options appears below in Section VIII.F. For the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory, EPA's economic analysis (and the summary presented
here) analyzes only the technologies selected as the bases for the BAT/
PSES for each segment. This is because EPA identified no technically
available options for the three papergrade sulfite segments other than
those considered and selected.
NSPS/PSNS costs for new sources are presented in Section VIII.D.
c. Methodology. The methodologies used by EPA to evaluate economic
impacts at the time of proposal are fully discussed in the Economic
Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and NESHAP for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Industry (EPA-821-R-93-021, November, 1993). Revisions to these
methodologies are discussed below and more fully in Chapters 3 and 4 of
the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649).
As discussed or referenced in the July 15, 1996 Notice, EPA revised
components of the economic methodology to account for recent changes
that have occurred in the pulp and paper industry, including: (1)
revision of the discount rate; (2) integration of market (price change)
effects into the financial closure model; (3) incorporation of new
industry cycle data into the forecasting methodology; (4) adjustment of
the starting year for the analysis to 1996; (5) incorporation of
updated mill ownership data in the firm failure model; and (6) a
revised method for calculating annual costs. See 61 FR at 36843-44.
Each of these methodology revisions is briefly discussed below.
At proposal, EPA used a facility-specific cost of capital (an
average of nine percent real cost of capital) derived from responses to
a 1989 industry survey) that reflected financing costs in 1989. Real
(inflation-adjusted) financing costs declined considerably between 1989
and 1995. For the final rule, EPA primarily used an inflation-adjusted
seven percent cost of capital or discount rate in the economic analysis
because this rate better reflects real industry financing costs from
1995 to 1997, and the Agency does not have accurate information on
current facility-specific financing costs. Additionally, the Office of
Management and Budget recommends a seven percent discount rate to
evaluate the social costs of federal regulations. In Chapter 6 of the
Economic Analysis (DCN 14649), EPA presents a sensitivity analysis of
results using alternative discount rates.
At proposal, EPA used both a financial model and a comprehensive
market model to assess economic effects. Much of the information in the
market model was derived from the 1989 survey. A number of substantial
changes have occurred in pulp and paper markets since 1989 that the
market model does not reflect. EPA decided not to update the market
model (which estimated price increases), because an update would have
required a new survey of every mill and all product lines, which would
have been unnecessarily costly and burdensome to mill operators. EPA
was also concerned that the amount of time required for conducting and
analyzing a second survey would unnecessarily delay the final rule.
This would further extend the industry's inability to plan and make
capital investments with certainty regarding regulatory requirements.
Instead, EPA modified the financial model to incorporate product supply
and demand elasticities, which are estimates of changes in demand or
supply in response to price changes. The summary of results presented
in this preamble does not reflect the effects of price increases,
because such changes did not materially affect EPA decisions. Chapter 6
of the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649) presents all of the results.
The last year of price information available at proposal was 1988.
Between 1988 and 1995, the pulp and paper industry completed a full
industry revenue cycle, with revenues peaking in 1988, falling through
1992, and reaching historic heights in 1995. For the final rule, this
newer information was incorporated into the forecasting methods for the
financial closure model, which assumes this seven-year cycle (a six-
year cycle was used at proposal) of falling and rising prices will
continue into the future. Additionally, the starting year for the
analysis was adjusted to 1996 (from 1989, which was used at proposal).
To identify potential firm failures (i.e., bankruptcies) using the
Altman's Z financial ratio analysis, EPA obtained updated financial
information, including mill ownership data, for publicly held
companies. Because updated information for privately held companies was
not available from public sources, EPA did not evaluate possible
failures among private firms. To include these companies would have
required a new industry survey.
A facility-level financial analysis that was conducted at proposal
was discontinued because EPA was also unable to update facility-level
financial information without a new survey. The facility-level analysis
is not a
[[Page 18582]]
component of the Altman's Z analysis, on which EPA has relied to
identify firm failures for this final rule. While providing some useful
information, the facility financial analysis was not used to identify
firm-level bankruptcies at proposal and did not provide the basis at
proposal for making determinations of economic achievability.
As noted in Section VIII.A., EPA considers general and
administrative as well as variable annual costs in the cost
annualization calculation. At proposal, general and administrative
costs (GAC) had been calculated as 4 percent of capital costs plus 60
percent of variable annual costs. Subsequent analysis indicated that
the engineering estimates for effluent control already included the 60
percent of variable annual costs. To remove this double-counting, GAC
is now calculated as four percent of capital costs for effluent control
(see DCN 14086). GAC is added after the engineering estimates prior to
cost annualization; this explains the differences between engineering
and economic estimates of operating and maintenance costs.
All of the previously discussed revisions were made in an effort to
conduct an economic analysis of the air and water regulations that is
more representative of current economic conditions in the pulp and
paper industry and that provides more accurate economic impact results.
C. Costs and Economic Impacts for Air Emissions Standards
Table VIII-2 presents the engineering control cost estimates for
MACT I and for the regulatory alternative proposed for MACT II: $755
million in total capital costs and $172 million in annualized costs. A
more detailed discussion of the control costs for the final MACT
standard, including emission reductions and cost-effectiveness, is
provided in Chapter 20 of the Background Information Document. Table
VIII-2 also presents the capital costs and pre-tax and post-tax
annualized costs used in the economic analysis. EPA has determined that
the MACT III standards will impose no costs; therefore, none is
presented here or in Table VIII-2.
As noted in Section VIII.A. and Chapter 5 of the Economic Analysis,
the engineering control cost estimates of the cost of MACT regulations
differ from the costs used in EPA's economic impact analysis of those
standards. The economic analysis also differentiates between pre-tax
annualized costs and post-tax annualized costs as discussed in Section
VIII.A.
Table VIII-2.--Estimates of the Cost of Air Regulations
[Millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT control cost Economic analysis MACT cost estimates
estimates --------------------------------------
Regulation -------------------------- Annualized costs
Capital Annualized Capital -------------------------
costs cost cost Pre-tax Post-tax
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT I......................................... $496 $130 $501 $125 $82
MACT II........................................ 259 42 258 32 23
Total Air...................................... 755 172 759 157 105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the economic analysis, EPA predicts no firm failures, mill
closures, or associated job losses as a result of the costs of the MACT
rules considered individually. When the costs of the MACT rules are
combined, EPA projects one mill closure with up to 700 job losses. No
firm failures are anticipated for the combined MACT rules.
D. Costs and Economic Impacts for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards
1. BPT and BCT
As explained in Section VI.B.2, EPA is exercising its discretion
not to revise BPT limitations for conventional pollutants at this time
for Subparts B and E. In addition, candidate BCT technologies do not
pass the two-part BCT cost reasonableness test. Therefore, EPA is not
revising the current BCT limitations for Subparts B and E mills; as a
result, these mills will incur no incremental BPT or BCT costs.
2. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
a. BAT/PSES. For the selected BAT/PSES (Option A), capital costs
are $966 million, O&M costs are $151 million, and annualized costs are
$162 million. When considering these costs alone, the economic analysis
predicts closure of one mill as a result of this rule and no firm
failures. Other economic impacts (e.g., job losses) are reported in the
CBI portion of the rulemaking record.
b. NSPS and PSNS. EPA considered the cost of NSPS and PSNS
technology for new source mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory. EPA expects few new source mills or fiber lines to be
constructed that will be subject to NSPS/PSNS. Even if new source mills
or fiber lines are constructed that are subject to NSPS/PSNS, EPA
estimates that the selected NSPS/PSNS would not present a barrier to
entry. EPA estimated the average incremental capital costs of NSPS/PSNS
compliance (compared to Option A technology) to be approximately 0.50
to 2.0 percent of the capital cost of constructing a new source mill or
fiber line and concluded that this cost was not sufficient to present a
barrier to entry for proposed entrants, particularly considering the
lower operating costs of Option B.
3. Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
a. BAT/PSES. As explained in Section VI.B.6.a, EPA is dividing the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory into three segments. For BAT/PSES for
all three segments combined, capital costs are $73.8 million, O&M costs
are $7 million, and annualized costs are $9.8 million. No mills are
projected to close as a result of these compliance costs, and no firms
are projected to fail. There is no expected loss of jobs, shipments, or
exports.
b. NSPS/PSNS. EPA considered the costs of NSPS/PSNS for new source
mills in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. Because NSPS/PSNS equals
BAT/PSES, EPA concluded that such costs were not sufficient to present
a barrier to entry. First, the cost of the NSPS/PSNS technology is an
insignificant fraction of the capital cost of a new source mill or
fiber line (less than one percent). Also, the costs of including the
selected NSPS/PSNS technology at a new source mill are substantially
less on a per ton basis than the costs of retrofitting existing mills.
Moreover, the increased chemical recovery and reduced operating costs
for the NSPS/PSNS option allow firms to
[[Page 18583]]
recover the capital cost associated with the NSPS/PSNS technology.
4. Cost-Effectiveness
EPA uses a cost-effectiveness ratio of dollars per toxic pound
equivalent removed (see Economic Analysis (DCN 14649), Chapter 5) to
evaluate the relative efficiency of a technology option in removing
toxic pollutants. The results reported below are expressed in 1981
dollars, as prescribed by EPA's cost-effectiveness methodology (DCN
14649). For the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, the
cost-effectiveness ratio for both BAT and PSES is $14 per toxic pound
equivalent removed. The cost-effectiveness ratios for the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory are $13 per toxic pound equivalent removed for BAT
and $45 per toxic pound equivalent for PSES. EPA considers the selected
technology bases for the BAT/PSES limits for both subcategories to be
cost-effective.
E. Costs and Impacts for the Integrated Rules
EPA estimates that 155 kraft, soda, sulfite, and semi-chemical
mills will incur costs to comply with the CAA rules; 96 bleached
papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite mills will incur costs
to comply with the CWA rule, and the same 96 mills will incur both CAA
and CWA rule costs. Table VIII-3 is a summary of the expected costs and
impacts for various combinations of CAA and CWA rules. The losses of
jobs, shipments, exports, and indirect effects reported in Table VIII-3
are the impacts derived from mill closures. Some results are not
disclosed where confidentiality might be compromised.
Table VIII-3.--Costs and Economic Impacts of CAA and CWA Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT I, BAT/ MACT I, BAT/
Costs and Impacts MACT I MACT II BAT/PSES MACT I & PSES & MACT PSES & MACT
(final) (proposed) (BPK&PS)\1\ BAT/PSES II (BPK&PS) II (155
(96 mills) (96 mills) mills)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Costs ($MM)............... 501 258 1,039 1,394 1,524 1,799
Post-Tax Annualized Costs ($MM)... 82 23 172 229 240 277
Mill Closures..................... 0 0 1 2 3 3
Firm Failures..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
Job Losses (from mill closures)... 0 0 400 900 1,700 1,700
Decreased Shipments ($MM)......... 0 0 150 273 479 479
Decreased Exports ($MM)........... 0 0 19 19 22 22
Direct and Indirect Effects ($MM). ........... ........... 430 795 1,393 1,393
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BPK: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory.
PS: Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.
While no mills are predicted to close due to MACT I costs alone,
and one mill in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory is
predicted to close due to BAT/PSES costs alone, EPA estimates that two
mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory may close
as a result of the combined costs imposed by these rules. The two
predicted closures represent approximately 2.3 percent of the 86
bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills and 1.3 percent of all 155
kraft, sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical mills affected by this
rulemaking. As a result of these two closures, 900 jobs could be lost.
These jobs represent 0.9 percent of the jobs in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory. These costs generate a maximum estimated
price increase of 1.5 percent for any product (pulp, paper or
paperboard). Estimated losses in the value of shipments are
approximately $273 million, or 0.8 percent of bleached papergrade kraft
and soda shipments, while losses in the value of bleached papergrade
kraft and soda exports are approximately $19 million, or 0.5 percent of
subcategory exports.
No mills are projected to close in the CWA Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory, or the CAA soda, sulfite, or semi-chemical subcategories
as a result of either the promulgated CAA or CWA regulations or a
combination of both.
EPA examined the indirect effects of the final regulations (MACT I,
MACT III and BAT/PSES) on employment and output using a national-level
input-output model developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The
model provides multipliers that enable EPA to estimate national-level
impacts based on the loss of employment and output from closing mills.
Total projected effects on the U.S. economy of the combined MACT I and
BAT/PSES are approximately 5,700 jobs lost and $795 million in lost
economic output. While some local communities could experience some
economic dislocation as a result of closures, overall national impacts
would be insignificant. For comparison, the 1995 U.S. gross domestic
product was $7.3 trillion. The loss is approximately one-tenth of 1
percent of the gross domestic product for 1995. EPA also evaluated
regional (county-level) economic impacts when determining the economic
achievability of the regulation. For the final MACT I and BAT/PSES, in
the two counties where mills are projected to close, the unemployment
rate would increase by 0.4 percent and 0.7 percent respectively.
In response to public comments, EPA also estimated the economic
impacts associated with the combined costs of promulgated and proposed
rules. When the MACT I, BAT/PSES, and MACT II costs are considered
jointly, EPA projects an additional mill closure with 800 additional
jobs lost and further decreases of $206 million in shipments and $3
million in exports. The total projected effects of the combined MACT 1,
BAT/PSES, and MACT II costs are approximately 10,000 jobs lost and $1.4
billion in lost economic output.
F. Costs and Impacts of Rejected BAT/PSES Options for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
1. Summary of Results
Table VIII-4 presents costs and impacts for two options (Option B
and TCF) that EPA evaluated, but did not select, as the basis for BAT/
PSES for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. EPA's
rationale for selecting Option A for BAT/PSES for this subcategory is
presented in Section VI.B.5.a(5). Table VIII-4 presents results in
three ways: considering CWA costs and impacts alone; considering the
costs and impacts of the rejected BAT/PSES options and MACT I; and
considering
[[Page 18584]]
the costs and impacts of the rejected BAT/PSES options, MACT I, and
MACT II.
Table VIII-4.--Costs and Economic Impacts of Rejected BAT/PSES Options for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option B
Costs & Impacts Option B TCF (BAT/ Option B TCF + (BAT/ (BAT/PSES) TCF, (BAT/
(BAT/PSES) PSES) (BAT/PSES)+ PSES) MACT MACT I & PSES) MACT
MACT I I MACT II I & MACT II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Costs ($MM)............... 2,100 3,100 2,600 3,600 2,700 3,700
Post-Tax Annualized Costs ($MM)... 216 688 292 764 300 772
Mill Closures..................... 2 7 4 9 ND\1\ 9
Firm Failures..................... (\3\) (\3\) (\3\) (\3\) (\3\) (\3\)
Job Losses (from mill closures)... 900 7,100 4,800 10,200 ND 10,200
Decreased Shipments ($MM)......... 273 2,300 1,300 3,200 ND 3,200
Decreased Exports ($MM)........... 19 308 24 310 ND 310
Direct and Indirect Effects ($MM). 795 NR 3,850 NR ND NR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ND: not disclosed to protect confidential business information.
\2\ NR: not reported.
\3\ 1 or more.
Option B: The BAT/PSES capital costs for Option B for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory are estimated at $2.1 billion;
O&M costs are $87 million; and annualized costs are $216 million. These
costs result in two projected mill closures, with direct impacts of at
least 900 jobs lost, $273 million in decreased shipments, $19 million
in decreased exports, and one or more potential firm failures. The firm
failures may also result in thousands of additional jobs lost (see
Section VI.B.5.a(5) and Chapter 6 of the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649).
Indirect and direct economic loss (i.e., losses throughout the economy
as a result of the closed mills) would be approximately $795 million.
The mill closures are projected to increase county unemployment rates
for the affected counties by 0.4 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively.
EPA also calculated cost-effectiveness ratios for Option B for this
subcategory (for Option A results, see Section VIII.D.4, above). For
direct dischargers, the average and incremental (compared to Option A)
cost-effectiveness ratios are $15 per toxic pound-equivalent and $36
per toxic pound-equivalent, respectively (1981 dollars). For indirect
dischargers, the incremental cost-effectiveness (compared to Option A),
is $115 per toxic pound-equivalent.
Option B and MACT I: The combined capital costs for Option B and
MACT I for mills in this subcategory are estimated at $2.6 billion; O&M
costs are $154 million; and annualized costs are $292 million. MACT I
annualized costs are greater under Option B than under Option A due to
the additions of MACT controls for oxygen delignification equipment
installed to comply with Option B. With the combined costs of Option B
and MACT I, the number of projected mill closures increases to four,
and the estimated number of firm failures remains unchanged at one or
more. The four closures cause losses of approximately 4,800 jobs, $1.3
billion in shipments, and $24 million of exports. Direct and indirect
losses would total nearly $4 billion. The mill closures are also
projected to increase county unemployment rates; the range of increased
unemployment for the affected counties is from less than 0.5 percentage
points to nearly 10 percentage points (as a hypothetical example, from
a baseline county unemployment rate of 10 percent to 10.5 percent after
a closure in County X and from a baseline of 10 percent to 20 percent
after a closure in County Y).
Option B, MACT I, and MACT II: The combined capital costs for
Option B, MACT I, and proposed MACT II for mills in this subcategory
are estimated at $2.7 billion; O&M costs are $153 million; and
annualized costs are $300 million. With the combined costs of Option B,
MACT I, and MACT II, the number of projected mill closures increases
(number not disclosed), and the estimated number of firm failures
remains unchanged at one or more. The analysis projects additional
losses to jobs, shipments, and exports from the additional mill
closures (amounts not disclosed). Direct and indirect losses would also
increase, as would the unemployment rates in the counties in which the
mill closures are located.
TCF: The capital costs for retrofitting mills in this subcategory
for TCF technology are estimated at $3.1 billion for TCF based on
peroxide bleaching and $5.6 billion for TCF based on ozone and peroxide
bleaching, respectively. EPA evaluated mill closures for the TCF option
with the lower capital costs. O&M costs for this option are $783
million, and annualized costs are $688 million. (TCF annualized costs
appear lower than annual O&M costs because of tax shields.) EPA
estimates that these costs would result in seven mill closures, which
are associated with approximately 7,100 job losses. EPA did not conduct
a firm failure analysis or calculate combined direct and indirect
impacts for this option because the closures and job losses alone are
more than sufficient indication that the option is not economically
achievable. EPA estimates, however, that a greater number of firms
would be placed in financial jeopardy with the costs of this option,
compared to Option B, which EPA has already determined is not
economically achievable (See Section VI.B.5.a(5)).
TCF and MACT I: The combined capital costs for TCF and MACT I for
mills in this subcategory are estimated at $3.6 billion; O&M costs are
$851 million, and annualized costs are $764 million. EPA estimates that
these costs would result in nine mill closures and an associated loss
of 10,200 jobs, $3.2 billion in shipments, and $310 million in exports.
EPA conducted no additional economic analysis for this combination of
costs.
TCF, MACT I, and MACT II: The combined capital costs for TCF, MACT
I, and MACT II for mills in this subcategory are estimated at $3.7
billion; O&M costs are $849 million; and annualized costs are $772
million. With the combined costs of TCF, MACT I, and MACT II, EPA
estimates that the number of mill closures, job losses, and
[[Page 18585]]
other impacts remain unchanged. EPA conducted no additional economic
analysis for this combination of costs.
2. Implications of Results
The costs of either Option B or TCF are projected to cause one or
more firm failures (bankruptcies). This is true even when the BAT/PSES
costs are considered without the compliance costs associated with MACT
I and/or MACT II. Although EPA cannot determine the actual outcome of
the projected failures in terms of lost production, closed facilities,
and lost jobs, the level of displacement would almost certainly cause
detrimental impacts to the U.S. pulp and paper industry. Section
VI.B.5.a(5) discusses EPA's reaction to these projected impacts in
terms of regulatory decisions. See also Chapter 6 of the Economic
Analysis, DCN 14649. That discussion also includes the Agency's
findings that the rejected BAT/PSES options are not economically
achievable.
G. Benefits
In addition to costs and impacts, EPA also estimated the
environmental and human health benefits of implementing the CAA and CWA
requirements. Section VII of this preamble describes the estimated
reductions in air emissions and effluent discharges. The incremental
environmental improvements noted in Section VII.B. are derived compared
to a baseline of current emissions and discharges. Because current
emissions and discharges are a function of current technology, this is
the same baseline that was used to establish the costs of complying
with the rules. To the extent the total benefits of the rule can be
measured, costs can be directly compared to benefits.
EPA is confident that its estimation of compliance costs is a full
and accurate account of such costs; EPA is less confident that the
estimation of benefits is similarly complete. EPA is not currently able
to quantitatively evaluate all human and ecosystem benefits associated
with air and water quality improvements. EPA is even more limited in
its ability to assign monetary values to these benefits and therefore
to be able to compare them to costs in a standard cost-benefit
framework. A comparison of costs to only the limited monetized subset
of benefits severely underestimates the true benefits of environmental
quality improvement and compromises the validity of a cost-benefit
analysis. The economic benefit values described below and in the
Economic Analysis (DCN 14649) should be considered a limited subset of
the total benefits of these rules, and should be evaluated along with
descriptive assessments of benefits and the acknowledgment that even
these may fall short of the real-world benefits that will result from
the rule.
1. Air Quality Benefits
Section VII.B.1 of this preamble describes the emissions reductions
expected as a result of implementing MACT I and MACT II standards.
Implementation of the final MACT I standard is expected to reduce
emissions of HAPs, VOCs, and TRS, but increase emissions of PM,
SO2, CO, and NOX. The proposed alternative for
MACT II is expected to reduce emissions for HAPs, VOCs, PM, TRS, CO,
and SO2, while it is expected to create a slight increase in
NOx emissions. The technology bases for BAT/PSES have secondary impacts
on the level of air emissions. The combined effect of MACT I and MACT
II for all subcategories regulated under the CAA is to decrease
emissions for all of the above mentioned pollutants except
NOX and SO2. See Table VIII-5 below. EPA
performed an evaluation of the benefits associated with the air
regulations based on the emission reductions estimated in Section
VII.B.1. The net change in air benefits expected to result from the
changes in emissions will be a change in adverse health effects
associated with inhalation of the above pollutants as well as changes
in welfare effects such as improved visibility and crop yields, and
reduced materials soiling and corrosion. Chapter 4 of the EA presents a
detailed description of the methodology used to monetize the benefits.
a. Qualitative Description of Pollutant Effects. The air rules are
designed to reduce the emission of HAPs as defined in Section 112 of
the CAA. Several of these HAPs are classified as probable or possible
human carcinogens. Reducing the emissions of these pollutants is
expected to reduce the cancer risk of the exposed population. Other
HAPs are not classified as carcinogens; however, they have been shown
to cause other adverse health effects such as damage to the eye,
central nervous system, liver, kidney, and respiratory system when the
concentration of these emissions is above the health reference
benchmark for human exposure.
Total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions cause the malodorous smell
often associated with areas near pulp and paper mills. The MACT
standards will reduce these effects significantly. Odorant stimulants
of the nasal receptors that are associated with TRS emissions have been
associated with marked respiratory and cardiovascular responses,
however, the association is not direct because the perception of the
odor does not necessarily cause toxic effects. The threshold for odor
detections may occur before the onset of toxic effects. However, the
absence of odor does not guarantee safety since some components of TRS
emissions can cause fatigue of the olfactory senses, so individuals may
not perceive an odor on some occasions when toxic effects can occur.
There are numerous anecdotal reports of adverse reactions related to
odors associated with TRS, including headaches, shortness of breath,
nasal irritation, and, in some cases, nausea and sinus congestion.
VOC and NOX emissions interact in the presence of
sunlight to create ground-level ozone. Recent scientific evidence shows
an association between elevated ozone concentrations and increases in
hospital admissions for a variety of respiratory illnesses and
indicates that ground-level ozone not only affects people with impaired
respiratory systems (such as asthmatics), but healthy adults and
children as well. Adverse welfare effects of ozone exposure include
damage to crops, tree seedlings, ornamentals (shrubs, grass, etc.), and
forested ecosystems. The reactions between VOCs and NOX to
form ozone depend on the balance in concentrations of each pollutant
found in the ambient air. For example, when the concentration of
NOX is high relative to the concentration of VOCs, VOC
reductions are effective in limiting ozone formation, while
NOX reductions in that situation are ineffective. The
integrated rule is expected to increase NOX emissions, but
decrease VOC emissions. The increase in NOX is not expected
to cause significant adverse health or environmental impacts because
the magnitude of this increase is much less than the magnitude of the
VOC emission reduction. The VOC reductions are expected to contribute
to the decrease in ozone concentrations.
The adverse human health effects associated with PM include:
premature mortality; aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency
room visits, school absences, work loss days, and restricted activity
days); changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms;
alterations in lung tissue and structure; and altered respiratory tract
defense mechanisms. Populations at greater risk from exposure are:
individuals with respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease,
individuals with infectious disease, elderly individuals, asthmatic
individuals, and children. Reduced
[[Page 18586]]
welfare is associated with elevated concentrations of fine particles
which reduce visibility, damage materials, and cause soiling. The
integrated rule will decrease the adverse effects of PM.
CO is a colorless, odorless gas that is toxic to mammals. When
inhaled, it combines with hemoglobin, which reduces the oxygen-carrying
capacity of blood and results in less oxygen being transported to vital
organs of the body. This can have detrimental effects on the
cardiovascular, central nervous, and pulmonary systems. The reduction
of CO emissions will diminish these potential effects.
SO2 oxidizes in water to form both sulfurous and
sulfuric acids. When SO2 dissolves in the water of the
respiratory tract of humans, the resulting acidity is irritating to the
pulmonary tissues, causing nasal irritation and breathing difficulties
(especially to individuals with respiratory diseases such as asthma).
When SO2 dissolves in the atmosphere in rain, fog, or snow,
the acidity of the deposition can corrode various materials and cause
damage to both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. SO2 can
also transform into PM2.5, the effects of which are
discussed above.
b. Monetized Air Quality Benefits. Table VIII-5 below presents both
the health and welfare benefits described in this section as well as
the emission reductions identified in Section VII.B.1 that are not
monetized but are considered in the evaluation of benefits.
The benefit transfer method is utilized to value a subset of the
pollutants discussed above (VOC, SO2, and PM). This method
relies on previous benefit studies that have been conducted for the
same pollutants that are impacted by the pulp and paper rulemaking.
These studies provide useful data that can be transferred across
contexts in order to approximate the benefits of the pulp and paper
emission reductions.
Table VIII-5.--Emissions Reductions and Annual Air Quality Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT I MACT II Combined
Pollutant ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decrease Decrease Value Decrease
(Mg) Value ($MM) (Mg) ($MM) (Mg) Value ($MM)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAPs........................................................... 139,000 NE 2,600 NE 142,000 NE
TRS............................................................ 79,000 NE -- NE 79,000 NE
NOX............................................................ (5,200) NE (500) NE (5,700) NE
VOC............................................................ 409,000 24-1,055 32,600 2-84 441,000 26-1,139
PM............................................................. (83) (1) 24,000 300 24,000 299
CO............................................................. (8,700) NE 58,000 NE 49,000 NE
SO2............................................................ (94,500) (1,064)-0 30 0.1-0.3 (94,400) (1,064)-0.3
Total.......................................................... ............ (1,040)-1,054 ............ 302-384 ............ (739)-1,438
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE = not estimated.
Numbers in parentheses ( ) indicate emissions increases or negative benefits values.
Numbers in table rounded.
For VOCs, benefits are valued using estimates of a range of the
average benefit per Megagram (Mg) derived from a recent benefit
analysis conducted by EPA in the process of revising the ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (see docket no. A-95-58:
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS
and proposed Regional Haze Rule; July 1997). EPA values a range of VOC
benefits reflecting (1) an assumption that the transfer of benefits
must correlate with the areas that violate the ozone standard, and (2)
an assumption that recognizes that reductions outside areas of
violation of the ozone standard can have a positive benefit. Therefore,
the range of values reflects the application of a range of values for
the average benefit per Mg as they are applied to (1) the subset of VOC
emission reductions in areas of violation, and (2) to all VOC emission
reductions expected to be achieved by the integrated rule. The true
value is likely to fall within this range. Using the range of values of
the average benefit per Mg for ozone, monetized annual VOC benefits of
MACT I emission reductions range from $24 million to $1,055 million.
The lower-end of this range reflects an assumption of zero mortality
effects associated with ozone exposure and assumes morbidity benefits
occur only in areas predicted to violate the ozone standard, while the
upper-end includes mortality estimates as are calculated for the upper-
end of the range of ozone benefits is included in the NAAQS RIA and
assumes morbidity benefits occur in all areas. For the proposed MACT II
alternative, total annual VOC benefits range in value from
approximately $2 million to $84 million. Therefore, total monetized VOC
benefits of the integrated rule are approximately $26 million to $1,139
million.
For PM, a benefit transfer estimate is obtained from a benefit
analysis of PM10 that was prepared to support the evaluation
of the revised PM NAAQS (see Appendix C of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS and proposed
Regional Haze Rule; July 1997). The average benefit per Mg derived from
this study is applied to all changes in emissions of PM that result
from the integrated rule. Using this value, the loss in total monetized
annual PM benefits associated with MACT I is approximately $1 million.
The proposed MACT II alternative achieves a positive benefit
approximately equal to $300 million. Thus the combined value of PM
benefits for the final and proposed pulp and paper air standards is
$299 million.
For SO2, the EPA transfers a benefit estimate from a
national SO2 strategy analysis conducted for the evaluation
of the revised PM NAAQS (see docket no. A-95-54: Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS and proposed
Regional Haze Rule; July 1997). This analysis shows that benefit values
are higher in the eastern regions of the country when compared to the
western regions. Therefore, EPA derives a range of benefit per Mg
values for each segment of the country. In addition, EPA takes into
consideration the uncertainty inherent in the estimate of MACT I
SO2 emission increases that may result from the rulemaking.
Therefore for MACT I, EPA values all SO2 emission increases
to obtain a lower bound estimate of (negative) benefits and assumes
zero emission increases due to the likely effects of mitigating
behavior to obtain an upper bound estimate of zero
[[Page 18587]]
disbenefits. For MACT II, all emission reductions are valued. Using the
range of values for the average benefit per Mg for SO2 and
the assumptions for the changes in emissions, monetized annual
SO2 disbenefits of MACT I range from $1,064 million down to
$0. For the proposed MACT II alternative, total annual SO2
benefits are from approximately $0.1 to $0.3 million. Therefore, total
monetized SO2 benefits (disbenefits) of the integrated rule
are approximately ($1,064) million to $0.3 million.
Summing the monetized benefits and disbenefits for VOC, PM, and
SO2 emission changes provides a range of total annual
benefits (disbenefits) for MACT I of approximately ($1,040) million to
$1,054 million. Aggregate annual benefits attributed to MACT II range
in value from $302 million to $384 million. Combining the benefits of
the final and proposed air standards yields a range of total annual
benefits from approximately ($739) million to $1,438 million.
These benefits are incomplete due to EPA's inability to quantify
many benefit and disbenefit categories including individual health and
welfare endpoints as well as the benefits and disbenefits of
controlling entire pollutant categories. Pollutant categories that are
not monetized are HAPs, TRS, CO, and NOX.
c. Uncertainties Associated With Air Quality Benefits. Benefit per
Mg estimates used to monetize PM and VOC emission reductions are
uncertain because average benefit per Mg values do not take into
account location-specific information such as the population exposed.
The location-specific information is expected to have a significant
effect on the estimated benefits associated with these emission
reductions. Also, lack of information for several benefit categories
precludes a complete quantification of all benefit categories (or
disbenefits for pollutant increases).
2. Water Quality Benefits
This section describes environmental and human health benefits
expected as a result of implementing new BAT/PSES limits at 92 of the
96 mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade
Sulfite subcategories. (EPA estimated benefits for 92 mills because it
did not have effluent discharge information from 3 mills and did not
have receiving stream flow data for 1 mill). Because EPA was not able
to project the number of new sources, EPA attributes no benefits to the
final NSPS or PSNS regulations. Discharge of toxic, nonconventional,
and conventional pollutants into freshwater, estuarine, and marine
ecosystems may alter aquatic habitats, affect aquatic life, and
adversely impact human health. See Section VII.B.2. Chlorinated organic
compounds from chlorine bleaching, particularly 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran
(TCDF) are human carcinogens and human systemic toxicants and are toxic
to aquatic life. These pollutants are persistent, resistant to
biodegradation, and bioaccumulative in aquatic organisms. As of
December 1995, states have issued 19 dioxin/furan-related fish
consumption advisories near 18 papergrade sulfite and bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills (EPA, National Listing of Fish
Consumption Advisories, June 1996).
EPA's analysis of these environmental and human health risk
concerns and the water-related benefits resulting from the final
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for these two
subcategories is contained in the ``Water Quality Assessment of Final
Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategories of the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Industry'' (WQA) (DCN 14650).
a. Qualitative Description of Water-Related Benefits. The final BAT
limitations and PSES promulgated today for Subparts B and E will
benefit aquatic life by reducing the pulp and paper industry's
discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants, including a 91
percent reduction in TCDD and TCDF, a 69 percent reduction in AOX, an
83 percent reduction in chloroform, and an 82 percent reduction in
chlorinated phenolic pollutants compared to mid-1995 discharge levels.
Toxic and nonconventional pollutants will be reduced to levels below
those considered to impact biota in many receiving waters. Pollution
reduction numbers are provided in Section VII.B.2. Such impacts include
acute and chronic toxicity, sublethal effects on metabolic and
reproductive functions, and loss of prey organisms. Chemical
contamination of aquatic biota may also directly and indirectly impact
local pescivorous wildlife and birds.
b. Quantitative Estimates of Water-Related Benefits. EPA has
quantified human health and aquatic life benefits using a site-specific
analysis for baseline conditions and for the conditions that would
result from pollutant removals under the rule. The final BAT
limitations and PSES for Subparts B and E would result in a significant
reduction of dioxins and furans in fish tissues. As a result, the
largest quantifiable and monetizable water benefit is a reduction in
number of potential excess cancer cases from the consumption of
contaminated fish by recreational and subsistence anglers. The next
largest category of monetized benefits includes recreational fishing
benefits derived from lifting of all 19 existing dioxin/furan-related
fish consumption advisories in waters downstream from mills in the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite
subcategories. Removing fish consumption advisories would be expected
to increase the number of recreational anglers at sites where
advisories are lifted and to increase fishing enjoyment by existing
anglers. Three of the 19 receiving streams with dioxin/furan-related
fish consumption advisories also have advisories in place for other
contaminants (from other sources) that will not be affected by this
rule. No monetized benefits are expected to accrue for these streams at
this time. Quantified, non-monetized benefits include reduction in
exceedances of aquatic life and health-based ambient water quality
concentrations.
(1) Fish Consumption Cancer Risks and Non-cancer Hazards. Upper-
bound individual cancer risk, aggregate risk, and non-cancer hazards
from consuming contaminated fish are estimated for recreational,
subsistence, and Native American subsistence anglers. At proposal,
concentrations of carcinogenic and systemic toxicants in fish were
estimated using two site-specific models--a simple dilution model and
EPA's draft Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation model (DRE)(DCN 14650). For
the final rule, EPA used only the DRE model to estimate TCDD and TCDF
levels in fish below 92 mills discharging into 73 receiving streams, as
well as individual cancer risks and non-cancer hazards. Of these mills,
two in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory discharge
through the same pipe and therefore were treated as a single
discharger. As a result, a total of 91 discharges from 92 mills were
evaluated for the water quality assessment. EPA continues to use the
simple dilution model to evaluate other chlorinated organics (i.e.,
three carcinogens and four systemic toxicants). EPA believes the DRE
approach provides more reliable estimates of dioxin and furan fate and
transport in the environment for use in human health assessments. The
reasons for relying exclusively on the DRE for assessing impacts due to
dioxin and furan are explained in greater detail in
[[Page 18588]]
Chapters 4 and 8 of the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649).
EPA is also updating fish consumption rates used to estimate cancer
and non-cancer hazards. At proposal, EPA used 25 g/day for recreational
anglers, and 145 g/day for subsistence anglers. The revised estimates
are 21 g/day for recreational anglers and 48 g/day for subsistence
anglers, based on data provided by the nationally based ``Continuing
Survey of Food Intake by Individuals'' (CSFII), conducted by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. EPA is also using an updated fish
consumption rate for Native American subsistence populations of 70 g/
day, based on two studies (CRIFTC, 1994; Wolfe and Walker, 1989, in
rulemaking record). This consumption rate represents an average fish
consumption rate for Native Americans. (See Environmental Justice
Analysis in Chapter 8 of the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649).
Projected individual cancer risks differ among the evaluated mills
and among recreational, subsistence, and Native American subsistence
fishermen due to the differences in consumption rates. TCDD and TCDF
contribute most of the estimated cancer risks. The final BAT/PSES for
the papergrade sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategories are projected to reduce average baseline individual
cancer risks up to about one order of magnitude for each affected
group--recreational, subsistence, and Native American subsistence
populations. At both baseline and post-compliance, Native American
subsistence populations are at about one order of magnitude higher risk
than recreational anglers and less than one order of magnitude higher
risk than subsistence fishermen in this assessment because of their
comparatively higher fish consumption rates.
At proposal, EPA estimated exposed recreational and subsistence
fishermen based on a comparison of creel survey results to licensed
anglers in counties adjoining pulp mill streams. Based on these
surveys, EPA estimated that 29 percent of county fishermen would use
affected stream reaches and therefore could be exposed to contaminated
fish. Since proposal, EPA has considered additional recreational angler
survey information and has determined that a range of 10 percent to 33
percent of adjacent county-licensed anglers provides effective upper
and lower bounds to the fishing effort expected on most affected stream
segments. EPA's benefit estimation methodology is described in Chapter
4 of the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649).
EPA estimated the reduced annual cancer cases for combined
recreational and subsistence angler populations as a result of the
final BAT/PSES for the Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda subcategories. The projected number of increased cancer cases
for this population under baseline conditions due to pulp and paper
discharges is 0.83 to 2.76 annual cancer cases. EPA estimates this
number would decline to 0.1 to 0.35 excess cancer cases per year after
implementation of the final BAT/PSES, thus eliminating approximately
0.73 to 2.41 annual cancer cases.
For Native American subsistence fishermen, EPA evaluated an upper
bound total risk at baseline and post-compliance with the selected BAT/
PSES. EPA assumed that the total population of the tribes with treaty-
ceded fishing rights near pulp and paper mills consumed an average of
70 g/person/day of TCDD/TCDF contaminated fish. The projected number of
increased cancer cases for this population under baseline conditions
due to pulp and paper discharges is 0.14 annual cancer cases. EPA
estimates this number would decline to 0.008 excess cancer cases per
year after implementation of the final BAT/PSES.
With respect to non-cancer benefits, EPA examined the current
discharge of four pollutants that have reference doses (RfDs) contained
in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The four pollutants
are chloroform, pentachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, and
2,4,5-trichlorophenol. The RfD represents an estimate, with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude, of daily exposure--expressed in
milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day)--that is
likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects to a
given population during a lifetime. (EPA notes that this analysis
considers only the contribution of Subpart B and E pulp and paper
current discharge effluent to the RfD; the contribution from other
sources (background level of exposure) is not evaluated.)
For the four pollutants with RfDs in IRIS, EPA used the simple
dilution model to determine fish tissue concentrations. EPA then
estimated whether human consumption of fish by recreational,
subsistence, and Native American subsistence populations exposed to the
pollutants below pulp and paper mills would exceed a chemical-specific
noncancer hazard quotient of 1.0. Hazard quotients are based on the
relationship between fish tissue concentrations, fish consumption, and
RfDs. If a hazard quotient exceeds 1.0, adverse effects might occur.
None of the four pollutants with RfDs in IRIS is estimated to exceed a
non-cancer hazard quotient of 1.0 under baseline or BAT/PSES conditions
for recreational, subsistence, or Native American subsistence anglers.
EPA did not use the reference dose (RfD) approach to evaluate
potential noncancer effects associated with dioxin/furan. The use of an
RfD for dioxin/furan presents special problems. If EPA were to
establish an RfD for dioxin/furan using the standard conventions of
uncertainty, the RfD value would likely be one to two orders of
magnitude below average background population exposure. As stated
above, the RfD is a level that is likely to be without an appreciable
risk; it is not an ``action level'' or exposure level where non-cancer
effects are predicted. Where the RfD is below background levels, and
where effects are not readily apparent at background levels, it is not
appropriate to use the RfD for quantifying benefits.
As an alternative to using the RfD, EPA evaluated potential
noncancer effects of dioxin/furan by comparing the modeled incremental
exposure of dioxin/furan from fish consumption (based on results from
the DRE model) to estimated ambient background levels (i.e., 120
picograms of toxic equivalents/day (pgTEQ/day)). EPA estimates that
adverse impacts associated with dioxin/furan exposures may occur at or
within one order of magnitude of average background exposures. As
exposures increase within and above this range, the probability and
severity of human noncancer effects most likely increases. EPA's
analysis shows that the estimated dioxin/furan exposure from pulp and
paper effluent at baseline exceeded estimated ambient background
exposure by an order of magnitude for two mills, with the size of the
exposed population ranging from 4,910 to 16,205 recreational and
subsistence anglers. The selected BAT/PSES are projected to reduce the
incremental exposure from fish consumption to a level that was not
significantly different from estimated ambient background exposure. The
size of the recreational and subsistence angler population exposed to
dioxin/furan doses exceeding one order of magnitude greater than the
background level would be zero under the selected BAT/PSES.
For Native American subsistence populations with treaty-ceded
fishing rights, the maximum dioxin/furan exposure under baseline
conditions is projected to be 803 pgTEQ/day. Under the selected BAT/
PSES, the maximum exposure is reduced to 39 pgTEQ/day,
[[Page 18589]]
which is less than estimated background levels for the United States.
(2) Impact of BAT/PSES Controls on Dioxin/Furan-Related Fish
Consumption Advisories. EPA estimates that all 19 dioxin/furan-related
fish consumption advisories in place downstream of papergrade sulfite
and bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills as of December 1995 would
be lifted some time after the rule is implemented. Recent evidence
indicates that dioxin/furan fish tissue concentrations decline within
several years of removing dioxin/furan discharges, which is more
rapidly than previously thought (see Chapter 9 of the Economic
Analysis, DCN 14649). EPA accounts for potential latent dioxin/furan
contributions from sediment to fish tissue by assuming a three-year lag
before cancers from fish tissue consumption are reduced or dioxin/
furan-related fish tissue advisories are lifted.
(3) Exceedances of Human Health-Based Ambient Water Quality
Concentrations (AWQCs). EPA also has compared the modeled in-stream
pollutant concentrations to human health water quality criteria or
other toxic effect values, which are referred to as health-based AWQCs.
Exceedances of health-based AWQCs indicate existing human health-based
water quality problems.
EPA has analyzed the health-based AWQCs for the ingestion of
organisms and the ingestion of water and organisms based on the simple
dilution model. EPA estimates that no mills exceed the health-based
AWQCs for ingestion of organisms only under baseline conditions or
under the final rule. With respect to the ingestion of water and
organisms, at baseline, three mills exceed AWQCs for two pollutants,
chloroform and pentachlorophenol (a total of four exceedances). Under
the rule, only one mill exceeds AWQCs (for pentachlorophenol).
EPA did not estimate exceedances of AWQCs for dioxin and furan
because the simple dilution model is not well-suited for use in
estimating human health effects associated with water column
concentrations of hydrophobic chemicals like dioxin and furan. EPA did
not use the DRE model for this analysis for dioxin/furan because
results of the DRE model would not be comparable with AWQCs.
(4) Aquatic Life Benefits. EPA used the simple dilution approach to
estimate exceedances of aquatic life AWQCs. This is a conservative
approach that assumes all pollutants (including dioxin and furan)
discharged to receiving streams are available to the biota. Although
hydrophobic chemicals such as dioxins and furans will be associated
primarily with suspended particulates and sediments, some
concentrations will also be found in the water column near the
discharge point. This is particularly true if discharges are assumed to
be continuous because even though the pollutants might eventually
become associated with suspended solids and sediment, they would also
be present in the water column in the vicinity of the discharge on an
ongoing basis prior to partitioning. Therefore, although it is
conservative, EPA believes that the simple dilution approach provides a
reasonable estimate of impacts to aquatic life.
EPA compared modeled in-stream concentrations of toxic discharges
to EPA's aquatic life AWQCs. EPA's modeling results show that receiving
water concentrations for up to four pollutants (of 15 pollutants with
chronic aquatic life AWQCs) at 19 mills exceed aquatic life criteria at
baseline discharge levels (up to 25 total exceedances). The final BAT/
PSES for the papergrade sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategories are projected to reduce these exceedances to one
pollutant (TCDD) at six mills (six total exceedances). On average, the
selected BAT/PSES will reduce color of effluent by approximately 2.5
percent compared to current discharges. This color reduction may have
some aquatic life or recreational benefits depending on the natural
color of the receiving water, but they are not quantifiable or
monetizable at this time.
c. Monetization of Water Quality Benefits. Monetized benefits of
the final BAT/PSES for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories are presented in Table VIII-6. EPA
has monetized the human health benefits resulting from elimination of
0.73 to 2.41 cancer cases per year for the nation as a whole (see
Section VIII.F.2.b.(1)). The projected benefits range from $2 million
to $22 million.
EPA estimates the value to anglers of contaminant-free fisheries as
a result of lifting 16 of the 19 dioxin/furan-related fish consumption
advisories to be $2 million to $19 million. (Because these values are
based on a benefits transfer from a study of contamination of the Great
Lakes trout and salmon fishery, which may differ greatly from some of
the areas affected by this rule, these values provide only a general
sense of the magnitude of the benefits of the rule.) Because non-
dioxin/furan fish consumption advisories (PCBs and mercury) will remain
in place on three streams, EPA did not monetize the benefits of
removing the dioxin/furan fish consumption advisories on these streams.
EPA also estimates that recreational fishing would increase on the 16
streams by 115,000 angling days to 379,000 angling days post-
compliance. However, the monetary value of this increase is not
estimated because of the difficulty of determining the extent to which
this increased participation reflects a net increase in fishing
activity or merely a shift from other locations (see the Economic
Analysis, DCN 14649, Chapter 4).
Because of dioxin/furan removals due to compliance with BAT
limitations and PSES, sludge from pulp and paper mills may be disposed
of through land application, instead of more costly landfilling or
incineration. (Pursuant to a January 1994 Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA and the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), a
maximum dioxin/furan concentration of 50 ppt is allowed for land
application of sludge or a sludge-derived product. See DCN 14399). Mill
sludge disposal costs could be expected to decline by $8 million to $16
million. EPA estimated these values based on the reduced tonnage of
expected dioxin/furan-contaminated sludge, which in turn was based on
the proportional reduction of dioxin/furan in effluent (see the
Economic Analysis, DCN 14649, Chapter 8).
Total monetized water-related benefits for all the above categories
range from $12 million to $57 million.
As noted previously, the above estimates do not include the
benefits that have been identified but not monetized, such as health
effects for Native American subsistence fishermen, reduction in AWQC
exceedances, reduction of projected non-cancer effects and improvements
in fish and wildlife habitat.
[[Page 18590]]
Table VIII-6.--Monetized Water Quality Benefits of Final BAT/PSES for
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite Mills
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final BAT/PSES
Benefit category (millions 1995$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-related Benefits
Human health (recreational fish consumption).... $2-$22
Recreational angling
``Contaminant-free'' fishery................ $2-$19
Increased participation..................... +
Reduced Sludge Disposal Costs................... $8-$16
Total Water-related Benefits.................. $12-$57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Positive benefits expected but not estimated.
H. Comparison of Costs and Benefits
This section provides the individual and combined costs, economic
impacts, and benefits of the proposed and final CAA and CWA pulp and
paper regulations described in earlier sections. See Table VIII-7. The
costs and benefits of the CAA (MACT) rules apply to all 155 kraft,
soda, sulfite and semi-chemical mills subject to final or proposed MACT
requirements, while the costs and benefits for the final CWA (BAT/PSES)
regulations apply to the 96 mills in the Papergrade Sulfite and
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategories.
Using the pre-tax annualized cost estimates reported in Section
VIII.C, net monetized air-related benefits are estimated to range
between net costs of $1,165 million to net benefits of $929 million per
year for the final MACT I rule considered in combination with the pre-
tax annualized cost estimates for the final BAT/PSES. Pre-tax
annualized cost estimates are used as a proxy for the social costs of
the rules. Net benefits of the proposed regulatory alternative for MACT
II are $270 million to $352 million. Thus, the range of net benefits
(disbenefits) of the final and proposed air quality standards is ($896)
million to $1,281 million.
EPA did not estimate annual net benefits for the final BAT/PSES for
the Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategories because so many categories of benefits are unmonetized
that the comparison would be misleading.
Table VIII-7.--Summary of Costs, Economic Impacts and Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT I, MACT I,
MACT I and MACT II, MACT II,
MACT I MACT II Combined Final BAT/ final BAT/ and final and final
air rules PSES PSES (96 BAT/PSES BAT/PSES
mills) (96 mills) (155 mills)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Costs................................................ $501 $258 $759 $1,039 $1,394 $1,524 $1,799
Pre-Tax Annualized Costs *................................... $125 $32 $157 $263 $351 $366 $420
Monetized Annual Benefits.................................... ($1,040)-$1
,054 $302-$384 ($739)-$1,4
38 $12-$57 ($1,028)-$1
,111 NE ($727)-$1,4
95
Net Annual Benefits (Benefits-Costs)......................... ($1,165)-$9
29 $270-$352 ($896)-$1,2
81 NE NE NE NE
Projected Mill Closures...................................... 0 0 1 1 2 3 3
Potential Job Losses (due to mill closures).................. 0 0 ND ND 900 ND ND
Projected Firm Failures...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pre-tax costs are greater than the post-tax annualized costs shown in Tables VIII-1 and VIII-3.
Net costs (where costs exceed benefits) are shown in parentheses.
NE = not estimated.
ND = not disclosed to protect confidentiality.
Figures in table reflect rounding.
I. Costs and Benefits of Rejected Options for the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda Subcategory--Option B and TCF
1. Air Benefits
As noted in Section VIII.F.1, the oxygen delignification technology
used as a component of Option B and TCF increases emissions of certain
pollutants and, hence compliance costs to meet MACT I standards; the
implementation of additional MACT controls, however, also increases
MACT-related removals. As a result, both MACT I costs and benefits
increase where oxygen delignification is utilized. (As noted above,
only VOC, PM, and SO2 benefits are monetized here.) However,
because the MACT I technologies control all of the increased emissions
associated with oxygen delignification, there is no increased net
benefit of the CWA and CAA technologies to ambient air quality. Rather,
the net monetized benefits of MACT I in combination with Option B or
TCF are equivalent to the monetized benefits of MACT I in combination
with the final BAT/PSES. Thus, MACT I benefits associated with reducing
VOCs under either Option B or TCF range from $29 million to $1,050
million. MACT II VOC reduction benefits range from $2 million to $84
million. Therefore, total monetized VOC benefits of the air quality
standards under either Option B or TCF are $31 million to $1,134
million. PM related disbenefits for MACT I are $1 million, while MACT
II PM benefits are $300 million for a total PM benefit of approximately
$299 million, for either Option B or TCF. SO2 related
disbenefits for MACT I are from $1,043 million down to $0, while MACT
II SO2 benefits are from $0.1 to $0.3 million.
Total monetized benefits (disbenefits) for MACT I are ($1,015)
million to $1,049 million under BAT/PSES Option
[[Page 18591]]
B or TCF (see the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649, Chapter 8). Aggregate
annual benefits attributed to MACT II range in value from $302 million
to $384 million. Combining the benefits of the final and proposed air
quality standards yields a range of total annual air quality benefits
(damages) from ($713) million to $1,433 million.
2. Water Benefits
The water quality benefits described in this section include
benefits for rejected BAT/PSES options for the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory in combination with benefits for the
selected BAT/PSES for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. (Benefits for
the two CWA subcategories were also combined in Section VIII.G.2 for
the selected BAT/PSES.) EPA estimated the human health benefits that
could be expected if either of the rejected BAT/PSES options for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory--Option B or TCF--were
implemented. For combined recreational and (non-Native American)
subsistence angler populations using the same fish consumption rates
EPA used for the selected BAT/PSES, Option B is projected to eliminate
approximately 0.75 to 2.50 annual cancer cases from the baseline of
0.83 to 2.76 annual cancer cases projected to result from the mills'
discharges at [mid-1995] levels, leaving a residual of 0.08 to 0.26
excess cancer cases per year. Here, as in Section VIII.G.2.b(1), excess
cancer cases refers to cancer cases attributable solely to pulp and
paper dioxin/furan discharges. This represents a reduction of 90
percent from baseline. The monetized value of this reduction is $2 to
$23 million. TCF is projected to result in a reduction from the mid-
1995 discharge baseline of 0.83 to 2.76 cases to 0.0 cases, which
increases the benefits from TCF by $0.1 million to $2.7 million,
compared to Option B. Because chlorine or chlorinated compounds are not
used for bleaching, no dioxin formation was attributed to the mills
under this option. Although some background dioxin cancer risk would
remain that is attributable to sources other than current pulp and
paper discharges, no residual cancer risk would remain from bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills.
For Native American subsistence fishermen, EPA evaluated cancer
risks at baseline and under Option B. To estimate the maximum potential
risk, EPA assumed that the entire population of the tribes with treaty-
ceded fishing rights near pulp and paper mills would consume an average
of 70g/person/day of TCDD/TCDF contaminated fish. With this level of
consumption, the projected increased number of cancer cases for this
population at baseline would be 0.14 cancer cases/year. EPA estimates
that this number would decline to 0.007 cancer cases/year if BAT/PSES
based on Option B were promulgated and to 0.0 cases/year if BAT/PSES
based on TCF were promulgated.
Both Option B and TCF would result in the removal of 19 dioxin/
furan-related fish consumption advisories on streams downstream from
bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills. EPA estimates that non-dioxin
advisories will remain on three of those streams. Therefore, here as in
Section VIII.G.2.c, EPA did not monetize the benefits of removing the
dioxin/furan fish consumption advisories on these streams. EPA
estimates the value to anglers of the 16 ``contaminant-free'' fisheries
as a result of removing these advisories to be $2 million to $19
million. EPA also estimates that recreational fishing would increase on
these 16 streams by an estimated 115,000 angling days to 379,000
angling days post-compliance. However, the monetary value of this
increase is not estimated because of the difficulty of determining the
extent to which this increased participation reflects a net increase in
fishing activity or merely a shift from other locations. These results
are the same as those presented for the selected BAT/PSES. Because of
dioxin removals, sludge disposal costs for both Option B and TCF could
be expected to decline by $8 million to $16 million (see the Economic
Analysis, DCN 14649, Chapter 8).
With respect to non-cancer human health benefits, none of the four
pollutants with RfDs is estimated to exceed a non-cancer hazard
quotient of 1.0 under baseline or under conditions associated with
rejected Option B for recreational, subsistence, or Native American
subsistence anglers. The same is true for the selected BAT/PSES.
Similarly, Option B would reduce projected health-based AWQC
exceedances to one facility for one pollutant (pentachlorophenol).
Under TCF, EPA estimates that there would be no exceedances of health-
based AWQCs. For dioxin, EPA estimates that Option B would reduce
incremental exposure from fish consumption to a level that is not
significantly different from ambient background exposure. Under TCF,
chlorine and chlorinated compounds are not used for bleaching, and
therefore no dioxin was attributed to mills under this option.
With respect to aquatic life benefits, EPA's modeling results show
that, for the four pollutants exceeding chronic aquatic life criteria
at 19 mills (up to 25 total exceedances), rejected Option B would
reduce these exceedences to one pollutant (TCDD) at three mills (three
total exceedences). TCF would reduce these exceedances to zero.
In addition to the benefits of reducing dioxin in fish, EPA
investigated other potential benefits associated with Option B and TCF,
including color, COD, AOX, and chronic sub-lethal toxicity.
Increased color in a receiving water can decrease light penetration
there, thus resulting in shifts of phytoplankton community structure to
undesirable species, reduced primary productivity (which can alter the
trophic structure of fish communities), and elevated receiving stream
temperatures. However, the actual impact on the receiving water of
reducing color in mill effluent is highly site-specific and depends in
particular on the natural color of the receiving water and other
factors. Therefore, the monetized benefits will also be site-specific,
to the extent that they can be determined at all. EPA is not
promulgating national technology-based limitations or standards for
color, but rather has determined that the potential aesthetic or
aquatic impacts are best addressed on a site-specific basis by the
permitting or pretreatment authority where necessary. See Section
VI.B.3.e. Indeed, EPA notes that about eight mills currently have
limitations for color in their NPDES permits, and an additional two
mills have current color monitoring requirements where stream water
quality requires such measures.
Lowering COD can protect the receiving water against oxygen
depletion and is likely to reduce non-chlorinated organic compounds
that cause chronic sub-lethal effects on aquatic life. Evidence
indicates that this toxicity is associated at least in part with
families of non-chlorinated organic materials. Several studies indicate
that, as wastewater COD is reduced, indices of these chronic toxicity
effects also are reduced. EPA is deferring regulation of COD to the
individual permitting process for the time being, although EPA intends
to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines and standards for COD for
Subpart B mills in the future. See Section VI.B.3.d.
Although a statistically significant relationship between AOX and
adverse environmental effects has not been established, EPA believes
that reduction of AOX (a valid measure of the total chlorinated organic
matter) will result in water quality benefits. See Section VI.B.3.c.
However, these cannot be quantified at this time.
[[Page 18592]]
Compared to current discharges, the incremental benefits associated
with OD (Option B) include: reduction of color (by 40 percent); COD (by
40 percent); AOX (by 84 percent); and chronic sub-lethal aquatic
toxicity. TCF would also reduce color discharges (by 40 percent), COD
(by 40 percent), AOX (by 96 percent) and chronic sub-lethal aquatic
toxicity. The water quality benefits of the rejected options are shown
in Table VIII-8.
Table VIII-8.--Monetized Water Quality Benefits of Rejected BAT/PSES
Options for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda & Papergrade Sulfite
Mills
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option B TCF
Benefit category (millions (millions
1995$) 1995$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-related Benefits
Human health (Recreational fish
consumption) $2-$23 $2-$25
Recreational angling
``Contaminant-free'' fishery.......... $2-$19 $2-$19
Increased participation............... + +
Reduced Sludge Disposal Costs............. $8-$16 $8-$16
Total Monetized Water-related Benefits.. $12-$58 $12-$60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Positive benefits expected but not estimated.
Combined annual air and water benefits related to Option B for all
155 mills regulated by today's rule, including final MACT I, proposed
MACT II and BAT/PSES based on Option B, would total ($701) million to
$1,491 million. Combined annual air and water benefits related to TCF,
including final MACT I, proposed MACT II and BAT/PSES based on TCF
would total ($701) million to $1,493 million.
J. Benefit-Cost Comparison Using Case Studies
Many benefits are highly site-specific. At proposal, EPA estimated
the costs and benefits of the pulp and paper rule at three sites using
a case study approach. EPA has expanded the case study analysis to
incorporate additional sites. The case studies focus on water quality
benefits, resulting from installation of BAT/PSES technologies, with
air quality benefits modeled for case study mills as they are at the
national level (see Section VIII.G.1, above). The three case studies at
proposal were (1) the Penobscot River in Maine, (2) the Wisconsin River
in central Wisconsin, and (3) the lower Columbia River in Washington
and Oregon. In addition, a qualitative retrospective case study was
conducted of the Leaf River in Mississippi. These case studies were
selected to provide geographic representation of the impacts of the
proposed rule, taking data availability into consideration.
For the final rule, the three quantitative case studies were
updated to reflect EPA's revised analysis of costs, loadings, and human
health risks to sport anglers. In consideration of environmental
justice, EPA also evaluated health risks to Native American anglers in
the Penobscot and Columbia River case study areas.
The four new case studies of monetized benefits analyze: (4) the
Lower Tombigbee and Mobile River watersheds in Alabama, (5) the Pigeon
River in North Carolina, (6) the Samoa Peninsula in California, and (7)
the upper Columbia River in Washington State and British Columbia,
Canada. These new case studies provide EPA with the first real
empirical evidence of already-realized benefits that can be expected
from adoption of the final BAT/PSES limits. Although a portion of the
water-related benefits estimates in these newer case studies are based
on actual outcomes from installing pollution control equipment (i.e., a
retrospective analysis), estimates of the benefits of MACT standards in
these case studies are prospective, based on expected future benefits.
The case studies compare costs and benefits at specific bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills in these seven areas across the
country, some of which have not installed technologies comparable to
the bases for BAT/PSES and some of which have installed such
technologies, thereby allowing the retrospective assessment of BAT/PSES
costs and benefits. Where mills have installed BAT-like technologies,
capital investments may include: 70 percent to 100 percent
substitution; oxygen delignification plus 100 percent substitution;
and/or totally chlorine-free technologies.
EPA evaluated control cost estimates and air benefits for emission
controls necessary to meet the MACT I and II standards on a prospective
basis, assuming the level of controls currently existing at mills in
the case study areas as a baseline.
As with the national-level analysis, significant water-related
benefits are derived from removal of dioxin/furan from fish, and air-
related benefits from improved agriculture and health from reduced
ozone emissions. However, the case studies also address a wider range
of water-related benefits, including some site-specific recreational
benefits such as surfing, boating, white water rafting, non-consumptive
uses and non-use benefits that result from improved color in the
receiving water, improved odor and removal of health advisories. The
case studies provide a more complete picture of the range of water-
related benefits that may be expected from the rule, although a number
of identifiable benefits, including improvements in ecological
conditions and reductions of non-cancer health effects remain
unquantified and unmonetized.
Benefits and costs for the case studies are summarized and compared
in Table VIII-9. The monetized benefits range from two percent to 387
percent of BAT/PSES compliance costs. The case study results indicate
that monetized benefits may be of the same order of magnitude as costs
at individual sites.
From a water quality perspective, the case studies provide a cross-
section of mills and receiving waters nationwide, including fast- and
slow-moving streams, lakes and ocean waters.
Using receiving water and population characteristics, EPA
attributed benefits from the case study sites to all bleached
papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite mills. As a
sensitivity analysis, EPA used the water quality benefits from the case
studies to estimate the national level water quality benefits of the
integrated final and proposed rule for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. Based on the case
studies, monetized benefits from the water rules (Option A) would be
expected to range from $91 million to $451 million per year, or from 35
[[Page 18593]]
percent to 170 percent of water-related costs.
The case studies were not selected to be, and are not necessarily,
representative of national benefits with respect to air quality.
Table VIII-9.--Comparison of Potential Annual Benefits to Potential Annualized Costs for Seven Case Study Sites
[Millions of 1995 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-related benefits b Total
Site Water-related ---------------------------------- Total monetized compliance
benefits MACT I MACT II benefits costs a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL CASE STUDIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penobscot River.................................................... $0.7-$2.3 ($9.5)-7.7 $0.1 ($8.7)-10.1 (c)
Wisconsin River.................................................... $0.1-$1.5 ($16.9)-15.6 $2.1 ($14.7)-19.2 $9.3
Lower Columbia River............................................... $1.5-$8.6 ($26.9)-56.2 $0.7 ($24.7)-65.5 $16.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWER CASE STUDIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Tombigbee and Mobile Rivers.................................. $1.1-$12.0 ($136.8)-113.2 $81.7 ($54.0)-$206.9 $32.5
Pigeon River....................................................... $2.7-$8.7 ($5.8)-$5.7 $2.1 ($1.0)-$16.5 c $7.1
Samoa Peninsula.................................................... $0.1-$1.4 ($5.0)-10.1 $0.0 ($4.9)-$11.5 d $5.0
Upper Columbia River/Lake Roosevelt................................ $1.5-$11.6 NA NA $1.5-$11.6 $3.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The total compliance costs shown in this Table (for BAT/PSES, MACT I and proposed MACT II Option #1) differ from compliance costs used to determine
economic achievability. The cost estimates for the case studies were based on custom analysis of technology in-place corresponding to the case study
timeframes. In contrast, estimates used to determine economic achievability used a standard mid-1995 baseline for technology in-place
b Based on implementation of technologies consistent with Option A.
c Confidentiality agreements preclude disclosure of total costs for this site.
d This mill has indicated EPA's cost estimate is too high because EPA did not fully account for technology in-place.
NA = Not applicable.
IX. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements
A. The Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program
1. Introduction
EPA is promulgating BAT limitations today that will achieve
significant pollutant reductions using technologies within the economic
capability of the subcategory as a whole. At the same time, EPA wants
to encourage the widespread use and perfection of technologies such as
extended delignification and to promote the development of even more
advanced technologies, such as those aimed at reducing bleach plant
flow. EPA also wants to encourage the widespread use and perfection of
TCF processes. These technologies and processes have the ability to
surpass the environmental protection that would be provided by
compliance with the baseline BAT. Indeed, EPA's vision of long-term
environmental goals for the pulp and paper industry includes continuing
research and progress toward such environmental improvement. The Agency
believes that individual mills can be encouraged to make substantial
environmental progress beyond the base level compelled by law. This
industry's participation in the 33/50 program, its progress toward
reducing toxic discharges in advance of the proposed BAT revisions, its
joint initiative with the U.S. Department of Energy to reduce future
energy demands, and its development and implementation of the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative, among other voluntary environmental
undertakings, indicate that an incentives program may be widely
accepted and utilized by individual mills.
For this reason, EPA is establishing a Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program to encourage mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory to move beyond today's baseline
BAT technologies toward the ``mill of the future,'' which EPA believes
will have a minimum impact on the environment. EPA also intends the
program to serve as a pilot program for determining the effectiveness
of regulatory incentives as a means of stimulating development of
environmentally beneficial technologies. As a result of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program, EPA hopes to achieve within
sixteen years greater pollutant reductions than it could achieve solely
by establishing a technological floor. Indeed, the development of
increasingly more advanced bleach plant process technologies is a
critical step toward the Clean Water Act's ultimate goal of eliminating
the discharge of pollutants into the Nation's waters. See CWA Section
101(a)(1).
The BAT program under the Clean Water Act is widely and justifiably
applauded as a critical tool in forcing the development and
installation of environmentally beneficial technologies. The statute
demands progress toward the goal of eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants, CWA Section 301(b)(2)(A), but emphasizes that that progress
must be ``reasonable.'' Id. This Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program marries the twin objectives embodied in Section
301(b)(2)(A): compelling the industry to go as far as it reasonably can
go, through the achievement of limits that are technically and
economically achievable, while holding out through the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program an array of alternative effluent
limits that EPA believes will lead to zero discharge. The baseline BAT
limitations discharge EPA's statutory mandate: to promulgate
limitations based on the best available technology economically
achievable. The Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, in
turn, promotes EPA's statutory goal: to establish limitations that act
as a beacon to show what is possible.
EPA is codifying three tiers of Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
effluent limitations and two tiers of Voluntary Advanced Technology
NSPS, which together form the backbone of the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program for mills in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory. The three BAT tiers are
[[Page 18594]]
labeled Tier I, Tier II and Tier III; the two NSPS tiers are labeled
Tier II and Tier III. Tier III is the most stringent of the tiers. Each
BAT tier is made up of an array of increasingly more stringent
enforceable effluent limitations, culminating in the ultimate
performance requirements for that particular tier. The NSPS tiers
consist entirely of the ultimate performance requirements for each
tier. In addition to the Voluntary Advanced Technology effluent
limitations and NSPS codified today, EPA has also assembled a number of
incentives relating to permitting and enforcement matters and public
recognition. EPA hopes these incentives will encourage many mills to
develop and install advanced and even innovative technologies that will
lead the industry as a whole toward the elimination of pollutant
discharges.
EPA believes it is appropriate as a matter of policy to offer mills
incentives to reach beyond the baseline BAT and NSPS process
technologies. Capital costs associated with the Tier I technology are
substantially greater than the capital costs of Option A, which is the
technology basis for the baseline BAT limits. Although over ten years a
mill employing Tier I technologies will likely save money in operating
costs, the capital outlay involved may discourage mills from doing more
than the regulatory minimum. For Tiers II and III, the costs and risks
are even more acute, when one considers the cost of research,
development, and full scale commercial trials of technologies in the
early stages of development and implementation, as well as the
associated uncertainties concerning possible product impacts. EPA is
interested in encouraging research, development and installation of
emerging technologies in order to motivate the development of these
technologies for broader commercial applications. As these technologies
become proven and their efficiencies publicized, EPA hopes that they
will become--in effect if not as a matter of law--the industry floor.
Thus, EPA believes it is in the public interest to encourage mills
today to develop environmentally beneficial technology and to reward
mills that are innovative and forward-looking in their use of new and
more environmentally effective technology despite its greater cost.
EPA received suggestions for an incentives program from a number of
stakeholders. From these and other stakeholder suggestions, EPA has
developed a program, presented below, that is intended to provide
incentives for further long term environmental improvements. EPA is
incorporating several types of incentives in this program. In addition,
because mill-specific factors, including product specifications and
existing equipment, will affect the technical approach taken and the
environmental goal attainable by an individual mill, EPA is
establishing several tiers of Advanced Technology performance
objectives, each with limitations and standards specific to the model
technology EPA is positing. In order to promote ambitious use of
Advanced Technologies, EPA is offering greater incentives for greater
reductions in pollutant discharge.
EPA recognizes that some mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory have already installed or have committed to install
Advanced Technologies that are achieving or have the potential to
achieve effluent limitations equivalent to the ultimate performance
requirements of one or more of the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentive Tiers. If these mills accept enforceable NPDES permit
limitations at one of the Tier levels, they will qualify for the
incentives program at that level. In some instances, therefore, the
incentives will actually serve as rewards for effluent reductions
already achieved.
2. Mechanics of the Incentives Program
The Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory will supplement the
otherwise compulsory baseline BAT and NSPS program. EPA emphasizes that
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program is entirely
voluntary; no mill in Subpart B is required to participate. Rather,
mills subject to the baseline BAT limits and NSPS contained in Subpart
B may enroll in the incentives program and thus subject themselves to
more stringent technology-based limitations corresponding to the
Incentives Tier they select. For example, a mill that determines that
it can achieve Tier II limits may designate itself as a BAT Tier II
mill. A mill with more than one fiber line subject to Subpart B may
choose to enroll all or some of its fiber lines in the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program. A mill wishing to experiment
with advanced or even innovative bleaching technologies also may choose
different Tiers for different fiber lines. After the mill enrolls in
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, the permit writer
must place the corresponding BAT limitations in the mill's permit.
Achievement of the Advanced Technology BAT limitations thereafter would
be compulsory for that mill. A mill that chooses not to participate in
the program will receive the baseline BAT limitations or NSPS;
similarly, a mill that chooses to enroll some but not all of its
Subpart B fiber lines in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program will receive baseline BAT limitations or NSPS for its non-
participating fiber lines.
EPA expects that an interested mill would formally enroll in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program prior to issuance of
its next NPDES discharge permit. Enrollment can be made by indicating
the mill's intent on its permit application or through separate
correspondence to the permitting authority as long as the signatory
requirements of 40 CFR 122.22 are met. However, as discussed in more
detail in Section IX.A.7 below, EPA assumes that most mills, for
practical purposes, will decide whether to participate in the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program in the next year in order to
assure that they will have the maximum amount of time to achieve the
various Tier limitations and to receive the additional compliance time
for MACT, established under these rules for mills enrolled in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. Any mill can
voluntarily enter at any tier appropriate to its individual
circumstances. Further, mills that enter either at Tier I or Tier II
may decide, after making such a commitment in permits but before
termination of the appropriate compliance period (i.e., not later than
six years after publication of these rules--Tier I, or not later than
11 years after publication of these rules--Tier II), to commit to the
requirements of a more stringent tier (i.e., Tier II or Tier III). Such
mills will be subject to the deadlines specified in the regulation for
the newly chosen tier.
Existing dischargers volunteering to participate in the incentives
program would receive BAT limitations that become progressively more
stringent over time. Although applied in stages, the limitations
represent a continuum of progress that a participating mill commits,
and is required, to achieve. At the first stage in the continuum are
limitations for the enrolled fiber line that reflect either a mill's
existing effluent quality or its current technology-based permit limits
for the BAT parameters, whichever are more stringent. See 40 CFR
430.24(b)(1). For the bleach plant parameters, such as dioxin, existing
effluent quality would be determined at the bleach plant, while
existing effluent quality for AOX would be determined at the end of the
pipe based on loadings attributable to that
[[Page 18595]]
fiber line. Id. The next stage in the continuum consists of enforceable
interim milestones. Under one set of milestones, existing dischargers
enrolled in Tiers II or III are required to meet interim BAT
limitations equivalent to the baseline BAT limitations by April 15,
2004. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3). (By that date, dischargers enrolled are
required to meet the baseline BAT limitations for all pollutants,
except for Tier I; the AOX limitation for mills enrolled in Tier I is
the ultimate performance requirement for Tier I. Id.) Under the second
set of milestones, existing dischargers enrolled in any tier are
required to meet enforceable requirements determined by the permitting
authority based on best professional judgment; these milestones would
be expressed as narrative or numeric conditions in the mill's NPDES
permit. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(2). EPA intends the milestones to reflect each
step in a mill's progress toward achievement of the Tier's ultimate
performance requirements. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is
proposing to require each participating mill to submit to its
permitting authority a plan detailing the steps it plans to take (with
corresponding dates) in order to meet its applicable BAT Tier
limitations. Under the proposed regulation, permit writers would be
authorized to use the information in the milestone plan as a basis for
setting milestone limitations. The final stage in the BAT continuum
represents the ultimate Advanced Technology performance levels for the
Tier selected. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). As noted above, the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program is also available for new
sources that elect to exceed baseline NSPS requirements. See 40 CFR
430.25(c). For new sources (as defined at 430.01(j)), the incentives
program begins at Tier II. The ultimate Tier II and Tier III
performance requirements constitute NSPS for such mills, with the
addition of standards for conventional pollutants at the baseline NSPS
level. See 40 CFR 430.25(c)(1) and (2). The NSPS Tier II and Tier III
performance requirements are the same as the ultimate BAT Tier II and
Tier III performance requirements for BAT. As required by CWA Section
306, new sources must comply with the applicable NSPS upon commencing
operation; therefore, the incremental approach of achieving
progressively more stringent performance levels discussed above for
existing sources would not apply to new sources enrolled in the
incentives program.
In addition to Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations and
NSPS, the NPDES permit of a mill enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program will need to contain all other permit
limitations and conditions otherwise applicable to the mill, including
any conventional pollutant limitations and standards, any water
quality-based effluent limitations required under CWA Section
301(b)(1)(C), and best management practices provisions, including those
promulgated today. Schedules for complying with those requirements, if
any, are determined by the applicable law; nothing in this incentives
program alters in any way those compliance deadlines.
Because mills enrolling in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program are subject to more stringent BAT limitations and
NSPS than EPA could otherwise compel through national effluent
limitations guidelines, EPA has assembled a package of rewards and
incentives for participating mills. The public recognition incentive is
available as soon as a mill accepts Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limitations in its NPDES permit. The reduced monitoring incentive
applicable to dioxin, furan, chloroform and the 12 chlorinated phenolic
pollutants is available as soon as participating mills achieve those
limitations. See 40 CFR 430.02(c). The reduced monitoring incentive
applicable to AOX is available only after the ultimate Advanced
Technology performance level for that pollutant is achieved. See 40 CFR
430.02(d) and (e). The remaining incentives, including greater permit
certainty, reduced inspections, and reduced penalties, are available
only after the mill achieves all of the ultimate Advanced Technology
performance levels.
EPA has decided not to make the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program available to indirect discharges at this time
because it would be much more difficult to administer than the baseline
PSES program and therefore would impose substantial burden on local
governments. Further, EPA does not believe that commitments by indirect
dischargers to reduce AOX or flow levels warrants any delay in
compliance with limitations on dioxin and furan due to POTW pass-
through and biosolids contamination concerns. Similarly, EPA has not
identified feasible technologies beyond BAT that can significantly
reduce pollutant discharges from mills in the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory at this time, and so is not able to develop an incentives
program for this subcategory. Moreover, stakeholders have offered no
specific suggestions or supporting information and data upon which EPA
reasonably could develop a program for the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory. However, EPA will consider developing incentive programs
for other subcategories as BAT limitations are promulgated for those
subcategories.
3. The Technology Bases for the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
Limitations and NSPS
In order to determine the appropriate Voluntary Advanced Technology
BAT limitations and NSPS, EPA first selected a model technology for
each Tier. For Tier I, which applies only to BAT, EPA determined that
the most appropriate technology was extended delignification with
complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine,
closing up wastewater discharges from the fiber line prior to
bleaching, and efficient biological wastewater treatment. EPA selected
this technology basis because it is available today (see discussion of
BAT Option B and NSPS technology in Section VI.B.5.(a) and (b)),
because it is economically achievable for mills voluntarily choosing to
implement it (see Section IX.A.6), and because it represents an
important step in the direction of a minimum impact mill.
The model technology for Tier II Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limitations and NSPS consists of extended delignification with complete
substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine, supplemented
with increased use of water conservation practices, water reuse
practices, bleach plant filtrate recycling practices, and efficient
biological wastewater treatment. EPA anticipates that Tier II mills
will maximize the capability of extended delignification technology,
thereby reducing the amount of chlorine dioxide used in bleaching. The
model Tier II mill also will have highly effective pulping liquor spill
prevention and control and will have evaporators that minimize the
amount of black liquor carryover, to allow for extensive condensate
reuse. EPA expects that Tier II mills also will employ a closed fiber
line prior to bleaching improved water reuse within the bleach plant,
and will recycle a portion of bleach plant filtrate back through the
fiber line to the recovery cycle. The Tier II Advanced Technology BAT
limitations and NSPS represent the performance demonstrated by mills
that minimize effluent flow and reduce the formation of chlorinated
organic compounds using these technologies and practices. Three mills
in the United States are approaching the reduced wastewater flow levels
equivalent to Tier II, which leads EPA
[[Page 18596]]
to conclude that flow reduction technologies are emerging. Although the
flow volume projected or reported by these mills excludes pulping area
or evaporator condensates, which EPA includes within its Tier II flow
limitation, EPA expects that over the next ten or eleven years
condensate reuse strategies and discharge flow reduction technologies
will mature to allow mills to achieve the pulping area condensate,
evaporator condensate and bleach plant wastewater flow level being
codified today as part of Tier II. For further discussion of EPA's
rationale for selecting this technology as the basis for Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT limitations and NSPS at the Tier II level, see
Section IX.A.6.
The model technology for the Tier III Voluntary Advanced Technology
BAT limitations and NSPS represents what EPA believes can be achieved
in 15 or 16 years by mills on the cutting edge of minimum effluent
technology. In EPA's view, such mills will fully reuse pulping area and
evaporator system condensates, have a closed fiber line prior to
bleaching, and recycle the majority of bleach plant filtrates back to
the recovery cycle. EPA expects that these mills will also operate
efficient biological treatment systems. To achieve this degree of mill
closure, in addition to the level of technology described under Tier
II, EPA expects the model Tier III mill will have ``kidney'' technology
to remove metals from bleach filtrate and chloride from the mill liquor
cycle, and may perform extensive steam stripping or other treatment of
condensates to allow for full reuse. Mills that choose to use ozone
delignification may avoid the need for a chloride removal system. EPA
also expects that the Tier III mills will have advanced process control
systems and negligible losses of black liquor through leaks and spills.
Finally, the model Tier III mill will likely have extended liquid
storage capacity as part of its water recycle and liquor management
systems to help maintain the good hydraulic balance required for low
discharge flow operation. While no U.S. mill today is achieving these
limitations, EPA believes that the continuing progress being made by
mills toward closed-loop processing will lead to greater innovation
regarding technologies and practices necessary to achieve the Tier III
limitations. For further discussion of EPA's rationale for selecting
this technology as the basis for Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limitations and NSPS at the Tier III level, see Section IX.A.6. For a
more detailed discussion of the technology bases for the Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT Limitations and NSPS, see Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program Technical Support Document (DCN 14488).
4. Pollutants Regulated by Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT and NSPS
Limitations
Except for TCF-based processes, each Advanced Technology tier
consists of limitations for dioxin, furan, chloroform, and 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants monitored at the bleach plant. EPA is
not codifying limits for these pollutants for TCF processes. As
discussed in more detail below, each Tier also includes AOX limitations
monitored at the end of the pipe and, depending on the Tier,
limitations on lignin content or wastewater flow. In addition, each BAT
Tier includes limitations on pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol
(when used as biocides), see 40 CFR 430.24(d), and each NSPS Tier
includes limitations on BOD5, TSS and pH, as well as
biocides. See 40 CFR 430.25(c) and (d).
EPA has chosen to use AOX as a performance standard for each of the
three Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT tiers because AOX is a measure
of progress in reducing the total chlorinated organic matter in
wastewaters resulting from the bleaching of pulps. In addition, the use
of AOX rather than other measures of organic matter (e.g.,
BOD5) will further encourage a pollution prevention approach
instead of end-of-pipe treatment technologies. The final rule
establishes minimum monitoring frequencies for AOX for each of the
Tiers, except for TCF fiber lines. See 40 CFR 430.02(d) and (e). For
TCF fiber lines, permit writers should determine the appropriate
monitoring frequency to assure continued compliance with the AOX
limitation.
In addition to the AOX criterion, EPA is establishing BAT
limitations requirements for Tier I that include kappa numbers measured
prior to bleaching and a narrative limitation calling for recycling of
all filtrates generated prior to the point at which that kappa number
is measured. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). The kappa number is a measure
of lignin content in unbleached pulp, and is routinely determined by
mills. EPA is not establishing minimum monitoring requirements for
kappa numbers in this regulation. Permit writers maintain the authority
to establish monitoring frequencies on a best professional judgment
basis.
By meeting the kappa number limitations, Tier I mills will achieve
substantial reductions in precursors for chlorinated organic pollutants
found in lignin beyond reductions achieved by mills with conventional
pulping processes. See DCN 14488. Some industry commenters suggested
that EPA simply specify qualifying Advanced Technologies and require
participating mills to employ one or more of those technologies in
order to receive incentives. EPA rejected this approach because it
would inhibit development of equivalent technologies that EPA cannot
foresee today and is inconsistent with the traditional performance-
based structure of technology-based effluent limitations under the
Clean Water Act. Nevertheless, EPA agrees with these commenters that
Tier I mills will in all likelihood employ extended delignification
technologies or other technologies that similarly reduce the kappa
number prior to bleaching; EPA, therefore, is requiring Tier I mills to
achieve specified kappa numbers that reflect the performance
capabilities of well-operated, extended delignification systems. In
addition, EPA's Tier I limits reflect EPA's expectation that Tier I
mills will be bleaching pulps with less lignin and, hence, will realize
significant reductions in the amount of unrecoverable bleaching
chemicals required to achieve their target brightness. By using less
bleaching chemical, Tier I mills will further reduce the formation and
discharge of chlorinated organic pollutants generated by bleaching
pulps with chlorine-containing compounds, including chlorine dioxide.
By recycling the pulping area filtrates, Tier I mills also will be
implementing an important building block for long-term flow reduction
goals, and eliminating an important source of weak black liquor
discharge that would otherwise go to the mill's wastewater treatment
plant. See DCN 14488.
By defining Tier I with parameter values (AOX, kappa numbers) and
recycle requirements as presented above, EPA intends to provide maximum
encouragement to as many mills as possible to achieve the performance
of at least the initial threshold of the Advanced Technology program.
Adopting threshold performance criteria that are too stringent could
discourage mills from making additional capital investments beyond
those necessary to achieve the baseline BAT. This could undermine one
goal of the incentives program, which is to achieve the greatest
environmental results possible consistent with mills' capital
[[Page 18597]]
investment cycles. Conversely, setting threshold criteria at levels
that could be met by some mills that comply only with the baseline BAT
limitations and that do not employ Advanced Technologies could serve as
a disincentive to invest in Advanced Technologies that achieve dramatic
reductions in pollutant loadings and flow. The kappa numbers defined
above for Tier I, while at the upper end of the range of values
achieved by extended delignification technologies, nonetheless appear
to separate mills that employ them from mills that would use
conventional pulping technologies to achieve the BAT limitations. See
DCN 14488.
EPA is setting the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations
and NSPS for Tier II and Tier III based on a different philosophy than
for Tier I. EPA believes that Tiers II and III should reflect a
movement toward the long-term goal of minimizing impacts of mills in
all environmental media through partially or fully closed loop
processes. For Tier II, EPA is setting an AOX limit based on a long-
term average (0.10 kg/kkg) that is currently being achieved by some of
the best mills in the industry. See DCN 14488. See 40 CFR
430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). For Tier III, EPA is setting an AOX
limit based on a long-term average (0.05 kg/kkg) that is being achieved
by only a very few mills, including one ECF mill. SeDCN 14488. Id. This
ECF mill achieved the AOX limit only with hardwood furnish; moreover,
it did so without the level of flow reduction anticipated for Tier III.
See DCN 14488. It is the Agency's judgment, based on trends in ECF
technology development to date, that with recycle of pulping and
evaporator condensates and bleach plant filtrates necessary to achieve
a wastewater flow of 5 m3/kkg, and removal of chlorides from
the liquor cycle, commensurate reductions in the mass of chlorinated
organic pollutants contained in wastewaters discharged also are likely
to occur. For this reason, it is EPA's judgment that the Tier III AOX
limit will be achievable by advanced ECF mills for both hardwood and
softwood furnishes as well as advanced TCF mills.
The Tier II and Tier III BAT limitations and NSPS also include
restrictions on wastewater flow and a requirement that all pulping-area
filtrates be recycled to chemical recovery prior to bleaching. See 40
CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). As discussed above for Tier I,
the filtrates recycle requirement is an important step toward long-term
flow reduction. Flow reduction and progress toward closed loop mill
operations, in turn, are very important long-term environmental goals
because pollutant releases to all environmental media would be
minimized.
While mills currently measure end-of-pipe flow at the point of
permitted discharges, Tier II and Tier III mills will be required to
establish and maintain flow measurement equipment to verify compliance
with the annual average reduced flow limits for those tiers for bleach
plant and pulping area and evaporator condensates. EPA is not
establishing minimum monitoring frequencies for flow in this
regulation. Permit writers maintain the authority to establish
monitoring frequencies on a best professional judgment basis. See 40
CFR 430.02.
Review of currently available data and literature indicates that
the numerical values for flow set forth to define Tiers II (10
m3/kkg) and III (5 m3/kkg) are appropriately
stringent reduced flow targets by comparison to current wastewater flow
for mills with extended delignification technologies. See DCN 14488.
EPA believes it is appropriate to include condensates as part of the
specified wastewater flow volume because technologies are available
today that allow for their recycle and reuse; use of these technologies
therefore ensures that the cumulative volume of wastewater flow is
reduced to the greatest extent possible. See DCN 14488. One technology
in particular is the ``clean condensate alternative,'' which is a
viable MACT compliance alternative. See 40 CFR 63.447. This alternative
facilitates the segregation, treatment, and reuse of condensates and
thus will assist mills in achieving the wastewater flow objectives.
Inclusion of pulping and evaporator condensates in these reduced flow
targets therefore is consistent with the ``clean condensate'' MACT
compliance alternative and will promote flow reduction through recycle
and reuse of the greatest possible volume of process wastewater.
EPA has the legal authority to establish Advanced Technology
effluent limitations for non-chemical parameters, such as lignin
content measurements and flow, and to do so where appropriate in
narrative form. For Tier I, these limitations take the form of kappa
numbers to measure lignin content in unbleached pulp and a narrative
requirement to recycle pulping area filtrates; for Tiers II and III,
they take the form of numerical limitations on process wastewater
flows, as well as the narrative requirement to recycle pulping area
filtrates. EPA has the authority to establish limits for lignin content
in unbleached pulp, for recycle of filtrates, and for reduced process
wastewater flows because each of these parameters functions as a
restriction on the quantities, rates or concentrations of chlorinated
organic pollutants and other pollutants in a mill's wastestream. See
CWA Section 502(11). Restrictions on lignin content of unbleached pulp,
measured as a kappa number, can be used to reduce the presence of
precursors for chlorinated organic pollutants in a mill's wastewater.
In addition, lignin itself is a material that includes polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons; a number of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
are included in EPA's list of priority pollutants. See Appendix A to
Part 403 (reprinted after 40 CFR 423.17). Recycling pulping area
filtrates to the chemical recovery cycle prevents the discharge of weak
black liquor, which includes inorganic pulping chemicals and dissolved
wood substances. The dissolved wood substances include polynuclear
aromatic materials, degraded carbohydrates, low-molecular weight
organic acids, and wood extractives (resins and fatty acids). The
toxicity of the materials contained in black liquor is well documented;
see the BMP Technical Support Document (DCN 14489). Limits for process
wastewater flow, in this case pertaining to total pulping area and
evaporator condensate and bleach plant wastewater, move mills toward
closed loop operations. Reductions in flow will have the effect of
dramatically reducing mass loadings--and discharges--of non-chlorinated
organics such as lignin and a variety of chlorinated organics in
addition to dioxin, furan and the chlorinated phenolic pollutants
specifically regulated today. Because those pollutants are far too
numerous to measure individually (and some have not been specifically
isolated and identified), EPA determined that it was impracticable to
set mass-based limits for all of those pollutants. See DCN 14488. EPA
judged that establishing flow levels for Tiers II and III would be the
best way to control the discharge of these pollutants.
For the foregoing reasons, all of these Advanced Technology
performance objectives qualify as effluent limitations under CWA
section 502(11). As noted above, the filtrates recycle limitation is a
narrative limitation. Nothing in the definition of effluent limitation
in CWA section 502(11) or elsewhere in the CWA compels that
restrictions on the discharge of pollutants be expressed in numeric
form. See NRDC v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In this
instance, EPA determined that the
[[Page 18598]]
restriction on filtrates (and hence the prevention of discharge of
toxic materials) could not be expressed as a numeric limitation and
therefore expressed that restriction in narrative form instead.
For further discussion of the effluent reductions and environmental
benefits associated with the Advanced Technology BAT limitations and
standards promulgated for these parameters, see DCN 14488.
5. Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations and NSPS
The Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations consist of three
separate components, which together comprise BAT for the particular
Tier. See 40 CFR 430.24(b). The first and third components consist of
numeric effluent limitations for the pollutants regulated by the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. The second component
consists of enforceable interim milestones. Under one set of
milestones, existing dischargers enrolled in Tiers II or III are
required to meet interim BAT limitations equivalent to the baseline BAT
limitations by April 15, 2004. Under the second set of milestones,
existing dischargers enrolled in any tier are required to meet
enforceable requirements that are developed on a best professional
judgment basis by the permitting authority; these milestones are
expressed in either narrative or numeric form. Taken together, these
three components constitute reasonable further progress toward the
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants and for
this reason represent BAT.
The Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS consist of only one stage--
the ultimate performance objectives for the Tier in question, with the
addition of conventional limitations at the baseline NSPS level. See 40
CFR 430.25(c). This is because new sources, unlike existing sources
subject to BAT, must design and construct their facilities to achieve
NSPS upon commencing operation; sequencing limitations to achieve
continuing progress would be inconsistent with this statutory mandate.
a. ``Stage 1'' BAT Limitations. In the regulation, EPA has codified
the first set of numeric BAT effluent limitations as ``stage 1''
limitations to be applied in the absence of more stringent WQBELs. See
40 CFR 430.24(b)(1). Although expressed in this regulation in narrative
form, EPA intends that the permitting authority will express that
limitation in numeric form for each participating mill on a case-by-
case basis. The ``stage 1'' limitations thus will be numeric values on
dioxin, furan, chloroform, AOX, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants
that, for each pollutant, are equivalent to the more stringent of
either the technology-based limit on that pollutant in the mill's last
permit or the mill's current effluent quality with respect to that
pollutant. Id. Existing effluent quality for AOX would be determined at
the end of the pipe based on loadings attributable to that fiber line;
for all other pollutants covered by the Advanced Technology BAT
limitations, such as dioxin, existing effluent quality would be
determined at the point where the wastewater containing those
pollutants leaves the bleach plant. Id. These ``stage 1'' BAT limits
represent the first step in the Advanced Technology BAT continuum and
are enforceable against the participating mill as soon as they are
placed in the mill's NPDES permit.
The purpose of the ``stage 1'' BAT limits is to ensure that, at a
minimum, existing effluent quality is maintained while the mill moves
toward achieving the ultimate Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
performance requirements for the Tier selected by the mill. As Advanced
Technology permits are reissued for Tier II or Tier III mills, in
particular, new ``stage 1'' limitations must be established to reflect
the improving effluent quality of that mill. Id. Allowing a mill to
degrade its effluent quality during development and installation of
Advanced Technologies would be inconsistent with the statute's
direction that BAT limitations achieve reasonable further progress
toward the Clean Water Act's national goals. EPA's ``stage 1''
limitations, thus, are intended to capture continuously improving
effluent quality.
EPA had considered, but rejected, attempting to codify the ``stage
1'' limits in numeric form. First, EPA has no way on this record to
quantify and hence codify the existing effluent quality of each mill
that is potentially eligible to participate in this program. Nor would
such an attempt be wise, because EPA expects that mills considering
participating in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program
will continue to improve their effluent quality up to and beyond the
promulgation date of this regulation and, most likely, up to and beyond
the dates that their existing effluent quality is translated into
enforceable permit limits. Therefore, even if EPA could codify such
``stage 1'' limitations today, doing so would likely establish a less
stringent technological floor than the permitting authority would be
able to establish each time an Advanced Technology permit is issued
prior to achievement of the ultimate Advanced Technology performance
requirements.
Because the ``stage 1'' limitations reflect a level of technology
that the mill is already employing or that was previously determined to
be BAT for that mill, EPA has determined that the technology bases for
the ``stage 1'' limits are both technically available and economically
achievable. EPA has also determined that they would not impose any
adverse non-water quality environmental impacts. EPA has determined
that these ``stage 1'' limitations are the ``best'' available
technology economically achievable for mills participating in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program because they allow
those mills to focus their resources on the research, development,
testing, and installation of the technologies ultimately needed to
achieve the Advanced Technology performance levels. Thus, ``stage 1''
limitations reflect ``reasonable further progress toward the national
goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants,'' as called for by
CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). EPA also considered all of the other
statutory factors specified in CWA section 304(b)(2)(B) and concluded
that nothing in EPA's analysis of those factors justifies selecting a
different set of ``stage 1'' BAT limitations. For these reasons, EPA
determined that the ``stage 1'' BAT limitations promulgated today
represent the appropriate first rung of the Advanced Technology BAT
ladder that participating mills will have committed to ascend.
EPA did not set ``stage 1'' limits at the baseline BAT level
because baseline BAT limits are not a logical first step to meeting the
ultimate Advanced Technology BAT limitations for the reasons set forth
below. See DCN 14488. First, as a technical matter, mills subject to
such interim limits most likely would need to install more chlorine
dioxide generator capacity than they ultimately would use to achieve
the Advanced Technology performance requirements. (EPA believes most
Advanced Technology mills ultimately will employ complete substitution
of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine, preceded by extended
delignification processes--a sequence that calls for approximately 30
to 75 percent less chlorine dioxide than a mill would use to achieve
the baseline BAT requirements depending on the degree of extended
delignification used.) Second, as an economic matter, interim
limitations driving a mill to over-design its chlorine dioxide
generator would cause the mill to divert capital away
[[Page 18599]]
from the processes needed to achieve the ultimate Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT limitations. That diversion of resources undercuts one
of EPA's principal assumptions regarding the economic achievability of
the ultimate Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations: that mills
would be able to focus their capital and other resources entirely on
those superior performance levels. Thus, EPA was concerned that by
compelling achievement of baseline BAT limitations as ``stage 1''
limitations, EPA would unnecessarily inflate the overall cost of
achieving the ultimate Advanced Technology limitations. This would
likely cause some mills to conclude that they cannot sustain the
overall costs of achieving the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limitations in an economically achievable manner. Other mills, in turn,
might decide to absorb the additional costs by diverting resources from
other environmentally beneficial projects that they might have
voluntarily undertaken. The Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to consider
non-water quality environmental impacts and other factors EPA deems
appropriate in setting BAT limitations. See CWA Section 304(b)(2)(B).
For these reasons, EPA believes that compelling achievement of the
baseline BAT limits in the first instance would have had the
contradictory and unintended effect of discouraging participation in
the program, with the result that fewer mills ultimately would be
motivated to achieve superior environmental performance. Finally, as
discussed in more detail below, EPA is requiring mills at the Tier II
and Tier III levels to achieve interim limitations equivalent to
baseline BAT by April 15, 2004. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3).
b. Interim Milestones. As the second component of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT for the three Incentives Tiers, EPA is
requiring the establishment of enforceable interim milestones. See 40
CFR 430.24(b) (2) and (3). EPA believes that interim milestones would
incrementally benefit the environment during the period prior to
achievement of the ultimate Advanced Technology performance levels and
will ensure that participating mills make reasonable progress toward
achieving the superior performance represented by the various Advanced
Technology BAT Tiers.
EPA is promulgating two sets of enforceable interim milestones. The
first set requires mills enrolled at the Tier II or the Tier III level
to achieve limitations equivalent to baseline BAT limitations by April
15, 2004. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3). (Mills enrolled at the Tier I level are
required to achieve those limitations as well as the ultimate Advanced
Technology limitations by that date. 40 CFR 430.24(b) (3) and (4).) EPA
believes that this is a reasonable requirement not only because it
ensures significant environmental progress consistent with CWA section
301(b)(2), but it also reflects the technology performance Tier II and
Tier III mills are likely to be achieving by that date. Mills enrolled
in Tier II and Tier III are expected to substantially modify pulping
and bleaching processes (e.g., install extended delignification, ECF,
or TCF bleaching) to comply with the Advanced Technology limitations.
EPA expects that all Tier II or Tier III mills will install extended
delignification and complete substitution (ECF) or TCF bleaching
processes well in advance of achieving their wastewater flow objectives
in order to allow sufficient time to design, install, test and adjust
their other flow-related processes. In EPA's judgment, process changes
sufficient to achieve baseline BAT limitations will occur by April 15,
2004. Once these processes are installed, the mill will be achieving or
exceeding the baseline BAT limitations being required by that date. See
DCN 14488.
EPA notes that mills required to achieve water quality-based or
other effluent limitations equivalent to one or more of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT limitations are still eligible to enroll in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program and to receive
incentives for achieving the remaining Voluntary Advanced Technology
limitations. However, the time for complying with water quality-based
or other equivalent effluent limitations would be determined by
applicable law, not by this Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program. Therefore, for example, if a mill's NPDES permit compels
immediate compliance with a dioxin limitation equivalent to the
Voluntary Advanced (BAT) Technology limitation on dioxin because of
water quality concerns or other requirements of state or federal law,
this six-year milestone would not be available for that dioxin
limitation. See CWA section 301(b)(1)(C).
The second set of enforceable interim milestones promulgated today
applies to all mills enrolled in the Advanced Technology Incentives
Program. Although today's rule leaves the type and frequency of these
milestones to the permit writer's best professional judgment, see 40
CFR 430.24(b)(2), milestones should include intermediate pollutant load
and wastewater flow reductions (for Tier II and Tier III mills) in
addition to research schedules, construction schedules, mill trial
schedules, or other milestones appropriate to the advanced technology
and the participating mill. Interim milestones should be tailored to
circumstances and process technologies at individual mills.
In order to facilitate the development of appropriate interim
milestones on a case-by-case basis, EPA proposes elsewhere in today's
Federal Register to require all mills enrolling in the incentives
program to submit plans detailing the strategy the mill will follow to
develop and implement the technology required to achieve the chosen
incentive tier, as well as the interim numeric limitations for Tiers II
and III. The plan should describe each envisioned new technology
component or process modification the mill will need to achieve the
Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limits. A master schedule should be
included in the plan showing the sequence of implementing the new
technologies and process modifications and identifying critical path
relationships within the sequence. For each individual technology or
process modification, a schedule should be provided that lists the
anticipated date that associated construction, installation, or process
changes will be initiated, the anticipated date that those steps will
be completed, and the anticipated date that the full Advanced
Technology process or individual component will be fully operational.
For those technologies or process modifications that are not
commercially available or demonstrated on a full scale basis at the
time the plan is developed, the plan should include a schedule for
research (if necessary), process development, and mill trials. The
schedule for research, process development, and mill trials should show
major milestone dates and the anticipated date the technology or
process change will be available for mill implementation. The plan also
would need to include contingency plans in the event that any of the
technologies or processes specified in the Milestones Plan need to be
adjusted or alternative approaches developed to ensure that the
ultimate tier limits are achieved by the dates in the master schedule.
EPA expects the permitting authority to use the information contained
in those plans, as well as its own best professional judgment, to
establish enforceable interim milestones applying all statutory
factors. EPA also expects permit writers to include reopener clauses in
the permits to adjust these milestones including dates to reflect the
[[Page 18600]]
results of research (if necessary), process development, and mill
trials.
Section 402(a) of the Clean Water Act authorizes permit writers to
establish permit conditions and limitations on the basis of best
professional judgment as necessary to achieve the objectives of the
Act. Although EPA is promulgating BAT limitations under CWA sections
301 and 304, EPA is not--nor could it today--codify the particular
process development, construction, and testing milestones that will
lead each participating mill to achieve the ultimate Voluntary Advanced
Technology performance requirements. Identifying those milestones is
best left to the judgment of the permit writer, who will have access to
far more mill-specific information than EPA has today.
c. ``Stage 2'' limitations. The third component of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT limitations consists of the ``stage 2''
limitations. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). These are the only standards
applicable to Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS and must be achieved
upon commencing operation. See 40 CFR 430.25(c). Also included in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS are standards for dioxin, furan,
chloroform, 12 chlorinated phenolic compounds, BOD5, TSS,
and pH at the baseline NSPS level. See 40 CFR 430.25(c)(1). In
addition, standards for pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol, when
used as biocides, are part of the Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS.
See 40 CFR 430.25(d).
These limitations and standards represent the ultimate performance
requirements for each Tier. The ``stage 2'' limitations are as follows:
(1) Tier I Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations (``stage
2''). For Tier I, the ultimate performance requirement for AOX is a
long-term average (LTA) of 0.26 kg/kkg, measured at the end of the
pipe. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). Under this Tier, Advanced Technology
fiber lines at participating mills must also achieve reduced lignin
content in unbleached pulps as measured by a kappa number of 20 for
softwoods and 13 for hardwoods and reported as an annual average. Id.
Finally, Tier I Advanced Technology fiber lines must recycle to
recovery systems all filtrates up to the point at which the unbleached
pulp kappa numbers are measured (e.g., brownstock into bleaching). Tier
I also includes limitations for dioxin, furan, chloroform and 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants, see 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3). Limitations
on these parameters are established at the baseline BAT levels because
application of Advanced Technologies does not appear on this record to
justify more stringent limitations.
(2) Tier II Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations (``stage
2'') and NSPS. For Tier II, the ultimate performance requirement for
AOX is an LTA of less than 0.10 kg/kkg, measured at the end of the
pipe. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). In addition, Tier II
Advanced Technology fiber lines must recycle to chemical recovery
systems all pulping-area filtrates prior to bleaching. Id. Finally,
Tier II Advanced Technology fiber lines must also achieve total pulping
area condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach plant wastewater
flow of 10 m\3\/kkg or less reported as an annual average. Id. Tier II
mills must also meet (or, in the case of existing dischargers, must
continue to meet) limitations for dioxin, furan, chloroform, and the 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3) and
430.25(c)(1). Application of the Tier II Technologies does not appear
to justify more stringent limitations for these parameters.
(3) Tier III Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations (``stage
2'') and NSPS. For Tier III, the ultimate performance requirement for
AOX is an LTA of less than 0.05 kg/kkg, measured at the end of the
pipe. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). In addition, Tier
III Advanced Technology fiber lines must recycle to chemical recovery
systems all pulping-area filtrates prior to bleaching. Id. Finally,
Tier III Advanced Technology fiber lines must also achieve total
pulping area condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach plant
wastewater flow of 5 m\3\/kkg or less reported as an annual average.
Id. Tier III mills must also meet (or, in the case of existing
dischargers, must continue to meet) limitations for dioxin, furan,
chloroform, and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40 CFR
430.24(b)(3) and 430.25(c)(1). Application of the Tier III Technologies
does not appear to justify more stringent limitations for these
parameters.
d. Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations and NSPS for Mills
Employing TCF Processes. In order to encourage mills to employ Advanced
Technologies founded on TCF processes, EPA is opening today's
incentives program to fiber lines that employ or commit to employ such
processes. Existing dischargers that choose to employ TCF processes are
subject to the ``stage 1'' limitations, interim milestones (including
the baseline BAT limitations), and the ``stage 2'' limitations
applicable to the selected tier. 40 CFR 430.24(b) and 430.25(c). These
limitations are discussed above. However, recently gathered data from
TCF mills indicate that all TCF mills will be able to achieve the AOX
performance requirements at any Tier level because end-of-pipe AOX
levels are being reported at below minimum level. See DCN 14488.
Consequently, the AOX limitations for TCF fiber lines are expressed as
``5
loads associated with the Advanced Technologies. The technology basis
of each of the Incentives Tiers will lead to overall decreases in
energy consumption, primarily because of replacement of chlorine
dioxide with oxygen-based delignification and bleaching chemicals. EPA
expects a slight increase in air emissions (<2 percent)="" due="" to="" increased="" recovery="" of="" black="" liquor="" that="" will="" occur="" under="" the="" incentives="" tiers.="" however,="" these="" are="" offset="" by="" reductions="" in="" air="" pollution="" that="" derive="" from="" the="" reductions="" in="" overall="" energy="" consumption.="" epa="" considered="" the="" potential="" for="" cross-media="" transfer="" of="" pollutants="" through="" implementation="" of="" the="" advanced="" technologies="" that="" form="" the="" basis="" of="" the="" incentives="" tiers.="" epa="" found="" no="" basis="" to="" conclude="" that="" cross-="" media="" transfer="" of="" pollutants="" would="" occur.="" see="" dcn="" 14488="" and="" dcn="" 14492.="" however,="" much="" of="" the="" tier="" ii="" and="" tier="" iii="" technology="" bases="" focus="" on="" closing="" mill="" process="" cycles,="" which="" has="" not="" yet="" been="" fully="" demonstrated.="" as="" these="" technologies="" are="" fully="" developed="" and="" implemented,="" sufficient="" engineering="" analyses="" and="" testing="" should="" be="" performed="" to="" assess="" whether="" unacceptable="" cross="" media="" transfer="" of="" pollutants="" are="" occurring,="" and="" whether="" modifications="" need="" to="" be="" made="" to="" avoid="" any="" unacceptable="" transfers="" identified.="" for="" nsps,="" epa="" has="" determined="" that="" tier="" ii="" and="" tier="" iii="" technologies="" constitute="" the="" best="" demonstrated="" control="" technologies="" for="" mills="" enrolling="" in="" those="" tiers.="" although="" epa="" cannot="" say="" today="" that="" either="" of="" these="" technology="" sequences="" is="" the="" best="" demonstrated="" control="" technology="" for="" new="" sources="" in="" the="" bleached="" papergrade="" kraft="" and="" soda="" subcategory="" as="" a="" whole,="" epa="" does="" believe="" that="" new="" sources="" emerging="" within="" the="" next="" 16="" years="" may="" characterize="" them="" as="" such="" based="" on="" their="" own="" sense="" of="" their="" economic="" and="" technical="" capabilities.="" therefore,="" as="" with="" existing="" sources,="" epa="" is="" promulgating="" this="" additional="" array="" of="" nsps="" in="" order="" to="" provide="" such="" mills="" the="" opportunity="" to="" pursue="" voluntarily="" pollution="" prevention="" technologies--and="" to="" accept="" correspondingly="" more="" stringent="" effluent="" limitations--if="" business="" circumstances="" warrant.="" epa="" notes="" that="" a="" mill="" subjecting="" itself="" to="" the="" advanced="" technology="" nsps="" will="" be="" shielded="" from="" more="" stringent="" technology-based="" effluent="" limitations="" for="" ten="" years="" beginning="" on="" the="" date="" that="" construction="" is="" completed.="" see="" cwa="" section="" 306(d).="" because="" these="" standards="" are="" entirely="" voluntary,="" their="" promulgation="" today="" presents="" no="" barrier="" to="" entry.="" in="" addition,="" epa="" has="" determined="" that="" achievement="" of="" these="" standards="" will="" not="" result="" in="" any="" significant="" non-water="" quality="" environmental="" impacts="" or="" significant="" additional="" energy="" requirements.="" see="" dcn="" 14488.="" nothing="" in="" epa's="" analysis="" of="" the="" other="" statutory="" factors="" applicable="" to="" nsps="" justified="" selecting="" different="" nsps="" technologies.="" epa="" also="" believes="" it="" is="" appropriate="" to="" promulgate="" limitations="" for="" all="" three="" tiers="" at="" the="" same="" time="" it="" promulgates="" the="" baseline="" bat="" limitations.="" (the="" same="" rationale="" applies="" for="" today's="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" nsps.)="" by="" promulgating="" all="" three="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" tiers="" today,="" rather="" than="" in="" five-year="" increments,="" epa="" hopes="" to="" encourage="" as="" many="" mills="" as="" possible="" to="" develop="" and="" install="" advanced="" technologies.="" on="" this="" record,="" epa="" has="" determined="" that="" its="" customary="" practice="" of="" promulgating="" a="" single="" bat="" for="" similarly="" situated="" mills--represented="" here="" by="" the="" baseline="" bat="" limitations--would="" have="" the="" unintended="" effect="" of="" impeding="" some="" mills'="" progress="" toward="" even="" greater="" environmental="" objectives="" than="" epa="" can="" compel="" at="" this="" time.="" thus,="" if="" epa="" were="" to="" promulgate="" only="" baseline="" bat="" limitations="" today="" and="" not="" establish="" a="" parallel="" track="" for="" mills="" converting="" to="" advanced="" technologies,="" epa="" is="" concerned="" that="" mills="" might="" abandon="" their="" voluntary="" long-term="" strategies="" of="" superior="" environmental="" performance="" in="" favor="" of="" compulsory="" short-term="" compliance="" strategies="" focused="" on="" the="" baseline="" bat.="" instead,="" by="" promulgating="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" at="" the="" same="" time="" as="" baseline="" bat="" limitations,="" epa="" allows="" interested="" mills="" to="" consider="" all="" technology="" options="" at="" the="" outset="" before="" they="" make="" their="" investment="" decisions="" and="" to="" design="" and="" install="" precisely="" the="" technologies="" and="" [[page="" 18603]]="" processes="" they="" will="" need="" to="" meet="" their="" long-term="" advanced="" technology="" objectives.="" therefore,="" epa="" has="" decided="" to="" promulgate="" all="" of="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" today="" in="" order="" to="" provide="" mills="" with="" an="" opportunity="" to="" push="" their="" environmental="" performance="" beyond="" the="" minimum="" prescribed="" by="" the="" baseline="" bat="" and="" on="" toward="" the="" statutory="" goal="" of="" zero="" discharge.="" promulgating="" the="" various="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" tiers="" today="" rather="" than="" in="" five-year="" increments="" also="" provides="" some="" predictability="" regarding="" the="" progress="" expected="" of="" advanced="" technology="" mills="" over="" time.="" epa="" hopes="" that="" this="" predictability="" will="" encourage="" greater="" participation="" in="" the="" program="" and="" thus="" lead="" to="" superior="" effluent="" quality.="" finally,="" promulgating="" all="" three="" tiers="" of="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" today="" makes="" sense="" because="" it="" reflects="" epa's="" regulatory="" approach="" for="" promoting="" successively="" greater="" environmental="" achievements="" for="" this="" industry,="" and="" because="" companies="" willing="" to="" commit="" to="" achieve="" the="" increased="" environmental="" controls="" will="" be="" able="" to="" avoid="" the="" uncertainties="" inherent="" in="" a="" succession="" of="" later="" rulemakings.="" epa="" has="" the="" authority="" to="" promulgate="" the="" three="" tiers="" of="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" today="" even="" though="" their="" ultimate="" performance="" requirements="" will="" not="" be="" attained="" until="" a="" future="" date.="" epa="" has="" the="" authority="" under="" cwa="" section="" 304(b)(2)="" and="" 304(m)="" to="" revise="" the="" baseline="" bat="" limitations="" for="" the="" bleached="" papergrade="" kraft="" and="" soda="" subcategory="" whenever="" the="" administrator="" deems="" it="" is="" appropriate.="" thus,="" epa="" would="" be="" free="" in="" 5,="" 10="" or="" 15="" years="" to="" codify="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" limitations="" as="" bat.="" however,="" by="" then,="" mills="" potentially="" interested="" in="" pursuing="" advanced="" technologies="" would="" already="" have="" been="" required="" to="" meet="" baseline="" bat="" limitations,="" perhaps="" using="" technologies="" not="" fully="" compatible="" with="" more="" advanced="" processes.="" the="" costs="" of="" retrofitting,="" or="" in="" some="" cases="" replacing,="" newly="" installed="" process="" technologies="" to="" achieve="" more="" stringent="" limits="" might="" prevent="" epa="" from="" finding="" that="" these="" technologies="" are="" economically="" achievable.="" in="" addition,="" participating="" mills="" would="" lose="" a="" long-term="" planning="" horizon,="" which="" is="" very="" important="" because="" of="" the="" significant="" capital="" outlays="" involved.="" as="" a="" result,="" epa="" was="" concerned="" that="" failure="" to="" promulgate="" these="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" today="" might="" compromise="" future="" pollution="" prevention="" opportunities.="" epa="" is="" authorized="" to="" consider="" those="" opportunities="" when="" promulgating="" bat="" limitations.="" epa="" therefore="" believes="" it="" is="" appropriate="" to="" consider="" these="" barriers="" to="" pollution="" prevention="" as="" factors="" relevant="" to="" the="" definition="" of="" bat="" limitations="" and="" the="" timing="" of="" their="" promulgation,="" see="" cwa="" section="" 304(b)(2)(b);="" especially="" since="" failure="" to="" promulgate="" a="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" at="" this="" time="" might="" impede="" reasonable="" further="" progress="" toward="" the="" national="" goal="" of="" eliminating="" discharges="" of="" all="" pollutants.="" see="" cwa="" section="" 301(b)(2).="" an="" important="" component="" of="" this="" incentives="" program="" is="" the="" element="" of="" choice.="" direct="" discharging="" mills="" subject="" to="" subpart="" b="" may="" choose="" whether="" to="" enroll="" in="" the="" program="" and,="" once="" enrolled,="" may="" choose="" the="" tier,="" or="" performance="" level,="" that="" they="" will="" achieve.="" in="" order="" to="" codify="" this="" structure,="" epa="" has="" promulgated="" three="" sets="" of="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" for="" bleached="" papergrade="" kraft="" and="" soda="" mills="" and="" two="" sets="" of="" nsps="" in="" addition="" to="" the="" baseline="" bat="" and="" nsps.="" in="" effect,="" epa="" has="" divided="" subpart="" b="" into="" segments="" based="" on="" the="" types="" of="" bleach="" plant="" processes="" mills="" choose="" to="" employ.="" epa="" has="" considerable="" authority="" to="" establish="" segments="" within="" an="" industrial="" subcategory="" for="" the="" purpose="" of="" promulgating="" bat="" limitations="" unique="" to="" those="" mills.="" much="" like="" mill-specific="" variances="" based="" on="" fundamentally="" different="" factors,="" segments="" reflect="" epa's="" authority="" to="" take="" into="" account="" the="" diversity="" within="" each="" industry.="" see="" chemical="" mrfs.="" ass'n="" v.="" nrdc,="" 470="" u.s.="" 116,="" 130,="" 105="" s.ct="" 1102,="" 1110="" (1985).="" thus,="" segmentation,="" like="" variances,="" is="" not="" an="" exception="" to="" the="" standard-setting="" process,="" but="" rather="" a="" more="" fine-tuned="" application="" of="" it.="" id.="" for="" bat,="" epa="" has="" essentially="" established="" four="" segments="" for="" the="" bleached="" papergrade="" kraft="" and="" soda="" subcategory="" (and,="" similarly,="" three="" segments="" for="" nsps).="" one="" segment="" codifies="" the="" baseline="" bat="" limitations;="" the="" other="" three="" segments="" codify="" tiers="" i,="" ii="" and="" iii="" of="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" incentives="" program.="" epa="" defined="" the="" advanced="" technology="" segments="" to="" reflect="" the="" various="" types="" of="" process="" changes="" and="" control="" techniques="" that="" mills="" might="" employ="" to="" achieve="" environmental="" performance="" beyond="" the="" baseline="" bat="" level.="" the="" advanced="" technology="" segments="" also="" reflect="" the="" cost="" of="" achieving="" progressively="" greater="" environmental="" effluent="" reductions.="" any="" one="" of="" those="" factors="" is="" sufficient="" under="" cwa="" section="" 304(b)(2)="" to="" justify="" a="" segment="" for="" affected="" mills.="" each="" mill="" in="" subpart="" b="" must="" comply="" with="" the="" baseline="" bat="" limitations="" unless="" it="" designates="" itself="" as="" an="" advanced="" technology="" mill,="" in="" which="" case="" it="" must="" meet="" the="" bat="" limitations="" corresponding="" to="" the="" tier--and="" segment--it="" chooses.="" although="" epa="" has="" identified="" an="" array="" of="" process="" changes="" that,="" if="" employed,="" could="" distinguish="" one="" subpart="" b="" mill="" from="" another="" and="" has="" based="" its="" advanced="" technology="" limitations="" on="" those="" potential="" changes,="" epa="" has="" made="" the="" advanced="" technology="" segments="" voluntary.="" this="" is="" because="" the="" decision="" whether="" advanced="" technology="" process="" changes="" are="" technically="" feasible="" and="" economically="" achievable="" for="" a="" particular="" mill="" depends="" on="" many="" factors="" unique="" to="" that="" mill="" that="" epa,="" on="" the="" record="" available="" today,="" cannot="" readily="" discern="" or="" forecast.="" among="" the="" more="" significant="" factors="" appear="" to="" be="" the="" mill's="" current="" bleaching="" sequence,="" the="" physical="" configuration="" of="" equipment,="" the="" age="" of="" equipment="" (and,="" thus,="" end-of-life="" issues),="" the="" available="" capacity="" in="" chlorine="" dioxide="" generation="" and="" in="" the="" recovery="" boiler,="" and="" whether="" the="" mill="" uses="" hardwood="" or="" softwood.="" see="" dcn="" 14488.="" see="" also="" paper="" task="" force,="" technical="" supplement="" white="" papers,="" record="" section="" 20.2.8,="" dcn="" 14794,="" dcn="" 14795,="" and="" dcn="" 14796.="" epa="" also="" has="" important="" policy="" reasons="" for="" making="" the="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" voluntary,="" both="" in="" terms="" of="" the="" decision="" to="" participate="" and="" in="" terms="" of="" the="" level="" of="" environmental="" performance="" to="" be="" achieved.="" as="" discussed="" in="" greater="" detail="" above,="" epa="" believes="" that="" mills="" willing="" and="" able="" to="" employ="" technologies="" and="" processes="" superior="" to="" the="" ``baseline''="" promulgated="" as="" bat--and="" willing="" to="" guarantee="" that="" effort="" in="" the="" form="" of="" enforceable="" technology-based="" permit="" limitations--="" should="" have="" the="" opportunity="" to="" do="" so.="" by="" giving="" mills="" a="" choice="" to="" exceed="" baseline="" compliance="" levels,="" epa="" implements="" cwa="" section="" 301(b)(2)'s="" direction="" that="" bat="" limitations="" ``result="" in="" reasonable="" further="" progress="" toward="" the="" national="" goal="" of="" eliminating="" the="" discharge="" of="" all="" pollutants,''="" to="" the="" extent="" consistent="" with="" epa's="" findings="" of="" economic="" achievability,="" among="" other="" factors.="" by="" allowing="" mills="" to="" choose="" between="" baseline="" bat="" limitations="" and="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" at="" the="" outset,="" epa="" also="" wants="" to="" encourage="" mills="" to="" consider="" all="" possible="" process="" configurations="" before="" investing="" in="" the="" baseline="" bat="" technology.="" thus,="" by="" codifying="" multiple="" expressions="" of="" bat,="" epa="" has="" established="" a="" regulatory="" mechanism="" that="" allows="" mills="" to="" choose="" greater="" environmental="" performance="" than="" epa="" could="" require="" on="" this="" record="" and="" also="" authorizes="" permit="" writers="" to="" [[page="" 18604]]="" memorialize="" that="" choice="" in="" the="" form="" of="" enforceable="" permit="" limits.="" although="" applied="" here="" for="" the="" first="" time="" to="" codify="" a="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program,="" the="" notion="" of="" using="" segmentation="" to="" determine="" applicable="" technology-based="" limitations="" is="" not="" new.="" indeed,="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines="" and="" standards="" routinely="" base="" applicability="" of="" technology-based="" limitations="" on="" a="" discharger's="" particular="" process="" or="" treatment="" technologies.="" for="" example,="" elsewhere="" in="" today's="" rule="" epa="" is="" segmenting="" the="" papergrade="" sulfite="" subcategory="" to="" reflect,="" among="" other="" things,="" the="" type="" of="" product="" the="" mill="" produces.="" thus,="" a="" papergrade="" sulfite="" mill="" choosing="" to="" produce="" specialty="" products="" subjects="" itself="" to="" a="" different="" set="" of="" limitations="" than="" other="" mills="" in="" its="" subcategory="" simply="" by="" making="" that="" business="" decision.="" epa="" also="" used="" segmentation="" to="" account="" for="" different="" treatment="" configurations="" when="" it="" promulgated="" bat="" for="" the="" organic="" chemicals,="" plastics="" and="" synthetic="" fibers="" category.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 414.91,="" 414.101;="" 58="" fr="" 36872,="" 36881-85="" (july="" 9,="" 1993).="" in="" that="" rule,="" epa="" established="" two="" sets="" of="" bat="" limitations="" for="" a="" subcategory="" of="" plants,="" one="" set="" applicable="" to="" plants="" using="" end-of-pipe="" biological="" treatment="" and="" the="" other="" set="" applicable="" to="" plants="" using="" some="" other="" treatment="" technology,="" including="" in-plant="" waste="" management="" practices.="" in="" this="" rule,="" the="" advanced="" technology="" segments="" are="" intended="" to="" anticipate="" a="" mill's="" business="" decision="" to="" change="" its="" cooking,="" washing,="" bleaching,="" wastewater="" recycle,="" and="" recovery="" processes="" to="" achieve="" greater="" pollutant="" reductions="" than="" epa="" can="" require="" as="" baseline="" bat.="" indeed,="" by="" establishing="" these="" segments,="" epa="" hopes="" to="" encourage="" many="" mills="" to="" choose="" advanced="" technologies,="" especially="" those="" mills="" that="" would="" need="" to="" change="" their="" bleaching="" and="" washing="" processes="" in="" any="" event="" to="" comply="" with="" the="" baseline="" bat.="" epa="" also="" notes="" that="" it="" could="" have="" accomplished="" the="" same="" result="" for="" existing="" sources="" on="" a="" case-by-case="" basis="" through="" the="" clean="" water="" act's="" variance="" processes.="" see="" chemical="" mrfs.="" ass'n="" v.="" nrdc,="" 470="" u.s.="" at="" 130,="" 105="" s.ct="" at="" 1110.="" advanced="" technology="" mills="" could="" have="" sought="" fundamentally="" different="" factors="" variances="" under="" cwa="" section="" 301(n);="" for="" non-conventional="" pollutants,="" these="" mills="" could="" have="" pursued="" a="" variance="" under="" section="" 301(c).="" under="" either="" section,="" mills="" could="" have="" obtained="" bat="" effluent="" limitations="" that="" are="" more="" or="" less="" stringent="" than="" the="" baseline="" bat.="" see="" chemical="" mrfs.="" ass'n="" v.="" nrdc,="" 470="" u.s.="" at="" 116,="" 105="" s.ct="" at="" 1105-06="" (fdf="" variances);="" epa="" v.="" national="" crushed="" stone="" ass'n,="" 449="" u.s.="" 64,="" 79="" n.18="" (1980)="" (sec.="" 301(c)="" variances).="" however,="" epa="" rejected="" implementing="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" through="" variances="" for="" several="" reasons.="" first,="" the="" clean="" water="" act="" and="" its="" legislative="" history="" indicate="" a="" clear="" congressional="" preference="" for="" the="" use="" of="" subcategories,="" rather="" than="" variances,="" to="" address="" discernible="" differences="" among="" regulated="" entities.="" by="" requiring="" applications="" for="" fdf="" variances="" to="" be="" based="" on="" information="" submitted="" during="" the="" rulemaking="" process="" (unless="" the="" applicant="" lacked="" a="" reasonable="" opportunity="" to="" make="" such="" submission),="" see="" section="" 301(n)(1)(b),="" congress="" stressed="" the="" need="" for="" companies="" to="" participate="" fully="" in="" the="" guideline="" development="" process="" to="" assure="" that="" adequate="" information="" is="" available="" to="" epa="" to="" develop="" appropriate="" subcategories.="" see="" 131="" cong.="" rec.="" s="" 8013="" (june="" 12,="" 1985)="" (sen.="" bentsen);="" see="" also="" 133="" cong.="" rec.="" h="" 131,="" 136-37="" (jan.="" 7,="" 1987)="" (rep.="" howard)="" (provision="" assures="" that="" effluent="" guidelines="" ``are="" as="" comprehensive="" as="" possible'');="" 133="" cong.="" rec.="" s="" 733,="" 739="" (jan.="" 14,="" 1987)="" (sen.="" mitchell)="" (epa="" should="" accommodate="" fundamental="" differences="" among="" facilities="" through="" the="" establishment="" of="" subcategories).="" in="" this="" rulemaking,="" many="" commenters="" supplied="" vast="" amounts="" of="" information="" concerning="" the="" special="" circumstances="" of="" facilities="" aspiring="" to="" become="" minimum="" impact="" mills.="" as="" congress="" intended,="" epa="" established="" the="" three="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" segments="" in="" response="" to="" that="" information="" rather="" than="" deferring="" consideration="" of="" the="" issue="" to="" the="" post-rulemaking="" variance="" process.="" second,="" as="" a="" matter="" of="" policy,="" epa="" believes="" it="" is="" reasonable="" to="" employ="" its="" subcategorization,="" rather="" than="" its="" variance,="" authority="" to="" implement="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program.="" by="" establishing="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" by="" rulemaking="" at="" the="" same="" time="" it="" codifies="" the="" baseline="" bat="" limitations,="" epa="" intends="" to="" provide="" all="" direct="" discharging="" mills="" within="" subpart="" b="" the="" immediate="" opportunity="" to="" push="" beyond="" base="" level="" environmental="" performance="" and="" also="" to="" provide="" with="" certainty="" regarding="" the="" stringency="" and="" timing="" of="" the="" limits="" they="" would="" be="" expected="" to="" meet.="" in="" this="" way,="" epa="" hopes="" to="" encourage="" many="" mills="" to="" participate="" in="" the="" program.="" use="" of="" case-by-case="" variance="" procedures,="" in="" contrast,="" would="" introduce="" delay="" and="" uncertainty="" into="" the="" process,="" which="" epa="" believes="" would="" discourage="" industry="" participation.="" in="" summary,="" epa="" has="" discretion="" in="" determining="" whether="" to="" account="" for="" industry="" characteristics="" through="" subcategorization="" or="" through="" the="" variance="" process.="" like="" variances,="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" segments="" apply="" only="" to="" mills="" that="" on="" their="" own="" initiative="" seek="" different="" bat="" limitations.="" unlike="" variances,="" however,="" the="" subcategorization="" scheme="" promulgated="" by="" epa="" assures="" consistent="" and="" timely="" implementation="" of="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program,="" which="" epa="" believes="" is="" critical="" to="" its="" success.="" therefore,="" for="" the="" reasons="" explained,="" epa's="" decision="" to="" subcategorize="" subpart="" b="" was="" rational="" and="" within="" its="" discretion.="" 7.="" time="" frames="" for="" achieving="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" in="" order="" to="" promote="" the="" pollution="" prevention="" objectives="" of="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program,="" epa="" has="" determined="" that="" existing="" mills="" choosing="" to="" participate="" in="" that="" program="" should="" receive="" a="" reasonable="" amount="" of="" time="" to="" achieve="" the="" advanced="" tier="" performance="" levels="" they="" select.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 430.24(b)(4)(ii).="" (these="" performance="" levels="" are="" codified="" in="" this="" rule="" as="" ``stage="" 2''="" bat="" limitations.)="" the="" extended="" timeframes="" discussed="" below="" are="" not="" available="" for="" new="" sources="" enrolled="" in="" the="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" because="" the="" clean="" water="" act="" requires="" new="" sources="" to="" comply="" with="" applicable="" nsps="" upon="" commencing="" operation.="" cwa="" section="" 306(e).="" however,="" new="" sources="" interested="" in="" participating="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" after="" commencing="" operation="" may="" nevertheless="" do="" so,="" for="" example,="" by="" achieving="" the="" baseline="" nsps="" requirements="" at="" the="" time="" discharges="" commence="" and="" later="" installing="" additional="" technologies="" necessary="" to="" achieve="" the="" more="" stringent="" aox="" and="" flow="" requirements="" of="" tiers="" ii="" or="" iii.="" once="" limitations="" equivalent="" to="" the="" selected="" advanced="" tier="" performance="" levels="" are="" placed="" in="" the="" mill's="" permit="" and="" the="" mill="" achieves="" those="" limits,="" it="" is="" eligible="" to="" receive="" the="" regulatory="" and="" enforcement="" relief="" described="" as="" incentives="" in="" section="" ix.b.="" below.="" epa="" has="" determined="" that="" reasonable="" dates="" by="" which="" existing="" sources="" can="" achieve="" advanced="" technology="" performance="" requirements="" are="" [april="" 15,="" 2004]="" for="" tier="" i,="" april="" 15,="" 2009="" for="" tier="" ii,="" and="" april="" 15,="" 2014="" for="" tier="" iii.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 430.24(b)(4)(ii).="" as="" discussed="" in="" more="" detail="" below,="" these="" dates="" assume="" an="" initial="" start-up="" year="" during="" which="" mills="" subject="" to="" subpart="" b="" would="" decide="" whether="" to="" enroll="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" and="" develop="" a="" plan="" for="" complying="" with="" the="" ultimate="" incentives="" [[page="" 18605]]="" bat="" limitations.="" the="" remaining="" additional="" time,="" calculated="" as="" 5="" years="" for="" tier="" i,="" 10="" years="" for="" tier="" ii,="" and="" 15="" years="" for="" tier="" iii,="" corresponds="" to="" the="" time="" epa="" believes="" a="" mill="" would="" need="" in="" order="" to="" arrange="" its="" financing="" and="" to="" develop,="" install,="" test,="" and="" implement="" the="" chosen="" advanced="" technologies="" at="" full="" scale="" to="" comply="" with="" the="" ultimate="" tier="" limits.="" epa="" regards="" five="" years="" as="" a="" reasonable="" time="" frame="" to="" achieve="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" corresponding="" to="" tier="" i="" (including="" the="" bleach="" plant="" bat="" effluent="" limitations).="" when="" spread="" over="" five="" years,="" the="" capital="" costs="" of="" those="" technologies="" become="" more="" manageable="" (although="" they="" are="" still="" significantly="" higher="" than="" the="" capital="" costs="" associated="" with="" the="" baseline="" bat).="" in="" addition,="" the="" five="" year="" period="" gives="" mills="" increased="" flexibility="" to="" schedule="" the="" significant="" capital="" investment="" within="" the="" mill's="" normal="" capital="" investment="" cycle,="" i.e.,="" to="" purchase="" and="" install="" the="" necessary="" equipment="" when="" capital="" is="" available.="" therefore,="" epa="" believes="" the="" five="" year="" period="" will="" enable="" mills="" to="" participate="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" that="" otherwise="" might="" not="" have="" the="" financial="" resources="" to="" make="" the="" necessary="" capital="" investment.="" epa="" regards="" ten="" years="" as="" a="" reasonable="" timeframe="" to="" achieve="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" corresponding="" to="" tier="" ii="" because="" the="" development="" and="" implementation="" of="" technologies="" to="" reduce="" bleach="" plant="" flow="" to="" 10="" m\3\/kkg="" pose="" technical="" and="" economic="" difficulties="" that="" epa="" believes="" would="" take="" mills="" up="" to="" ten="" years="" to="" resolve.="" (once="" flow="" levels="" are="" reduced,="" epa="" expects="" that="" mills="" also="" will="" be="" able="" to="" achieve="" the="" tier="" ii="" aox="" limitations.)="" recycling="" a="" substantial="" portion="" of="" pulping="" and="" evaporator="" condensates="" and="" bleach="" plant="" filtrates,="" with="" the="" attendant="" complexities="" of="" total="" mill="" water,="" chemical,="" and="" energy="" balances,="" requires="" considerable="" time="" before="" it="" can="" be="" implemented="" successfully="" at="" mill-scale.="" for="" example,="" when="" bleach="" plant="" filtrates="" are="" recycled,="" problems="" with="" scale="" and="" corrosion="" can="" take="" many="" months="" to="" over="" a="" year="" to="" develop="" and="" be="" observed.="" once="" identified,="" fully="" correcting="" such="" problems="" can="" take="" significant="" additional="" time="" because="" of="" the="" time="" lag="" between="" action="" and="" observed="" effect="" in="" nearly="" closed="" systems.="" in="" addition="" to="" problems="" with="" scale="" and="" corrosion,="" mills="" pursuing="" tier="" ii="" performance="" levels="" may="" have="" to="" solve="" challenges="" associated="" with="" reusing="" condensates,="" such="" as="" for="" bleached="" pulp="" washing.="" there="" are="" a="" few="" mills="" currently="" doing="" this,="" but="" not="" broad="" operating="" experience.="" consequently,="" epa="" expects="" that="" tier="" ii="" mills="" will="" need="" to="" invest="" considerable="" time="" and="" effort="" to="" research="" and="" develop="" solutions="" to="" those="" technical="" problems.="" in="" addition="" to="" these="" technical="" challenges,="" significant="" capital="" costs="" may="" be="" involved="" in="" achieving="" tier="" ii="" limits,="" notably="" as="" a="" result="" of="" upgrading="" full="" pulping="" and="" bleaching="" lines="" and="" associated="" evaporator="" equipment.="" providing="" an="" extended="" timeframe="" that="" allows="" a="" mill="" to="" make="" such="" capital="" expenditures="" on="" a="" schedule="" consistent="" with="" its="" planned="" investment="" cycle="" can="" make="" such="" large="" investments="" economically="" achievable.="" for="" example,="" one="" u.s.="" mill="" currently="" approaching="" the="" tier="" ii="" flow="" and="" aox="" levels="" installed="" many="" of="" the="" relevant="" technologies="" in="" stages="" over="" what="" probably="" will="" be="" a="" ten-="" year="" period,="" with="" the="" last="" three="" years="" used="" for="" testing="" and="" fine-tuning="" its="" reduced="" flow="" processes.="" yet="" even="" this="" mill="" still="" needs="" to="" address="" the="" technical="" challenges="" of="" further="" reducing="" condensate="" discharge="" flow="" before="" it="" is="" fully="" able="" to="" achieve="" the="" tier="" ii="" bat="" limits.="" that="" mill="" needed="" ten="" years="" to="" plan="" its="" multi-hundred="" million="" dollar="" renovation="" and="" pollution="" prevention="" investment,="" to="" arrange="" appropriate="" financing,="" to="" install="" supporting="" technologies="" at="" appropriate="" intervals="" and="" to="" research,="" develop,="" test,="" and="" refine="" its="" innovative="" flow-reducing="" processes.="" epa="" believes="" that="" this="" mill's="" experience="" is="" representative="" of="" what="" other="" tier="" ii="" mills="" may="" encounter="" as="" they="" work="" to="" achieve="" the="" tier="" ii="" limitations.="" see="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" technical="" support="" document="" (dcn="" 14488)="" for="" additional="" examples="" of="" why="" the="" ten-year="" timeframe="" is="" appropriate.="" based="" on="" these="" experiences,="" epa="" believes="" that="" the="" package="" of="" technologies="" underlying="" the="" tier="" ii="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" will="" not="" be="" technically="" and="" economically="" achievable="" for="" mills="" aspiring="" to="" those="" performance="" levels="" until="" april="" 15,="" 2009.="" however,="" epa="" believes="" that="" mills="" will="" be="" able="" to="" achieve="" the="" baseline="" bat="" limitations="" by="" april="" 15,="" 2004,="" and="" enforceable="" interim="" milestones="" reflecting="" intermediate="" levels="" of="" flow="" reduction="" (determined="" on="" a="" case-by-case="" basis)="" in="" a="" period="" shorter="" than="" eleven="" years.="" epa="" regards="" 15="" years="" as="" a="" reasonable="" timeframe="" to="" achieve="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" corresponding="" to="" tier="" iii.="" as="" for="" tier="" ii,="" flow="" reduction="" again="" is="" the="" most="" difficult="" and="" time-consuming="" task.="" however,="" because="" reducing="" flow="" for="" pulping="" and="" evaporator="" condensates="" and="" bleach="" plant="" filtrates="" to="" 5="" m\3\/kkg="" or="" even="" lower="" approaches="" a="" closed="" mill="" configuration,="" even="" more="" technically="" difficult="" and="" time-consuming="" tasks="" must="" be="" successfully="" completed,="" necessitating="" five="" additional="" years="" beyond="" the="" tier="" ii="" timeframe.="" for="" example,="" mills="" would="" probably="" need="" to="" install="" ``kidney''="" technologies="" to="" remove="" metals="" and="" chlorides="" in="" order="" to="" control="" system="" scaling="" and="" corrosion="" problems="" while="" maintaining="" product="" quality="" and="" minimizing="" cross-media="" impacts.="" successful="" completion="" of="" these="" tasks="" at="" individual="" mills="" may="" involve="" research,="" extensive="" process="" development,="" and="" mill="" trials.="" the="" types="" of="" corrosion="" and="" scaling="" problems="" epa="" anticipates="" could="" take="" over="" a="" year="" of="" nearly="" closed-loop="" operation="" to="" identify="" and="" several="" more="" years="" of="" experimental="" modifications="" to="" mill="" operations="" to="" solve.="" extensive="" time="" is="" required="" for="" such="" modifications="" because="" of="" the="" time="" lag="" in="" nearly="" closed-mill="" systems="" from="" changing="" process="" conditions="" and="" observing="" the="" steady="" state="" impact="" on="" hydraulic="" systems,="" liquor="" systems,="" and="" associated="" mill="" equipment.="" mills="" may="" also="" need="" to="" embark="" on="" process="" development="" and="" mill="" trials="" to="" achieve="" treated="" condensate="" quality="" that="" is="" sufficient="" to="" extensively="" reuse="" condensates,="" as="" well="" as="" to="" reestablish="" complex="" mill="" water="" and="" energy="" balances.="" for="" these="" reasons,="" epa="" believes="" that="" 15="" years="" is="" a="" reasonable="" amount="" of="" time="" for="" a="" tier="" iii="" mill="" to="" perfect="" existing="" technologies="" or="" invent="" or="" develop="" new="" ones="" as="" necessary="" to="" achieve="" the="" tier="" iii="" performance="" levels.="" however,="" epa="" believes="" that="" all="" mills="" will="" be="" able="" to="" achieve="" the="" baseline="" bat="" limitations="" by="" [april="" 15,="" 2004],="" and="" enforceable="" interim="" milestones="" reflecting="" intermediate="" levels="" of="" flow="" reduction="" (determined="" on="" a="" case-by-case="" basis)="" in="" a="" period="" shorter="" than="" 15="" years.="" in="" short,="" epa="" believes="" that="" the="" additional="" 5,="" 10="" and="" 15="" year="" periods="" provided="" by="" the="" rule="" are="" necessary="" to="" foster="" investment,="" research,="" development,="" and="" mill="" trials="" of="" advanced="" technologies="" envisioned="" by="" the="" specified="" performance="" levels.="" epa="" further="" believes="" that,="" by="" the="" dates="" specified="" in="" the="" rule,="" technologies="" necessary="" to="" achieve="" those="" performance="" levels="" will="" indeed="" be="" available.="" see="" dcn="" 14488.="" epa="" has="" concluded="" that="" it="" is="" reasonable="" to="" measure="" the="" extended="" time="" periods="" from="" the="" publication="" date="" of="" the="" cluster="" rules="" rather="" than="" from="" the="" date="" a="" participating="" mill's="" npdes="" permit="" is="" issued,="" with="" the="" addition="" of="" one="" year="" at="" the="" beginning="" to="" afford="" mills="" a="" meaningful="" opportunity="" to="" consider="" participating="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program.="" epa="" recognizes="" that="" the="" decision="" whether="" to="" commit="" to="" the="" advanced="" technology="" goals="" cannot="" be="" undertaken="" lightly.="" this="" is="" especially="" so="" in="" view="" of="" the="" significant="" [[page="" 18606]]="" capital="" costs="" involved="" and="" in="" view="" of="" possible="" uncertainties="" regarding="" the="" availability="" of="" appropriate="" cost-effective="" technologies="" and="" a="" mill's="" ability="" to="" maintain="" product="" quality.="" accordingly,="" epa="" expects="" the="" decision="" would="" need="" to="" be="" made="" at="" the="" corporate="" rather="" than="" the="" facility="" level,="" which="" would="" probably="" require="" corporate-wide="" consideration="" of="" the="" firm's="" financial="" health,="" its="" environmental="" objectives="" and="" future="" marketing="" strategies,="" and="" its="" overall="" long-term="" plans.="" because="" epa="" believes="" that="" many="" firms="" in="" subpart="" b="" have="" been="" pondering="" these="" strategic="" questions="" since="" publication="" of="" the="" proposed="" rule="" in="" december="" 1993="" and="" the="" notice="" regarding="" a="" possible="" incentives="" program="" in="" july="" 1996,="" epa="" has="" concluded="" that="" one="" year="" is="" sufficient="" to="" allow="" firms="" to="" make="" a="" decision="" whether="" to="" participate="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program.="" if="" a="" mill's="" permit="" expires="" and="" is="" reissued="" before="" april="" 15,="" 1999,="" the="" permitting="" authority="" should="" incorporate="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" into="" that="" permit="" at="" the="" mill's="" request.="" if="" the="" mill="" has="" not="" yet="" decided="" whether="" to="" participate="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program,="" the="" permit="" writer="" should="" incorporate="" bat="" limitations="" based="" on="" the="" bat="" baseline="" and="" should="" include="" a="" reopener="" clause="" so="" that="" the="" permit="" can="" be="" modified="" as="" necessary="" to="" reflect="" the="" mill's="" decision="" to="" participate="" in="" the="" incentives="" program.="" in="" order="" to="" afford="" that="" mill="" a="" full="" year="" to="" decide="" whether="" to="" enroll="" in="" the="" incentives="" program,="" epa="" believes="" it="" would="" be="" appropriate="" for="" the="" permitting="" authority="" to="" issue="" a="" compliance="" order="" expiring="" april="" 15,="" 1999="" so="" that="" the="" mill="" would="" not="" be="" required="" to="" comply="" with="" the="" baseline="" bat="" limitations="" until="" after="" the="" election="" date="" has="" passed.="" some="" commenters="" suggested="" that="" epa="" measure="" the="" advanced="" technology="" time="" periods="" from="" the="" date="" the="" first="" permit="" reflecting="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" is="" issued.="" epa="" rejected="" that="" approach="" and="" instead="" is="" measuring="" the="" time="" periods="" from="" the="" publication="" date="" of="" this="" rule="" (plus="" one="" year)="" for="" the="" following="" reasons.="" first,="" these="" timeframes="" reflect="" epa's="" conclusions="" regarding="" the="" amount="" of="" time="" that="" mills="" would="" need="" in="" order="" to="" achieve="" the="" various="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" tier="" performance="" levels,="" once="" they="" have="" committed="" to="" those="" goals.="" as="" discussed="" in="" more="" detail="" above,="" epa="" based="" these="" conclusions="" on="" record="" information="" concerning="" the="" availability="" of="" technologies="" and="" capital,="" among="" other="" factors.="" these="" factors="" have="" nothing="" to="" do="" with="" the="" permitting="" cycle.="" second,="" as="" a="" matter="" of="" policy,="" epa="" wants="" to="" promote="" implementation="" of="" advanced="" technologies="" as="" soon="" as="" possible;="" if="" epa="" were="" to="" measure="" the="" advanced="" technology="" time="" periods="" from="" the="" date="" of="" permit="" re-issuance,="" achievement="" of="" the="" ultimate="" tier="" i="" performance="" requirements="" and="" the="" interim="" baseline="" bat="" limitations="" for="" tiers="" ii="" and="" iii,="" for="" example,="" could="" be="" deferred="" at="" some="" mills="" by="" as="" much="" as="" ten="" years="" from="" the="" date="" of="" promulgation.="" third,="" epa="" was="" concerned="" that="" tying="" the="" advanced="" technology="" time="" periods="" to="" highly="" variable="" permit="" issuance="" dates="" would="" mean="" that="" mills="" with="" later="" permits="" would="" realize="" a="" competitive="" advantage="" over="" similarly="" situated="" mills="" that,="" merely="" because="" of="" their="" particular="" permit="" cycle,="" would="" need="" to="" achieve="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" sooner.="" such="" inequities--whether="" perceived="" or="" real--could="" discourage="" some="" mills="" from="" participating="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program.="" finally,="" mills="" in="" the="" bleached="" papergrade="" kraft="" and="" soda="" subcategory="" have="" been="" on="" notice="" since="" at="" least="" 1993="" that="" epa="" was="" considering="" basing="" some="" portion="" of="" its="" cluster="" rules="" on="" extended="" delignification="" technologies.="" (in="" its="" 1993="" proposal,="" epa="" proposed="" to="" base="" bat="" limitations="" on="" a="" process="" that="" included="" oxygen="" delignification="" and="" 100="" percent="" substitution="" of="" chlorine="" dioxide="" for="" elemental="" chlorine.)="" in="" some="" cases,="" that="" proposal="" has="" already="" influenced="" investment="" decisions="" at="" some="" mills.="" epa="" acknowledges="" that="" a="" mill="" choosing="" not="" to="" participate="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" could="" seek="" a="" compliance="" schedule="" in="" an="" enforcement="" order="" that,="" depending="" on="" the="" date="" its="" permit="" was="" reissued,="" could="" allow="" that="" mill="" to="" achieve="" bat="" limits="" (including="" a="" less="" stringent="" aox="" limit)="" at="" a="" later="" date="" than="" tier="" i="" advanced="" technology="" mills="" would="" be="" required="" to="" achieve="" a="" more="" stringent="" aox="" limit="" and="" reduced="" kappa="" numbers="" and="" pulping="" area="" filtrate="" recycling.="" while="" epa="" agrees="" with="" comments="" characterizing="" this="" as="" unfair="" to="" those="" facilities="" making="" the="" significant="" commitment="" to="" install="" advanced="" technologies,="" epa="" believes="" that="" the="" likelihood="" of="" such="" inequities="" is="" small="" for="" the="" following="" reasons.="" first,="" epa="" has="" determined="" that="" this="" is="" likely="" to="" happen="" in="" comparatively="" few="" cases.="" more="" than="" 80="" percent="" of="" the="" permits="" issued="" to="" mills="" in="" the="" bleached="" papergrade="" kraft="" and="" soda="" subcategory="" will="" expire="" before="" 2000.="" see="" record="" section="" 21.8.1,="" dcn="" 14652.="" consequently,="" epa="" believes="" that="" most="" advanced="" technology="" mills="" will="" receive="" more="" time="" to="" achieve="" tier="" i="" limits="" than="" other="" mills="" would="" receive="" to="" achieve="" baseline="" bat="" limits,="" even="" with="" an="" enforcement="" compliance="" schedule.="" second,="" when="" epa="" is="" the="" permitting="" authority,="" epa="" will="" exercise="" its="" enforcement="" discretion="" to="" refrain="" from="" issuing="" enforcement="" compliance="" schedules="" after="" april="" 15,="" 1999="" to="" mills="" not="" participating="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program.="" this="" means="" that="" a="" mill="" not="" participating="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" would="" be="" expected="" to="" comply="" with="" its="" baseline="" bat="" limits="" by="" the="" date="" its="" permit="" containing="" those="" limits="" is="" issued,="" or="" by="" [april="" 15,="" 1999],="" whichever="" is="" later.="" epa="" will="" also="" publish="" guidance="" urging="" state="" enforcement="" authorities="" to="" do="" the="" same.="" by="" limiting="" the="" discretionary="" enforcement-related="" compliance="" schedules="" available="" to="" baseline="" bat="" mills,="" epa="" hopes="" that="" the="" additional="" time="" periods="" specified="" for="" advanced="" technology="" mills="" will="" become="" a="" more="" meaningful="" incentive="" and="" perhaps="" may="" persuade="" some="" mills="" to="" participate="" in="" the="" incentives="" program="" rather="" than="" comply="" immediately="" with="" the="" baseline="" bat="" limitations.="" 8.="" legal="" authority="" to="" promulgate="" a="" package="" of="" progressively="" more="" stringent="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" as="" described="" in="" more="" detail="" above,="" the="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" guidelines="" for="" each="" tier="" consists="" of="" a="" range="" of="" successively="" more="" stringent="" limitations="" and="" permit="" conditions="" that="" represent="" a="" mill's="" progress="" toward="" the="" tier's="" ultimate="" advanced="" technology="" performance="" requirements.="" based="" on="" its="" analysis="" of="" today's="" advanced="" and,="" in="" some="" cases,="" innovative="" technologies="" and="" its="" judgment="" regarding="" the="" historically="" rapid="" advance="" of="" pollution="" prevention="" processes="" in="" this="" industry,="" epa="" has="" determined="" that="" those="" performance="" requirements="" are="" achievable,="" as="" a="" technical="" matter,="" by="" the="" dates="" specified="" in="" each="" tier,="" and="" that="" none="" of="" the="" other="" statutory="" factors="" in="" cwa="" section="" 304(b)(2)(b)="" justify="" selecting="" different="" technology="" bases="" for="" advanced="" technology="" bat.="" epa="" has="" also="" determined="" that="" those="" advanced="" technology="" performance="" requirements="" are="" within="" the="" economic="" capability="" of="" mills="" choosing="" today="" to="" meet="" them="" and="" hence="" are="" economically="" achievable="" for="" those="" mills.="" epa="" bases="" that="" determination="" primarily="" on="" two="" factors.="" first,="" no="" mill="" is="" compelled="" to="" enroll="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program;="" accordingly,="" epa="" assumes="" that="" mills="" that="" choose="" to="" enroll--and="" voluntarily="" subject="" themselves="" to="" a="" progression="" of="" [[page="" 18607]]="" successively="" more="" stringent,="" enforceable="" permit="" limits--do="" so="" with="" the="" knowledge="" that="" they="" have="" the="" economic="" as="" well="" as="" technical="" ability="" to="" meet="" those="" limits.="" second,="" the="" experience="" of="" other="" mills="" that="" voluntarily="" undertook="" major="" pollution="" prevention="" projects="" informs="" epa="" that="" the="" ambitious="" performance="" requirements="" are="" indeed="" achievable="" for="" participating="" mills="" if="" the="" incremental="" improvements="" are="" staggered="" over="" time.="" this="" incremental="" approach="" is="" authorized="" by="" cwa="" section="" 301(b)(2)(a),="" which="" expressly="" requires="" bat="" to="" result="" in="" reasonable="" further="" progress="" toward="" the="" national="" goal="" of="" eliminating="" pollutant="" discharges.="" epa="" believes="" that="" each="" of="" the="" steps="" comprising="" the="" three="" tiers="" of="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" moves="" participating="" mills="" toward="" that="" national="" goal.="" once="" a="" mill="" enrolls="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program,="" it="" accepts="" and="" must="" begin="" immediately="" to="" implement="" a="" bat="" package="" consisting="" of="" successively="" more="" stringent="" permit="" limits="" and="" conditions.="" although="" environmental="" improvements="" are="" realized="" only="" incrementally,="" the="" mill="" is="" subject="" to="" the="" total="" set="" of="" limits--including="" the="" ultimate="" performance="" requirements--as="" soon="" as="" its="" advanced="" technology="" permit="" is="" written="" based="" on="" the="" first="" increment="" of="" that="" bat="" package.="" thus,="" the="" mill="" is="" continuously="" subject="" to="" and="" must="" comply="" immediately="" with="" the="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" package="" as="" it="" progressively="" unfolds,="" including="" each="" interim="" bat="" limitation="" or="" permit="" condition="" representing="" that="" progress.="" epa's="" promulgation="" of="" bat="" as="" a="" package="" of="" progressively="" more="" stringent="" limitations="" and="" conditions="" is="" also="" consistent="" with="" the="" use="" of="" bat="" as="" a="" ``beacon="" to="" show="" what="" is="" possible.''="" kennecott="" v.="" epa,="" 780="" f.2d="" 445,="" 448="" (4th="" cir.="" 1985).="" thus,="" while="" the="" compulsory="" bat="" in="" this="" rule="" functions="" as="" the="" ``base="" level''="" for="" the="" subcategory="" as="" a="" whole,="" see="" e.i.="" du="" pont="" de="" nemours="" &="" co.="" v.="" train,="" 430="" u.s.="" 112,="" 129="" (1977),="" epa="" expects="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" to="" drive="" technologies="" and="" mills="" beyond="" that="" base="" level="" toward="" achievement="" of="" the="" goals="" of="" the="" clean="" water="" act.="" by="" holding="" out="" the="" advanced="" technologies="" as="" beacons="" of="" progress,="" epa="" believes="" that="" today's="" rule="" will="" encourage="" more="" mills="" to="" strive="" toward="" epa's="" pollution="" prevention="" and="" reduced="" flow="" objectives="" than="" might="" otherwise="" do="" so="" if="" epa="" promulgated="" nothing="" more="" than="" a="" ``base="" level''="" bat.="" moreover,="" by="" codifying="" progressively="" more="" stringent="" limitations="" in="" today's="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" package,="" epa="" promotes="" a="" form="" of="" technological="" progress="" that="" is="" consistent="" with="" congressional="" intent="" that="" bat="" should="" aspire="" to="" ``increasingly="" higher="" levels="" of="" control.''="" see,="" e.g.,="" statement="" of="" sen.="" muskie="" (oct.="" 4,="" 1972),="" reprinted="" in="" a="" legislative="" history="" of="" the="" water="" pollution="" control="" act="" amendments="" of="" 1972="" (``1972="" leg.="" hist.''),="" at="" 170.="" it="" is="" also="" consistent="" with="" the="" overall="" goals="" of="" the="" act.="" see="" cwa="" section="" 101(a).="" agencies="" have="" considerable="" discretion="" to="" interpret="" their="" statutes="" to="" promote="" congressional="" objectives.="" ``="" `[t]he="" breadth="" of="" agency="" discretion="" is,="" if="" anything,="" at="" zenith="" when="" the="" action="" *="" *="" *="" relates="" primarily="" to="" *="" *="" *="" the="" fashioning="" of="" policies,="" remedies="" and="" sanctions,="" including="" enforcement="" and="" voluntary="" compliance="" programs[,]="" in="" order="" to="" arrive="" at="" maximum="" effectuation="" of="" congressional="" objectives.'="" ''="" u.s.="" steelworkers="" of="" america="" v.="" marshall,="" 647="" f.2d="" 1189,="" 1230-31="" n.64="" (d.c.="" cir.="" 1980)="" (upholding="" osha="" rule="" staggering="" lead="" requirements="" over="" 10="" years)="" (quoting="" niagara="" mohawk="" power="" corp.="" v.="" fpc,="" 379="" f.2d="" 153,="" 159="" (d.c.="" cir.="" 1967)),="" cert.="" denied,="" 453="" u.s.="" 9113="" (1981).="" in="" this="" case,="" the="" codification="" of="" progressively="" more="" stringent="" bat="" limitations="" advances="" not="" only="" the="" general="" goal="" of="" the="" clean="" water="" act,="" but="" also="" the="" explicit="" goal="" of="" the="" bat="" program.="" see="" chevron,="" u.s.a.,="" inc.="" v.="" nrdc,="" 467="" u.s.="" 837,="" 843-44="" (1984).="" moving="" toward="" the="" elimination="" of="" pollutant="" discharges="" in="" stages="" is="" also="" consistent="" with="" overarching="" structure="" of="" the="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines="" program.="" congress="" originally="" envisioned="" that="" the="" sequence="" of="" attaining="" bpt="" limits="" in="" 1977="" and="" bat="" limits="" in="" 1983="" would="" result="" in="" ``levels="" of="" control="" which="" approach="" and="" achieve="" the="" elimination="" of="" the="" discharge="" of="" pollutants.''="" statement="" of="" sen.="" muskie="" (oct.="" 4,="" 1972),="" reprinted="" in="" 1972="" legislative="" history,="" at="" 170.="" this="" two-step="" approach="" produced="" dramatic="" improvements="" in="" water="" quality,="" but="" did="" not="" achieve="" the="" elimination="" of="" pollutant="" discharges.="" therefore,="" epa="" periodically="" revisits="" and="" revises="" its="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines="" with="" the="" intention="" each="" time="" of="" making="" further="" progress="" toward="" the="" national="" goal.="" (this="" is="" the="" sixth="" effluent="" limitations="" guideline="" promulgated="" for="" the="" pulp="" and="" paper="" industry,="" and="" the="" fourth="" applicable="" to="" bleached="" papergrade="" kraft="" and="" soda="" mills.)="" achieving="" these="" incremental="" improvements="" through="" successive="" rulemakings="" carries="" a="" substantial="" cost,="" however.="" the="" effluent="" guideline="" rulemaking="" process="" is="" highly="" complex,="" in="" large="" part="" because="" of="" the="" massive="" record="" compiled="" to="" inform="" the="" agency's="" decisions="" and="" because="" of="" the="" substantial="" costs="" associated="" with="" achieving="" each="" additional="" increment="" of="" environmental="" improvement.="" by="" promulgating="" these="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" today="" as="" a="" package="" of="" incremental="" environmental="" improvements,="" epa="" hopes="" to="" achieve="" the="" goals="" that="" congress="" envisioned="" for="" the="" bat="" program="" at="" considerably="" less="" cost:="" one="" rulemaking="" that="" looks="" both="" at="" the="" present="" and="" well="" into="" the="" future.="" mills="" willing="" to="" surpass="" today's="" compulsory="" bat="" requirements="" have="" a="" framework="" to="" anticipate="" what="" could="" be="" tomorrow's="" subcategory-wide="" bat="" and="" to="" make="" today's="" environmental,="" financial="" and="" engineering="" judgments="" accordingly.="" thus,="" the="" three-tiered="" incentives="" program="" itself="" represents="" reasonable="" further="" progress="" toward="" the="" goal="" of="" eliminating="" pollutant="" discharges.="" at="" the="" same="" time,="" within="" each="" tier,="" mills="" must="" make="" incremental="" improvements="" that="" also="" represent="" reasonable="" further="" progress="" toward="" that="" national="" goal.="" in="" short,="" each="" bat="" increment,="" whether="" in="" the="" form="" of="" the="" tiers="" themselves="" or="" the="" progressively="" more="" stringent="" limitations="" comprising="" them,="" gives="" contemporary="" meaning="" to="" the="" staging="" process="" originally="" envisioned="" by="" congress="" as="" the="" means="" to="" achieve="" the="" goal="" of="" eliminating="" discharge="" of="" pollutants="" to="" the="" nation's="" waters.="" finally,="" like="" other="" agencies,="" epa="" has="" inherent="" authority="" to="" phase="" in="" regulatory="" requirements="" in="" appropriate="" cases.="" epa="" has="" employed="" this="" authority="" in="" other="" contexts.="" for="" example,="" epa="" recently="" phased="" in,="" over="" two="" years,="" tsca="" rules="" pertaining="" to="" lead-based="" paint="" activities.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 746.239="" and="" 61="" fr="" 45788,="" 45803="" (aug.="" 29,="" 1996).="" similarly,="" the="" occupational="" safety="" and="" health="" administration="" phased="" in,="" over="" 10="" years,="" a="" series="" of="" progressively="" more="" stringent="" lead-related="" controls.="" see="" 29="" cfr="" 1910.1025="" (1979="" ed.).="" indeed,="" in="" upholding="" that="" rule,="" the="" u.s.="" court="" of="" appeals="" for="" the="" d.c.="" circuit="" noted="" that="" ``the="" extremely="" remote="" deadline="" at="" which="" the="" [sources]="" are="" to="" meet="" the="" final="" [permissible="" exposure="" limits]="" is="" perhaps="" the="" single="" most="" important="" factor="" supporting="" the="" feasibility="" of="" the="" standard.''="" united="" steelworkers="" of="" america="" v.="" marshall,="" 647="" f.2d="" at="" 1278.="" epa="" is="" aware="" that="" cwa="" sections="" 301(b)(2)(c)="" &="" (d)="" require="" bat="" limits="" to="" be="" achieved="" ``in="" no="" case="" later="" than="" three="" years="" after="" the="" date="" such="" limits="" are="" promulgated="" under="" section="" 304(b),="" and="" in="" no="" case="" later="" than="" march="" 31,="" 1989.''="" (section="" 301(b)(2)(f),="" which="" refers="" to="" bat="" limitations="" for="" nonconventional="" pollutants,="" also="" contains="" the="" march="" 31,="" 1989="" date,="" but="" uses="" as="" its="" starting="" point="" the="" date="" the="" limitations="" are="" ``established.'')="" this="" language="" does="" not="" speak="" to="" the="" precise="" question="" epa="" confronts="" here:="" whether="" epa="" can="" [[page="" 18608]]="" promulgate="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" that="" are="" phased="" in="" over="" time,="" so="" that="" a="" direct="" discharger="" at="" all="" times="" is="" subject="" to="" and="" must="" comply="" immediately="" with="" the="" particular="" bat="" limitations="" applicable="" to="" them="" at="" any="" given="" point="" in="" time.="" section="" 301(b)(2)="" provides="" no="" clear="" direction.="" epa="" therefore="" is="" charged="" with="" making="" a="" reasonable="" interpretation="" of="" the="" statute="" to="" fill="" the="" gap.="" see="" chevron,="" u.s.a.,="" inc.="" v.="" nrdc,="" 467="" u.s.="" at="" 843-44.="" epa="" believes="" that="" subjecting="" mills="" who="" voluntarily="" enroll="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advance="" technology="" incentives="" program="" to="" progressively="" more="" stringent="" bat="" limitations="" over="" time="" best="" serves="" congress'="" intent="" of="" pushing="" mills="" to="" achieve="" reasonable="" further="" progress="" toward="" eliminating="" all="" pollutant="" discharges.="" it="" also="" ensures="" that="" mills="" achieve="" these="" superior="" performance="" requirements="" at="" a="" pace="" that="" makes="" technical="" and="" economic="" sense.="" finally,="" by="" phasing="" in="" these="" highly="" stringent--but="" elected--="" controls,="" epa="" hopes="" to="" encourage="" more="" mills="" to="" surpass="" the="" bat="" baseline,="" with="" the="" result="" that="" the="" environment="" realizes="" a="" far="" greater="" improvement="" than="" epa="" could="" expect="" to="" see="" without="" this="" phased="" approach.="" for="" these="" reasons,="" epa="" believes="" it="" is="" entitled="" to="" deference="" in="" its="" decision="" to="" promulgate="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limits="" in="" this="" manner.="" several="" commenters="" supported="" the="" idea="" of="" phasing="" in="" compliance="" with="" bat="" limitations="" for="" the="" purpose="" of="" minimizing="" short-term="" economic="" impacts="" on="" mills,="" but="" urged="" epa="" to="" adopt="" this="" approach="" to="" set="" baseline="" bat="" limits="" based="" on="" the="" model="" tier="" i="" advanced="" technology="" (i.e.,="" bat="" option="" b).="" in="" other="" words,="" these="" commenters="" argued="" that="" more="" stringent="" baseline="" bat="" limits="" based="" on="" the="" tier="" i="" technology="" would="" be="" economically="" achievable="" for="" the="" entire="" subcategory="" because="" affected="" mills="" would="" have="" five="" years="" to="" achieve="" full="" compliance.="" as="" noted="" above,="" epa="" agrees="" that="" the="" advanced="" technologies="" that="" are="" not="" economically="" achievable="" at="" present="" can="" become="" economically="" achievable="" for="" individual="" mills="" that="" voluntarily="" participate="" as="" time="" passes.="" indeed,="" congress="" recognized="" as="" much="" in="" requiring="" epa="" to="" review="" its="" effluent="" guidelines="" and="" to="" revise="" them="" as="" appropriate.="" see="" cwa="" section="" 304(b).="" however,="" epa="" disagrees="" that="" it="" currently="" has="" sufficient="" basis="" on="" the="" record="" available="" today="" to="" compel="" all="" mills="" in="" the="" bleached="" papergrade="" kraft="" and="" soda="" subcategory="" to="" meet="" the="" more="" stringent="" limits="" five="" years="" from="" now.="" in="" this="" rulemaking,="" the="" economic="" achievability="" of="" those="" more="" stringent="" (tier="" i)="" limits="" is="" determined="" by="" the="" voluntary="" investment="" decisions="" of="" the="" affected="" mills;="" because="" of="" the="" voluntary="" nature="" of="" the="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program,="" it="" is="" the="" mills,="" not="" epa,="" that="" determine="" that="" particular="" advanced="" technologies="" are="" available="" and="" economically="" achievable="" for="" them="" within="" the="" time="" frames="" provided="" in="" this="" program.="" in="" order="" for="" epa="" to="" impose="" advanced="" technology="" limits="" on="" the="" entire="" subcategory="" as="" the="" commenter="" suggests,="" epa="" would="" need="" to="" find="" adequate="" support="" in="" the="" rulemaking="" record="" today="" that="" compulsory="" bat="" limits="" will="" be="" economically="" achievable="" for="" their="" entire="" subcategory="" five="" years="" from="" now.="" epa="" cannot="" make="" that="" determination="" based="" on="" the="" information="" available="" today.="" at="" best,="" epa="" could="" only="" speculate="" whether="" some="" or="" all="" of="" the="" mills="" projected="" to="" sustain="" the="" most="" severe="" economic="" impacts="" if="" bat="" option="" b="" is="" selected="" would="" be="" able="" to="" avoid="" those="" impacts="" if="" compliance="" with="" that="" bat="" is="" deferred.="" epa="" does="" not="" believe="" that="" this="" type="" of="" speculation="" is="" a="" sufficient="" basis="" for="" compelling="" compliance="" with="" bat="" limits="" that="" are="" not="" economically="" achievable="" today="" for="" the="" subcategory="" as="" a="" whole.="" moreover,="" when="" epa="" estimated="" the="" effects="" of="" deferring="" compliance,="" subcategory-wide,="" for="" five="" years="" in="" response="" to="" these="" comments,="" epa="" concluded="" that="" the="" projected="" impacts="" were="" such="" that,="" even="" then,="" bat="" option="" b="" would="" not="" be="" economically="" achievable="" for="" the="" subcategory="" as="" a="" whole.="" see="" section="" vi.b.5.a(5).="" for="" these="" reasons,="" epa="" concludes="" that="" it="" does="" not="" have="" a="" sufficient="" record="" basis="" today="" to="" make="" tier="" i="" (or="" bat="" option="" b)="" limitations="" the="" compulsory="" baseline="" bat="" even="" if="" such="" limits="" would="" not="" be="" effective="" until="" 2002.="" see="" dcn="" 14392,="" and="" cbi="" documents="" dcn="" 14390="" and="" dcn="" 14391.="" epa="" could="" have="" accomplished="" the="" same="" results="" in="" this="" rulemaking="" simply="" by="" deferring="" the="" effective="" dates="" of="" the="" ultimate="" advanced="" technology="" performance="" objectives="" until="" the="" dates="" specified="" in="" the="" rule="" for="" achievement="" of="" the="" ``stage="" 2''="" limitations.="" epa="" has="" the="" legal="" authority="" to="" defer="" the="" effective="" dates="" of="" the="" ``stage="" 2''="" portion="" of="" the="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" in="" this="" manner.="" subject="" to="" the="" minimum="" delays="" imposed="" by="" the="" apa,="" 5="" u.s.c.="" sec.="" 553(d),="" and="" the="" small="" business="" regulatory="" enforcement="" fairness="" act="" (sbrefa),="" 5="" u.s.c.="" sec.="" 801,="" epa="" has="" inherent="" authority="" to="" determine="" the="" effective="" date="" of="" a="" rule="" and="" to="" defer="" the="" effective="" date="" in="" appropriate="" cases.="" see="" asg="" industries,="" inc.="" v.="" consumer="" products="" safety="" comm'n,="" 593="" f.2d="" 1323,="" 1335="" (d.c.="" cir.="" 1979).="" nothing="" in="" the="" clean="" water="" act="" limits="" this="" authority="" with="" respect="" to="" bat="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines.="" in="" contrast="" to="" section="" 306(b)(1)(b),="" where="" congress="" explicitly="" stated="" that="" new="" source="" performance="" standards,="" ``or="" revisions="" thereof,="" shall="" become="" effective="" upon="" promulgation,''="" the="" cwa="" is="" silent="" regarding="" the="" effective="" date="" of="" bat="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines.="" having="" failed="" to="" prescribe="" when="" bat="" guidelines="" become="" effective,="" congress="" therefore="" has="" delegated="" to="" the="" agency="" the="" authority="" to="" choose="" the="" appropriate="" effective="" date="" of="" the="" bat="" effluent="" guideline="" limitations="" it="" promulgates,="" so="" long="" as="" the="" agency's="" choice="" is="" consistent="" with="" the="" goals="" and="" purposes="" of="" the="" act.="" see="" chevron,="" u.s.a.,="" inc.="" v.="" nrdc,="" 467="" u.s.="" at="" 843-44,="" 861.="" under="" this="" approach,="" the="" ``stage="" 1''="" limitations="" would="" be="" effective="" immediately,="" and="" the="" ``stage="" 2''="" limitations="" would="" become="" effective="" by="" the="" dates="" specified="" in="" the="" regulation.="" b.="" incentives="" available="" after="" achievement="" of="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" and="" nsps="" 1.="" greater="" certainty="" regarding="" permit="" limits="" and="" requirements="" industry="" stakeholders="" have="" suggested="" to="" epa="" that="" mills="" could="" be="" encouraged="" to="" implement="" advanced="" technologies="" if="" they="" had="" a="" reasonable="" assurance="" that="" all="" limitations="" and="" conditions="" in="" their="" permits="" would="" remain="" constant="" over="" a="" specified="" period="" of="" time,="" once="" compliance="" with="" the="" advanced="" technology="" limits="" and="" standards="" is="" achieved.="" under="" this="" incentive,="" epa="" will="" issue="" guidance="" to="" states="" regarding="" the="" reissuance="" of="" npdes="" permits="" held="" by="" mills="" that="" achieve="" all="" of="" their="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" or="" nsps.="" (epa="" notes="" that="" new="" sources="" that="" accept="" permit="" limitations="" based="" on,="" and="" commence="" operation="" in="" compliance="" with,="" tier="" ii="" or="" tier="" iii="" nsps="" automatically="" possess="" a="" shield="" against="" more="" stringent="" standards="" of="" performance="" for="" ten="" years="" from="" the="" completion="" of="" construction.)="" in="" its="" forthcoming="" guidance,="" epa="" will="" address="" the="" timing="" of="" reissuing="" advanced="" technology="" npdes="" permits="" and="" the="" limitations="" those="" reissued="" permits="" should="" contain.="" regarding="" the="" reissuance="" of="" advanced="" technology="" npdes="" permits,="" epa="" believes="" that="" permitting="" authorities="" could="" reasonably="" conclude="" that="" an="" advanced="" technology="" npdes="" permit="" held="" by="" a="" mill="" meeting="" all="" of="" its="" tier="" limits="" is="" a="" low="" priority="" for="" permit="" reissuance,="" if="" there="" is="" no="" new="" water="" quality-="" or="" facility-related="" data="" or="" information="" that="" would="" justify="" new="" or="" different="" limits.="" under="" these="" circumstances,="" epa="" believes="" it="" would="" be="" reasonable="" for="" a="" permitting="" authority="" to="" [[page="" 18609]]="" conclude="" that="" that="" permit="" is="" a="" lower="" priority="" for="" reissuance="" because="" the="" mill="" is="" voluntarily="" achieving="" reductions="" greater="" than="" otherwise="" required="" by="" the="" baseline="" bat="" and="" hence="" presents="" a="" lower="" risk="" to="" water="" quality="" than="" other="" mills.="" in="" its="" guidance,="" however,="" epa="" will="" emphasize="" that="" an="" advanced="" technology="" npdes="" permit="" should="" be="" administratively="" extended="" only="" if="" the="" permitting="" authority="" had="" provided="" the="" public="" with="" notice="" (the="" last="" time="" the="" permit="" was="" reissued)="" that="" it="" might="" choose="" to="" extend="" the="" permit="" administratively="" when="" it="" expires.="" thus,="" epa="" expects="" the="" permitting="" authority="" to="" notify="" the="" public="" as="" part="" of="" the="" preceding="" permitting="" process="" of="" the="" circumstances="" under="" which="" it="" would="" regard="" the="" advanced="" technology="" npdes="" permit="" as="" a="" low="" priority="" for="" reissuance="" in="" the="" next="" permitting="" cycle.="" for="" example,="" epa="" expects="" the="" permitting="" authority="" to="" inform="" the="" public="" that="" the="" permit="" probably="" would="" be="" administratively="" extended="" if="" the="" permittee="" has="" achieved="" all="" of="" its="" advanced="" technology="" limitations,="" if="" it="" has="" filed="" a="" timely="" permit="" application,="" and="" if="" the="" permitting="" authority="" possesses="" no="" new="" water="" quality="" or="" facility-related="" data="" that="" would="" justify="" new="" or="" different="" permit="" conditions="" and="" limits.="" in="" addition,="" epa="" expects="" that="" the="" permit="" eligible="" for="" an="" administrative="" extension="" would="" contain="" bmps="" and="" any="" water="" quality-based="" effluent="" limits="" necessary="" to="" achieve="" applicable="" water="" quality="" standards.="" thus,="" epa="" would="" not="" expect="" any="" adverse="" effect="" on="" the="" environment="" during="" the="" period="" the="" permit="" is="" administratively="" extended,="" in="" the="" absence="" of="" specific="" information="" indicating="" that="" more="" stringent="" water="" quality="" effluent="" limits="" need="" to="" be="" imposed.="" the="" forthcoming="" guidance="" will="" also="" address="" the="" types="" of="" limitations="" an="" advanced="" technology="" npdes="" permit="" should="" contain="" when="" it="" is="" reissued="" after="" achievement="" of="" the="" tier="" limitations.="" as="" a="" threshold="" matter,="" the="" permitting="" authority="" will="" need="" to="" determine="" if="" there="" is="" a="" need="" for="" new="" or="" revised="" water="" quality-based="" effluent="" limitations.="" if="" there="" is="" none,="" epa="" encourages="" permitting="" authorities="" to="" promptly="" reissue="" the="" npdes="" permit="" with="" the="" existing="" water="" quality-based="" effluent="" limitations,="" if="" any,="" and="" the="" appropriate="" limitations="" found="" in="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 430.="" in="" some="" cases,="" the="" permitting="" authority="" may="" receive="" new="" facility-="" or="" watershed-="" specific="" information="" indicating="" that="" load="" reductions="" and,="" consequently,="" more="" stringent="" effluent="" limits="" on="" a="" pollutant="" in="" the="" mill's="" wastewater="" are="" necessary="" to="" achieve="" applicable="" water="" quality="" standards="" for="" that="" pollutant.="" under="" these="" circumstances,="" epa="" would="" urge="" states="" to="" develop="" priorities="" for="" allocating="" the="" necessary="" load="" reductions="" in="" a="" way="" that="" gives="" preference="" to="" advanced="" technology="" mills="" over="" all="" other="" subpart="" b="" mills,="" particularly="" where="" advanced="" technology="" mills="" contribute="" a="" small="" portion="" of="" the="" total="" pollutant="" loads="" to="" the="" stream.="" moreover,="" where="" more="" than="" one="" advanced="" technology="" mill="" discharges="" in="" a="" watershed,="" these="" priorities="" would="" further="" give="" preference="" first="" to="" tier="" iii="" mills,="" then="" to="" tier="" ii,="" and="" finally="" to="" tier="" i="" mills.="" 2.="" reduced="" effluent="" monitoring="" epa="" believes="" that="" reduced="" monitoring="" provisions="" are="" appropriate="" for="" ecf="" and="" tcf="" mills="" participating="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" and="" is="" including="" them="" in="" the="" today's="" regulation="" for="" mills="" that="" achieve="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" or="" nsps,="" as="" appropriate.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 430.02(c),="" (d)="" and="" (e).="" in="" epa's="" view,="" consistent="" and="" successful="" implementation="" of="" the="" advanced="" technologies="" through="" ecf="" or="" tcf="" processes="" will="" make="" it="" increasingly="" less="" likely="" that="" the="" pollutants="" controlled="" by="" the="" baseline="" bat="" will="" be="" present="" in="" the="" wastewater="" from="" advanced="" technology="" fiber="" lines="" in="" levels="" of="" concern.="" because="" of="" these="" reductions="" and="" because="" monitoring="" for="" these="" pollutants="" tends="" to="" be="" costly,="" epa="" believes="" it="" is="" reasonable="" to="" allow="" mills="" achieving="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" or="" nsps="" through="" ecf="" or="" tcf="" processes="" to="" monitor="" less="" frequently="" for="" those="" pollutant="" parameters="" over="" time="" after="" establishing="" a="" reliable="" baseline="" of="" consistent="" achievement="" of="" those="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" or="" nsps.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 430.02(c)-(e).="" to="" qualify="" for="" a="" monitoring="" incentive,="" the="" mill="" must="" certify="" that="" the="" fiber="" line="" is="" tcf="" or="" advanced="" ecf="" either="" as="" part="" of="" their="" permit="" application="" or="" as="" part="" of="" a="" report="" of="" progress="" on="" compliance="" with="" milestones="" established="" to="" achieve="" their="" ultimate="" tier="" limits.="" 40="" cfr="" 430.02(c).="" no="" monitoring="" incentive="" is="" available="" for="" kappa="" number="" or="" flow="" because="" no="" minimum="" monitoring="" frequencies="" are="" being="" established="" by="" this="" regulation.="" epa="" encourages="" permitting="" authorities="" to="" consider="" factors="" such="" as="" the="" reliability="" of="" the="" advanced="" technology="" to="" consistently="" achieve="" or="" exceed="" the="" applicable="" limitations="" and="" performance="" variability="" in="" establishing="" monitoring="" frequencies="" for="" kappa="" number="" and="" flow="" on="" a="" best="" professional="" judgment="" basis.="" the="" monitoring="" incentive="" for="" aox="" applies="" only="" when="" the="" entire="" mill="" is="" ecf="" or="" tcf.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 430.02(c)="" and="" (d).="" since="" compliance="" with="" aox="" most="" likely="" will="" be="" determined="" at="" the="" end="" of="" the="" pipe,="" the="" monitoring="" requirement="" would="" be="" governed="" by="" the="" fiber="" line="" for="" which="" most="" frequent="" monitoring="" is="" required.="" epa="" retains="" the="" authority="" to="" request="" or="" obtain="" specific="" information="" that="" may="" be="" needed="" to="" determine="" compliance="" with="" the="" requirements="" of="" this="" rule.="" because="" monitoring="" relief="" is="" specified="" to="" be="" available="" by="" the="" date="" compliance="" is="" required,="" even="" if="" the="" limits="" have="" not="" been="" achieved,="" epa="" anticipates="" that="" permitting="" authorities="" will="" exercise="" their="" section="" 308="" authority="" to="" extend="" more="" frequent="" monitoring="" for="" mills="" that="" do="" not="" achieve="" compliance="" with="" their="" limitations.="" epa="" relies="" on="" section="" 308(a)="" of="" the="" clean="" water="" act="" for="" authority="" to="" promulgate="" this="" incentive.="" the="" reduced="" monitoring="" for="" this="" effluent="" limitations="" guideline="" incentive="" program="" is="" being="" incorporated="" in="" the="" code="" of="" federal="" regulations,="" and="" is="" summarized="" as="" follows:="" a.="" for="" tcf="" fiber="" lines="" under="" tiers="" i,="" ii,="" and="" iii,="" no="" monitoring="" incentive="" is="" available="" because="" no="" existing="" tcf="" fiber="" line="" is="" subject="" to="" minimum="" monitoring="" frequencies="" established="" by="" this="" rule.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 430.02(a).="" epa="" anticipates="" that="" permitting="" authorities="" will="" consider="" the="" monitoring="" for="" aox="" being="" imposed="" on="" mills="" in="" comparable="" tiers,="" and="" the="" additional="" assurance="" of="" compliance="" that="" tcf="" process="" technologies="" afford="" relative="" to="" aox,="" in="" establishing="" monitoring="" frequencies="" on="" a="" best="" professional="" judgment="" basis.="" for="" mills="" that="" use="" tcf="" processes="" part="" of="" the="" time="" and="" ecf="" processes="" for="" the="" remainder,="" epa="" would="" apply="" the="" reduced="" monitoring="" incentive="" applicable="" to="" an="" ecf="" process.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 430.02(c),="" (d)="" and="" (e).="" b.="" for="" any="" fiber="" line="" enrolled="" under="" tier="" i,="" ii,="" or="" iii="" for="" which="" the="" mill="" certifies="" in="" its="" npdes="" permit="" application="" or="" other="" communication="" to="" the="" permitting="" authority="" that="" it="" employs="" exclusively="" advanced="" ecf="" technologies="" (i.e.,="" extended="" delignification="" or="" other="" technologies="" that="" achieve="" at="" least="" the="" tier="" i="" performance="" levels="" specified="" in="" section="" 430.24(b)(4)(i)),="" the="" minimum="" monitoring="" requirements="" for="" dioxin,="" furan,="" chloroform="" and="" the="" 12="" chlorinated="" phenolic="" pollutants="" will="" be="" suspended="" after="" one="" year="" of="" monitoring="" following="" achievement="" of="" those="" limitations="" and="" standards.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 430.02(c).="" (these="" limitations="" and="" standards="" must="" be="" achieved="" no="" later="" than="" april="" 15,="" 2004.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 430.24(b)(3).)="" for="" aox,="" a="" certifying="" advanced="" ecf="" mill="" also="" would="" be="" permitted="" to="" perform="" weekly="" instead="" of="" daily="" monitoring="" for="" one="" year="" after="" achievement="" of="" the="" ultimate="" tier="" bat="" limit="" or="" nsps="" for="" that="" pollutant.="" see="" 40="" [[page="" 18610]]="" cfr="" 430.02(d).="" monitoring="" for="" aox="" once="" per="" month="" would="" be="" permitted="" for="" tier="" i="" ecf="" mills="" for="" four="" years="" beyond="" the="" completion="" of="" that="" one="" year="" period.="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 430.02(e).="" tier="" ii="" ecf="" mills="" would="" be="" permitted="" to="" monitor="" for="" aox="" once="" per="" quarter="" for="" four="" years="" beyond="" the="" completion="" of="" that="" one="" year="" period,="" and="" tier="" iii="" ecf="" mills="" would="" be="" permitted="" to="" monitor="" for="" aox="" once="" per="" year="" for="" four="" years="" beyond="" the="" completion="" of="" that="" one="" year="" period.="" id.="" 3.="" reduced="" inspections="" epa="" will="" issue="" guidance="" to="" epa="" regional="" offices="" indicating="" that="" fiber="" lines="" enrolled="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" and="" achieving="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" or="" nsps="" should="" be="" a="" lower="" priority="" than="" other="" npdes="" facilities="" for="" routine="" inspections="" under="" the="" cwa.="" under="" this="" incentive,="" the="" guidance="" would="" recommend="" that="" fiber="" lines="" achieving="" tier="" i="" limits="" receive="" routine="" epa="" inspections="" not="" more="" than="" once="" every="" two="" years;="" fiber="" lines="" achieving="" tier="" ii="" limits="" receive="" routine="" epa="" inspections="" not="" more="" than="" twice="" every="" five="" years;="" and="" fiber="" lines="" achieving="" tier="" iii="" limits="" receive="" routine="" epa="" inspections="" not="" more="" than="" once="" every="" five="" years.="" this="" incentive="" reflects="" epa's="" view="" that="" mills="" installing="" and="" operating="" advanced="" technologies="" at="" levels="" to="" meet="" the="" appropriate="" tier="" effluent="" limitations="" and="" standards="" are="" likely="" to="" be="" complying="" with="" the="" other="" permit="" requirements="" applicable="" to="" that="" fiber="" line.="" furthermore,="" the="" substantial="" reductions="" in="" pollutants="" and="" wastewater="" volumes="" discharged,="" particularly="" by="" mills="" achieving="" tier="" ii="" and="" tier="" iii="" limitations="" and="" standards,="" will="" have="" commensurately="" reduced="" environmental="" impacts.="" epa="" already="" has="" redirected="" federal="" npdes="" inspections="" away="" from="" annual="" inspections="" of="" all="" major="" dischargers="" to="" focus="" on="" high="" risk="" facilities="" in="" priority="" watersheds.="" targeted="" efforts="" in="" these="" priority="" watersheds="" focus="" on="" such="" factors="" as="" facility="" compliance="" status="" and="" rates,="" location="" and="" affected="" population,="" citizen="" complaints,="" etc.="" nonetheless,="" under="" this="" incentive,="" epa="" reserves="" the="" authority="" to="" conduct="" multi-media="" inspections="" without="" prior="" notice,="" and="" to="" inspect="" advanced="" technology="" fiber="" lines="" for="" cause,="" whether="" or="" not="" there="" is="" an="" ongoing="" violation.="" epa="" also="" reserves="" its="" right="" to="" inspect="" an="" advanced="" technology="" mill="" in="" connection="" with="" specific="" watershed="" or="" airshed="" concerns.="" 4.="" public="" recognition="" programs="" epa="" is="" pleased="" to="" have="" the="" opportunity="" to="" implement="" a="" program="" in="" which="" it="" can="" recognize="" facilities="" for="" voluntary="" activities="" that="" achieve="" further="" environmental="" improvements="" beyond="" those="" required="" by="" the="" baseline="" bat="" limitations="" and="" nsps="" promulgated="" today.="" epa's="" intention="" is="" to="" provide="" for="" easily="" administered="" and="" meaningful="" public="" recognition="" for="" mills="" that="" participate="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program.="" epa="" will="" accord="" public="" recognition="" to="" mills="" when="" they="" formally="" enroll="" in="" the="" program,="" when="" they="" achieve="" major="" interim="" milestones,="" and="" when="" they="" achieve="" the="" ultimate="" tier="" performance="" requirements.="" the="" applicable="" state="" permitting="" authority="" also="" may="" choose="" to="" separately="" recognize="" a="" pulp="" and="" paper="" mill="" for="" its="" commitments="" and="" achievements="" toward="" further="" environmental="" improvements.="" the="" following="" paragraphs="" describe="" the="" steps="" for="" public="" recognition.="" epa="" will="" issue="" additional="" guidance="" to="" facilitate="" implementation="" of="" this="" incentive.="" a.="" enrolling="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program.="" once="" a="" mill="" has="" enrolled="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program,="" epa="" will="" issue="" a="" letter="" to="" each="" facility="" acknowledging="" its="" participation="" and="" identifying="" the="" tier="" limits="" (and="" fiber="" line(s)="" as="" appropriate)="" to="" which="" the="" mill="" has="" committed.="" each="" year="" epa="" will="" publish="" a="" federal="" register="" notice="" identifying="" mills="" that="" have="" committed="" to="" the="" program="" within="" the="" previous="" year.="" the="" self-="" selected="" tier="" will="" be="" clearly="" identified,="" as="" will="" any="" other="" pertinent="" information.="" the="" federal="" register="" notice="" will="" be="" made="" available="" on="" the="" epa="" internet="" web="" site.="" b.="" achievement="" of="" milestones.="" each="" time="" a="" mill="" achieves="" a="" major="" milestone="" (particularly="" those="" which="" achieve="" reduction="" in="" effluent="" pollutant="" loadings),="" epa="" will="" recognize="" that="" mill="" in="" its="" annual="" federal="" register="" notice.="" in="" order="" to="" qualify="" for="" this="" recognition,="" each="" mill="" must="" notify="" its="" permitting="" authority="" and="" provide="" supporting="" monitoring="" data="" or="" other="" relevant="" documentation.="" the="" permitting="" authority="" may="" choose="" to="" visit="" the="" site="" for="" verification.="" epa,="" in="" concert="" with="" the="" relevant="" state="" npdes="" programs,="" also="" will="" then="" ascertain="" the="" status="" of="" clean="" water="" act="" compliance="" and="" any="" other="" enforcement="" actions="" prior="" to="" public="" recognition="" activities.="" any="" criminal="" enforcement="" activities,="" particularly="" convictions,="" also="" will="" be="" ascertained.="" this="" information="" on="" compliance="" and="" enforcement="" status="" will="" be="" available="" for="" consideration="" by="" epa="" senior="" management="" prior="" to="" initiation="" of="" public="" recognition="" activities.="" relevant="" information="" on="" enforcement="" and="" compliance="" status="" also="" may="" be="" shared="" as="" appropriate="" with="" senior="" management="" of="" state="" permitting="" agencies="" that="" initiate="" separate="" public="" recognition="" activities.="" public="" recognition="" for="" achieving="" milestones="" will="" continue="" until="" the="" date="" participating="" mills="" are="" required="" to="" achieve="" the="" ultimate="" tier="" performance="" requirements.="" c.="" achievement="" of="" voluntary="" advanced="" technologies="" bat="" limitations="" or="" nsps.="" mills="" that="" achieve="" their="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" or="" nsps="" will="" notify="" the="" permitting="" authority="" and="" submit="" supporting="" monitoring="" data="" and="" other="" relevant="" documentation.="" the="" permitting="" authority="" will="" verify="" that="" the="" advanced="" technology="" bat="" limitations="" or="" nsps="" have="" been="" achieved.="" the="" annual="" federal="" register="" notice="" will="" identify="" these="" facilities="" as="" reaching="" their="" goal.="" epa="" also="" will="" participate="" in="" an="" award="" ceremony="" at="" an="" appropriate="" venue="" (e.g.,="" tappi="" environmental="" conference).="" 5.="" reduced="" penalties="" in="" recognition="" of="" the="" considerable="" capital="" expenditures="" that="" mills="" participating="" in="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" will="" make="" to="" implement="" advanced="" technologies="" and="" to="" achieve="" pollutant="" reductions="" superior="" to="" those="" achievable="" through="" the="" baseline="" bat="" or="" nsps,="" epa="" will="" encourage="" enforcement="" authorities="" to="" take="" into="" account="" those="" investments="" as="" appropriate="" when="" assessing="" penalties="" against="" these="" mills="" for="" violations="" relating="" to="" those="" advanced="" technologies.="" existing="" epa="" settlement="" policies="" provide="" consideration="" of="" advanced="" technology="" investments="" in="" this="" manner.="" in="" epa's="" view,="" if="" a="" facility="" has="" installed="" and="" is="" operating="" the="" advanced="" technology="" in="" good="" faith,="" reports="" violations="" in="" a="" prompt="" manner="" to="" epa="" or="" the="" state,="" and="" either="" corrects="" the="" violations="" in="" a="" timely="" manner="" or="" agrees="" to="" and="" complies="" with="" reasonable="" remedial="" measures="" concurred="" on="" by="" the="" primary="" enforcement="" authority,="" then="" the="" enforcement="" authority="" would="" be="" justified="" in="" taking="" the="" advanced="" technology="" investment="" into="" account="" in="" determining="" economic="" benefit="" and="" in="" reducing="" the="" gravity="" portion="" of="" the="" penalty="" by="" up="" to="" 100="" percent.="" where="" the="" installation="" and="" operation="" of="" any="" advanced="" technology="" was="" more="" expensive="" than="" the="" installation="" and="" operation="" of="" the="" technology="" underlying="" the="" baseline="" bat,="" the="" advanced="" technology="" facilities="" would="" derive="" no="" economic="" benefit="" (i.e.,="" zero="" ben)="" from="" the="" violation="" associated="" with="" the="" advanced="" technology.="" this="" would="" be="" the="" case="" even="" when="" the="" advanced="" technology="" fails,="" as="" long="" as="" the="" design,="" operation="" and="" installation="" are="" within="" [[page="" 18611]]="" applicable="" engineering="" standards="" and="" operational="" procedures="" are="" within="" industry="" norms.="" the="" decision="" whether="" to="" take="" such="" advanced="" technology="" investments="" into="" account="" in="" determining="" economic="" benefit="" would="" be="" left="" to="" the="" state's="" discretion="" when="" the="" state="" is="" the="" enforcing="" authority.="" epa="" will="" issue="" guidance="" to="" clarify="" application="" of="" this="" incentive.="" mills="" also="" can="" take="" advantage="" of="" the="" recently="" issued="" audit="" policy="" providing="" they="" meet="" the="" criteria="" specified="" in="" that="" policy.="" see="" 60="" fr="" 66706="" (dec.="" 22,="" 1995).="" x.="" administrative="" requirements="" and="" related="" government="" acts="" or="" initiatives="" a.="" dockets="" the="" docket="" is="" an="" organized="" and="" complete="" file="" of="" all="" the="" information="" submitted="" to="" or="" otherwise="" considered="" by="" epa="" in="" the="" development="" of="" the="" final="" regulations.="" the="" principal="" purposes="" of="" the="" docket="" are:="" (1)="" to="" allow="" interested="" parties="" to="" readily="" identify="" and="" locate="" documents="" so="" that="" they="" can="" intelligently="" and="" effectively="" participate="" in="" the="" rulemaking="" process;="" and="" (2)="" to="" serve="" as="" the="" record="" in="" case="" of="" judicial="" review,="" except="" for="" intra-agency="" review="" materials="" as="" provided="" for="" in="" section="" 307(d)(7)(a).="" 1.="" air="" dockets="" air="" docket="" no.="" a-92-40="" contains="" information="" considered="" by="" epa="" in="" development="" of="" the="" neshap="" for="" the="" chemical="" wood="" pulping="" mills.="" air="" docket="" no.="" a-95-31="" contains="" information="" considered="" in="" developing="" the="" neshap="" for="" mechanical="" pulping="" processes,="" secondary="" fiber="" pulping="" processes,="" and="" nonwood="" fiber="" pulping="" processes.="" the="" air="" dockets="" are="" available="" for="" public="" inspection="" between="" 8="" a.m.="" and="" 4="" 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;="" telephone:="" (202)="" 260-7548.="" the="" dockets="" are="" located="" at="" the="" above="" address="" in="" room="" m-1500,="" waterside="" mall="" (ground="" floor).="" all="" comments="" received="" during="" the="" public="" comment="" period="" on="" the="" 1993="" proposed="" neshap="" are="" contained="" in="" the="" pulp="" and="" paper="" water="" docket="" (see="" following="" paragraph="" for="" location).="" comments="" received="" on="" the="" march="" 8,="" 1996,="" supplemental="" neshap="" notice="" at="" 61="" fr="" 9383="" are="" contained="" in="" air="" dockets="" a-92-40="" and="" a-="" 95-31.="" 2.="" water="" docket="" the="" complete="" public="" record="" for="" the="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines="" and="" standards="" rulemaking,="" including="" epa's="" responses="" to="" comments="" received="" during="" the="" rulemaking,="" is="" available="" for="" review="" at="" epa's="" water="" docket,="" room="" m2616,="" 401="" m="" street="" sw,="" washington,="" dc="" 20460.="" for="" access="" to="" docket="" materials,="" call="" (202)="" 260-3027.="" the="" docket="" staff="" requests="" that="" interested="" parties="" call="" between="" 9:00="" am="" and="" 3:30="" pm="" for="" an="" appointment="" before="" visiting="" the="" docket.="" the="" epa="" regulations="" at="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 2="" provide="" that="" a="" reasonable="" fee="" may="" be="" charged="" for="" copying="" materials="" from="" the="" air="" and="" water="" dockets.="" epa="" notes="" that="" many="" documents="" in="" the="" record="" supporting="" these="" final="" rules="" have="" been="" claimed="" as="" confidential="" business="" information="" (cbi)="" and,="" therefore,="" are="" not="" included="" in="" the="" record="" that="" is="" available="" to="" the="" public="" in="" the="" air="" and="" water="" dockets.="" to="" support="" the="" rulemaking,="" epa="" is="" presenting="" certain="" information="" in="" aggregated="" form="" or="" is="" masking="" facility="" identities="" to="" preserve="" confidentiality="" claims.="" further,="" the="" agency="" has="" withheld="" from="" disclosure="" some="" data="" not="" claimed="" as="" confidential="" business="" information="" because="" release="" of="" this="" information="" could="" indirectly="" reveal="" information="" claimed="" to="" be="" confidential.="" b.="" executive="" order="" 12866="" and="" omb="" review="" under="" executive="" order="" 12866,="" (58="" fr="" 51735,="" october="" 4,="" 1993),="" the="" agency="" 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="" result="" in="" a="" rule="" that="" may:="" (1)="" have="" an="" annual="" effect="" on="" the="" economy="" of="" $100="" million="" or="" more="" or="" adversely="" affect="" in="" a="" material="" way="" the="" economy,="" a="" sector="" of="" the="" economy,="" productivity,="" competition,="" jobs,="" the="" environment,="" public="" health="" or="" safety,="" or="" state,="" local,="" or="" tribal="" governments="" or="" communities;="" (2)="" create="" a="" serious="" inconsistency="" or="" otherwise="" interfere="" with="" an="" action="" taken="" or="" planned="" by="" another="" agency;="" (3)="" materially="" alter="" the="" budgetary="" impact="" of="" entitlements,="" grants,="" user="" fees,="" or="" loan="" programs="" or="" the="" rights="" and="" obligations="" of="" recipients="" thereof;="" or="" (4)="" raise="" novel="" legal="" or="" policy="" issues="" arising="" out="" of="" legal="" mandates,="" the="" president's="" priorities,="" or="" the="" principles="" set="" forth="" in="" the="" executive="" order.''="" pursuant="" to="" the="" terms="" of="" executive="" order="" 12866,="" it="" has="" been="" determined="" that="" the="" cluster="" rules="" are="" a="" ``significant="" regulatory="" action''="" because="" they="" will="" have="" an="" annual="" effect="" on="" the="" economy="" of="" $100="" million="" or="" more.="" as="" such,="" this="" action="" was="" submitted="" to="" omb="" for="" review.="" changes="" made="" in="" response="" to="" omb="" suggestions="" or="" recommendations="" are="" documented="" in="" the="" public="" record.="" c.="" regulatory="" flexibility="" act="" and="" the="" small="" business="" regulatory="" enforcement="" fairness="" act="" of="" 1996="" (sbrefa)="" under="" the="" regulatory="" flexibility="" act="" (rfa),="" 5="" u.s.c.="" 601="" et="" seq.,="" as="" amended="" by="" sbrefa,="" epa="" generally="" is="" required="" to="" conduct="" a="" regulatory="" flexibility="" analysis="" describing="" the="" impact="" of="" the="" rule="" on="" small="" entities.="" however,="" under="" section="" 605(b)="" of="" the="" rfa,="" epa="" is="" not="" required="" to="" prepare="" the="" regulatory="" flexibility="" analysis="" if="" epa="" certifies="" that="" the="" rule="" will="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" economic="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities.="" pursuant="" to="" section="" 605(b)="" of="" the="" rfa,="" the="" agency="" certifies="" that="" today's="" final="" cwa="" rule="" will="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" economic="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities.="" in="" addition,="" epa="" also="" finds="" that="" the="" final="" caa="" rule="" will="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" economic="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities.="" small="" entities,="" as="" defined,="" include="" small="" businesses,="" small="" governments,="" and="" small="" organizations.="" this="" rulemaking="" does="" not="" affect="" small="" organizations.="" for="" small="" governments,="" these="" rules="" could="" directly="" affect="" administration="" or="" operating="" costs,="" but="" are="" not="" expected="" to="" result="" in="" significant="" impacts="" (see="" section="" x.e.).="" small="" businesses="" are="" the="" remaining="" class="" of="" small="" entity="" affected="" by="" this="" rulemaking.="" for="" small="" businesses,="" epa="" examined="" the="" economic="" impacts="" of="" these="" rules="" in="" detail="" and="" the="" results="" of="" its="" analysis="" are="" found="" in="" the="" ``economic="" analysis''="" (see="" dcn="" 14649).="" the="" following="" is="" a="" brief="" summary="" of="" the="" analysis.="" today's="" cwa="" final="" rule="" will="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" economic="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities,="" because="" of="" those="" companies="" affected="" by="" the="" cwa="" rule,="" only="" four="" are="" ``a="" small="" business="" concern''="" as="" defined="" by="" sba="" regulations.="" (the="" rfa,="" in="" general,="" requires="" use="" of="" sba="" definitions="" of="" small="" businesses;="" for="" this="" regulation,="" small="" businesses="" are="" defined="" as="" firms="" employing="" no="" more="" than="" 750="" workers.)="" epa="" does="" not="" believe="" this="" is="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities="" as="" that="" term="" is="" used="" in="" the="" rfa.="" moreover,="" while="" all="" four="" small="" business="" concerns="" would="" experience="" increased="" costs="" of="" operation="" as="" a="" result="" of="" today's="" rule,="" the="" costs="" of="" complying="" with="" the="" rule="" are="" also="" not="" significant.="" as="" a="" measure="" of="" the="" economic="" impact="" of="" today's="" requirements="" on="" a="" small="" entity,="" epa="" evaluated="" the="" costs="" of="" the="" rule="" relative="" to="" the="" company's="" annual="" revenues.="" the="" cost="" of="" the="" rule="" only="" exceeded="" one="" percent="" of="" revenues="" for="" one="" of="" the="" facilities="" and="" in="" no="" case="" did="" it="" exceed="" three="" percent.="" [[page="" 18612]]="" when="" the="" costs="" of="" the="" cwa="" rule="" are="" considered="" in="" combination="" with="" the="" costs="" of="" the="" final="" caa="" mact="" i="" and="" mact="" iii="" rules,="" epa's="" conclusion="" does="" not="" change.="" epa's="" analysis="" showed="" that="" the="" combined="" costs="" of="" achieving="" compliance="" with="" the="" final="" air="" and="" water="" rules="" will="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" economic="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities.="" as="" noted="" above,="" the="" cwa="" rule="" affects="" only="" four="" small="" entities.="" further,="" the="" combined="" costs="" of="" the="" rules="" only="" exceeded="" one="" percent="" of="" revenues="" for="" one="" of="" the="" four="" small="" entities="" covered="" by="" both="" the="" final="" air="" and="" water="" rules,="" and="" for="" no="" small="" entity="" did="" it="" exceed="" three="" percent.="" even="" though="" this="" is="" a="" small="" cost,="" because="" of="" the="" poor="" pre-existing="" economic="" conditions="" at="" one="" facility,="" epa="" projects="" that="" one="" facility="" owned="" by="" one="" of="" the="" small="" firms="" may="" close="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" combined="" final="" cwa="" and="" caa="" rules.="" epa="" has="" determined="" that="" one="" closure="" is="" not="" a="" significant="" economic="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" business="" concerns.="" though="" not="" required="" by="" the="" rfa,="" epa="" also="" examined="" the="" costs="" of="" the="" final="" cwa="" rule="" in="" combination="" with="" the="" costs="" of="" the="" final="" mact="" i="" and="" mact="" iii="" and="" proposed="" mact="" ii="" rules.="" epa's="" analysis="" showed="" that="" the="" combined="" costs="" of="" achieving="" compliance="" with="" the="" final="" air="" and="" water="" rules="" and="" the="" proposed="" mact="" ii="" rule="" would="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" economic="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities.="" as="" stated="" before,="" only="" four="" small="" entities="" would="" be="" affected.="" the="" combined="" cost="" of="" the="" rules="" would="" only="" exceed="" one="" percent="" of="" revenues="" for="" two="" small="" entities="" and="" for="" no="" small="" entity="" covered="" by="" both="" the="" final="" air="" and="" water="" rules="" and="" the="" proposed="" air="" rule="" would="" it="" exceed="" three="" percent.="" even="" though="" this="" is="" a="" small="" cost,="" because="" of="" the="" poor="" pre-existing="" economic="" conditions="" at="" one="" facility,="" epa="" projects="" that="" one="" facility="" owned="" by="" one="" of="" the="" small="" firms="" may="" close="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" final="" cwa="" and="" final="" and="" proposed="" caa="" rules.="" epa's="" assessment="" of="" the="" impacts="" on="" small="" businesses="" subject="" to="" the="" final="" caa="" rules="" yields="" similar="" results.="" epa="" evaluated="" the="" impacts="" of="" the="" costs="" of="" the="" final="" mact="" i="" and="" mact="" iii="" rules="" on="" small="" businesses.="" of="" the="" companies="" affected="" by="" the="" two="" caa="" rules,="" only="" 11="" meet="" the="" sba="" definition="" of="" ``a="" small="" business="" concern.''="" epa="" does="" not="" believe="" this="" is="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities="" as="" that="" term="" is="" used="" in="" the="" rfa.="" epa="" has="" also="" examined="" the="" extent="" of="" the="" impact="" on="" those="" 11="" companies="" and="" finds="" that="" the="" costs="" of="" complying="" with="" the="" final="" mact="" i="" rule="" and="" the="" final="" mact="" iii="" rule="" will="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" economic="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities.="" in="" evaluating="" the="" costs="" of="" the="" rules="" relative="" to="" the="" company's="" annual="" revenues,="" epa's="" analysis="" shows="" that="" no="" company="" is="" estimated="" to="" incur="" costs="" in="" excess="" of="" one="" percent="" of="" its="" revenues="" as="" a="" result="" of="" implementing="" the="" final="" mact="" i="" and="" mact="" iii="" rules.="" as="" a="" consequence,="" epa="" finds="" that="" the="" caa="" rule="" does="" not="" have="" a="" significant="" economic="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities.="" when="" the="" costs="" of="" the="" final="" mact="" i="" and="" mact="" iii="" rules="" are="" considered="" in="" combination="" with="" the="" costs="" of="" the="" final="" cwa="" rule,="" epa's="" analysis="" shows="" that="" the="" combined="" costs="" of="" achieving="" compliance="" with="" the="" final="" air="" and="" water="" rules="" is="" still="" not="" a="" significant="" impact="" on="" a="" substantial="" number="" of="" small="" entities.="" as="" discussed,="" only="" 11="" small="" business="" concerns="" must="" comply="" with="" the="" caa="" rule.="" of="" these,="" only="" four="" will="" experience="" additional="" costs="" due="" to="" the="" cwa="" rule.="" the="" combined="" costs="" of="" the="" rules="" only="" exceeded="" one="" percent="" of="" revenues="" for="" one="" small="" entity="" covered="" by="" both="" the="" air="" and="" water="" rules,="" and="" for="" no="" small="" entity="" did="" it="" exceed="" three="" percent.="" even="" though="" this="" is="" a="" small="" cost,="" because="" of="" the="" poor="" pre-existing="" economic="" conditions="" at="" one="" facility,="" epa="" projects="" that="" one="" facility="" owned="" by="" one="" of="" the="" small="" firms="" may="" close="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" combined="" final="" cwa="" and="" caa="" rules.="" though="" not="" required="" by="" the="" rfa,="" epa="" also="" assessed="" the="" cumulative="" economic="" effect="" on="" small="" entities="" if="" the="" proposed="" mact="" rule="" is="" adopted.="" epa's="" conclusion="" that="" costs="" to="" small="" entities="" are="" not="" great="" does="" not="" change="" when="" the="" costs="" of="" the="" final="" and="" proposed="" mact="" rules="" are="" combined="" with="" the="" costs="" of="" the="" final="" cwa="" rule.="" the="" combined="" cost="" of="" the="" rules="" would="" only="" exceed="" one="" percent="" of="" revenues="" for="" two="" small="" entities="" covered="" by="" both="" the="" final="" air="" and="" water="" rules="" and="" the="" proposed="" air="" rule,="" and="" for="" no="" small="" entity="" would="" it="" exceed="" three="" percent.="" even="" though="" this="" is="" a="" small="" cost,="" because="" of="" the="" poor="" pre-existing="" economic="" conditions="" at="" one="" facility,="" epa="" projects="" that="" one="" facility="" owned="" by="" one="" of="" the="" small="" firms="" may="" close="" as="" a="" result="" of="" the="" combined="" final="" cwa="" and="" caa="" rules.="" d.="" paperwork="" reduction="" act="" the="" information="" collection="" requirements="" in="" the="" air="" emissions="" rules="" have="" been="" submitted="" for="" approval="" to="" the="" office="" of="" management="" and="" budget="" (omb)="" under="" the="" paperwork="" reduction="" act,="" 44="" u.s.c.="" 3501="" et="" seq.="" an="" information="" collection="" request="" (icr)="" document="" has="" been="" prepared="" by="" epa="" (icr="" no.="" 1657.02),="" and="" a="" copy="" may="" be="" obtained="" from="" sandy="" farmer,="" oppe="" regulatory="" information="" division;="" u.s.="" environmental="" protection="" agency="" (2137);="" 401="" m="" st.,="" sw.;="" washington,="" dc="" 20460="" or="" by="" calling="" (202)="" 260-="" 2740.="" the="" information="" requirements="" are="" not="" effective="" until="" omb="" approves="" them.="" the="" information="" required="" to="" be="" collected="" by="" the="" air="" emission="" rules="" is="" needed="" as="" part="" of="" the="" overall="" compliance="" and="" enforcement="" program.="" it="" is="" necessary="" to="" identify="" the="" regulated="" entities="" who="" are="" subject="" to="" the="" rule="" and="" ensure="" their="" compliance="" with="" the="" rule.="" the="" recordkeeping="" and="" reporting="" requirements="" are="" mandatory="" and="" are="" being="" established="" under="" section="" 114="" of="" the="" clean="" air="" act.="" there="" are="" approximately="" 490="" respondents="" that="" are="" potentially="" affected="" by="" the="" air="" emission="" rules.="" all="" 490="" respondents="" must="" submit="" an="" initial="" applicability="" notification.="" of="" the="" 490="" affected="" respondents,="" there="" would="" be="" an="" estimated="" 155="" respondents="" required="" to="" perform="" additional="" information="" collection.="" for="" the="" 155="" respondents,="" this="" collection="" of="" information="" has="" an="" estimated="" total="" annual="" recordkeeping="" and="" reporting="" burden="" averaging="" 320="" hours="" per="" respondent="" during="" the="" first="" three="" years="" after="" promulgation.="" for="" the="" 155="" respondents,="" the="" average="" annualized="" cost="" of="" the="" reporting="" and="" recordkeeping="" burden="" per="" respondent="" is="" $29,600="" for="" the="" first="" three="" years="" following="" promulgation.="" the="" recordkeeping="" and="" reporting="" burden="" means="" the="" total="" time,="" effort,="" or="" financial="" resources="" expended="" by="" persons="" to="" generate,="" maintain,="" retain,="" or="" disclose="" or="" provide="" information="" to="" or="" for="" a="" federal="" agency.="" this="" includes="" the="" time="" needed="" to="" review="" instructions;="" develop,="" acquire,="" install,="" and="" utilize="" technology="" and="" systems="" for="" the="" purposes="" of="" collecting,="" validating,="" and="" verifying="" information,="" processing="" and="" maintaining="" information,="" and="" disclosing="" and="" providing="" information;="" adjust="" the="" existing="" ways="" to="" comply="" with="" any="" previously="" applicable="" instructions="" and="" requirements;="" train="" personnel="" to="" be="" able="" to="" respond="" to="" a="" collection="" of="" information;="" search="" data="" sources;="" complete="" and="" review="" the="" collection="" of="" information;="" and="" transmit="" or="" otherwise="" disclose="" the="" information.="" specifically,="" the="" estimated="" 155="" respondents="" must="" submit="" performance="" test="" notifications,="" statements="" of="" compliance,="" and="" semi-annual="" reports="" of="" monitored="" parameters.="" the="" 155="" respondents="" must="" also="" conduct="" performance="" tests.="" if="" compliance="" exceedances="" occur,="" respondents="" must="" submit="" quarterly="" excess="" emissions="" reports.="" this="" information="" will="" be="" used="" to="" demonstrate="" compliance="" with="" the="" neshap.="" send="" comments="" on="" the="" agency's="" need="" for="" this="" information,="" the="" accuracy="" of="" the="" [[page="" 18613]]="" provided="" burden="" estimates,="" and="" any="" suggested="" methods="" for="" minimizing="" respondent="" burden,="" including="" through="" the="" use="" of="" automated="" collection="" techniques="" to="" the="" director,="" oppe="" regulatory="" information="" division;="" u.s.="" environmental="" protection="" agency="" (2137);="" 401="" m="" st.,="" sw;="" washington,="" dc="" 20460;="" and="" to="" the="" office="" of="" information="" and="" regulatory="" affairs,="" office="" of="" management="" and="" budget,="" 725="" 17th="" st.,="" nw,="" washington,="" dc="" 20503,="" marked="" ``attention:="" desk="" officer="" for="" epa.''="" include="" the="" icr="" number="" in="" any="" correspondence.="" the="" effluent="" limitation="" guidelines="" and="" standards="" promulgated="" today="" contain="" two="" distinct="" information="" collection="" activities,="" i.e.,="" specified="" monitoring="" requirements,="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 430.02,="" and="" development="" of="" bmp="" plans="" and="" related="" monitoring,="" see="" 40="" cfr="" 430.03(c)(4),="" (c)(5),="" (c)(10),="" (d),="" (e),="" (f),="" (g),="" (h)="" and="" (i)(4).="" epa="" will="" seek="" approval="" of="" these="" information="" collection="" requirements="" from="" the="" office="" of="" management="" and="" budget="" (omb)="" under="" the="" paperwork="" reduction="" act,="" 44="" u.s.c.="" 3501="" et="" seq.,="" as="" follows.="" epa="" will="" seek="" to="" amend="" the="" npdes="" discharge="" monitoring="" report="" icr="" no.="" 229,="" omb="" approval="" number="" 2040-0004,="" expiration="" may="" 31,="" 1998,="" to="" add="" specified="" monitoring="" requirements="" for="" direct="" dischargers.="" epa="" will="" seek="" to="" add="" the="" specified="" monitoring="" requirements="" for="" indirect="" dischargers="" by="" amending="" the="" national="" pretreatment="" program="" icr="" no.="" 2,="" omb="" approval="" number="" 2040-0009,="" prior="" to="" its="" expiration="" on="" october="" 31,="" 1999.="" epa="" will="" seek="" approval="" of="" the="" best="" management="" practices="" icr="" no.="" 1829.01="" for="" the="" requirements="" pertaining="" to="" bmp="" plans="" and="" associated="" monitoring.="" epa's="" burden="" estimates="" for="" the="" bmp="" icr="" are="" presented="" for="" comment="" in="" a="" document="" published="" elsewhere="" in="" today's="" federal="" register.="" an="" agency="" may="" not="" conduct="" or="" sponsor,="" and="" a="" person="" is="" not="" required="" to="" respond="" to,="" a="" collection="" of="" information="" unless="" it="" displays="" a="" currently="" valid="" omb="" control="" number.="" the="" omb="" control="" numbers="" for="" epa's="" regulations="" are="" listed="" in="" 40="" cfr="" parts="" 9="" and="" 48="" cfr="" chapter="" 15.="" in="" addition,="" direct="" discharging="" mills="" continue="" to="" be="" required,="" under="" 40="" cfr="" 122.21,="" to="" submit="" certain="" information="" as="" part="" of="" their="" application="" for="" an="" npdes="" permit.="" indirect="" discharging="" mills,="" in="" turn,="" must="" submit="" industrial="" user="" reports="" and="" periodic="" reports="" regarding="" compliance="" with="" categorical="" pretreatment="" standards="" under="" 40="" cfr="" 403.12(b),="" (d),="" and="" (e).="" the="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines="" and="" standards="" being="" promulgated="" today="" do="" not="" change="" those="" requirements.="" epa="" notes="" that="" mills="" that="" describe="" their="" process="" as="" tcf="" or="" ecf="" under="" 40="" cfr="" 122.21(g)(3)="" or="" 40="" cfr="" 403.12(b),="" (d),="" or="" (e)="" as="" applicable,="" supply="" corroborating="" data="" if="" requested="" by="" the="" permitting="" authority="" under="" 40="" cfr="" 122.21(g)(13),="" and="" comply="" with="" the="" signatory="" and="" certification="" requirements="" in="" 40="" cfr="" 122.22="" or="" 40="" cfr="" 403.12(l)="" as="" applicable="" will="" be="" deemed="" to="" have="" certified="" their="" process="" as="" tcf="" or="" ecf.="" in="" addition,="" direct="" discharging="" mills="" that="" indicate="" under="" 40="" cfr="" 122.21(g)(3)="" and="" (g)(13)="" their="" desire="" to="" participate="" in="" the="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" and="" comply="" with="" the="" signatory="" and="" certification="" requirements="" in="" 40="" cfr="" 122.22="" or="" 40="" cfr="" 122.23,="" whichever="" is="" applicable,="" will="" be="" deemed="" to="" have="" enrolled="" in="" the="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program.="" in="" both="" cases,="" this="" information="" will="" determine="" the="" types="" of="" technology-based="" effluent="" limitations="" and="" standards="" and="" the="" types="" of="" monitoring="" requirements,="" if="" any,="" they="" will="" receive.="" omb="" has="" approved="" the="" existing="" information="" collection="" requirements="" associated="" with="" npdes="" discharge="" permit="" applications="" and="" industrial="" user="" reports="" under="" the="" paperwork="" reduction="" act,="" 44="" u.s.c.="" 3501,="" et="" seq.="" omb="" has="" assigned="" omb="" control="" number="" 2040-0086="" to="" the="" npdes="" permit="" application="" activity="" and="" omb="" control="" numbers="" 2040-0009="" and="" 2040-0150="" to="" the="" reporting="" and="" certification="" requirements="" for="" industrial="" users.="" nothing="" in="" today's="" rule="" changes="" the="" burden="" estimates="" for="" these="" icrs.="" all="" information="" submitted="" to="" the="" epa="" for="" which="" a="" claim="" of="" confidentiality="" is="" made="" will="" be="" safeguarded="" according="" to="" the="" epa="" policies="" set="" forth="" in="" title="" 40,="" chapter="" 1,="" part="" 2,="" subpart="" b--="" confidentiality="" of="" information="" (see="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 2;="" 41="" fr="" 36902,="" september="" 1,="" 1976;="" amended="" by="" 43="" fr="" 39999,="" september="" 8,="" 1978;="" 43="" fr="" 42241,="" september="" 28,="" 1978;="" 44="" fr="" 17674,="" march="" 23,="" 1979).="" e.="" unfunded="" mandates="" reform="" act="" title="" ii="" of="" the="" unfunded="" mandates="" reform="" act="" of="" 1995="" (umra),="" p.l.="" 104-4,="" establishes="" requirements="" for="" federal="" agencies="" to="" assess="" the="" effects="" of="" their="" regulatory="" actions="" on="" state,="" local,="" and="" tribal="" governments="" and="" the="" private="" sector.="" under="" section="" 202="" of="" the="" umra,="" epa="" generally="" must="" prepare="" a="" written="" statement,="" including="" a="" cost-benefit="" analysis,="" for="" proposed="" and="" final="" rules="" with="" ``federal="" mandates''="" that="" may="" result="" in="" expenditures="" to="" state,="" local,="" and="" tribal="" governments,="" in="" the="" aggregate,="" or="" to="" the="" private="" sector,="" of="" $100="" million="" or="" more="" in="" any="" one="" year.="" before="" promulgating="" an="" epa="" rule="" for="" which="" a="" written="" statement="" is="" needed,="" section="" 205="" of="" the="" umra="" generally="" requires="" epa="" to="" identify="" and="" consider="" a="" reasonable="" number="" of="" regulatory="" alternatives="" and="" adopt="" the="" least="" costly,="" most="" cost-effective="" or="" least="" burdensome="" alternative="" that="" achieves="" the="" objectives="" of="" the="" rule.="" the="" provisions="" of="" section="" 205="" do="" not="" apply="" when="" they="" are="" inconsistent="" with="" applicable="" law.="" moreover,="" section="" 205="" allows="" epa="" to="" adopt="" an="" alternative="" other="" than="" the="" least="" costly,="" most="" cost-effective="" or="" least="" burdensome="" alternative="" if="" the="" administrator="" publishes="" with="" the="" final="" rule="" an="" explanation="" why="" that="" alternative="" was="" not="" adopted.="" before="" epa="" establishes="" any="" regulatory="" requirements="" that="" may="" significantly="" or="" uniquely="" affect="" small="" governments,="" including="" tribal="" governments,="" it="" must="" have="" developed="" under="" section="" 203="" of="" the="" umra="" a="" small="" government="" agency="" plan.="" the="" plan="" must="" provide="" for="" notifying="" potentially="" affected="" small="" governments,="" enabling="" officials="" of="" affected="" small="" governments="" to="" have="" meaningful="" and="" timely="" input="" in="" the="" development="" of="" epa="" regulatory="" proposals="" with="" significant="" federal="" intergovernmental="" mandates,="" and="" informing,="" educating,="" and="" advising="" small="" governments="" on="" compliance="" with="" the="" regulatory="" requirements.="" epa="" has="" determined="" that="" today's="" final="" rules="" contain="" a="" federal="" mandate="" that="" may="" result="" in="" expenditures="" of="" $100="" million="" or="" more="" for="" the="" private="" sector="" in="" any="" one="" year.="" accordingly,="" epa="" has="" prepared="" the="" written="" statement="" required="" by="" section="" 202="" of="" the="" umra.="" this="" statement="" is="" contained="" in="" the="" economic="" analysis="" for="" the="" rule="" (dcn="" 14649)="" and="" other="" support="" documents="" and="" is="" summarized="" below.="" in="" addition,="" epa="" has="" determined="" that="" the="" rules="" contain="" no="" regulatory="" requirements="" that="" might="" significantly="" or="" uniquely="" affect="" small="" governments="" and="" therefore="" are="" not="" subject="" to="" the="" requirement="" of="" section="" 203="" of="" the="" umra.="" the="" reasons="" for="" this="" finding="" are="" set="" forth="" below.="" epa="" prepared="" several="" supporting="" analyses="" for="" the="" final="" rules.="" throughout="" this="" preamble="" and="" in="" those="" supporting="" analyses,="" epa="" has="" responded="" to="" the="" umra="" section="" 202="" requirements.="" considerations="" with="" respect="" to="" costs,="" benefits,="" and="" regulatory="" alternatives="" are="" addressed="" in="" the="" economic="" analysis="" (dcn="" 14649),="" which="" is="" summarized="" in="" section="" viii="" of="" this="" preamble.="" a="" very="" brief="" summary="" follows.="" the="" statutory="" authorities="" for="" these="" rules="" are="" found="" in="" section="" 112="" of="" the="" caa="" and="" multiple="" sections="" of="" the="" cwa="" (see="" section="" i="" for="" a="" list).="" in="" part,="" these="" sections="" of="" the="" statutes="" authorize="" and="" direct="" epa="" to="" issue="" regulations="" and="" standards="" to="" address="" air="" emissions="" and="" effluent="" discharges.="" epa="" prepared="" a="" qualitative="" and="" quantitative="" cost-benefit="" assessment="" of="" [[page="" 18614]]="" the="" federal="" requirements="" imposed="" by="" today's="" final="" rules.="" in="" large="" part,="" the="" private="" sector,="" not="" other="" governments,="" will="" incur="" the="" costs.="" specifically,="" the="" costs="" of="" this="" federal="" mandate="" are="" compliance="" costs="" to="" be="" borne="" by="" the="" regulated="" pulp="" and="" paper="" mills.="" in="" addition,="" although="" some="" states="" and="" local="" governments="" will="" incur="" costs="" to="" implement="" the="" standards,="" these="" costs="" to="" governments="" will="" not="" exceed="" the="" thresholds="" established="" by="" umra.="" the="" final="" rules="" are="" not="" expected="" to="" result="" in="" significant="" or="" unique="" impacts="" to="" small="" governments;="" the="" requirements="" are="" consistent="" with="" established="" and="" already-operating="" implementation="" programs.="" epa="" estimates="" that="" the="" total="" annualized="" costs="" for="" the="" private="" sector="" to="" comply="" with="" the="" federal="" mandate="" are="" $351="" million="" (pre-tax)/="" $229="" million="" (post-tax).="" the="" mandate's="" benefits="" are="" primarily="" in="" the="" areas="" of="" reduced="" health="" risks="" and="" improved="" air="" and="" water="" quality.="" the="" economic="" analysis="" (dcn="" 14649)="" describes,="" qualitatively,="" many="" such="" benefits.="" the="" analysis="" then="" quantifies="" a="" subset="" of="" the="" benefits="" and,="" for="" a="" subset="" of="" the="" quantified="" benefits,="" epa="" monetizes="" (i.e.,="" places="" a="" dollar="" value="" on)="" selected="" benefits.="" epa's="" estimates="" of="" the="" monetized="" benefits="" for="" the="" final="" rules="" are="" in="" the="" range="" of="" $39="" to="" $403="" million.="" epa="" does="" not="" believe="" that="" there="" will="" be="" any="" disproportionate="" budgetary="" effects="" of="" the="" rules="" on="" any="" particular="" areas="" of="" the="" country,="" particular="" types="" of="" communities,="" or="" particular="" industry="" segments.="" epa's="" basis="" for="" this="" finding="" is="" its="" analysis="" of="" economic="" impacts,="" which="" is="" summarized="" in="" section="" viii="" of="" the="" preamble="" and="" in="" the="" economic="" analysis="" (dcn="" 14649).="" a="" key="" feature="" of="" that="" analysis="" is="" the="" estimation="" of="" financial="" impacts="" for="" each="" facility="" incurring="" compliance="" costs.="" epa="" considered="" the="" costs,="" impacts,="" and="" other="" effects="" for="" specific="" regions="" and="" individual="" communities,="" and="" found="" no="" disproportionate="" budgetary="" effects.="" although="" these="" final="" rules="" apply="" only="" to="" one="" industry="" segment,="" epa="" found="" no="" disproportionate="" budgetary="" effect.="" (the="" term="" segment="" as="" used="" in="" this="" context="" refers="" to="" the="" industrial="" category="" of="" pulp,="" paper,="" and="" paperboard,="" and="" not="" to="" individual="" subcategories="" within="" that="" category;="" it="" is="" used="" differently="" in="" other="" sections="" of="" this="" preamble.)="" the="" economic="" analysis="" (dcn="" 14649)="" also="" describes="" the="" rules'="" effect="" on="" the="" national="" economy="" in="" terms="" of="" effects="" on="" productivity,="" economic="" growth,="" and="" international="" competitiveness;="" epa="" found="" such="" effects="" to="" be="" minimal.="" although="" epa="" has="" determined="" that="" these="" rules="" do="" not="" contain="" requirements="" that="" might="" significantly="" or="" uniquely="" affect="" any="" state,="" local,="" or="" tribal="" governments="" (see="" chapter="" 7),="" epa="" consulted="" with="" state="" and="" local="" air="" and="" water="" pollution="" control="" officials.="" these="" consultations="" primarily="" pertained="" to="" implementation="" issues="" for="" states="" and="" local="" governments.="" epa's="" evaluation="" of="" their="" comments="" is="" reflected="" in="" the="" final="" rules.="" for="" each="" regulatory="" decision="" in="" today's="" rules,="" epa="" has="" selected="" the="" ``least="" costly,="" most="" cost="" effective,="" or="" least="" burdensome="" alternative''="" that="" was="" consistent="" with="" the="" requirements="" of="" the="" caa="" and="" cwa.="" this="" satisfies="" section="" 205="" of="" the="" umra.="" as="" part="" of="" this="" rulemaking,="" epa="" had="" identified="" and="" considered="" a="" reasonable="" number="" of="" regulatory="" alternatives.="" primarily,="" the="" regulatory="" alternatives="" are="" manufacturing="" processes,="" air="" emission="" controls,="" wastewater="" discharge="" controls,="" and="" other="" technologies.="" many="" of="" the="" alternatives="" are="" described="" above="" in="" section="" vi;="" others="" are="" described="" in="" supporting="" documents.="" the="" agency's="" consideration="" of="" alternatives="" also="" included="" an="" incentives="" program="" to="" encourage="" bleached="" papergrade="" kraft="" and="" soda="" mills="" to="" commit="" to="" pollution="" prevention="" advances="" beyond="" the="" requirements="" of="" the="" federal="" mandate.="" see="" section="" ix.="" the="" agency's="" selection="" from="" among="" these="" alternatives="" is="" consistent="" with="" the="" requirements="" of="" umra,="" in="" terms="" of="" cost,="" cost-effectiveness,="" and="" burden.="" several="" sections="" of="" the="" preamble="" are="" devoted="" to="" describing="" the="" agency's="" rationale="" for="" each="" regulatory="" decision="" (e.g.,="" sections="" vi.b.5.a(5)="" and="" vi.b.6.b(2)).="" finally,="" epa="" has="" considered="" the="" purpose="" and="" intent="" of="" the="" unfunded="" mandates="" reform="" act="" and="" has="" determined="" that="" these="" rules="" are="" needed,="" not="" only="" because="" of="" the="" significant="" pollutant="" reductions="" these="" rules="" will="" achieve,="" see="" section="" vii,="" but="" also="" to="" satisfy="" epa's="" obligations="" under="" the="" consent="" decree="" in="" environmental="" defense="" fund="" and="" natural="" wildlife="" federation="" v.="" thomas,="" see="" section="" ii.c.1.a,="" and="" epa's="" caa="" obligations.="" f.="" pollution="" prevention="" act="" in="" the="" pollution="" prevention="" act="" of="" 1990="" (42="" u.s.c.="" 13101="" et="" seq.,="" public="" law="" 101-508,="" november="" 5,="" 1990),="" congress="" declared="" pollution="" prevention="" the="" national="" policy="" of="" the="" united="" states.="" the="" pollution="" prevention="" act="" declares="" that="" pollution="" should="" be="" prevented="" or="" reduced="" whenever="" feasible;="" pollution="" that="" cannot="" be="" prevented="" or="" reduced="" should="" be="" recycled="" or="" reused="" in="" an="" environmentally="" safe="" manner="" wherever="" feasible;="" pollution="" that="" cannot="" be="" recycled="" should="" be="" treated;="" and="" disposal="" or="" release="" into="" the="" environment="" should="" be="" chosen="" only="" as="" a="" last="" resort.="" today's="" rules="" are="" consistent="" with="" this="" policy.="" as="" described="" in="" section="" vi,="" development="" of="" today's="" rules="" focused="" on="" the="" pollution-="" preventing="" technologies="" that="" some="" segments="" of="" the="" industry="" have="" already="" adopted.="" thus,="" a="" critical="" component="" of="" the="" technology="" bases="" for="" today's="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines="" and="" standards="" are="" process="" changes="" that="" eliminate="" or="" substantially="" reduce="" the="" formation="" of="" certain="" toxic="" chemicals.="" epa="" also="" employs="" process="" changes="" as="" the="" technology="" basis="" for="" the="" emission="" standards.="" g.="" common="" sense="" initiative="" on="" august="" 19,="" 1994,="" the="" administrator="" established="" the="" common="" sense="" initiative="" (csi)="" council="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" federal="" advisory="" committee="" act="" (5="" u.s.c.="" appendix="" 2,="" section="" 9="" (c))="" requirements.="" a="" principal="" goal="" of="" the="" csi="" includes="" developing="" recommendations="" for="" optimal="" approaches="" to="" multimedia="" controls="" for="" industrial="" sectors="" including="" petroleum="" refining,="" metal="" plating="" and="" finishing,="" printing,="" electronics="" and="" computers,="" auto="" manufacturing,="" and="" iron="" and="" steel="" manufacturing.="" the="" pulp="" and="" paper="" regulations="" were="" not="" among="" the="" rulemaking="" efforts="" included="" in="" the="" common="" sense="" initiative.="" however,="" many="" of="" the="" csi="" objectives="" have="" been="" incorporated="" into="" these="" final="" rules,="" and="" the="" agency="" intends="" to="" continue="" to="" pursue="" these="" objectives.="" h.="" executive="" order="" 12875="" to="" reduce="" the="" burden="" of="" federal="" regulations="" on="" states="" and="" small="" governments,="" the="" president="" issued="" executive="" order="" 12875="" on="" october="" 28,="" 1993,="" entitled="" enhancing="" the="" intergovernmental="" partnership="" (58="" fr="" 58093).="" in="" particular,="" this="" executive="" order="" requires="" epa="" to="" consult="" with="" representatives="" of="" affected="" state,="" local,="" or="" tribal="" governments.="" while="" these="" rules="" do="" not="" create="" mandates="" upon="" state,="" local,="" or="" tribal="" governments,="" epa="" involved="" state="" and="" local="" governments="" in="" their="" development.="" because="" this="" regulation="" imposes="" costs="" to="" the="" private="" sector="" in="" excess="" of="" $100="" million,="" the="" epa="" pursued="" the="" preparation="" of="" an="" unfunded="" mandates="" statement="" and="" the="" other="" requirements="" of="" the="" unfunded="" mandates="" reform="" act.="" the="" requirements="" are="" met="" as="" presented="" in="" the="" unfunded="" mandate="" s="" section="" above.="" i.="" executive="" order="" 12898="" executive="" order="" 12898="" directs="" federal="" agencies="" to="" ``determine="" whether="" their="" programs,="" policies,="" and="" activities="" have="" [[page="" 18615]]="" disproportionally="" high="" adverse="" human="" health="" or="" environmental="" effects="" on="" minority="" populations="" and="" low-income="" populations.''="" (sec.3-301="" and="" sec.="" 3-302).="" in="" developing="" the="" cluster="" rules,="" epa="" analyzed="" the="" environmental="" justice="" questions="" raised="" by="" these="" rules.="" epa="" conducted="" two="" analyses="" in="" 1996="" to="" comply="" with="" executive="" order="" 12898="" and="" to="" determine="" human="" health="" effects="" on="" minority="" and="" low-income="" populations.="" first,="" in="" a="" comparison="" of="" demographic="" characteristics,="" epa="" found="" that="" there="" is="" no="" significant="" difference="" in="" ethnic="" makeup="" or="" income="" level="" of="" counties="" where="" bleached="" papergrade="" kraft="" and="" soda="" mills="" are="" located="" when="" compared="" to="" the="" states="" in="" which="" they="" are="" located.="" in="" fact,="" of="" the="" twenty-six="" states="" with="" bleached="" papergrade="" kraft="" and="" soda="" mills,="" fifteen="" states="" actually="" have="" lower="" minority="" populations="" (as="" a="" percentage="" of="" overall="" population)="" in="" mill="" counties="" than="" in="" the="" state="" as="" a="" whole,="" and="" sixteen="" states="" have="" a="" lower="" percent="" african-american="" population="" in="" mill="" counties="" than="" in="" their="" respective="" states.="" fifteen="" states="" have="" a="" slightly="" larger="" portion="" of="" the="" population="" living="" below="" the="" poverty="" line="" in="" mill="" counties="" (15="" percent="" average)="" when="" compared="" to="" the="" state="" as="" a="" whole="" (14.1="" percent="" average);="" however,="" when="" epa="" examined="" the="" results="" statistically,="" differences="" examined="" between="" mill="" counties="" and="" total="" state="" populations="" were="" not="" significant.="" therefore,="" epa="" has="" concluded="" that="" the="" regulatory="" decisions="" reflected="" in="" today's="" rules="" will="" not="" have="" a="" disproportionately="" high="" adverse="" human="" health="" or="" environmental="" effect="" on="" minority="" populations="" or="" low-income="" populations.="" second,="" epa="" investigated="" the="" fish="" consumption="" characteristics="" of="" native="" american="" populations="" downstream="" from="" pulp="" and="" paper="" mills.="" of="" the="" 48="" native="" american="" tribes="" downstream="" from="" pulp="" mills,="" eight="" have="" special="" subsistence="" fishing="" rights.="" one="" finding="" from="" epa's="" analysis="" is="" that="" members="" of="" five="" of="" these="" tribes="" have="" elevated="" risks="" of="" contracting="" cancer="" from="" consuming="" fish="" contaminated="" by="" dioxin,="" when="" compared="" to="" the="" general="" population="" and="" recreational="" anglers,="" because="" they="" consume="" fish="" at="" higher="" levels.="" epa="" expects="" the="" final="" rule="" to="" reduce="" substantially="" the="" cancer="" risks="" to="" these="" tribal="" populations,="" as="" discussed="" in="" chapter="" 8="" of="" the="" economic="" analysis="" (dcn="" 14649).="" j.="" submission="" to="" congress="" and="" the="" general="" accounting="" office="" under="" 5="" u.s.c.="" 801(a)(1)(a)="" as="" amended="" by="" the="" small="" business="" regulatory="" enforcement="" fairness="" act="" of="" 1996="" (sbrefa),="" epa="" submitted="" 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="" general="" accounting="" office="" prior="" to="" publication="" of="" the="" rule="" in="" today's="" federal="" register.="" this="" rule="" is="" a="" ``major="" rule''="" as="" defined="" by="" 5="" u.s.c.="" 804(2).="" k.="" national="" technology="" transfer="" and="" advancement="" act="" under="" section="" 12(d)="" of="" the="" national="" technology="" transfer="" and="" advancement="" act,="" the="" agency="" is="" required="" to="" use="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards="" in="" its="" regulatory="" and="" procurement="" 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,="" etc.)="" which="" are="" developed="" or="" adopted="" by="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards="" bodies.="" where="" available="" and="" potentially="" applicable="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards="" are="" not="" used="" by="" epa,="" the="" act="" requires="" the="" agency="" to="" provide="" congress,="" through="" the="" office="" of="" management="" and="" budget,="" an="" explanation="" of="" the="" reasons="" for="" not="" using="" such="" standards.="" this="" section="" summarizes="" epa's="" response="" to="" the="" requirements="" of="" the="" nttaa="" for="" the="" analytical="" test="" methods="" promulgated="" as="" part="" of="" today's="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines="" and="" standards.="" epa's="" analytical="" test="" method="" development="" is="" consistent="" with="" the="" requirements="" of="" the="" nttaa.="" although="" the="" agency="" initiated="" data="" collection="" for="" these="" effluent="" guidelines="" many="" years="" prior="" to="" enactment="" of="" the="" nttaa,="" traditionally,="" analytical="" test="" method="" development="" has="" been="" analogous="" to="" the="" act's="" requirements="" for="" consideration="" and="" use="" of="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards.="" epa="" performed="" extensive="" literature="" searches="" to="" identify="" any="" analytical="" methods="" from="" industry,="" academia,="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards="" bodies="" and="" other="" parties="" that="" could="" be="" used="" to="" measure="" the="" analytes="" in="" today's="" rulemaking.="" the="" results="" of="" this="" search="" formed="" the="" basis="" for="" epa's="" analytical="" method="" development="" and="" validation="" in="" support="" of="" this="" rulemaking.="" two="" new="" analytical="" test="" methods="" are="" being="" promulgated="" in="" today's="" final="" rule="" (see="" section="" vi.b.4).="" the="" first="" method="" is="" epa="" method="" 1650="" for="" determination="" of="" adsorbable="" organic="" halides="" (aox).="" development="" of="" method="" 1650="" began="" in="" 1989="" to="" support="" data="" gathering="" for="" regulation="" of="" pulp="" and="" paper="" industry="" discharges.="" this="" method="" was="" developed="" by="" combining="" various="" procedures="" contained="" in="" methods="" from="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards="" bodies="" and="" other="" standards="" developing="" organizations="" such="" as="" german="" din="" standard="" 38="" 409,="" international="" standard="" organization="" (iso)="" method="" 9562,="" scandinavian="" method="" scan-w="" 9:89,="" standard="" method="" 5320="" (published="" jointly="" by="" the="" american="" public="" health="" association,="" the="" american="" water="" works="" association="" and="" the="" water="" environment="" federation),="" a="" method="" published="" by="" environment="" canada,="" epa's="" method="" 9020="" and="" epa's="" interim="" method="" 450.1.="" the="" foreign="" and="" international="" methods="" all="" employed="" the="" batch="" adsorption="" technique="" for="" determination="" of="" aox;="" the="" u.s.="" methods="" all="" employed="" the="" column="" technique.="" nearly="" all="" data="" collected="" by="" the="" paper="" industry="" and="" others="" prior="" to="" development="" of="" method="" 1650="" were="" gathered="" using="" the="" column="" technique.="" method="" 1650="" allows="" use="" of="" both="" the="" batch="" and="" column="" techniques="" but="" contains="" restrictions="" on="" the="" batch="" technique="" specific="" to="" paper="" industry="" wastewaters,="" as="" detailed="" in="" the="" method="" and="" as="" described="" above="" in="" section="" vi.b.4="" and="" in="" epa's="" responses="" to="" public="" comments="" (dcn="" 14497,="" vol.="" vii).="" in="" addition="" to="" the="" differences="" between="" adsorption="" techniques,="" none="" of="" the="" existing="" methods,="" including="" those="" in="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards,="" contained="" the="" standardized="" quality="" control="" (qc)="" and="" qc="" acceptance="" criteria="" that="" epa="" requires="" for="" data="" verification="" and="" validation="" in="" its="" water="" programs.="" epa="" is="" therefore="" promulgating="" the="" new="" epa="" method="" 1650.="" epa="" is="" also="" promulgating="" epa="" method="" 1653="" for="" determination="" of="" chlorinated="" phenolics.="" development="" of="" method="" 1653="" also="" began="" in="" 1989="" to="" support="" data="" gathering="" for="" regulation="" of="" pulp="" and="" paper="" industry="" discharges.="" this="" method="" was="" developed="" using="" national="" council="" of="" the="" paper="" industry="" for="" air="" and="" stream="" improvement="" (ncasi)="" methods="" cp85.01="" and="" cp86.01="" as="" a="" starting="" point="" and="" adding="" the="" necessary="" standardized="" qc="" and="" qc="" acceptance="" criteria.="" epa="" method="" 1653="" and="" the="" ncasi="" methods="" employ="" in-situ="" derivatization="" to="" assure="" that="" only="" chlorophenolics="" are="" derivatized="" and="" measured.="" the="" in-situ="" derivatization="" technique="" allows="" only="" chlorophenolics="" to="" be="" derivatized="" in="" the="" effluent="" and="" leaves="" behind="" interfering="" analytes.="" this="" condition="" is="" necessary="" for="" accurate="" measurement="" of="" the="" relevant="" analytes.="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards="" methods="" were="" not="" available="" for="" chlorophenolics="" by="" in-situ="" derivatization.="" epa="" is="" therefore="" promulgating="" the="" new="" epa="" method="" 1653.="" dischargers="" are="" also="" required="" to="" monitor="" for="" 2,3,7,8-="" tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin="" (dioxin;="" tcdd;="" 2,3,7,8-tcdd),="" 2,3,7,8-="" tetrachlorodibenzofuran="" (tcdf;="" [[page="" 18616]]="" 2,3,7,8-tcdf),="" chloroform,="" biochemical="" oxygen="" demand="" (bod),="" and="" total="" suspended="" solids="" (tss).="" methods="" for="" monitoring="" these="" pollutants="" are="" specified="" in="" tables="" at="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 136.="" when="" available,="" methods="" published="" by="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards="" bodies="" are="" included="" in="" the="" list="" of="" approved="" methods="" in="" these="" tables.="" specifically,="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards="" are="" approved="" for="" the="" determination="" of="" chloroform,="" bod,="" and="" tss="" (from="" the="" 18th="" edition="" of="" standard="" methods).="" in="" addition,="" usgs="" methods="" are="" approved="" for="" bod="" and="" tss.="" for="" tcdd="" and="" tcdf,="" epa="" is="" specifying="" the="" use="" of="" epa="" method="" 1613,="" promulgated="" at="" 62="" fr="" 48394="" (september="" 15,="" 1997).="" this="" method="" was="" developed="" to="" support="" data="" gathering="" for="" regulation="" of="" pulp="" and="" paper="" industry="" discharges="" and="" incorporates="" procedures="" from="" epa,="" academia,="" industry="" (ncasi="" and="" the="" dow="" chemical="" co.)="" and="" a="" commercial="" laboratory.="" there="" were="" no="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards="" methods="" available="" for="" these="" pollutants="" by="" high="" resolution="" gas="" chromatography="" (hrgc)="" coupled="" with="" high="" resolution="" mass="" spectrometry="" (hrms)="" at="" the="" time="" epa="" method="" 1613="" was="" developed.="" both="" hrgc="" and="" hrms="" are="" required="" to="" separately="" detect="" and="" measure="" dioxin="" and="" furan="" isomers="" at="" low="" concentrations="" (i.e.,="" low="" parts="" per="" quadrillion="" (ppq)).="" high="" resolution="" techniques="" are="" necessary="" to="" conduct="" the="" assay="" in="" the="" presence="" of="" interfering="" analytes.="" epa="" is="" unaware="" of="" the="" existence="" of="" an="" hrgc/hrms="" method="" from="" a="" voluntary="" consensus="" standards="" body="" for="" determination="" of="" tcdd="" and="" tcdf="" in="" the="" low="" ppq="" range="" in="" pulp="" and="" paper="" industry="" discharges.="" xi.="" background="" documents="" the="" summary="" of="" public="" comments="" and="" agency="" responses="" and="" the="" environmental="" impacts="" statement="" for="" the="" neshap="" are="" contained="" in="" the="" final="" background="" information="" document="" (bid).="" a="" paper="" copy="" of="" the="" final="" background="" information="" document="" for="" the="" neshap="" may="" be="" obtained="" from="" the="" u.s.="" epa="" library="" (md-35),="" research="" triangle="" park,="" north="" carolina="" 27711,="" telephone="" (919)="" 541-2777;="" or="" from="" the="" national="" technical="" information="" services,="" 5285="" port="" royal="" road,="" springfield,="" virginia="" 22151,="" telephone="" (703)="" 487-4650.="" to="" obtain="" the="" final="" background="" information="" document,="" please="" refer="" to="" ``pulp,="" paper,="" and="" paperboard="" industry--background="" information="" for="" promulgated="" air="" emission="" standards,="" manufacturing="" processes="" at="" kraft,="" sulfite,="" soda,="" semi-chemical,="" mechanical,="" and="" secondary="" and="" non-wood="" fiber="" mills,="" final="" eis''="" (epa-453/r-93-050b).="" an="" electronic="" copy="" of="" the="" final="" background="" information="" document="" is="" available="" from="" the="" technology="" transfer="" network="" described="" in="" the="" supplementary="" information="" section="" of="" this="" document.="" documents="" supporting="" the="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines="" and="" standards="" may="" be="" obtained="" by="" contacting="" the="" national="" technical="" information="" services,="" 5285="" port="" royal="" road,="" springfield,="" virginia="" 22151,="" telephone="" (703)="" 487-4650.="" epa's="" technical="" conclusions="" concerning="" the="" wastewater="" regulations="" are="" detailed="" in="" the="" ``supplemental="" technical="" development="" document="" for="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines="" and="" standards="" for="" the="" pulp,="" paper,="" and="" paperboard="" point="" source="" category''="" (epa-821-r-97-011,="" dcn="" 14487).="" the="" agency's="" economic="" analysis="" is="" found="" in="" the="" ``economic="" analysis="" for="" the="" national="" emissions="" standards="" for="" hazardous="" air="" pollutants="" for="" source="" category:="" pulp="" and="" paper="" production;="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines,="" pretreatment="" standards,="" and="" new="" source="" performance="" standards="" for="" the="" pulp,="" paper,="" and="" paperboard="" industry--phase="" i,''="" referred="" to="" as="" the="" economic="" analysis="" (epa-821-r-97-012,="" dcn="" 14649).="" this="" document="" also="" includes="" an="" analysis="" of="" the="" incremental="" costs="" and="" pollutant="" removals="" for="" the="" effluent="" regulations.="" analytical="" methods="" used="" in="" the="" development="" of="" the="" effluent="" guidelines="" are="" found="" in="" ``analytical="" methods="" for="" the="" determination="" of="" pollutants="" in="" pulp="" and="" paper="" industry="" wastewater,''="" a="" compendium="" of="" analytical="" methods="" (epa="" 821-b-97-00).="" the="" environmental="" assessment="" is="" presented="" in="" the="" ``water="" quality="" assessment="" of="" final="" effluent="" limitations="" guidelines="" for="" the="" papergrade="" sulfite="" and="" bleached="" papergrade="" kraft="" and="" soda="" subcategories="" of="" the="" pulp,="" paper,="" and="" paperboard="" industry''="" (epa-823-r-97-009,="" dcn="" 14650).="" the="" statistical="" analyses="" used="" in="" this="" rulemaking="" are="" detailed="" in="" the="" ``statistical="" support="" document="" for="" the="" pulp="" and="" paper="" industry:="" subpart="" b''="" (dcn="" 14496).="" the="" best="" management="" practices="" program="" is="" presented="" in="" ``technical="" support="" document="" for="" best="" management="" practices="" for="" spent="" pulping="" liquor="" management,="" spill="" prevention,="" and="" control="" (dcn="" 14489),="" also="" referred="" to="" as="" the="" bmp="" technical="" support="" document.="" the="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" is="" presented="" in="" the="" ``technical="" support="" document="" for="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program,''="" (epa-821-r-97-014,="" dcn="" 14488).="" list="" of="" subjects="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 63="" environmental="" protection,="" air="" pollution="" control,="" hazardous="" substances,="" reporting="" and="" recordkeeping="" requirements.="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 261="" hazardous="" waste,="" recycling,="" reporting="" and="" recordkeeping="" requirements.="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 430="" paper="" and="" paper="" products="" industry,="" reporting="" and="" recordkeeping="" requirements,="" waste="" treatment="" and="" disposal,="" water="" pollution="" control.="" dated:="" november="" 14,="" 1997.="" carol="" m.="" browner,="" administrator.="" 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.="" 2.="" part="" 63="" is="" amended="" by="" adding="" subpart="" s="" to="" read="" as="" follows:="" subpart="" s--national="" emission="" standards="" for="" hazardous="" air="" pollutants="" from="" the="" pulp="" and="" paper="" industry="" sec.="" 63.440="" applicability.="" 63.441="" definitions.="" 63.442="" [reserved]="" 63.443="" standards="" for="" the="" pulping="" system="" at="" kraft,="" soda,="" and="" semi-="" chemical="" processes.="" 63.444="" standards="" for="" the="" pulping="" system="" at="" sulfite="" processes.="" 63.445="" standards="" for="" the="" bleaching="" system.="" 63.446="" standards="" for="" kraft="" pulping="" process="" condensates.="" 63.447="" clean="" condensate="" alternative.="" 63.448-63.449="" [reserved]="" 63.450="" standards="" for="" enclosures="" and="" closed-vent="" systems.="" 63.451-63.452="" [reserved]="" 63.453="" monitoring="" requirements.="" 63.454="" recordkeeping="" requirements.="" 63.455="" reporting="" requirements.="" 63.456="" [reserved]="" 63.457="" test="" methods="" and="" procedures.="" 63.458="" delegation="" of="" authority.="" 63.459="" [reserved]="" [[page="" 18617]]="" table="" 1="" to="" subpart="" s.--general="" provisions="" applicability="" to="" subpart="" s="" subpart="" s--national="" emission="" standards="" for="" hazardous="" air="" pollutants="" from="" the="" pulp="" and="" paper="" industry="" sec.="" 63.440="" applicability.="" (a)="" the="" provisions="" of="" this="" subpart="" apply="" to="" the="" owner="" or="" operator="" of="" processes="" that="" produce="" pulp,="" paper,="" or="" paperboard;="" that="" are="" located="" at="" a="" plant="" site="" that="" is="" a="" major="" source="" as="" defined="" in="" sec.="" 63.2="" of="" subpart="" a="" of="" this="" part;="" and="" that="" use="" the="" following="" processes="" and="" materials:="" (1)="" kraft,="" soda,="" sulfite,="" or="" semi-chemical="" pulping="" processes="" using="" wood;="" or="" (2)="" mechanical="" pulping="" processes="" using="" wood;="" or="" (3)="" any="" process="" using="" secondary="" or="" non-wood="" fibers.="" (b)="" the="" affected="" source="" to="" which="" the="" existing="" source="" provisions="" of="" this="" subpart="" apply="" is="" as="" follows:="" (1)="" for="" the="" processes="" specified="" in="" paragraph="" (a)(1)="" of="" this="" section,="" the="" affected="" source="" is="" the="" total="" of="" all="" hap="" emission="" points="" in="" the="" pulping="" and="" bleaching="" systems;="" or="" (2)="" for="" the="" processes="" specified="" in="" paragraphs="" (a)(2)="" or="" (a)(3)="" of="" this="" section,="" the="" affected="" source="" is="" the="" total="" of="" all="" hap="" emission="" points="" in="" the="" bleaching="" system.="" (c)="" the="" new="" source="" provisions="" of="" this="" subpart="" apply="" to="" the="" total="" of="" all="" hap="" emission="" points="" at="" new="" or="" existing="" sources="" as="" follows:="" (1)="" each="" affected="" source="" defined="" in="" paragraph="" (b)(1)="" of="" this="" section="" that="" commences="" construction="" or="" reconstruction="" after="" december="" 17,="" 1993;="" (2)="" each="" pulping="" system="" or="" bleaching="" system="" for="" the="" processes="" specified="" in="" paragraph="" (a)(1)="" of="" this="" section="" that="" commences="" construction="" or="" reconstruction="" after="" december="" 17,="" 1993;="" (3)="" each="" additional="" pulping="" or="" bleaching="" line="" at="" the="" processes="" specified="" in="" paragraph="" (a)(1)="" of="" this="" section,="" that="" commences="" construction="" after="" december="" 17,="" 1993;="" (4)="" each="" affected="" source="" defined="" in="" paragraph="" (b)(2)="" of="" this="" section="" that="" commences="" construction="" or="" reconstruction="" after="" march="" 8,="" 1996;="" or="" (5)="" each="" additional="" bleaching="" line="" at="" the="" processes="" specified="" in="" paragraphs="" (a)(2)="" or="" (a)(3)="" of="" this="" section,="" that="" commences="" construction="" after="" march="" 8,="" 1996.="" (d)="" each="" existing="" source="" shall="" achieve="" compliance="" no="" later="" than="" april="" 16,="" 2001,="" except="" as="" provided="" in="" paragraphs="" (d)(1)="" through="" (d)(3)="" of="" this="" section.="" (1)="" each="" kraft="" pulping="" system="" shall="" achieve="" compliance="" with="" the="" pulping="" system="" provisions="" of="" sec.="" 63.443="" for="" the="" equipment="" listed="" in="" sec.="" 63.443(a)(1)(ii)="" through="" (a)(1)(v)="" as="" expeditiously="" as="" practicable,="" but="" in="" no="" event="" later="" than="" april="" 17,="" 2006="" and="" the="" owners="" and="" operators="" shall="" establish="" dates,="" update="" dates,="" and="" report="" the="" dates="" for="" the="" milestones="" specified="" in="" sec.="" 63.455(b).="" (2)="" each="" dissolving-grade="" bleaching="" system="" at="" either="" kraft="" or="" sulfite="" pulping="" mills="" shall="" achieve="" compliance="" with="" the="" bleach="" plant="" provisions="" of="" sec.="" 63.445="" of="" this="" subpart="" as="" expeditiously="" as="" practicable,="" but="" in="" no="" event="" later="" than="" 3="" years="" after="" the="" promulgation="" of="" the="" revised="" effluent="" limitation="" guidelines="" and="" standards="" under="" 40="" cfr="" 430.14="" through="" 430.17="" and="" 40="" cfr="" 430.44="" through="" 430.47.="" (3)="" each="" bleaching="" system="" complying="" with="" the="" voluntary="" advanced="" technology="" incentives="" program="" for="" effluent="" limitation="" guidelines="" in="" 40="" cfr="" 430.24,="" shall="" comply="" with="" the="" requirements="" specified="" in="" either="" paragraph="" (d)(3)(i)="" or="" (d)(3)(ii)="" of="" this="" section="" for="" the="" effluent="" limitation="" guidelines="" and="" standards="" in="" 40="" cfr="" 430.24.="" (i)="" comply="" with="" the="" bleach="" plant="" provisions="" of="" sec.="" 63.445="" of="" this="" subpart="" as="" expeditiously="" as="" practicable,="" but="" in="" no="" event="" later="" than="" april="" 16,="" 2001.="" (ii)="" comply="" with="" all="" of="" the="" following:="" (a)="" the="" owner="" or="" operator="" of="" a="" bleaching="" system="" shall="" comply="" with="" the="" bleach="" plant="" provisions="" of="" sec.="" 63.445="" of="" this="" subpart="" as="" expeditiously="" as="" practicable,="" but="" in="" no="" event="" later="" than="" april="" 15,="" 2004.="" (b)="" the="" owner="" or="" operator="" of="" a="" bleaching="" system="" shall="" not="" increase="" the="" application="" rate="" of="" chlorine="" or="" hypochlorite="" in="" kg="" of="" bleaching="" agent="" per="" megagram="" of="" odp,="" in="" the="" bleaching="" system="" above="" the="" average="" daily="" rates="" used="" over="" the="" three="" months="" prior="" to="" june="" 15,="" 1998="" until="" the="" requirements="" of="" paragraph="" (d)(3)(ii)(a)="" of="" this="" section="" are="" met="" and="" record="" application="" rates="" as="" specified="" in="" sec.="" 63.454(c).="" (c)="" owners="" and="" operators="" shall="" establish="" dates,="" update="" dates,="" and="" report="" the="" dates="" for="" the="" milestones="" specified="" in="" sec.="" 63.455(b).="" (e)="" each="" new="" source,="" specified="" as="" the="" total="" of="" all="" hap="" emission="" points="" for="" the="" sources="" specified="" in="" paragraph="" (c)="" of="" this="" section,="" shall="" achieve="" compliance="" upon="" start-up="" or="" june="" 15,="" 1998,="" whichever="" is="" later,="" as="" provided="" in="" sec.="" 63.6(b)="" of="" subpart="" a="" of="" this="" part.="" (f)="" each="" owner="" or="" operator="" of="" an="" affected="" source="" with="" affected="" process="" equipment="" shared="" by="" more="" than="" one="" type="" of="" pulping="" process,="" shall="" comply="" with="" the="" applicable="" requirement="" in="" this="" subpart="" that="" achieves="" the="" maximum="" degree="" of="" reduction="" in="" hap="" emissions.="" (g)="" each="" owner="" or="" operator="" of="" an="" affected="" source="" specified="" in="" paragraphs="" (a)="" through="" (c)="" of="" this="" section="" must="" comply="" with="" the="" requirements="" of="" subpart="" a--general="" provisions="" of="" this="" part,="" as="" indicated="" in="" table="" 1="" to="" this="" subpart.="" sec.="" 63.441="" definitions.="" all="" terms="" used="" in="" this="" subpart="" shall="" have="" the="" meaning="" given="" them="" in="" the="" caa,="" in="" subpart="" a="" of="" this="" part,="" and="" in="" this="" section="" as="" follows:="" acid="" condensate="" storage="" tank="" means="" any="" storage="" tank="" containing="" cooking="" acid="" following="" the="" sulfur="" dioxide="" gas="" fortification="" process.="" black="" liquor="" means="" spent="" cooking="" liquor="" that="" has="" been="" separated="" from="" the="" pulp="" produced="" by="" the="" kraft,="" soda,="" or="" semi-chemical="" pulping="" process.="" bleaching="" means="" brightening="" of="" pulp="" by="" the="" addition="" of="" oxidizing="" chemicals="" or="" reducing="" chemicals.="" bleaching="" line="" means="" a="" group="" of="" bleaching="" stages="" arranged="" in="" series="" such="" that="" bleaching="" of="" the="" pulp="" progresses="" as="" the="" pulp="" moves="" from="" one="" stage="" to="" the="" next.="" bleaching="" stage="" means="" all="" process="" equipment="" associated="" with="" a="" discrete="" step="" of="" chemical="" application="" and="" removal="" in="" the="" bleaching="" process="" including="" chemical="" and="" steam="" mixers,="" bleaching="" towers,="" washers,="" seal="" (filtrate)="" tanks,="" vacuum="" pumps,="" and="" any="" other="" equipment="" serving="" the="" same="" function="" as="" those="" previously="" listed.="" bleaching="" system="" means="" all="" process="" equipment="" after="" high-density="" pulp="" storage="" prior="" to="" the="" first="" application="" of="" oxidizing="" chemicals="" or="" reducing="" chemicals="" following="" the="" pulping="" system,="" up="" to="" and="" including="" the="" final="" bleaching="" stage.="" boiler="" means="" any="" enclosed="" combustion="" device="" that="" extracts="" useful="" energy="" in="" the="" form="" of="" steam.="" a="" boiler="" is="" not="" considered="" a="" thermal="" oxidizer.="" chip="" steamer="" means="" a="" vessel="" used="" for="" the="" purpose="" of="" preheating="" or="" pretreating="" wood="" chips="" prior="" to="" the="" digester,="" using="" flash="" steam="" from="" the="" digester="" or="" live="" steam.="" closed-vent="" system="" means="" a="" system="" that="" is="" not="" open="" to="" the="" atmosphere="" and="" is="" composed="" of="" piping,="" ductwork,="" connections,="" and,="" if="" necessary,="" flow-inducing="" devices="" that="" transport="" gas="" or="" vapor="" from="" an="" emission="" point="" to="" a="" control="" device.="" combustion="" device="" means="" an="" individual="" unit="" of="" equipment,="" including="" but="" not="" limited="" to,="" a="" thermal="" oxidizer,="" lime="" kiln,="" recovery="" furnace,="" process="" heater,="" or="" boiler,="" used="" for="" the="" thermal="" oxidation="" of="" organic="" hazardous="" air="" pollutant="" vapors.="" [[page="" 18618]]="" decker="" system="" means="" all="" equipment="" used="" to="" thicken="" the="" pulp="" slurry="" or="" reduce="" its="" liquid="" content="" after="" the="" pulp="" washing="" system="" and="" prior="" to="" high-density="" pulp="" storage.="" the="" decker="" system="" includes="" decker="" vents,="" filtrate="" tanks,="" associated="" vacuum="" pumps,="" and="" any="" other="" equipment="" serving="" the="" same="" function="" as="" those="" previously="" listed.="" digester="" system="" means="" each="" continuous="" digester="" or="" each="" batch="" digester="" used="" for="" the="" chemical="" treatment="" of="" wood="" or="" non-wood="" fibers.="" the="" digester="" system="" equipment="" includes="" associated="" flash="" tank(s),="" blow="" tank(s),="" chip="" steamer(s)="" not="" using="" fresh="" steam,="" blow="" heat="" recovery="" accumulator(s),="" relief="" gas="" condenser(s),="" prehydrolysis="" unit(s)="" preceding="" the="" pulp="" washing="" system,="" and="" any="" other="" equipment="" serving="" the="" same="" function="" as="" those="" previously="" listed.="" the="" digester="" system="" includes="" any="" of="" the="" liquid="" streams="" or="" condensates="" associated="" with="" batch="" or="" continuous="" digester="" relief,="" blow,="" or="" flash="" steam="" processes.="" emission="" point="" means="" any="" part="" of="" a="" stationary="" source="" that="" emits="" hazardous="" air="" pollutants="" regulated="" under="" this="" subpart,="" including="" emissions="" from="" individual="" process="" vents,="" stacks,="" open="" pieces="" of="" process="" equipment,="" equipment="" leaks,="" wastewater="" and="" condensate="" collection="" and="" treatment="" system="" units,="" and="" those="" emissions="" that="" could="" reasonably="" be="" conveyed="" through="" a="" stack,="" chimney,="" or="" duct="" where="" such="" emissions="" first="" reach="" the="" environment.="" evaporator="" system="" means="" 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.="" flow="" indicator="" means="" any="" device="" that="" indicates="" gas="" or="" liquid="" flow="" in="" an="" enclosed="" system.="" hap="" means="" a="" hazardous="" air="" pollutant="" as="" defined="" in="" sec.="" 63.2="" of="" subpart="" a="" of="" this="" part.="" high="" volume,="" low="" concentration="" or="" hvlc="" collection="" system="" means="" the="" gas="" collection="" and="" transport="" system="" used="" to="" convey="" gases="" from="" the="" hvlc="" system="" to="" a="" control="" device.="" high="" volume,="" low="" concentration="" or="" hvlc="" system="" means="" the="" collection="" of="" equipment="" including="" the="" pulp="" washing,="" knotter,="" screen,="" decker,="" and="" oxygen="" delignification="" systems,="" weak="" liquor="" storage="" tanks,="" and="" any="" other="" equipment="" serving="" the="" same="" function="" as="" those="" previously="" listed.="" knotter="" system="" means="" equipment="" where="" knots,="" oversized="" material,="" or="" pieces="" of="" uncooked="" wood="" are="" removed="" from="" the="" pulp="" slurry="" after="" the="" digester="" system="" and="" prior="" to="" the="" pulp="" washing="" system.="" the="" knotter="" system="" equipment="" includes="" the="" knotter,="" knot="" drainer="" tanks,="" ancillary="" tanks,="" and="" any="" other="" equipment="" serving="" the="" same="" function="" as="" those="" previously="" listed.="" kraft="" pulping="" means="" a="" chemical="" pulping="" process="" that="" uses="" a="" mixture="" of="" sodium="" hydroxide="" and="" sodium="" sulfide="" as="" the="" cooking="" liquor.="" lime="" kiln="" means="" an="" enclosed="" combustion="" device="" used="" to="" calcine="" lime="" mud,="" which="" consists="" primarily="" of="" calcium="" carbonate,="" into="" calcium="" oxide.="" low="" volume,="" high="" concentration="" or="" lvhc="" collection="" system="" means="" the="" gas="" collection="" and="" transport="" system="" used="" to="" convey="" gases="" from="" the="" lvhc="" system="" to="" a="" control="" device.="" low="" volume,="" high="" concentration="" or="" lvhc="" system="" means="" the="" collection="" of="" equipment="" including="" the="" digester,="" turpentine="" recovery,="" evaporator,="" steam="" stripper="" systems,="" and="" any="" other="" equipment="" serving="" the="" same="" function="" as="" those="" previously="" listed.="" mechanical="" pulping="" means="" a="" pulping="" process="" that="" only="" uses="" mechanical="" and="" thermo-mechanical="" processes="" to="" reduce="" wood="" to="" a="" fibrous="" mass.="" the="" mechanical="" pulping="" processes="" include,="" but="" are="" not="" limited="" to,="" stone="" groundwood,="" pressurized="" groundwood,="" refiner="" mechanical,="" thermal="" refiner="" mechanical,="" thermo-mechanical,="" and="" tandem="" thermo-mechanical.="" non-wood="" pulping="" means="" the="" production="" of="" pulp="" from="" fiber="" sources="" other="" than="" trees.="" the="" non-wood="" fiber="" sources="" include,="" but="" are="" not="" limited="" to,="" bagasse,="" cereal="" straw,="" cotton,="" flax="" straw,="" hemp,="" jute,="" kenaf,="" and="" leaf="" fibers.="" oven-dried="" pulp="" or="" odp="" means="" a="" pulp="" sample="" at="" zero="" percent="" moisture="" content="" by="" weight.="" pulp="" samples="" for="" applicability="" or="" compliance="" determinations="" for="" both="" the="" pulping="" and="" bleaching="" systems="" shall="" be="" unbleached="" pulp.="" for="" purposes="" of="" complying="" with="" mass="" emission="" limits="" in="" this="" subpart,="" megagram="" of="" odp="" shall="" be="" measured="" to="" represent="" the="" amount="" of="" pulp="" entering="" and="" processed="" by="" the="" equipment="" system="" under="" the="" specified="" mass="" limit.="" for="" equipment="" that="" does="" not="" process="" pulp,="" megagram="" of="" odp="" shall="" be="" measured="" to="" represent="" the="" amount="" of="" pulp="" that="" was="" processed="" to="" produce="" the="" gas="" and="" liquid="" streams.="" oxygen="" delignification="" system="" means="" the="" equipment="" that="" uses="" oxygen="" to="" remove="" lignin="" from="" pulp="" after="" high-density="" stock="" storage="" and="" prior="" to="" the="" bleaching="" system.="" the="" oxygen="" delignification="" system="" equipment="" includes="" the="" blow="" tank,="" washers,="" filtrate="" tanks,="" any="" interstage="" pulp="" storage="" tanks,="" and="" any="" other="" equipment="" serving="" the="" same="" function="" as="" those="" previously="" listed.="" primary="" fuel="" means="" the="" fuel="" that="" provides="" the="" principal="" heat="" input="" to="" the="" combustion="" device.="" to="" be="" considered="" primary,="" the="" fuel="" must="" be="" able="" to="" sustain="" operation="" of="" the="" combustion="" device="" without="" the="" addition="" of="" other="" fuels.="" process="" wastewater="" treatment="" system="" means="" a="" collection="" of="" equipment,="" a="" process,="" or="" specific="" technique="" that="" removes="" or="" destroys="" the="" hap's="" in="" a="" process="" wastewater="" stream.="" examples="" include,="" but="" are="" not="" limited="" to,="" a="" steam="" stripping="" unit,="" wastewater="" thermal="" oxidizer,="" or="" biological="" treatment="" unit.="" pulp="" washing="" system="" means="" all="" equipment="" used="" to="" wash="" pulp="" and="" separate="" spent="" cooking="" chemicals="" following="" the="" digester="" system="" and="" prior="" to="" the="" bleaching="" system,="" oxygen="" delignification="" system,="" or="" paper="" machine="" system="" (at="" unbleached="" mills).="" the="" pulp="" washing="" system="" equipment="" includes="" vacuum="" drum="" washers,="" diffusion="" washers,="" rotary="" pressure="" washers,="" horizontal="" belt="" filters,="" intermediate="" stock="" chests,="" and="" their="" associated="" vacuum="" pumps,="" filtrate="" tanks,="" foam="" breakers="" or="" tanks,="" and="" any="" other="" equipment="" serving="" the="" same="" function="" as="" those="" previously="" listed.="" the="" pulp="" washing="" system="" does="" not="" include="" deckers,="" screens,="" knotters,="" stock="" chests,="" or="" pulp="" storage="" tanks="" following="" the="" last="" stage="" of="" pulp="" washing.="" pulping="" line="" means="" a="" group="" of="" equipment="" arranged="" in="" series="" such="" that="" the="" wood="" chips="" are="" digested="" and="" the="" resulting="" pulp="" progresses="" through="" a="" sequence="" of="" steps="" that="" may="" include="" knotting,="" refining,="" washing,="" thickening,="" blending,="" storing,="" oxygen="" delignification,="" and="" any="" other="" equipment="" serving="" the="" same="" function="" as="" those="" previously="" listed.="" pulping="" process="" condensates="" means="" any="" hap-containing="" liquid="" that="" results="" from="" contact="" of="" water="" with="" organic="" compounds="" in="" the="" pulping="" process.="" examples="" of="" process="" condensates="" include="" digester="" system="" condensates,="" turpentine="" recovery="" system="" condensates,="" evaporator="" system="" condensates,="" lvhc="" system="" condensates,="" hvlc="" system="" condensates,="" and="" any="" other="" condensates="" from="" equipment="" serving="" the="" same="" function="" as="" those="" previously="" listed.="" liquid="" streams="" that="" are="" intended="" for="" byproduct="" recovery="" are="" not="" considered="" process="" condensate="" streams.="" pulping="" system="" means="" all="" process="" equipment,="" beginning="" with="" the="" digester="" system,="" and="" up="" to="" and="" including="" the="" last="" piece="" of="" pulp="" conditioning="" equipment="" prior="" to="" the="" bleaching="" system,="" including="" [[page="" 18619]]="" treatment="" with="" ozone,="" oxygen,="" or="" peroxide="" before="" the="" first="" application="" of="" a="" chemical="" bleaching="" agent="" intended="" to="" brighten="" pulp.="" the="" pulping="" system="" includes="" pulping="" process="" condensates="" and="" can="" include="" multiple="" pulping="" lines.="" recovery="" furnace="" means="" an="" enclosed="" combustion="" device="" where="" concentrated="" spent="" liquor="" is="" burned="" to="" recover="" sodium="" and="" sulfur,="" produce="" steam,="" and="" dispose="" of="" unwanted="" dissolved="" wood="" components="" in="" the="" liquor.="" screen="" system="" means="" equipment="" in="" which="" oversized="" particles="" are="" removed="" from="" the="" pulp="" slurry="" prior="" to="" the="" bleaching="" or="" papermaking="" system="" washed="" stock="" storage.="" secondary="" fiber="" pulping="" means="" a="" pulping="" process="" that="" converts="" a="" fibrous="" material,="" that="" has="" previously="" undergone="" a="" manufacturing="" process,="" into="" pulp="" stock="" through="" the="" addition="" of="" water="" and="" mechanical="" energy.="" the="" mill="" then="" uses="" that="" pulp="" as="" the="" raw="" material="" in="" another="" manufactured="" product.="" these="" mills="" may="" also="" utilize="" chemical,="" heat,="" and="" mechanical="" processes="" to="" remove="" ink="" particles="" from="" the="" fiber="" stock.="" semi-chemical="" pulping="" means="" a="" pulping="" process="" that="" combines="" both="" chemical="" and="" mechanical="" pulping="" processes.="" the="" semi-chemical="" pulping="" process="" produces="" intermediate="" yields="" ranging="" from="" 55="" to="" 90="" percent.="" soda="" pulping="" means="" a="" chemical="" pulping="" process="" that="" uses="" sodium="" hydroxide="" as="" the="" active="" chemical="" in="" the="" cooking="" liquor.="" spent="" liquor="" means="" process="" liquid="" generated="" from="" the="" separation="" of="" cooking="" liquor="" from="" pulp="" by="" the="" pulp="" washing="" system="" containing="" dissolved="" organic="" wood="" materials="" and="" residual="" cooking="" compounds.="" steam="" stripper="" system="" means="" a="" column="" (including="" associated="" stripper="" feed="" tanks,="" condensers,="" or="" heat="" exchangers)="" used="" to="" remove="" compounds="" from="" wastewater="" or="" condensates="" using="" steam.="" the="" steam="" stripper="" system="" also="" contains="" all="" equipment="" associated="" with="" a="" methanol="" rectification="" process="" including="" rectifiers,="" condensers,="" decanters,="" storage="" tanks,="" and="" any="" other="" equipment="" serving="" the="" same="" function="" as="" those="" previously="" listed.="" strong="" liquor="" storage="" tanks="" means="" all="" storage="" tanks="" containing="" liquor="" that="" has="" been="" concentrated="" in="" preparation="" for="" combustion="" or="" oxidation="" in="" the="" recovery="" process.="" sulfite="" pulping="" means="" a="" chemical="" pulping="" process="" that="" uses="" a="" mixture="" of="" sulfurous="" acid="" and="" bisulfite="" ion="" as="" the="" cooking="" liquor.="" temperature="" monitoring="" device="" means="" a="" piece="" of="" equipment="" used="" to="" monitor="" temperature="" and="" having="" an="" accuracy="" of="">1.0 percent
of the temperature being monitored expressed in degrees Celsius or
0.5 degrees Celsius ( deg.C), whichever is greater.
Thermal oxidizer means an enclosed device that destroys organic
compounds by thermal oxidation.
Turpentine recovery system means all equipment associated with
recovering turpentine from digester system gases including condensers,
decanters, storage tanks, and any other equipment serving the same
function as those previously listed. The turpentine recovery system
includes any liquid streams associated with the turpentine recovery
process such as turpentine decanter underflow. Liquid streams that are
intended for byproduct recovery are not considered turpentine recovery
system condensate streams.
Weak liquor storage tank means any storage tank except washer
filtrate tanks containing spent liquor recovered from the pulping
process and prior to the evaporator system.
Sec. 63.442 [Reserved]
Sec. 63.443 Standards for the pulping system at kraft, soda, and semi-
chemical processes.
(a) The owner or operator of each pulping system using the kraft
process subject to the requirements of this subpart shall control the
total HAP emissions from the following equipment systems, as specified
in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(1) At existing affected sources, the total HAP emissions from the
following equipment systems shall be controlled:
(i) Each LVHC system;
(ii) Each knotter or screen system with total HAP mass emission
rates greater than or equal to the rates specified in paragraphs
(a)(1)(ii)(A) or (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this section or the combined rate
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(C) of this section.
(A) Each knotter system with emissions of 0.05 kilograms or more of
total HAP per megagram of ODP (0.1 pounds per ton).
(B) Each screen system with emissions of 0.10 kilograms or more of
total HAP per megagram of ODP (0.2 pounds per ton).
(C) Each knotter and screen system with emissions of 0.15 kilograms
or more of total HAP per megagram of ODP (0.3 pounds per ton).
(iii) Each pulp washing system;
(iv) Each decker system that:
(A) Uses any process water other than fresh water or paper machine
white water; or
(B) Uses any process water with a total HAP concentration greater
than 400 parts per million by weight; and
(v) Each oxygen delignification system.
(2) At new affected sources, the total HAP emissions from the
equipment systems listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(iii), and
(a)(1)(v) of this section and the following equipment systems shall be
controlled:
(i) Each knotter system;
(ii) Each screen system;
(iii) Each decker system; and
(iv) Each weak liquor storage tank.
(b) The owner or operator of each pulping system using a semi-
chemical or soda process subject to the requirements of this subpart
shall control the total HAP emissions from the following equipment
systems as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
(1) At each existing affected sources, the total HAP emissions from
each LVHC system shall be controlled.
(2) At each new affected source, the total HAP emissions from each
LVHC system and each pulp washing system shall be controlled.
(c) Equipment systems listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section shall be enclosed and vented into a closed-vent system and
routed to a control device that meets the requirements specified in
paragraph (d) of this section. The enclosures and closed-vent system
shall meet the requirements specified in Sec. 63.450.
(d) The control device used to reduce total HAP emissions from each
equipment system listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
shall:
(1) Reduce total HAP emissions by 98 percent or more by weight; or
(2) Reduce the total HAP concentration at the outlet of the thermal
oxidizer to 20 parts per million or less by volume, corrected to 10
percent oxygen on a dry basis; or
(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.
(e) Periods of excess emissions reported under Sec. 63.455 shall
not be a violation of Sec. 63.443 (c) and (d) provided that the time of
excess emissions (excluding periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction) divided by the total process operating time in a semi-
annual reporting period does not exceed the following levels:
(1) One percent for control devices used to reduce the total HAP
emissions from the LVHC system; and
[[Page 18620]]
(2) Four percent for control devices used to reduce the total HAP
emissions from the HVLC system; and
(3) Four percent for control devices used to reduce the total HAP
emissions from both the LVHC and HVLC systems.
Sec. 63.444 Standards for the pulping system at sulfite processes.
(a) The owner or operator of each sulfite process subject to the
requirements of this subpart shall control the total HAP emissions from
the following equipment systems as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section.
(1) At existing sulfite affected sources, the total HAP emissions
from the following equipment systems shall be controlled:
(i) Each digester system vent;
(ii) Each evaporator system vent; and
(iii) Each pulp washing system.
(2) At new affected sources, the total HAP emissions from the
equipment systems listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the
following equipment shall be controlled:
(i) Each weak liquor storage tank;
(ii) Each strong liquor storage tank; and
(iii) Each acid condensate storage tank.
(b) Equipment listed in paragraph (a) of this section 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. Emissions from equipment listed
in paragraph (a) of this section that is not necessary to be reduced to
meet paragraph (c) of this section is not required to be routed to a
control device.
(c) The total HAP emissions from both the equipment systems listed
in paragraph (a) of this section and the vents, wastewater, and
condensate streams from the control device used to reduce HAP
emissions, shall be controlled as follows.
(1) Each calcium-based or sodium-based sulfite pulping process
shall:
(i) Emit no more than 0.44 kilograms of total HAP or methanol per
megagram (0.89 pounds per ton) of ODP; or
(ii) Remove 92 percent or more by weight of the total HAP or
methanol.
(2) Each magnesium-based or ammonium-based sulfite pulping process
shall:
(i) Emit no more than 1.1 kilograms of total HAP or methanol per
megagram (2.2 pounds per ton) of ODP; or
(ii) Remove 87 percent or more by weight of the total HAP or
methanol.
Sec. 63.445 Standards for the bleaching system.
(a) Each bleaching system that does not use any chlorine or
chlorinated compounds for bleaching is exempt from the requirements of
this section. Owners or operators of the following bleaching systems
shall meet all the provisions of this section:
(1) Bleaching systems that use chlorine;
(2) Bleaching systems bleaching pulp from kraft, sulfite, or soda
pulping processes that uses any chlorinated compounds; or
(3) Bleaching systems bleaching pulp from mechanical pulping
processes using wood or from any process using secondary or non-wood
fibers, that use chlorine dioxide.
(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.
(c) The control device used to reduce chlorinated HAP emissions
(not including chloroform) from the equipment specified in paragraph
(b) of this section shall:
(1) Reduce the total chlorinated HAP mass in the vent stream
entering the control device by 99 percent or more by weight;
(2) Achieve a treatment device outlet concentration of 10 parts per
million or less by volume of total chlorinated HAP; or
(3) Achieve a treatment device outlet mass emission rate of 0.001
kg of total chlorinated HAP mass per megagram (0.002 pounds per ton) of
ODP.
(d) The owner or operator of each bleaching system subject to
paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall comply with paragraph (d)(1) or
(d)(2) of this section to reduce chloroform air emissions to the
atmosphere, except the owner or operator of each bleaching system
complying with extended compliance under Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii) shall
comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
(1) Comply with the following applicable effluent limitation
guidelines and standards specified in 40 CFR part 430:
(i) Dissolving-grade kraft bleaching systems and lines, 40 CFR
430.14 through 430.17;
(ii) Paper-grade kraft and soda bleaching systems and lines, 40 CFR
430.24(a)(1) and (e), and 40 CFR 430.26 (a) and (c);
(iii) Dissolving-grade sulfite bleaching systems and lines, 40 CFR
430.44 through 430.47; or
(iv) Paper-grade sulfite bleaching systems and lines, 40 CFR
430.54(a) and (c), and 430.56(a) and (c).
(2) Use no hypochlorite or chlorine for bleaching in the bleaching
system or line.
Sec. 63.446 Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.
(a) The requirements of this section apply to owners or operators
of kraft processes subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(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 stage where weak liquor is introduced (feed
stages) in the evaporator system;
(4) Each HVLC collection system; and
(5) Each LVHC collection system.
(c) One of the following combinations of HAP-containing pulping
process condensates generated, produced, or associated with the
equipment systems listed in paragraph (b) of this section shall be
subject to the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section:
(1) All pulping process condensates from the equipment systems
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section.
(2) The combined pulping process condensates from the equipment
systems specified in paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this section, plus
pulping process condensate stream(s) that in total contain at least 65
percent of the total HAP mass from the pulping process condensates from
equipment systems listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this
section.
(3) The pulping process condensates from equipment systems listed
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section that in total
contain a total HAP mass of 3.6 kilograms or more of total HAP per
megagram (7.2 pounds per ton) of ODP for mills that do not perform
bleaching or 5.5 kilograms or more of total HAP per megagram (11.1
pounds per ton) of ODP for mills that perform bleaching.
(d) The pulping process condensates from the equipment systems
listed in paragraph (b) of this section shall be conveyed in a closed
collection system that is designed and operated to meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section.
(1) Each closed collection system shall meet the individual drain
system
[[Page 18621]]
requirements specified in Sec. 63.960, 63.961, and 63.962 of subpart RR
of this part, except for 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. 63.693 as specified in Sec. 63.962
(a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(ii)(A), and (b)(3)(ii)(B)(5)(iii); and
(2) If a condensate tank is used in the closed collection system,
the tank shall meet the following requirements:
(i) The fixed roof and all openings (e.g., access hatches, sampling
ports, gauge wells) shall be designed and operated with no detectable
leaks as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 parts per
million above background, and vented into a closed-vent system that
meets the requirements in Sec. 63.450 and routed to a control device
that meets the requirements in Sec. 63.443(d); and
(ii) Each opening shall be maintained in a closed, sealed position
(e.g., covered by a lid that is gasketed and latched) at all times that
the tank contains pulping process condensates or any HAP removed from a
pulping process condensate stream except when it is necessary to use
the opening for sampling, removal, or for equipment inspection,
maintenance, or repair.
(e) Each pulping process condensate from the equipment systems
listed in paragraph (b) of this section shall be treated according to
one of the following options:
(1) Recycle the pulping process condensate to an equipment system
specified in Sec. 63.443(a) meeting the requirements specified in
Sec. 63.443(c) and (d); or
(2) Discharge the pulping process condensate below the liquid
surface of a biological treatment system meeting the requirement
specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section; or
(3) Treat the pulping process condensates to reduce or destroy the
total HAP's by at least 92 percent or more by weight; or
(4) At mills that do not perform bleaching, treat the pulping
process condensates to remove 3.3 kilograms or more of total HAP per
megagram (6.6 pounds per ton) of ODP, or achieve a total HAP
concentration of 210 parts per million or less by weight at the outlet
of the control device; or
(5) At mills that perform bleaching, treat the pulping process
condensates to remove 5.1 kilograms or more of total HAP per megagram
(10.2 pounds per ton) of ODP, or achieve a total HAP concentration of
330 parts per million or less by weight at the outlet of the control
device.
(f) Each HAP removed from a pulping process condensate stream
during treatment and handling under paragraphs (d) or (e) of this
section, except for those treated according to paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, shall be controlled as specified in Sec. 63.443(c) and (d).
(g) For each steam stripper system used to comply with the
requirements specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, periods of
excess emissions reported under Sec. 63.455 shall not be a violation of
paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section provided that the time of
excess emissions (including periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction) divided by the total process operating time in a semi-
annual reporting period does not exceed 10 percent.
(h) Each owner or operator of a new or existing affected source
subject to the requirements of this section shall evaluate all new or
modified pulping process condensates or changes in the annual bleached
or non-bleached ODP used to comply with paragraph (i) of this section,
to determine if they meet the applicable requirements of this section.
(i) For the purposes of meeting the requirements in paragraphs
(c)(2), (e)(4), or (e)(5) of this section at mills producing both
bleached and unbleached pulp products, owners and operators may meet a
prorated mass standard that is calculated by prorating the applicable
mass standards (kilograms of total HAP per megagram of ODP) for
bleached and unbleached specified in paragraphs (c)(2), (e)(4), or
(e)(5) of this section by the ratio of annual megagrams of bleached and
unbleached ODP.
Sec. 63.447 Clean condensate alternative.
As an alternative to the requirements specified in
Sec. 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through (a)(1)(v) for the control of HAP
emissions from pulping systems using the kraft process, an owner or
operator must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator, by
meeting all the requirements below, that the total HAP emissions
reductions achieved by this clean condensate alternative technology are
equal to or greater than the total HAP emission reductions that would
have been achieved by compliance with Sec. 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through
(a)(1)(v).
(a) For the purposes of this section only the following additional
definitions apply.
(1) Clean condensate alternative affected source means the total of
all HAP emission points in the pulping, bleaching, causticizing, and
papermaking systems (exclusive of HAP emissions attributable to
additives to paper machines and HAP emission points in the LVHC
system).
(2) Causticizing system means all equipment associated with
converting sodium carbonate into active sodium hydroxide. The equipment
includes smelt dissolving tanks, lime mud washers and storage tanks,
white and mud liquor clarifiers and storage tanks, slakers, slaker grit
washers, lime kilns, green liquor clarifiers and storage tanks, and
dreg washers ending with the white liquor storage tanks prior to the
digester system, and any other equipment serving the same function as
those previously listed.
(3) Papermaking system means all equipment used to convert pulp
into paper, paperboard, or market pulp, including the stock storage and
preparation systems, the paper or paperboard machines, and the paper
machine white water system, broke recovery systems, and the systems
involved in calendering, drying, on-machine coating, slitting, winding,
and cutting.
(b) Each owner or operator shall install and operate a clean
condensate alternative technology with a continuous monitoring system
to reduce total HAP emissions by treating and reducing HAP
concentrations in the pulping process water used within the clean
condensate alternative affected source.
(c) Each owner or operator shall calculate HAP emissions on a
kilogram per megagram of ODP basis and measure HAP emissions according
to the appropriate procedures contained in Sec. 63.457.
(d) Each owner or operator shall determine the baseline HAP
emissions for each equipment system and the total of all equipment
systems in the clean condensate alternative affected source based on
the following:
(1) Process and air pollution control equipment installed and
operating on or after December 17, 1993, and
(2) Compliance with the following requirements that affect the
level of HAP emissions from the clean condensate alternative affected
source:
(i) The pulping process condensates requirements in Sec. 63.446;
(ii) The applicable effluent limitation guidelines and standards in
40 CFR part 430, subparts A, B, D, and E; and
(iii) All other applicable requirements of local, State, or Federal
agencies or statutes.
(e) Each owner or operator shall determine the following HAP
emission reductions from the baseline HAP emissions determined in
paragraph (d) of this section for each equipment system and the total
of all equipment
[[Page 18622]]
systems in the clean condensate alternative affected source:
(1) The HAP emission reduction occurring by complying with the
requirements of Sec. 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through (a)(1)(v); and
(2) The HAP emissions reduction that occurring by complying with
the clean condensate alternative technology.
(f) For the purposes of all requirements in this section, each
owner or operator may use as an alternative, individual equipment
systems (instead of total of all equipment systems) within the clean
condensate alternative affected source to determine emissions and
reductions to demonstrate equal or greater than the reductions that
would have been achieved by compliance with Sec. 63.443(a)(1)(ii)
through (a)(1)(v).
(g) The initial and updates to the control strategy report
specified in Sec. 63.455(b) shall include to the extent possible the
following information:
(1) A detailed description of:
(i) The equipment systems and emission points that comprise the
clean condensate alternative affected source;
(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);
(iii) The clean condensate alternative technology to be used.
(2) Estimates and basis for the estimates of total HAP emissions
and emissions reductions to fulfill the requirements paragraphs (d),
(e), and (f) of this section.
(h) Each owner or operator shall report to the Administrator by the
applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.440(d) or (e) the
rationale, calculations, test procedures, and data documentation used
to demonstrate compliance with all the requirements of this section.
Secs. 63.448-63.449 [Reserved]
Sec. 63.450 Standards for enclosures and closed-vent systems.
(a) Each enclosure and closed-vent system specified in
Secs. 63.443(c), 63.444(b), and 63.445(b) for capturing and
transporting vent streams that contain HAP shall meet the requirements
specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
(b) Each enclosure shall maintain negative pressure at each
enclosure or hood opening as demonstrated by the procedures specified
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.
(c) Each component of the closed-vent system used to comply with
Secs. 63.443(c), 63.444(b), and 63.445(b) that is operated at positive
pressure and located prior to a control device shall be designed for
and operated with no detectable leaks as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 parts per million by volume above background,
as measured by the procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(d).
(d) Each bypass line in the closed-vent system that could divert
vent streams containing HAP to the atmosphere without meeting the
emission limitations in Secs. 63.443, 63.444, or 63.445 shall comply
with either of the following requirements:
(1) On each bypass line, the owner or operator shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate according to manufacturer's
specifications a flow indicator that provides a record of the presence
of gas stream flow in the bypass line at least once every 15 minutes.
The flow indicator shall be installed in the bypass line in such a way
as to indicate flow in the bypass line; or
(2) For bypass line valves that are not computer controlled, the
owner or operator shall maintain the bypass line valve in the closed
position with a car seal or a seal placed on the valve or closure
mechanism in such a way that valve or closure mechanism cannot be
opened without breaking the seal.
Secs. 63.451-63.452 [Reserved]
Sec. 63.453 Monitoring requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator subject to the standards specified in
Secs. 63.443(c) and (d), 63.444(b) and (c), 63.445(b) and (c),
63.446(c), (d), and (e), 63.447(b) or Sec. 63.450(d), shall install,
calibrate, certify, operate, and maintain according to the
manufacturer's specifications, a continuous monitoring system (CMS, as
defined in Sec. 63.2 of this part) as specified in paragraphs (b)
through (m) of this section, except as allowed in paragraph (m) of this
section. The CMS shall include a continuous recorder.
(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 requirements in
Sec. 63.443(d)(2) or (d)(3) shall monitor the parameter specified and
for the temperature and concentration limits specified.
(c) A CMS shall be operated to measure the following parameters for
each gas scrubber used to comply with the bleaching system requirements
of Sec. 63.445(c) or the sulfite pulping system requirements of
Sec. 63.444(c).
(1) The pH or the oxidation/reduction potential of the gas scrubber
effluent;
(2) The gas scrubber vent gas inlet flow rate; and
(3) The gas scrubber liquid influent flow rate.
(d) As an option to the requirements specified in paragraph (c) of
this section, a CMS shall be operated to measure the chlorine outlet
concentration of each gas scrubber used to comply with the bleaching
system outlet concentration requirement specified in Sec. 63.445(c)(2).
(e) The owner or operator of a bleaching system complying with 40
CFR 430.24, shall monitor the chlorine and hypochlorite application
rates, in kg of bleaching agent per megagram of ODP, of the bleaching
system during the extended compliance period specified in
Sec. 63.440(d)(3).
(f) A CMS shall be operated to measure the gas scrubber parameters
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section or those
site specific parameters determined according to the procedures
specified in paragraph (n) of this section to comply with the sulfite
pulping system requirements specified in Sec. 63.444(c).
(g) A CMS shall be operated to measure the following parameters for
each steam stripper used to comply with the treatment requirements in
Sec. 63.446(e) (3), (4), or (5):
(1) The process wastewater feed rate;
(2) The steam feed rate; and
(3) The process wastewater column feed temperature.
(h) As an option to the requirements specified in paragraph (g) of
this section, a CMS shall be operated to measure the methanol outlet
concentration to comply with the steam stripper outlet concentration
requirement specified in Sec. 63.446 (e)(4) or (e)(5).
(i) A CMS shall be operated to measure the appropriate parameters
determined according to the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of
this section to comply with the condensate applicability requirements
specified in Sec. 63.446(c).
(j) Each owner or operator using a biological treatment system to
comply with Sec. 63.446(e)(2) shall perform the following monitoring
procedures.
[[Page 18623]]
(1) On a daily basis, monitor the following parameters for each
biological treatment unit:
(i) Composite daily sample of outlet soluble BOD5
concentration to monitor for maximum daily and maximum monthly average;
(ii) Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids;
(iii) Horsepower of aerator unit(s);
(iv) Inlet liquid flow; and
(v) Liquid temperature.
(2) Obtain daily inlet and outlet liquid grab samples from each
biological treatment unit to have HAP data available to perform
quarterly percent reduction tests specified in paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of
this section and the compliance percent reduction tests specified in
paragraph (p)(1)(i) of this section. Perform the following procedures
with the liquid samples:
(i) Store the samples for 5 days as specified in Sec. 63.457(n).
The 5 day storage requirement is required since the soluble
BOD5 test requires 5 days to obtain results. If the results
of the soluble BOD5 test are outside of the range
established during the initial performance test, then the archive
sample shall be used to perform the percent reduction test specified in
Sec. 63.457(1).
(ii) Perform the percent reduction test procedures specified in
Sec. 63.457(l) within 45 days after the beginning of each quarter as
follows.
(A) The percent reduction test performed in the first quarter
(annually) shall be performed for total HAP and the percent reduction
obtained from the test shall be at least as great as the total HAP
reduction specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2).
(B) The remaining quarterly percent reduction tests shall be
performed for methanol and the percent reduction obtained from the test
shall be at least as great as the methanol reduction determined in the
previous first-quarter test specified in paragraph (j)(2)(ii)(A) of
this section.
(C) The parameter values used to calculate the percent reductions
required in paragraphs (j)(2)(ii)(A) and (j)(2)(ii)(B) of this section
shall be parameter values measured and samples taken in paragraph
(j)(1) of this section.
(k) Each enclosure and closed-vent system used to comply with
Sec. 63.450(a) shall comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(6) of this section.
(1) For each enclosure opening, a visual inspection of the closure
mechanism specified in Sec. 63.450(b) shall be performed at least once
every 30 days to ensure the opening is maintained in the closed
position and sealed.
(2) Each closed-vent system required by Sec. 63.450(a) shall be
visually inspected every 30 days and at other times as requested by the
Administrator. The visual inspection shall include inspection of
ductwork, piping, enclosures, and connections to covers for visible
evidence of defects.
(3) For positive pressure closed-vent systems or portions of
closed-vent systems, demonstrate no detectable leaks as specified in
Sec. 63.450(c) measured initially and annually by the procedures in
Sec. 63.457(d).
(4) Demonstrate initially and annually that each enclosure opening
is maintained at negative pressure as specified in Sec. 63.457(e).
(5) The valve or closure mechanism specified in Sec. 63.450(d)(2)
shall be inspected at least once every 30 days to ensure that the valve
is maintained in the closed position and the emission point gas stream
is not diverted through the bypass line.
(6) If an inspection required by paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(5)
of this section identifies visible defects in ductwork, piping,
enclosures or connections to covers required by Sec. 63.450, or if an
instrument reading of 500 parts per million by volume or greater above
background is measured, or if enclosure openings are not maintained at
negative pressure, then the following corrective actions shall be taken
as soon as practicable.
(i) A first effort to repair or correct the closed-vent system
shall be made as soon as practicable but no later than 5 calendar days
after the problem is identified.
(ii) The repair or corrective action shall be completed no later
than 15 calendar days after the problem is identified.
(l) Each pulping process condensate closed collection system used
to comply with Sec. 63.446(d) 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 for the
closed-vent system and control device inspection and monitoring
requirements specified in Sec. 63.964(a)(2) of subpart RR of this part,
the closed-vent system and the control device shall meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) and (k) of this section.
(m) Each owner or operator using a control device, technique or an
alternative parameter other than those specified in paragraphs (b)
through (l) of this section shall install a CMS and establish
appropriate operating parameters to be monitored that demonstrate, to
the Administrator's satisfaction, continuous compliance with the
applicable control requirements.
(n) To establish or reestablish, the value for each operating
parameter required to be monitored under paragraphs (b) through (j),
(l), and (m) of this section or to establish appropriate parameters for
paragraphs (f), (i), and (m) of this section, each owner or operator
shall use the following procedures:
(1) During the initial performance test required in Sec. 63.457(a)
or any subsequent performance test, continuously record the operating
parameter;
(2) Determinations shall be based on the control performance and
parameter data monitored during the performance test, supplemented if
necessary by engineering assessments and the manufacturer's
recommendations;
(3) The owner or operator shall provide for the Administrator's
approval the rationale for selecting the monitoring parameters
necessary to comply with paragraphs (f), (i), and (m) of this section;
and
(4) Provide for the Administrator's approval the rationale for the
selected operating parameter value, and monitoring frequency, and
averaging time. Include all data and calculations used to develop the
value and a description of why the value, monitoring frequency, and
averaging time demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable
emission standard.
(o) Each owner or operator of a control device subject to the
monitoring provisions of this section shall operate the control device
in a manner consistent with the minimum or maximum (as appropriate)
operating parameter value or procedure required to be monitored under
paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section and established under this
subpart. Except as provided in paragraph (p) of this section,
Sec. 63.443(e), or Sec. 63.446(g), operation of the control device
below minimum operating parameter values or above maximum operating
parameter values established under this subpart or failure to perform
procedures required by this subpart shall constitute a violation of the
applicable emission standard of this subpart and be reported as a
period of excess emissions.
(p) Each owner or operator of a biological treatment system
complying with paragraph (j) of this section shall perform all the
following requirements when the monitoring parameters specified in
paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (j)(1)(iii) of this section are below
minimum operating parameter values or
[[Page 18624]]
above maximum operating parameter values established in paragraph (n)
of this section.
(1) The following shall occur and be recorded as soon as practical:
(i) Determine compliance with Sec. 63.446(e)(2) using the percent
reduction test procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(l) and the
monitoring data specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this section that
coincide with the time period of the parameter excursion;
(ii) Steps shall be taken to repair or adjust the operation of the
process to end the parameter excursion period; and
(iii) Steps shall be taken to minimize total HAP emissions to the
atmosphere during the parameter excursion period.
(2) A parameter excursion is not a violation of the applicable
emission standard if the percent reduction test specified in paragraph
(p)(1)(i) of this section demonstrates compliance with
Sec. 63.446(e)(2), and no maintenance or changes have been made to the
process or control device after the beginning of a parameter excursion
that would influence the results of the determination.
Sec. 63.454 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) The owner or operator of each affected source subject to the
requirements of this subpart shall comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. 63.10 of subpart A of this part, as shown in table
1, and the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section for the monitoring parameters specified in Sec. 63.453.
(b) For each applicable enclosure opening, closed-vent system, and
closed collection system, the owner or operator shall prepare and
maintain a site-specific inspection plan including a drawing or
schematic of the components of applicable affected equipment and shall
record the following information for each inspection:
(1) Date of inspection;
(2) The equipment type and identification;
(3) Results of negative pressure tests for enclosures;
(4) Results of leak detection tests;
(5) The nature of the defect or leak and the method of detection
(i.e., visual inspection or instrument detection);
(6) The date the defect or leak was detected and the date of each
attempt to repair the defect or leak;
(7) Repair methods applied in each attempt to repair the defect or
leak;
(8) The reason for the delay if the defect or leak is not repaired
within 15 days after discovery;
(9) The expected date of successful repair of the defect or leak if
the repair is not completed within 15 days;
(10) The date of successful repair of the defect or leak;
(11) The position and duration of opening of bypass line valves and
the condition of any valve seals; and
(12) The duration of the use of bypass valves on computer
controlled valves.
(c) The owner or operator of a bleaching system complying with
Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) shall record the daily average chlorine and
hypochlorite application rates, in kg of bleaching agent per megagram
of ODP, of the bleaching system until the requirements specified in
Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(A) are met.
(d) The owner or operator shall record the CMS parameters specified
in Sec. 63.453 and meet the requirements specified in paragraph (a) of
this section for any new affected process equipment or pulping process
condensate stream that becomes subject to the standards in this subpart
due to a process change or modification.
Sec. 63.455 Reporting requirements.
(a) Each owner or operator of a source subject to this subpart
shall comply with the reporting requirements of subpart A of this part
as specified in table 1 and all the following requirements in this
section. The initial notification report specified under
Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A of this part shall be submitted by April
15, 1999.
(b) Each owner or operator of a kraft pulping system specified in
Sec. 63.440(d)(1) or a bleaching system specified in
Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii) shall submit, with the initial notification
report specified under Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A of this part and
paragraph (a) of this section and update every two years thereafter, a
non-binding control strategy report containing, at a minimum, the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this
section in addition to the information required in Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of
subpart A of this part.
(1) A description of the emission controls or process modifications
selected for compliance with the control requirements in this standard.
(2) A compliance schedule, including the dates by which each step
toward compliance will be reached for each emission point or sets of
emission points. At a minimum, the list of dates shall include:
(i) The date by which the major study(s) for determining the
compliance strategy will be completed;
(ii) The date by which contracts for emission controls or process
modifications will be awarded, or the date by which orders will be
issued for the purchase of major components to accomplish emission
controls or process changes;
(iii) The date by which on-site construction, installation of
emission control equipment, or a process change is to be initiated;
(iv) The date by which on-site construction, installation of
emissions control equipment, or a process change is to be completed;
(v) The date by which final compliance is to be achieved;
(vi) For compliance with paragraph Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii), the
tentative dates by which compliance with effluent limitation guidelines
and standards intermediate pollutant load effluent reductions and as
available, all the dates for the best available technology's milestones
reported in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
authorized under section 402 of the Clean Water Act and for the best
professional milestones in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program under 40 CFR 430.24 (b)(2); and
(vii) The date by which the final compliance tests will be
performed.
(3) Until compliance is achieved, revisions or updates shall be
made to the control strategy report required by paragraph (b) of this
section indicating the progress made towards completing the
installation of the emission controls or process modifications during
the 2-year period.
(c) The owner or operator of each bleaching system complying with
Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) shall certify in the report specified under
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A of this part that the daily application
rates of chlorine and hypochlorite for that bleaching system have not
increased as specified in Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) until the
requirements of Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(A) are met.
(d) The owner or operator shall meet the requirements specified in
paragraph (a) of this section upon startup of any new affected process
equipment or pulping process condensate stream that becomes subject to
the standards of this subpart due to a process change or modification.
Sec. 63.456 [Reserved]
Sec. 63.457 Test methods and procedures.
(a) Initial performance test. An initial performance test is
required for all emission sources subject to the limitations in
Secs. 63.443, 63.444, 63.445, 63.446, and 63.447, except those
controlled by a combustion device that is designed and operated as
specified in Sec. 63.443(d)(3) or (d)(4).
(b) Vent sampling port locations and gas stream properties. For
purposes of
[[Page 18625]]
selecting vent sampling port locations and determining vent gas stream
properties, required in Secs. 63.443, 63.444, 63.445, and 63.447, each
owner or operator shall comply with the applicable procedures in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section.
(1) Method 1 or 1A of part 60, appendix A, as appropriate, shall be
used for selection of the sampling site as follows:
(i) To sample for vent gas concentrations and volumetric flow
rates, the sampling site shall be located prior to dilution of the vent
gas stream and prior to release to the atmosphere;
(ii) For determining compliance with percent reduction
requirements, sampling sites shall be located prior to the inlet of the
control device and at the outlet of the control device; measurements
shall be performed simultaneously at the two sampling sites; and
(iii) For determining compliance with concentration limits or mass
emission rate limits, the sampling site shall be located at the outlet
of the control device.
(2) No traverse site selection method is needed for vents smaller
than 0.10 meter (4.0 inches) in diameter.
(3) The vent gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using
Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of part 60, appendix A, as appropriate.
(4) The moisture content of the vent gas shall be measured using
Method 4 of part 60, appendix A.
(5) To determine vent gas concentrations, the owner or operator
shall collect a minimum of three samples that are representative of
normal conditions and average the resulting pollutant concentrations
using the following procedures.
(i) Method 308 in Appendix A of this part shall be used to
determine the methanol concentration.
(ii) Except for the modifications specified in paragraphs
(b)(5)(ii)(A) through (b)(5)(ii)(K) of this section, Method 26A of part
60, appendix A shall be used to determine chlorine concentration in the
vent stream.
(A) Probe/Sampling Line. A separate probe is not required. The
sampling line shall be an appropriate length of 0.64 cm (0.25 in) OD
Teflon tubing. The sample inlet end of the sampling line
shall be inserted into the stack in such a way as to not entrain liquid
condensation from the vent gases. The other end shall be connected to
the impingers. The length of the tubing may vary from one sampling site
to another, but shall be as short as possible in each situation. If
sampling is conducted in sunlight, opaque tubing shall be used.
Alternatively, if transparent tubing is used, it shall be covered with
opaque tape.
(B) Impinger Train. Three 30 milliliter (ml) capacity midget
impingers shall be connected in series to the sampling line. The
impingers shall have regular tapered stems. Silica gel shall be placed
in the third impinger as a desiccant. All impinger train connectors
shall be glass and/or Teflon.
(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 project the critical orifice and vacuum
pump.
(D) The following are necessary for the analysis apparatus:
(1) Wash bottle filled with deionized water;
(2) 25 or 50 ml graduated burette and stand;
(3) Magnetic stirring apparatus and stir bar;
(4) Calibrated pH Meter;
(5) 150-250 ml beaker or flask; and
(6) A 5 ml pipette.
(E) The procedures listed in paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(E)(1) through
(b)(5)(ii)(E)(7) of this section shall be used to prepare the reagents.
(1) To prepare the 1 molarity (M) potassium dihydrogen phosphate
solution, dissolve 13.61 grams (g) of potassium dihydrogen phosphate in
water and dilute to 100 ml.
(2) To prepare the 1 M sodium hydroxide solution (NaOH), dissolve
4.0 g of sodium hydroxide in water and dilute to 100 ml.
(3) To prepare the buffered 2 percent potassium iodide solution,
dissolve 20 g of potassium iodide in 900 ml water. Add 50 ml of the 1 M
potassium dihydrogen phosphate solution and 30 ml of the 1 M sodium
hydroxide solution. While stirring solution, measure the pH of solution
electrometrically and add the 1 M sodium hydroxide solution to bring pH
to between 6.95 and 7.05.
(4) To prepare the 0.1 normality (N) sodium thiosulfate solution,
dissolve 25 g of sodium thiosulfate, pentahydrate, in 800 ml of freshly
boiled and cooled distilled water in a 1-liter volumetric flask. Dilute
to volume. To prepare the 0.01 N sodium thiosulfate solution, add 10.0
ml standardized 0.1 N sodium thiosulfate solution to a 100 ml
volumetric flask, and dilute to volume with water.
(5) To standardize the 0.1 N sodium thiosulfate solution, dissolve
3.249 g of anhydrous potassium bi-iodate, primary standard quality, or
3.567 g potassium iodate dried at 103 +/-2 degrees Centigrade for 1
hour, in distilled water and dilute to 1000 ml to yield a 0.1000 N
solution. Store in a glass-stoppered bottle. To 80 ml distilled water,
add, with constant stirring, 1 ml concentrated sulfuric acid, 10.00 ml
0.1000 N anhydrous potassium bi-iodate, and 1 g potassium iodide.
Titrate immediately with 0.1 n sodium thiosulfate titrant until the
yellow color of the liberated iodine is almost discharged. Add 1 ml
starch indicator solution and continue titrating until the blue color
disappears. The normality of the sodium thiosulfate solution is
inversely proportional to the ml of sodium thiosulfate solution
consumed:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.000
(6) To prepare the starch indicator solution, add a small amount of
cold water to 5 g starch and grind in a mortar to obtain a thin paste.
Pour paste into 1 L of boiling distilled water, stir, and let settle
overnight. Use clear supernate for starch indicator solution.
(7) To prepare the 10 percent sulfuric acid solution, add 10 ml of
concentrated sulfuric acid to 80 ml water in an 100 ml volumetric
flask. Dilute to volume.
(F) The procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(F)(1) through
(b)(5)(ii)(F)(5) of this section shall be used to perform the sampling.
(1) Preparation of Collection Train. Measure 20 ml buffered
potassium iodide solution into each of the first two impingers and
connect probe, impingers, filter, critical orifice, and pump. The
sampling line and the impingers shall be shielded from sunlight.
(2) Leak and Flow Check Procedure. Plug sampling line inlet tip and
turn on pump. If a flow of bubbles is visible in either of the liquid
impingers, tighten fittings and adjust connections and
[[Page 18626]]
impingers. A leakage rate not in excess of 2 percent of the sampling
rate is acceptable. Carefully remove the plug from the end of the
probe. Check the flow rate at the probe inlet with a bubble tube flow
meter. The flow should be comparable or slightly less than the flow
rate of the critical orifice with the impingers off-line. Record the
flow and turn off the pump.
(3) Sample Collection. Insert the sampling line into the stack and
secure it with the tip slightly lower than the port height. Start the
pump, recording the time. End the sampling after 60 minutes, or after
yellow color is observed in the second in-line impinger. Record time
and remove the tubing from the vent. Recheck flow rate at sampling line
inlet and turn off pump. If the flow rate has changed significantly,
redo sampling with fresh capture solution. A slight variation (less
than 5 percent) in flow may be averaged. With the inlet end of the line
elevated above the impingers, add about 5 ml water into the inlet tip
to rinse the line into the first impinger.
(4) Sample Analysis. Fill the burette with 0.01 N sodium
thiosulfate solution to the zero mark. Combine the contents of the
impingers in the beaker or flask. Stir the solution and titrate with
thiosulfate until the solution is colorless. Record the volume of the
first endpoint (TN, ml). Add 5 ml of the 10 percent sulfuric acid
solution, and continue the titration until the contents of the flask
are again colorless. Record the total volume of titrant required to go
through the first and to the second endpoint (TA, ml). If the volume of
neutral titer is less than 0.5 ml, repeat the testing for a longer
period of time. It is important that sufficient lighting be present to
clearly see the endpoints, which are determined when the solution turns
from pale yellow to colorless. A lighted stirring plate and a white
background are useful for this purpose.
(5) Interferences. Known interfering agents of this method are
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen peroxide. Sulfur dioxide, which is used to
reduce oxidant residuals in some bleaching systems, reduces formed
iodine to iodide in the capture solution. It is therefore a negative
interference for chlorine, and in some cases could result in erroneous
negative chlorine concentrations. Any agent capable of reducing iodine
to iodide could interfere in this manner. A chromium trioxide
impregnated filter will capture sulfur dioxide and pass chlorine and
chlorine dioxide. Hydrogen peroxide, which is commonly used as a
bleaching agent in modern bleaching systems, reacts with iodide to form
iodine and thus can cause a positive interference in the chlorine
measurement. Due to the chemistry involved, the precision of the
chlorine analysis will decrease as the ratio of chlorine dioxide to
chlorine increases. Slightly negative calculated concentrations of
chlorine may occur when sampling a vent gas with high concentrations of
chlorine dioxide and very low concentrations of chlorine.
(G) The following calculation shall be performed to determine the
corrected sampling flow rate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.001
Where:
SC=Corrected (dry standard) sampling flow rate, liters
per minute;
SU=Uncorrected sampling flow rate, L/min;
BP=Barometric pressure at time of sampling;
PW=Saturated partial pressure of water vapor, mm Hg at temperature;
and
t=Ambient temperature, deg.C.
(H) The following calculation shall be performed to determine the
moles of chlorine in the sample:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.002
Where:
TN=Volume neutral titer, ml;
TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml; and
NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant.
(I) The following calculation shall be performed to determine the
concentration of chlorine in the sample:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.003
Where:
SC=Corrected (dry standard) sampling flow rate, liters
per minute;
tS=Time sampled, minutes;
TN=Volume neutral titer, ml;
TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml; and
NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant.
(J) The following calculation shall be performed to determine the
moles of chlorine dioxide in the sample:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.004
Where:
TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml;
TN=Volume neutral titer, ml; and
NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant.
(K) The following calculation shall be performed to determine the
concentration of chlorine dioxide in the sample:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.005
Where:
SC=Corrected (dry standard) sampling flow rate, liters
per minute;
tS=Time sampled, minutes;
TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml;
TN=Volume neutral titer, ml; and
NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant.
(iii) Any other method that measures the total HAP or methanol
concentration that has been demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction.
(6) The minimum sampling time for each of the three runs per method
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 run.
(c) Liquid sampling locations and properties. For purposes of
selecting liquid sampling locations and for determining properties of
liquid streams such as wastewaters, process waters, and condensates
required in Secs. 63.444, 63.446, and 63.447, the owner or operator
shall comply with the following procedures:
(1) Samples shall be collected using the sampling procedures
specified in Method 305 of part 60, appendix A;
(i) Where feasible, samples shall be taken from an enclosed pipe
prior to the liquid stream being exposed to the atmosphere; and
(ii) When sampling from an enclosed pipe is not feasible, samples
shall be collected in a manner to minimize exposure of the sample to
the atmosphere and loss of HAP compounds prior to sampling.
(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) To determine liquid stream total HAP or methanol
concentrations, the owner or operator shall collect a minimum of three
samples that are representative of normal conditions and average the
resulting pollutant concentrations using one of the following:
(i) Method 305 in Appendix A of this part, adjusted using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.006
Where:
C=Pollutant concentration for the liquid stream, parts per million
by weight.
[[Page 18627]]
Ci=Measured concentration of pollutant i in the liquid
stream sample determined using Method 305, parts per million by
weight.
fmi=Pollutant-specific constant that adjusts
concentration measured by Method 305 to actual liquid concentration;
the fm for methanol is 0.85. Additional pollutant fm values can be
found in table 34, subpart G of this part.
n=Number of individual pollutants, i, summed to calculate total HAP.
(ii) Any other method that measures total HAP concentration that
has been demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction.
(4) To determine soluble BOD5 in the effluent stream
from a biological treatment unit used to comply with Secs. 63.446(e)(2)
and 63.453(j), the owner or operator shall use Method 405.1, of part
136, with the following modifications:
(i) Filter the sample through the filter paper, into 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.
(ii) Perform Method 405.1 on the filtrate obtained in paragraph
(c)(4) of this section. Dilution water shall be seeded with 1
milliliter of final effluent per liter of dilution water. Dilution
ratios may require adjustment to reflect the lower oxygen demand of the
filtered sample in comparison to the total BOD5. Three BOD
bottles and different dilutions shall be used for each sample.
(d) Detectable leak procedures. To measure detectable leaks for
closed-vent systems as specified in Sec. 63.450 or for pulping process
wastewater collection systems as specified in Sec. 63.446(d)(2)(i), the
owner or operator shall comply with the following:
(1) Method 21, of part 60, appendix A; and
(2) The instrument specified in Method 21 shall be calibrated
before use according to the procedures specified in Method 21 on each
day that leak checks are performed. The following calibration gases
shall be used:
(i) Zero air (less than 10 parts per million by volume of
hydrocarbon in air); and
(ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10,000 parts per million by volume
methane or n-hexane.
(e) Negative pressure procedures. To demonstrate negative pressure
at process equipment enclosure openings as specified in Sec. 63.450(b),
the owner or operator shall use one of the following procedures:
(1) An anemometer to demonstrate flow into the enclosure opening;
(2) Measure the static pressure across the opening;
(3) Smoke tubes to demonstrate flow into the enclosure opening; or
(4) Any other industrial ventilation test method demonstrated to
the Administrator's satisfaction.
(f) HAP concentration measurements. For purposes of complying with
the requirements in Secs. 63.443, 63.444, and 63.447, the owner or
operator shall measure the total HAP concentration as one of the
following:
(1) As the sum of all individual HAP's; or
(2) As methanol.
(g) Condensate HAP concentration measurement. For purposes of
complying with the kraft pulping condensate requirements in
Sec. 63.446, the owner or operator shall measure the total HAP
concentration as methanol except for the purposes of complying with the
initial performance test specified in Sec. 63.457(a) for
Sec. 63.446(e)(2) and as specified in Sec. 63.453(j)(2)(ii).
(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 HAP's or as chlorine.
(i) Vent gas stream calculations. To demonstrate compliance with
the mass emission rate, mass emission rate per megagram of ODP, and
percent reduction requirements for vent gas streams specified in
Secs. 63.443, 63.444, 63.445, and 63.447, the owner or operator shall
use the following:
(1) The total HAP mass emission rate shall be calculated using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.007
Where:
E=Mass emission rate of total HAP from the sampled vent, kilograms
per hour.
K2=Constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (parts per million
by volume)-1 (gram-mole per standard cubic meter)
(kilogram/gram) (minutes/hour), where standard temperature for
(gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is 20 deg.C.
Cj=Concentration on a dry basis of pollutant j in parts
per million by volume as measured by the test methods specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
Mj=Molecular weight of pollutant j, gram/gram-mole.
Qs=Vent gas stream flow rate (dry standard cubic meter
per minute) at a temperature of 20 deg.C as indicated in paragraph
(b) of this section.
n=Number of individual pollutants, i, summed to calculate total HAP.
(2) The total HAP mass emission rate per megagram of ODP shall be
calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.008
Where:
F=Mass emission rate of total HAP from the sampled vent, in
kilograms per megagram of ODP.
E=Mass emission rate of total HAP from the sampled vent, in
kilograms per hour determined as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of
this section.
P=The production rate of pulp during the sampling period, in
megagrams of ODP per hour.
(3) The total HAP percent reduction shall be calculated using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.009
Where:
R=Efficiency of control device, percent.
Ei=Inlet mass emission rate of total HAP from the sampled vent, in
kilograms of pollutant per hour, determined as specified in
paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
Eo=Outlet mass emission rate of total HAP from the
sampled vent, in kilograms of pollutant per hour, determined as
specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
(j) Liquid stream calculations. To demonstrate compliance with the
mass flow rate, mass per megagram of ODP, and percent reduction
requirements for liquid streams specified in Sec. 63.446, the owner or
operator shall use the following:
(1) The mass flow rates of total HAP or methanol entering and
exiting the treatment process shall be calculated using the following
equations:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.010
Where:
Eb=Mass flow rate of total HAP or methanol in the liquid
stream entering the treatment process, kilograms per hour.
Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP or methanol in the liquid
exiting the treatment process, kilograms per hour.
[[Page 18628]]
K=Density of the liquid stream, kilograms per cubic meter.
Vbi=Volumetric flow rate of liquid stream entering the
treatment process during each run i, cubic meters per hour,
determined as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
Vai=Volumetric flow rate of liquid stream exiting the
treatment process during each run i, cubic meters per hour,
determined as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
Cbi=Concentration of total HAP or methanol in the stream
entering the treatment process during each run i, parts per million
by weight, determined as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
Cai=Concentration of total HAP or methanol in the stream
exiting the treatment process during each run i, parts per million
by weight, determined as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
n=Number of runs.
(2) The mass of total HAP or methanol per megagram ODP shall be
calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.011
Where:
F=Mass loading of total HAP or methanol in the sample, in kilograms
per megagram of ODP.
Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP or methanol in the
wastewater stream in kilograms per hour as determined using the
procedures in paragraph (j)(1) of this section.
P=The production rate of pulp during the sampling period in
megagrams of ODP per hour.
(3) The percent reduction of total HAP across the applicable
treatment process shall be calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.012
Where:
R=Control efficiency of the treatment process, percent.
Eb=Mass flow rate of total HAP in the stream entering the
treatment process, kilograms per hour, as determined in paragraph
(j)(1) of this section.
Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP in the stream exiting the
treatment process, kilograms per hour, as determined in paragraph
(j)(1) of this section.
(4) Compounds that meet the requirements specified in paragraphs
(j)(4)(i) or (4)(ii) of this section are not required to be included in
the mass flow rate, mass per megagram of ODP, or the mass percent
reduction determinations.
(i) Compounds with concentrations at the point of determination
that are below 1 part per million by weight; or
(ii) Compounds with concentrations at the point of determination
that are below the lower detection limit where the lower detection
limit is greater than 1 part per million by weight.
(k) Oxygen concentration correction procedures. To demonstrate
compliance with the total HAP concentration limit of 20 ppmv in
Sec. 63.443(d)(2), the concentration measured using the methods
specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be corrected to 10
percent oxygen using the following procedures:
(1) The emission rate correction factor and excess air integrated
sampling and analysis procedures of Methods 3A or 3B of part 60,
appendix A shall be used to determine the oxygen concentration. The
samples shall be taken at the same time that the HAP samples are taken.
(2) The concentration corrected to 10 percent oxygen shall be
computed using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.013
Where:
Cc=Concentration of total HAP corrected to 10 percent
oxygen, dry basis, parts per million by volume.
Cm=Concentration of total HAP dry basis, parts per
million by volume, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
%02d=Concentration of oxygen, dry basis, percent by
volume.
(1) Biological treatment system percent reduction calculation. To
determine compliance with an open biological treatment system option
specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2) and the monitoring requirements
specified in Sec. 63.453(j)(2), the percent reduction due to
destruction in the biological treatment system shall be calculated
using the following equation:
R=fbio x 100
Where:
R=Destruction of total HAP or methanol in the biological treatment
process, percent.
fbio=The fraction of total HAP or methanol removed in the
biological treatment system. The site-specific biorate constants
shall be determined using the procedures specified and as limited in
appendix C of part 63.
(m) Condensate segregation procedures. The following procedures
shall be used to demonstrate compliance with the condensate segregation
requirements specified in Sec. 63.446(c).
(1) To demonstrate compliance with the percent mass requirements
specified in Sec. 63.446(c)(1), the procedures specified in paragraphs
(m)(1)(i) through (m)(1)(iii) of this section shall be performed.
(i) Determine the total HAP mass of all condensates from each
equipment system listed in Sec. 63.446 (b)(1) through (b)(3) using the
procedures specified in paragraphs (c) and (j) of this section.
(ii) Multiply the total HAP mass determine 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.
(iii) Compliance with the segregation requirements specified in
Sec. 63.446(c)(1) is demonstrated if the condensate stream or streams
from each equipment system listed in Sec. 63.446 (b)(1) through (b)(3)
being treated as specified in Sec. 63.446(e) contain at least as much
total HAP mass as the target total HAP mass determined in paragraph
(m)(1)(ii) of this section.
(2) To demonstrate compliance with the percent mass requirements
specified in Sec. 63.446(c)(2), the procedures specified in paragraphs
(m)(2)(i) through (m)(2)(ii) of this section shall be performed.
(i) Determine the total HAP mass contained in the high-HAP fraction
condensates from each equipment system listed in Sec. 63.446(b)(1)
through (b)(3) and the total condensates streams from the equipment
systems listed in Sec. 63.446(b)(4) and (b)(5), using the procedures
specified in paragraphs (c) and (j) of this section.
(ii) Compliance with the segregation requirements specified in
Sec. 63.446(c)(2) is demonstrated if the total HAP mass determined in
paragraph (m)(2)(i) of this section is equal to or greater than the
appropriate mass requirements specified in Sec. 63.446(c)(2).
(n) Biological treatment system monitoring sampling storage. The
inlet and outlet grab samples required to be collected in
Sec. 63.453(j)(2) shall be stored at 4 deg. C (40 deg. F) to minimize
the biodegradation of the organic compounds in the samples.
Sec. 63.458 Delegation of authority.
(a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under section 112(d) of the CAA, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator
and not transferred to a State.
(b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States:
(1) Section 63.6(g)--Use of an alternative nonopacity emission
standard;
(2) Section 63.453(m)--Use of an alternative monitoring parameter;
(3) Section 63.457(b)(5)(iii)--Use of an alternative test method
for total HAP or methanol in vents; and
(4) Section 63.457(c)(3)(ii)--Use of an alternative test method for
total HAP or methanol in wastewater.
[[Page 18629]]
Sec. 63.459 [Reserved]
Table 1 to Subpart S--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart S a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applies to Subpart
Reference S Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(3).............. Yes...............
63.1(a)(4).................. Yes............... Subpart S (this table)
specifies
applicability of each
paragraph in subpart
A to subpart S.
63.1(a)(5).................. No................ Section reserved.
63.1(a)(6)-(8).............. Yes...............
63.1(a)(9).................. No................ Section reserved.
63.1(a)(10)................. No................ Subpart S and other
cross-referenced
subparts specify
calendar or operating
day.
63.1(a)(11)-(14)............ Yes...............
63.1(b)(1).................. No................ Subpart S specifies
its own
applicability.
63.1(b)(2)-(3).............. Yes...............
63.1(c)(1)-(2).............. Yes...............
63.1(c)(3).................. No................ Section reserved.
63.1(c)(4)-(5).............. Yes...............
63.1(d)..................... No................ Section reserved.
63.1(e)..................... Yes...............
63.2........................ Yes...............
63.3........................ Yes...............
63.4(a)(1).................. Yes...............
63.4(a)(3)..................
63.4(a)(4).................. No................ Section reserved.
63.4(a)(5).................. Yes...............
63.4(b)..................... Yes...............
63.4(c)..................... Yes...............
63.5(a)..................... Yes...............
63.5(b)(1).................. Yes...............
63.5(b)(2).................. No................ Section reserved.
63.5(b)(3).................. Yes...............
63.5(b)(4)-(6).............. Yes...............
63.5(c)..................... No................ Section reserved.
63.5(d)..................... Yes...............
63.5(e)..................... Yes...............
63.5(f)..................... Yes...............
63.6(a)..................... Yes...............
63.6(b)..................... No................ Subpart S specifies
compliance dates for
sources subject to
subpart S.
63.6(c)..................... No................ Subpart S specifies
compliance dates for
sources subject to
subpart S.
63.6(d)..................... No................ Section reserved.
63.6(e)..................... Yes...............
63.6(f)..................... Yes...............
63.6(g)..................... Yes...............
63.6(h)..................... No................ Pertains to continuous
opacity monitors that
are not part of this
standard.
63.6(i)..................... Yes...............
63.6(j)..................... Yes...............
63.7........................ Yes...............
63.8(a)(1).................. Yes...............
63.8(a)(2).................. Yes...............
63.8(a)(3).................. No................ Section reserved.
63.8(a)(4).................. Yes...............
63.8(b)(1).................. Yes...............
63.8(b)(2).................. No................ Subpart S specifies
locations to conduct
monitoring.
63.8(b)(3).................. Yes...............
63.8(c)(1).................. Yes...............
63.8(c)(2).................. Yes...............
63.8(c)(3).................. Yes...............
63.8(c)(4).................. No................ Subpart S allows site
specific
determination of
monitoring frequency
in Sec.
63.453(n)(4).
63.8(c)(5).................. No................ Pertains to continuous
opacity monitors that
are not part of this
standard.
63.8(c)(6).................. Yes...............
63.8(c)(7).................. Yes...............
63.8(c)(8).................. Yes...............
63.8(d)..................... Yes...............
63.8(e)..................... Yes...............
63.8(f)(1)-(5).............. Yes...............
63.8(f)(6).................. No................ Subpart S does not
specify relative
accuracy test for
CEM's.
63.8(g)..................... Yes...............
63.9(a)..................... Yes...............
63.9(b)..................... Yes............... Initial notifications
must be submitted
within one year after
the source becomes
subject to the
relevant standard.
63.9(c)..................... Yes...............
63.9(d)..................... No................ Special compliance
requirements are only
applicable to kraft
mills.
63.9(e)..................... Yes...............
63.9(f)..................... No................ Pertains to continuous
opacity monitors that
are not part of this
standard.
[[Page 18630]]
63.9(g)(1).................. Yes...............
63.9(g)(2).................. No................ Pertains to continuous
opacity monitors that
are not part of this
standard.
63.9(g)(3).................. No................ Subpart S does not
specify relative
accuracy tests,
therefore no
notification is
required for an
alternative.
63.9(h)..................... Yes...............
63.9(i)..................... Yes...............
63.9(j)..................... Yes...............
63.10(a).................... Yes...............
63.10(b).................... Yes...............
63.10(c).................... Yes...............
63.10(d)(1)................. Yes...............
63.10(d)(2)................. Yes...............
63.10(d)(3)................. No................ Pertains to continuous
opacity monitors that
are not part of this
standard.
63.10(d)(4)................. Yes...............
63.10(d)(5)................. Yes...............
63.10(e)(1)................. Yes...............
63.10(e)(2)(i).............. Yes...............
63.10(e)(2)(ii)............. No................ Pertains to continuous
opacity monitors that
are not part of this
standard.
63.10(e)(3)................. Yes...............
63.10(e)(4)................. No................ Pertains to continuous
opacity monitors that
are not part of this
standard.
63.10(f).................... Yes...............
63.11-63.15................. Yes...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 dates, but a postmark is not
required.
3. Appendix A of part 63 is amended by adding Method 308 in
numerical order to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods
* * * * *
Method 308--Procedure for Determination of Methanol Emission From
Stationary Sources
1.0 Scope and Application
1.1 Analyte. Methanol. Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) No. 67-56-
1.
1.2 Applicability. This method applies to the measurement of
methanol emissions from specified stationary sources.
2.0 Summary of Method
A gas sample is extracted from the sampling point in the stack. The
methanol is collected in deionized distilled water and adsorbed on
silica gel. The sample is returned to the laboratory where the methanol
in the water fraction is separated from other organic compounds with a
gas chromatograph (GC) and is then measured by a flame ionization
detector (FID). The fraction adsorbed on silica gel is extracted with
an aqueous solution of n-propanol and is then separated and measured by
GC/FID.
3.0 Definitions [Reserved]
4.0 Interferences [Reserved]
5.0 Safety
5.1 Disclaimer. This method may involve hazardous materials,
operations, and equipment. This test method does not purport to address
all of the safety problems associated with its use. It is the
responsibility of the user of this test method to establish appropriate
safety and health practices and to determine the applicability of
regulatory limitations before performing this test method.
5.2 Methanol Characteristics. Methanol is flammable and a
dangerous fire and explosion risk. It is moderately toxic by ingestion
and inhalation.
6.0 Equipment and Supplies
6.1 Sample Collection. The following items are required for sample
collection:
6.1.1 Sampling Train. The sampling train is shown in Figure 308-1
and component parts are discussed below.
6.1.1.1 Probe. Teflon, approximately 6-millimeter (mm)
(0.24 inch) outside diameter.
6.1.1.2 Impinger. A 30-milliliter (ml) midget impinger. The
impinger must be connected with leak-free glass connectors. Silicone
grease may not be used to lubricate the connectors.
6.1.1.3 Adsorbent Tube. Glass tubes packed with the required
amount of the specified adsorbent.
6.1.1.4 Valve. Needle valve, to regulate sample gas flow rate.
6.1.1.5 Pump. Leak-free diaphragm pump, or equivalent, to pull gas
through the sampling train. Install a small surge tank between the pump
and rate meter to eliminate the pulsation effect of the diaphragm pump
on the rotameter.
6.1.1.6 Rate Meter. Rotameter, or equivalent, capable of measuring
flow rate to within 2 percent of the selected flow rate of up to 1000
milliliter per minute (ml/min). Alternatively, the tester may use a
critical orifice to set the flow rate.
6.1.1.7 Volume Meter. Dry gas meter (DGM), sufficiently accurate
to measure the sample volume to within 2 percent, calibrated at the
selected flow rate and conditions actually encountered during sampling,
and equipped with a temperature sensor (dial thermometer, or
equivalent) capable of measuring temperature accurately to within 3
deg.C (5.4 deg.F).
6.1.1.8 Barometer. Mercury (Hg), aneroid, or other barometer
capable of measuring atmospheric pressure to within 2.5 mm (0.1 inch)
Hg. See the NOTE in Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), section
6.1.2.
6.1.1.9 Vacuum Gauge and Rotameter. At least 760-mm (30-inch) Hg
gauge and 0- to 40-ml/min rotameter, to be used for leak-check of the
sampling train.
6.2 Sample Recovery. The following items are required for sample
recovery:
6.2.1 Wash Bottles. Polyethylene or glass, 500-ml, two.
6.2.2 Sample Vials. Glass, 40-ml, with Teflon-lined
septa, to store impinger samples (one per sample).
6.2.3 Graduated Cylinder. 100-ml size.
6.3 Analysis. The following are required for analysis:
6.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. GC with an FID, programmable temperature
control, and heated liquid injection port.
[[Page 18631]]
6.3.2 Pump. Capable of pumping 100 ml/min. For flushing sample
loop.
6.3.3 Flow Meter. To monitor accurately sample loop flow rate of
100 ml/min.
6.3.4 Regulators. Two-stage regulators used on gas cylinders for
GC and for cylinder standards.
6.3.5 Recorder. To record, integrate, and store chromatograms.
6.3.6 Syringes. 1.0- and 10-microliter (l) size, calibrated, for
injecting samples.
6.3.7 Tubing Fittings. Stainless steel, to plumb GC and gas
cylinders.
6.3.8 Vials. Two 5.0-ml glass vials with screw caps fitted with
Teflon-lined septa for each sample.
6.3.9 Pipettes. Volumetric type, assorted sizes for preparing
calibration standards.
6.3.10 Volumetric Flasks. Assorted sizes for preparing calibration
standards.
6.3.11 Vials. Glass 40-ml with Teflon-lined septa, to
store calibration standards (one per standard).
7.0 Reagents and Standards
Note: Unless otherwise indicated, all reagents must conform to
the specifications established by the Committee on Analytical
Reagents of the American Chemical Society. Where such specifications
are not available, use the best available grade.
7.1 Sampling. The following are required for sampling:
7.1.1 Water. Deionized distilled to conform to the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Specification D 1193-77, Type
3. At the option of the analyst, the potassium permanganate
(KMnO4) test for oxidizable organic matter may be omitted
when high concentrations of organic matter are not expected to be
present.
7.1.2 Silica Gel. Deactivated chromatographic grade 20/40 mesh
silica gel packed in glass adsorbent tubes. The silica gel is packed in
two sections. The front section contains 520 milligrams (mg) of silica
gel, and the back section contains 260 mg.
7.2 Analysis. The following are required for analysis:
7.2.1 Water. Same as specified in section 7.1.1.
7.2.2 n-Propanol, 3 Percent. Mix 3 ml of n-propanol with 97 ml of
water.
7.2.3 Methanol Stock Standard. Prepare a methanol stock standard
by weighing 1 gram of methanol into a 100-ml volumetric flask. Dilute
to 100 ml with water.
7.2.3.1 Methanol Working Standard. Prepare a methanol working
standard by pipetting 1 ml of the methanol stock standard into a 100-ml
volumetric flask. Dilute the solution to 100 ml with water.
7.2.3.2 Methanol Standards For Impinger Samples. Prepare a series
of methanol standards by pipetting 1, 2, 5, 10, and 25 ml of methanol
working standard solution respectively into five 50-ml volumetric
flasks. Dilute the solutions to 50 ml with water. These standards will
have 2, 4, 10, 20, and 50 g/ml of methanol, respectively.
After preparation, transfer the solutions to 40-ml glass vials capped
with Teflon septa and store the vials under refrigeration.
Discard any excess solution.
7.2.3.3 Methanol Standards for Adsorbent Tube Samples. Prepare a
series of methanol standards by first pipetting 10 ml of the methanol
working standard into a 100-ml volumetric flask and diluting the
contents to exactly 100 ml with 3 percent n-propanol solution. This
standard will contain 10 g/ml of methanol. Pipette 5, 15, and
25 ml of this standard, respectively, into four 50-ml volumetric
flasks. Dilute each solution to 50 ml with 3 percent n-propanol
solution. These standards will have 1, 3, and 5 g/ml of
methanol, respectively. Transfer all four standards into 40-ml glass
vials capped with Teflon-lined septa and store under
refrigeration. Discard any excess solution.
7.2.4 GC Column. Capillary column, 30 meters (100 feet) long with
an inside diameter (ID) of 0.53 mm (0.02 inch), coated with DB 624 to a
film thickness of 3.0 micrometers, (m) or an equivalent
column. Alternatively, a 30-meter capillary column coated with
polyethylene glycol to a film thickness of 1 m such as AT-WAX
or its equivalent.
7.2.5 Helium. Ultra high purity.
7.2.6 Hydrogen. Zero grade.
7.2.7 Oxygen. Zero grade.
8.0 Procedure
8.1 Sampling. The following items are required for sampling:
8.1.1 Preparation of Collection Train. Measure 20 ml of water into
the midget impinger. The adsorbent tube must contain 520 mg of silica
gel in the front section and 260 mg of silica gel in the backup
section. Assemble the train as shown in Figure 308-1. An optional,
second impinger that is left empty may be placed in front of the water-
containing impinger to act as a condensate trap. Place crushed ice and
water around the impinger.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 18632]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.014
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 18633]]
8.1.2 Leak Check. A leak check prior to the sampling run is
optional; however, a leak check after the sampling run is mandatory.
The leak-check procedure is as follows:
Temporarily attach a suitable (e.g., 0-to 40-ml/min) rotameter to
the outlet of the DGM, and place a vacuum gauge at or near the probe
inlet. Plug the probe inlet, pull a vacuum of at least 250 mm (10 inch)
Hg, and note the flow rate as indicated by the rotameter. A leakage
rate not in excess of 2 percent of the average sampling rate is
acceptable.
Note: Carefully release the probe inlet plug before turning off
the pump.
8.1.3 Sample Collection. Record the initial DGM reading and
barometric pressure. To begin sampling, position the tip of the
Teflon tubing at the sampling point, connect the tubing to
the impinger, and start the pump. Adjust the sample flow to a constant
rate between 200 and 1000 ml/min as indicated by the rotameter.
Maintain this constant rate (10 percent) during the entire
sampling run. Take readings (DGM, temperatures at DGM and at impinger
outlet, and rate meter) at least every 5 minutes. Add more ice during
the run to keep the temperature of the gases leaving the last impinger
at 20 deg.C (68 deg.F) or less. At the conclusion of each run, turn
off the pump, remove the Teflon tubing from the stack, and
record the final readings. Conduct a leak check as in section 8.1.2.
(This leak check is mandatory.) If a leak is found, void the test run
or use procedures acceptable to the Administrator to adjust the sample
volume for the leakage.
8.2 Sample Recovery. The following items are required for sample
recovery:
8.2.1 Impinger. Disconnect the impinger. Pour the contents of the
midget impinger into a graduated cylinder. Rinse the midget impinger
and the connecting tubes with water, and add the rinses to the
graduated cylinder. Record the sample volume. Transfer the sample to a
glass vial and cap with a Teflon septum. Discard any excess
sample. Place the samples in an ice chest for shipment to the
laboratory.
8.2.2. Adsorbent Tubes. Seal the silica gel adsorbent tubes and
place them in an ice chest for shipment to the laboratory.
9.0 Quality Control
9.1 Miscellaneous Quality Control Measures. The following quality
control measures are required:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Quality control measure Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.1.2, 8.1.3, 10.1.. Sampling equipment leak Ensures accurate
check and calibration. measurement of sample
volume.
10.2................ GC calibration.......... Ensures precision of GC
analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
9.2 Applicability. When the method is used to analyze samples to
demonstrate compliance with a source emission regulation, an audit
sample must be analyzed, subject to availability.
9.3 Audit Procedure. Analyze an audit sample with each set of
compliance samples. Concurrently analyze the audit sample and a set of
compliance samples in the same manner to evaluate the technique of the
analyst and the standards preparation. The same analyst, analytical
reagents, and analytical system shall be used both for the compliance
samples and the EPA audit sample.
9.4 Audit Sample Availability. Audit samples will be supplied only
to enforcement agencies for compliance tests. Audit samples may be
obtained by writing: Source Test Audit Coordinator (MD-77B), Air
Measurement Research Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
or by calling the Source Test Audit Coordinator (STAC) at (919) 541-
7834. The audit sample request must be made at least 30 days prior to
the scheduled compliance sample analysis.
9.5 Audit Results. Calculate the audit sample concentration
according to the calculation procedure provided in the audit
instructions included with the audit sample. Fill in the audit sample
concentration and the analyst's name on the audit response form
included with the audit instructions. Send one copy to the EPA Regional
Office or the appropriate enforcement agency and a second copy to the
STAC. The EPA Regional office or the appropriate enforcement agency
will report the results of the audit to the laboratory being audited.
Include this response with the results of the compliance samples in
relevant reports to the EPA Regional Office or the appropriate
enforcement agency.
10.0 Calibration and Standardization
10.1 Metering System. The following items are required for the
metering system:
10.1.1 Initial Calibration.
10.1.1.1 Before its initial use in the field, first leak-check the
metering system (drying tube, needle valve, pump, rotameter, and DGM)
as follows: Place a vacuum gauge at the inlet to the drying tube, and
pull a vacuum of 250 mm (10 inch) Hg; plug or pinch off the outlet of
the flow meter, and then turn off the pump. The vacuum shall remain
stable for at least 30 seconds. Carefully release the vacuum gauge
before releasing the flow meter end.
10.1.1.2 Next, remove the drying tube, and calibrate the metering
system (at the sampling flow rate specified by the method) as follows:
Connect an appropriately sized wet test meter (e.g., 1 liter per
revolution (0.035 cubic feet per revolution)) to the inlet of the
drying tube. Make three independent calibrations runs, using at least
five revolutions of the DGM per run. Calculate the calibration factor,
Y (wet test meter calibration volume divided by the DGM volume, both
volumes adjusted to the same reference temperature and pressure), for
each run, and average the results. If any Y-value deviates by more than
2 percent from the average, the metering system is unacceptable for
use. Otherwise, use the average as the calibration factor for
subsequent test runs.
10.1.2 Posttest Calibration Check. After each field test series,
conduct a calibration check as in section 10.1.1 above, except for the
following variations: (a) The leak check is not to be conducted, (b)
three, or more revolutions of the DGM may be used, and (c) only two
independent runs need be made. If the calibration factor does not
deviate by more than 5 percent from the initial calibration factor
(determined in section 10.1.1), then the DGM volumes obtained during
the test series are acceptable. If the calibration factor deviates by
more than 5 percent, recalibrate the metering system as in section
10.1.1, and for the calculations, use the calibration factor (initial
or recalibration) that yields the lower gas volume for each test run.
10.1.3 Temperature Sensors. Calibrate against mercury-in-glass
thermometers.
10.1.4 Rotameter. The rotameter need not be calibrated, but should
be cleaned and maintained according to the manufacturer's instruction.
10.1.5 Barometer. Calibrate against a mercury barometer.
10.2 Gas Chromatograph. The following procedures are required for
the gas chromatograph:
10.2.1 Initial Calibration. Inject 1 l of each of the
standards prepared in sections 7.2.3.3 and 7.2.3.4 into the GC and
record the response. Repeat the injections for each standard until two
successive injections agree within 5 percent. Using the mean response
for
[[Page 18634]]
each calibration standard, prepare a linear least squares equation
relating the response to the mass of methanol in the sample. Perform
the calibration before analyzing each set of samples.
10.2.2 Continuing Calibration. At the beginning of each day,
analyze the mid level calibration standard as described in section
10.5.1. The response from the daily analysis must agree with the
response from the initial calibration within 10 percent. If it does
not, the initial calibration must be repeated.
11.0 Analytical Procedure
11.1 Gas Chromatograph Operating Conditions. The following
operating conditions are required for the GC:
11.1.1 Injector. Configured for capillary column, splitless, 200
deg.C (392 deg.F).
11.1.2 Carrier. Helium at 10 ml/min.
11.1.3 Oven. Initially at 45 deg.C for 3 minutes; then raise by
10 deg.C to 70 deg.C; then raise by 70 deg.C/min to 200 deg.C.
11.2 Impinger Sample. Inject 1 l of the stored sample
into the GC. Repeat the injection and average the results. If the
sample response is above that of the highest calibration standard,
either dilute the sample until it is in the measurement range of the
calibration line or prepare additional calibration standards. If the
sample response is below that of the lowest calibration standard,
prepare additional calibration standards. If additional calibration
standards are prepared, there shall be at least two that bracket the
response of the sample. These standards should produce approximately 50
percent and 150 percent of the response of the sample.
11.3 Silica Gel Adsorbent Sample. The following items are required
for the silica gel adsorbent samples:
11.3.1 Preparation of Samples. Extract the front and backup
sections of the adsorbent tube separately. With a file, score the glass
adsorbent tube in front of the first section of silica gel. Break the
tube open. Remove and discard the glass wool. Transfer the first
section of the silica gel to a 5-ml glass vial and stopper the vial.
Remove the spacer between the first and second section of the adsorbent
tube and discard it. Transfer the second section of silica gel to a
separate 5-ml glass vial and stopper the vial.
11.3.2 Desorption of Samples. Add 3 ml of the 10 percent n-
propanol solution to each of the stoppered vials and shake or vibrate
the vials for 30 minutes.
11.3.3 Inject a 1-l aliquot of the diluted sample from
each vial into the GC. Repeat the injection and average the results. If
the sample response is above that of the highest calibration standard,
either dilute the sample until it is in the measurement range of the
calibration line or prepare additional calibration standards. If the
sample response is below that of the lowest calibration standard,
prepare additional calibration standards. If additional calibration
standards are prepared, there shall be at least two that bracket the
response of the sample. These standards should produce approximately 50
percent and 150 percent of the response of the sample.
12.0 Data Analysis and Calculations
12.1 Nomenclature.
Caf=Concentration of methanol in the front of the adsorbent
tube, g/ml.
Cab=Concentration of methanol in the back of the adsorbent
tube, g/ml.
Ci=Concentration of methanol in the impinger portion of the
sample train, g/ml.
E=Mass emission rate of methanol, g/hr (lb/hr).
Mtot=Total mass of methanol collected in the sample train,
g.
Pbar=Barometric pressure at the exit orifice of the DGM, mm
Hg (in. Hg).
Pstd=Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg).
Qstd=Dry volumetric stack gas flow rate corrected to
standard conditions, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
Tm=Average DGM absolute temperature, degrees K ( deg.R).
Tstd=Standard absolute temperature, 293 degrees K (528
deg.R).
Vaf=Volume of front half adsorbent sample, ml.
Vab=Volume of back half adsorbent sample, ml.
Vi=Volume of impinger sample, ml.
Vm=Dry gas volume as measured by the DGM, dry cubic meters
(dcm), dry cubic feet (dcf).
Vm(std)=Dry gas volume measured by the DGM, corrected to
standard conditions, dry standard cubic meters (dscm), dry standard
cubic feet (dscf).
12.2 Mass of Methanol. Calculate the total mass of methanol
collected in the sampling train using Equation 308-1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.015
12.3 Dry Sample Gas Volume, Corrected to Standard Conditions.
Calculate the volume of gas sampled at standard conditions using
Equation 308-2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.016
12.4 Mass Emission Rate of Methanol. Calculate the mass emission
rate of methanol using Equation 308-3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.017
13.0 Method Performance [Reserved]
14.0 Pollution Prevention [Reserved]
15.0 Waste Management [Reserved]
16.0 Bibliography
1. Rom, J.J. ``Maintenance, Calibration, and Operation of
Isokinetic Source Sampling Equipment.'' Office of Air Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. APTD-0576
March 1972.
2. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Part 31; Water, Atmospheric
Analysis. American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA.
1974. pp. 40-42.
3. Westlin, P.R. and R.T. Shigehara. ``Procedure for Calibrating
and Using Dry Gas Volume Meters as Calibration Standards.'' Source
Evaluation Society Newsletter. 3(1) :17-30. February 1978.
4. Yu, K.K. ``Evaluation of Moisture Effect on Dry Gas Meter
Calibration.'' Source Evaluation Society Newsletter. 5(1) :24-28.
February 1980.
5. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Volume 2. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health. Center for Disease Control. 4676
[[Page 18635]]
Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45226. (available from the
Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
20402.)
6. Pinkerton, J.E. ``Method for Measuring Methanol in Pulp Mill
Vent Gases.'' National Council of the Pulp and Paper Industry for Air
and Stream Improvement, Inc., New York, NY.
17.0 Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data
[Reserved].
* * * * *
PART 261--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation of part 261 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.
2. Section 261.4 is amended by adding paragraph (a) (15) to read as
follows:
Sec. 261.4 Exclusions.
(a) * * *
(15) Condensates derived from the overhead gases from kraft mill
steam strippers that are used to comply with 40 CFR 63.446(e). The
exemption applies only to combustion at the mill generating the
condensates.
* * * * *
1. Part 430 is revised to read as follows:
PART 430--THE PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
General Provisions
Sec.
430.00 Applicability.
430.01 General definitions.
430.02 Monitoring requirements.
430.03 Best management practices (BMPs) for spent pulping liquor,
soap, and turpentine management, spill prevention, and control.
Subpart A--Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
Sec.
430.10 Applicability; description of the dissolving kraft
subcategory.
430.11 Specialized definitions.
430.12 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.13 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT).
430.14 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.15 New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart B--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Sec.
430.20 Applicability; description of the bleached papergrade kraft
and soda subcategory.
430.21 Specialized definitions.
430.22 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.23 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.24 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.25 New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.26 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.27 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
430.28 Best management practices (BMPs).
Subpart C--Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
Sec.
430.30 Applicability; description of the unbleached kraft
subcategory.
430.31 Specialized definitions.
430.32 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.33 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.34 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.35 New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.36 Pretreatment standards for existing (PSES).
430.37 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart D--Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
Sec.
430.40 Applicability; description of the dissolving sulfite
subcategory.
430.41 Specialized definitions.
430.42 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.43 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.44 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.45 New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.46 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.47 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart E--Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
Sec.
430.50 Applicability; description of the papergrade sulfite
subcategory.
430.51 Specialized definitions.
430.52 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.53 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.54 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.55 New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.56 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.57 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
430.58 Best management practices (BMPs).
Subpart F--Semi-Chemical Subcategory
Sec.
430.60 Applicability; description of the semi-chemical subcategory.
430.61 Specialized definitions.
430.62 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.63 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.64 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.65 New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.66 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.67 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart G--Mechanical Pulp Subcategory
Sec.
430.70 Applicability; description of the mechanical pulp
subcategory.
430.71 Specialized definitions.
430.72 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
[[Page 18636]]
430.73 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.74 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.75 New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.76 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.77 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart H--Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory
Sec.
430.80 Applicability; description of the non-wood chemical pulp
subcategory.
430.81 Specialized definitions.
430.82 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT). [Reserved]
430.83 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT). [Reserved]
430.84 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
430.85 New source performance standards (NSPS). [Reserved]
430.86 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
[Reserved]
430.87 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). [Reserved]
Subpart I--Secondary Fiber Deink Subcategory
Sec.
430.90 Applicability; description of the secondary fiber deink
subcategory.
430.91 Specialized definitions.
430.92 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.93 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.94 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.95 New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.96 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.97 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart J--Secondary Fiber Non-Deink Subcategory
Sec.
430.100 Applicability; description of the secondary fiber non-deink
subcategory.
430.101 Specialized definitions.
430.102 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.103 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.104 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.105 New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.106 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.107 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart K--Fine and Lightweight Papers From Purchased Pulp Subcategory
Sec.
430.110 Applicability; description of the fine and lightweight
papers from purchased pulp subcategory.
430.111 Specialized definitions.
430.112 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.113 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.114 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.115 New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.116 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.117 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart L--Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard From Purchased
Pulp Subcategory
Sec.
430.120 Applicability; description of the tissue, filter, non-
woven, and paperboard from purchased pulp subcategory.
430.121 Specialized definitions.
430.122 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.123 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.124 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.125 New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.126 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.127 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Appendix A to Part 430--Methods 1650 and 1653
Authority: Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the
Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317,
1318, 1342, and 1361), and Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412).
General Provisions
Sec. 430.00 Applicability.
(a) This part applies to any pulp, paper, or paperboard mill that
discharges or may discharge process wastewater pollutants to the waters
of the United States, or that introduces or may introduce process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works.
(b) The following table presents the subcategorization scheme
codified in this part, with references to former subpart designations
contained in the 1997 edition of 40 CFR parts 425 through 699:
[[Page 18637]]
Subcategorization Scheme With References to Former Subparts Contained in the July 1, 1997 Edition of 40 CFR
Parts 425 Through 699
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final codified subpart Final subcategorization scheme Types of products covered in the subpart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A......................... Dissolving Kraft.............. Dissolving pulp at kraft mills (Fa)
B......................... Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Market pulp at bleached kraft mills (Ga);
Soda. paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper at
bleached kraft mills (Ha); pulp and fine papers at
bleached kraft mills (Ia); and pulp and paper at
soda mills (Pa).
C......................... Unbleached Kraft.............. Pulp and paper at unbleached kraft mills including
linerboard or bag paper and other mixed products
(Aa); pulp and paper using the unbleached kraft-
neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery)
process (Da); and pulp and paper at combined
unbleached kraft and semi-chemical mills, wherein
the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned
within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery
system (Va).
D......................... Dissolving Sulfite............ Pulp at dissolving sulfite mills for the following
grades: nitration, viscose, cellophane, and acetate
(Ka).
E......................... Papergrade Sulfite............ Pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills where
--Calcium-, Magnesium-, or blow pit pulp washing techniques are used (Ja) and
Sodium-based pulps. pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills where
--Ammonium-based pulps. vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp
--Specialty grade pulps. (Ua).
F......................... Semi-Chemical................. Pulp and paper at semi-chemical mills using an
ammonia base or a sodium base (Ba).
G......................... Mechanical Pulp............... Pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills
(La); pulp and paper at groundwood mills through
the application of the thermo-mechanical process
(Ma); pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products,
and newsprint at groundwood mills (Na); and pulp
and fine paper at groundwood mills (Oa).
H......................... Non-Wood Chemical Pulp........ Pulp and paper at non-wood chemical pulp mills.
I......................... Secondary Fiber Deink......... Pulp and paper at deink mills including fine papers,
tissue papers, or newsprint (Qa).
J......................... Secondary Fiber Non-Deink..... Paperboard from wastepaper from noncorrugating
medium furnish or from corrugating medium furnish
(Ea); tissue paper from wastepaper without deinking
at secondary fiber mills (Ta); molded products from
wastepaper without deinking (Wa); and builders'
paper and roofing felt from wastepaper (40 CFR Part
431, Subpart Aa).
K......................... Fine and Lightweight Papers Fine Papers at nonintegrated mills using wood fiber
from Purchased Pulp. furnish or cotton fiber furnish (Ra); and
lightweight papers at nonintegrated mills or
lightweight electrical papers at nonintegrated
mills (Xa).
L......................... Tissue, Filter, Non-woven, and Tissue papers at nonintegrated mills (Sa); filter
Paperboard from Purchased and non-woven papers at nonintegrated mills (Ya);
Pulp. and paperboard at nonintegrated mills (Za).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a This subpart is contained in the 40 CFR parts 425 through 699, edition revised as of July 1, 1997.
Sec. 430.01 General definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth in 40 CFR part 401 and 40
CFR 403.3, the following definitions apply to this part:
(a) Adsorbable organic halides (AOX). A bulk parameter that
measures the total mass of chlorinated organic matter in water and
wastewater.
(b) Annual average. The mean concentration, mass loading or
production-normalized mass loading of a pollutant over a period of 365
consecutive days (or such other period of time determined by the
permitting authority to be sufficiently long to encompass expected
variability of the concentration, mass loading, or production-
normalized mass loading at the relevant point of measurement).
(c) Bleach plant. All process equipment used for bleaching
beginning with the first application of bleaching agents (e.g.,
chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone, sodium or calcium hypochlorite, or
peroxide), each subsequent extraction stage, and each subsequent stage
where bleaching agents are applied to the pulp. For mills in Subpart E
of this part producing specialty grades of pulp, the bleach plant
includes process equipment used for the hydrolysis or extraction stages
prior to the first application of bleaching agents. Process equipment
used for oxygen delignification prior to the application of bleaching
agents is not part of the bleach plant.
(d) Bleach plant effluent. The total discharge of process
wastewaters from the bleach plant from each physical bleach line
operated at the mill, comprising separate acid and alkaline filtrates
or the combination thereof.
(e) Chemical oxygen demand (COD). A bulk parameter that measures
the oxygen-consuming capacity of organic and inorganic matter present
in water or wastewater. It is expressed as the amount of oxygen
consumed from a chemical oxidant in a specific test.
(f) Elemental chlorine-free (ECF). Any process for bleaching pulps
in the absence of elemental chlorine and hypochlorite that uses
exclusively chlorine dioxide as the only chlorine-containing bleaching
agent.
(g) End of the pipe. The point at which final mill effluent is
discharged to waters of the United States or introduced to a POTW.
(h) Fiber line. A series of operations employed to convert wood or
other fibrous raw material into pulp. If the final product is bleached
pulp, the fiber line encompasses pulping, de-knotting, brownstock
washing, pulp screening, centrifugal cleaning, and multiple bleaching
and washing stages.
(i) Minimum level (ML). The level at which the analytical system
gives recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point. The
following minimum levels apply to pollutants in this part.
[[Page 18638]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pollutant Method Minimum level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-TCDD...................... 1613 10 pg/L a
2,3,7,8-TCDF...................... 1613 10 pg/L a
Trichlorosyringol................. 1653 2.5 ug/L b
3,4,5-Trichlorocatechol........... 1653 5.0 ug/L b
3,4,6-Trichlorocatechol........... 1653 5.0 ug/L b
3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacol........... 1653 2.5 ug/L b
3,4,6-Trichloroguaiacol........... 1653 2.5 ug/L b
4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol........... 1653 2.5 ug/L b
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol............. 1653 2.5 ug/L b
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol............. 1653 2.5 ug/L b
Tetrachlorocatechol............... 1653 5.0 ug/L b
Tetrachloroguaiacol............... 1653 5.0 ug/L b
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol......... 1653 2.5 ug/L b
Pentachlorophenol................. 1653 5.0 ug/L b
AOX............................... 1650 20 ug/L b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Picograms per liter.
b Micrograms per liter.
(j) New source. (1) Notwithstanding the criteria codified at 40 CFR
122.29(b)(1), a source subject to subpart B or E of this part is a
``new source'' if it meets the definition of ``new source'' at 40 CFR
122.2 and:
(i) It is constructed at a site at which no other source is
located; or
(ii) It totally replaces the process or production equipment that
causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source, including the
total replacement of a fiber line that causes the discharge of
pollutants at an existing source, except as provided in paragraph
(j)(2) of this section; or
(iii) Its processes are substantially independent of an existing
source at the same site. In determining whether these processes are
substantially independent, the Director shall consider such factors as
the extent to which the new facility is integrated with the existing
plant; and the extent to which the new facility is engaged in the same
general type of activity as the existing source.
(2) The following are examples of changes made by mills subject to
subparts B or E of this part that alone do not cause an existing mill
to become a ``new source'':
(i) Upgrades of existing pulping operations;
(ii) Upgrades or replacement of pulp screening and washing
operations;
(iii) Installation of extended cooking and/or oxygen
delignification systems or other post-digester, pre-bleaching
delignification systems;
(iv) Bleach plant modifications including changes in methods or
amounts of chemical applications, new chemical applications,
installation of new bleaching towers to facilitate replacement of
sodium or calcium hypochlorite, and installation of new pulp washing
systems; or
(v) Total replacement of process or production equipment that
causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source (including a
replacement fiber line), but only if such replacement is performed for
the purpose of achieving limitations that have been included in the
discharger's NPDES permit pursuant to Sec. 430.24(b).
(k) Non-continuous discharger. (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(k)(2) of this section, a non-continuous discharger is a mill which is
prohibited by the NPDES authority from discharging pollutants during
specific periods of time for reasons other than treatment plant upset
control, such periods being at least 24 hours in duration. A mill shall
not be deemed a non-continuous discharger unless its permit, in
addition to setting forth the prohibition described above, requires
compliance with the effluent limitations established for non-continuous
dischargers and also requires compliance with maximum day and average
of 30 consecutive days effluent limitations. Such maximum day and
average of 30 consecutive days effluent limitations for non-continuous
dischargers shall be established by the NPDES authority in the form of
concentrations which reflect wastewater treatment levels that are
representative of the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available, the best conventional pollutant control
technology, or new source performance standards in lieu of the maximum
day and average of 30 consecutive days effluent limitations for
conventional pollutants set forth in each subpart.
(2) A mill is a non-continuous discharger for the purposes of
determining applicable effluent limitations under subpart B or E of
this part (other than conventional limits for existing sources) if, for
reasons other than treatment plant upset control (e.g., protecting
receiving water quality), the mill is prohibited by the NPDES authority
from discharging pollutants during specific periods of time or if it is
required to release its discharge on a variable flow or pollutant
loading rate basis.
(l) POTW. Publicly owned treatment works as defined at 40 CFR
403.3(o).
(m) Process wastewater. For subparts B and E only, process
wastewater is any water that, during manufacturing or processing, comes
into direct contact with or results from the production or use of any
raw material, intermediate product, finished product, byproduct, or
waste product. For purposes of subparts B and E of this part, process
wastewater includes boiler blowdown; wastewaters from water treatment
and other utility operations; blowdowns from high rate (e.g., greater
than 98 percent) recycled non-contact cooling water systems to the
extent they are mixed and co-treated with other process wastewaters;
wastewater, including leachates, from landfills owned by pulp and paper
mills subject to subpart B or E of this part if the wastewater is
commingled with wastewater from the mill's manufacturing or processing
facility; and storm waters from the immediate process areas to the
extent they are mixed and co-treated with other process wastewaters.
For purposes of this part, contaminated groundwaters from on-site or
off-site groundwater remediation projects are not process wastewater.
(n) Production. (1) For all limitations and standards specified in
this part except those pertaining to AOX and chloroform: Production
shall be defined as the annual off-the-machine production (including
off-the-machine coating where applicable) divided by the number of
operating days during that year. Paper and paperboard production shall
be measured at the off-the-machine moisture content, except for subpart
C of this part (as it pertains to pulp and paperboard production at
[[Page 18639]]
unbleached kraft mills including linerboard or bag paper and other
mixed products, and to pulp and paperboard production using the
unbleached kraft neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery)
process), and subparts F and J of this part (as they pertain to
paperboard production from wastepaper from noncorrugating medium
furnish or from corrugating medium furnish) where paper and paperboard
production shall be measured in air-dry-tons (10% moisture content).
Market pulp shall be measured in air-dry tons (10% moisture).
Production shall be determined for each mill based upon past production
practices, present trends, or committed growth.
(2) For AOX and chloroform limitations and standards specified in
subparts B and E of this part: Production shall be defined as the
annual unbleached pulp production entering the first stage of the
bleach plant divided by the number of operating days during that year.
Unbleached pulp production shall be measured in air-dried-metric-tons
(10% moisture) of brownstock pulp entering the bleach plant at the
stage during which chlorine or chlorine-containing compounds are first
applied to the pulp. In the case of bleach plants that use totally
chlorine free bleaching processes, unbleached pulp production shall be
measured in air-dried-metric tons (10% moisture) of brownstock pulp
entering the first stage of the bleach plant from which wastewater is
discharged. Production shall be determined for each mill based upon
past production practices, present trends, or committed growth.
(o) TCDD. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
(p) TCDF. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-furan.
(q) Totally chlorine-free (TCF) bleaching. Pulp bleaching
operations that are performed without the use of chlorine, sodium
hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, chlorine
monoxide, or any other chlorine-containing compound.
(r) Wet Barking. Wet barking operations shall be defined to include
hydraulic barking operations and wet drum barking operations which are
those drum barking operations that use substantial quantities of water
in either water sprays in the barking drums or in a partial submersion
of the drums in a ``tub'' of water.
Sec. 430.02 Monitoring requirements.
This section establishes minimum monitoring frequencies for certain
pollutants. Where no monitoring frequency is specified in this section
or where the duration of the minimum monitoring frequency has expired
under paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, the permit writer or
pretreatment control authority shall determine the appropriate
monitoring frequency in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(i) or 40 CFR part
403, as applicable.
(a) BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS monitoring frequency for chlorinated
organic pollutants. The following monitoring frequencies apply to
discharges subject to subpart B or subpart E of this part:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum monitoring frequency
CAS number Pollutant ------------------------------------------------------------
Non-TCFa TCFb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1198556.................. Tetrachlorocatechol..... Monthly...................... (c)
2539175.................. Tetrachloroguaiacol..... Monthly...................... (c)
2539266.................. Trichlorosyringol....... Monthly...................... (c)
2668248.................. 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol. Monthly...................... (c)
32139723................. 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol. Monthly...................... (c)
56961207................. 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol. Monthly...................... (c)
57057837................. 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol. Monthly...................... (c)
58902.................... 2,3,4,6- Monthly...................... (c)
tetrachlorophenol.
60712449................. 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol. Monthly...................... (c)
87865.................... Pentachlorophenold...... Monthly...................... (c)
88062.................... 2,4,6-trichlorophenold.. Monthly...................... (c)
95954.................... 2,4,5-trichlorophenold.. Monthly...................... (c)
1746016.................. 2,3,7,8-TCDD............ Monthly...................... (c)
51207319................. 2,3,7,8-TCDF............ Monthly...................... (c)
67663.................... chloroforme............. Weekly....................... (c)
59473040................. AOXf.................... Daily........................ None specified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Non-TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively TCF bleaching processes.
b TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger
in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22 or, for indirect
dischargers, as reported to the pretreatment control authority under 40 CFR 403.12 (b), (d), or (e).
c This regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for TCF bleaching processes.
d Monitoring frequency does not apply to this compound when used as a biocide. The permitting or pretreatment
control authority must determine the appropriate monitoring frequency for this compound, when used as a
biocide, under 40 CFR 122.44(i) or 40 CFR Part 403, as applicable.
e This regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for Subpart E mills.
f This regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for the ammonium-based or specialty grade sulfite
pulp segments of Subpart E.
(b) Duration of required monitoring for BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS.
The monitoring frequencies specified in paragraph (a) of this section
apply for the following time periods:
(1) For direct dischargers, a duration of five years commencing on
the date the applicable limitations or standards from subpart B or
subpart E of this part are first included in the discharger's NPDES
permit;
(2) For existing indirect dischargers, until April 17, 2006;
(3) For new indirect dischargers, a duration of five years
commencing on the date the indirect discharger commences operation.
(c) Reduced monitoring frequencies for bleach plant pollutants
under the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. The
following monitoring frequencies apply to mills enrolled in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program established under
subpart B of this part for a duration of five years commencing after
achievement of the applicable BAT limitations specified in
Sec. 430.24(b)(3) or NSPS specified in Sec. 430.25(c)(1) for the
following pollutants, except as noted in footnote f:
[[Page 18640]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum monitoring frequency
CAS number Pollutant --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-ECF a Advanced ECF b,f TCF c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1198556.......... Tetrachlorocatecho Monthly................ Monthly (d)
l.
2539175.......... Tetrachloroguiacol Monthly................ Monthly (d)
2539266.......... Trichlorosyringol. Monthly................ Monthly (d)
2668248.......... 4,5,6- Monthly................ Monthly (d)
trichloroguaiacol.
32139723......... 3,4,6- Monthly................ Monthly (d)
trichlorocatechol.
56961207......... 3,4,5- Monthly................ Monthly (d)
trichlorocatechol.
57057837......... 3,4,5- Monthly................ Monthly (d)
trichloroguaiacol.
58902............ 2,3,4,6- Monthly................ Monthly (d)
tetrachlorophenol.
60712449......... 3,4,6- Monthly................ Monthly (d)
trichloroguaiacol.
87865............ Pentachlorophenol Monthly................ Monthly (d)
e.
88062............ 2,4,6- Monthly................ Monthly (d)
trichlorophenol e.
95954............ 2,4,5- Monthly................ Monthly (d)
trichlorophenol e.
1746016.......... 2,3,7,8-TCDD...... Monthly................ Monthly (d)
51207319......... 2,3,7,8-TCDF...... Monthly................ Monthly (d)
67663............ Chloroform........ Weekly................. Monthly (d)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Non-ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively ECF or TCF bleaching processes.
b Advanced ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively Advanced ECF bleaching processes, or
exclusively ECF and TCF bleaching processes as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40
CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. Advanced ECF consists of the use of extended
delignification or other technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance levels specified in Sec.
430.24(b)(4)(i).
c TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger
in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22.
d This regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for TCF bleaching processes.
e Monitoring frequency does not apply to this compound when used as a biocide. The permitting authority must
determine the appropriate monitoring frequency for this compound, when used as a biocide, under 40 CFR
122.44(i).
f Monitoring requirements for these pollutants by mills certifying as Advanced ECF in their NPDES permit
application or other communication to the permitting authority will be suspended after one year of monitoring.
The permitting authority must determine the appropriate monitoring frequency for these pollutants beyond that
time under 40 CFR 122.44(i).
(d) Reduced monitoring frequencies for AOX under the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program (year one). The following
monitoring frequencies apply to direct dischargers enrolled in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program established under
Subpart B of this part for a duration of one year after achievement of
the applicable BAT limitations specified in Sec. 430.24(b)(4)(i) or
NSPS specified in Sec. 430.25(c)(2):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced ECF, any tier
CAS number Pollutant Non-ECF, any tier a b TCF, any tier c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59473040......... AOX............... Daily.................. Weekly................. None specified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Non-ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively ECF or TCF bleaching processes.
b Advanced ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively Advanced ECF bleaching processes or exclusively
ECF and TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR
122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. Advanced ECF consists of the use of extended delignification
or other technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance levels specified in Sec. 430.24(b)(4)(i).
c TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger
in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22.
(e) Reduced monitoring frequencies for AOX under the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program (years two through five). The
following monitoring frequencies apply to mills enrolled in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program established under
Subpart B of this part for a duration of four years starting one year
after achievement of the applicable BAT limitations specified in
Sec. 430.24(b)(4)(i) or NSPS specified in Sec. 430.25(c)(2):
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced ECF--tier I Advanced ECF--tier Advanced ECF--tier
CAS number Pollutant Non-ECF any tier a b II b III b TCF-- any tier c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59473040.......... AOX.................. Daily................ Monthly............. Quarterly........... Annually............ None specified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Non-ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively ECF or TCF bleaching processes.
b Advanced ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively Advanced ECF bleaching processes or exclusively ECF and TCF bleaching processes, as
disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. Advanced ECF consists of the use of
extended delignification or other technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance levels specified in Sec. 430.24(b)(4)(i).
c TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR
122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22.
[[Page 18641]]
Sec. 430.03 Best management practices (BMPs) for spent pulping liquor,
soap, and turpentine management, spill prevention, and control.
(a) Applicability. This section applies to direct and indirect
discharging pulp, paper, and paperboard mills with pulp production in
subparts B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and E (Papergrade
Sulfite).
(b) Specialized definitions. (1) Action Level: A daily pollutant
loading that when exceeded triggers investigative or corrective action.
Mills determine action levels by a statistical analysis of six months
of daily measurements collected at the mill. For example, the lower
action level may be the 75th percentile of the running seven-day
averages (that value exceeded by 25 percent of the running seven-day
averages) and the upper action level may be the 90th percentile of the
running seven-day averages (that value exceeded by 10 percent of the
running seven-day averages).
(2) Equipment Items in Spent Pulping Liquor, Soap, and Turpentine
Service: Any process vessel, storage tank, pumping system, evaporator,
heat exchanger, recovery furnace or boiler, pipeline, valve, fitting,
or other device that contains, processes, transports, or comes into
contact with spent pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine. Sometimes
referred to as ``equipment items.''
(3) Immediate Process Area: The location at the mill where pulping,
screening, knotting, pulp washing, pulping liquor concentration,
pulping liquor processing, and chemical recovery facilities are
located, generally the battery limits of the aforementioned processes.
``Immediate process area'' includes spent pulping liquor storage and
spill control tanks located at the mill, whether or not they are
located in the immediate process area.
(4) Intentional Diversion: The planned removal of spent pulping
liquor, soap, or turpentine from equipment items in spent pulping
liquor, soap, or turpentine service by the mill for any purpose
including, but not limited to, maintenance, grade changes, or process
shutdowns.
(5) Mill: The owner or operator of a direct or indirect discharging
pulp, paper, or paperboard manufacturing facility subject to this
section.
(6) Senior Technical Manager: The person designated by the mill
manager to review the BMP Plan. The senior technical manager shall be
the chief engineer at the mill, the manager of pulping and chemical
recovery operations, or other such responsible person designated by the
mill manager who has knowledge of and responsibility for pulping and
chemical recovery operations.
(7) Soap: The product of reaction between the alkali in kraft
pulping liquor and fatty acid portions of the wood, which precipitate
out when water is evaporated from the spent pulping liquor.
(8) Spent Pulping Liquor: For kraft and soda mills ``spent pulping
liquor'' means black liquor that is used, generated, stored, or
processed at any point in the pulping and chemical recovery processes.
For sulfite mills ``spent pulping liquor'' means any intermediate,
final, or used chemical solution that is used, generated, stored, or
processed at any point in the sulfite pulping and chemical recovery
processes (e.g., ammonium-, calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based
sulfite liquors).
(9) Turpentine: A mixture of terpenes, principally pinene, obtained
by the steam distillation of pine gum recovered from the condensation
of digester relief gases from the cooking of softwoods by the kraft
pulping process. Sometimes referred to as sulfate turpentine.
(c) Requirement to implement Best Management Practices. Each mill
subject to this section must implement the Best Management Practices
(BMPs) specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of this section. The
primary objective of the BMPs is to prevent leaks and spills of spent
pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine. The secondary objective is to
contain, collect, and recover at the immediate process area, or
otherwise control, those leaks, spills, and intentional diversions of
spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine that do occur. BMPs must be
developed according to best engineering practices and must be
implemented in a manner that takes into account the specific
circumstances at each mill. The BMPs are as follows:
(1) The mill must return spilled or diverted spent pulping liquors,
soap, and turpentine to the process to the maximum extent practicable
as determined by the mill, recover such materials outside the process,
or discharge spilled or diverted material at a rate that does not
disrupt the receiving wastewater treatment system.
(2) The mill must establish a program to identify and repair
leaking equipment items. This program must include:
(i) Regular visual inspections (e.g., once per day) of process
areas with equipment items in spent pulping liquor, soap, and
turpentine service;
(ii) Immediate repairs of leaking equipment items, when possible.
Leaking equipment items that cannot be repaired during normal
operations must be identified, temporary means for mitigating the leaks
must be provided, and the leaking equipment items repaired during the
next maintenance outage;
(iii) Identification of conditions under which production will be
curtailed or halted to repair leaking equipment items or to prevent
pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine leaks and spills; and
(iv) A means for tracking repairs over time to identify those
equipment items where upgrade or replacement may be warranted based on
frequency and severity of leaks, spills, or failures.
(3) The mill must operate continuous, automatic monitoring systems
that the mill determines are necessary to detect and control leaks,
spills, and intentional diversions of spent pulping liquor, soap, and
turpentine. These monitoring systems should be integrated with the mill
process control system and may include, e.g., high level monitors and
alarms on storage tanks; process area conductivity (or pH) monitors and
alarms; and process area sewer, process wastewater, and wastewater
treatment plant conductivity (or pH) monitors and alarms.
(4) The mill must establish a program of initial and refresher
training of operators, maintenance personnel, and other technical and
supervisory personnel who have responsibility for operating,
maintaining, or supervising the operation and maintenance of equipment
items in spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine service. The
refresher training must be conducted at least annually and the training
program must be documented.
(5) The mill must prepare a brief report that evaluates each spill
of spent pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine that is not contained at
the immediate process area and any intentional diversion of spent
pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine that is not contained at the
immediate process area. The report must describe the equipment items
involved, the circumstances leading to the incident, the effectiveness
of the corrective actions taken to contain and recover the spill or
intentional diversion, and plans to develop changes to equipment and
operating and maintenance practices as necessary to prevent recurrence.
Discussion of the reports must be included as part of the annual
refresher training.
(6) The mill must establish a program to review any planned
modifications to the pulping and chemical recovery facilities and any
construction activities in the pulping and chemical recovery areas
before these activities commence. The purpose of such review is to
prevent leaks and spills of spent
[[Page 18642]]
pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine during the planned modifications,
and to ensure that construction and supervisory personnel are aware of
possible liquor diversions and of the requirement to prevent leaks and
spills of spent pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine during
construction.
(7) The mill must install and maintain secondary containment (i.e.,
containment constructed of materials impervious to pulping liquors) for
spent pulping liquor bulk storage tanks equivalent to the volume of the
largest tank plus sufficient freeboard for precipitation. An annual
tank integrity testing program, if coupled with other containment or
diversion structures, may be substituted for secondary containment for
spent pulping liquor bulk storage tanks.
(8) The mill must install and maintain secondary containment for
turpentine bulk storage tanks.
(9) The mill must install and maintain curbing, diking or other
means of isolating soap and turpentine processing and loading areas
from the wastewater treatment facilities.
(10) The mill must conduct wastewater monitoring to detect leaks
and spills, to track the effectiveness of the BMPs, and to detect
trends in spent pulping liquor losses. Such monitoring must be
performed in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section.
(d) Requirement to develop a BMP Plan. (1) Each mill subject to
this section must prepare and implement a BMP Plan. The BMP Plan must
be based on a detailed engineering review as described in paragraphs
(d)(2) and (3) of this section. The BMP Plan must specify the
procedures and the practices required for each mill to meet the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, the construction the
mill determines is necessary to meet those requirements including a
schedule for such construction, and the monitoring program (including
the statistically derived action levels) that will be used to meet the
requirements of paragraph (i) of this section. The BMP Plan also must
specify the period of time that the mill determines the action levels
established under paragraph (h) of this section may be exceeded without
triggering the responses specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
(2) Each mill subject to this section must conduct a detailed
engineering review of the pulping and chemical recovery operations--
including but not limited to process equipment, storage tanks,
pipelines and pumping systems, loading and unloading facilities, and
other appurtenant pulping and chemical recovery equipment items in
spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine service--for the purpose of
determining the magnitude and routing of potential leaks, spills, and
intentional diversions of spent pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine
during the following periods of operation:
(i) Process start-ups and shut downs;
(ii) Maintenance;
(iii) Production grade changes;
(iv) Storm or other weather events;
(v) Power failures; and
(vi) Normal operations.
(3) As part of the engineering review, the mill must determine
whether existing spent pulping liquor containment facilities are of
adequate capacity for collection and storage of anticipated intentional
liquor diversions with sufficient contingency for collection and
containment of spills. The engineering review must also consider:
(i) The need for continuous, automatic monitoring systems to detect
and control leaks and spills of spent pulping liquor, soap, and
turpentine;
(ii) The need for process wastewater diversion facilities to
protect end-of-pipe wastewater treatment facilities from adverse
effects of spills and diversions of spent pulping liquors, soap, and
turpentine;
(iii) The potential for contamination of storm water from the
immediate process areas; and
(iv) The extent to which segregation and/or collection and
treatment of contaminated storm water from the immediate process areas
is appropriate.
(e) Amendment of BMP Plan. (1) Each mill subject to this section
must amend its BMP Plan whenever there is a change in mill design,
construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects the
potential for leaks or spills of spent pulping liquor, turpentine, or
soap from the immediate process areas.
(2) Each mill subject to this section must complete a review and
evaluation of the BMP Plan five years after the first BMP Plan is
prepared and, except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section,
once every five years thereafter. As a result of this review and
evaluation, the mill must amend the BMP Plan within three months of the
review if the mill determines that any new or modified management
practices and engineered controls are necessary to reduce significantly
the likelihood of spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine leaks,
spills, or intentional diversions from the immediate process areas,
including a schedule for implementation of such practices and controls.
(f) Review and certification of BMP Plan. The BMP Plan, and any
amendments thereto, must be reviewed by the senior technical manager at
the mill and approved and signed by the mill manager. Any person
signing the BMP Plan or its amendments must certify to the permitting
or pretreatment control authority under penalty of law that the BMP
Plan (or its amendments) has been prepared in accordance with good
engineering practices and in accordance with this regulation. The mill
is not required to obtain approval from the permitting or pretreatment
control authority of the BMP Plan or any amendments thereto.
(g) Record keeping requirements. (1) Each mill subject to this
section must maintain on its premises a complete copy of the current
BMP Plan and the records specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section
and must make such BMP Plan and records available to the permitting or
pretreatment control authority and the Regional Administrator or his or
her designee for review upon request.
(2) The mill must maintain the following records for three years
from the date they are created:
(i) Records tracking the repairs performed in accordance with the
repair program described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section;
(ii) Records of initial and refresher training conducted in
accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of this section;
(iii) Reports prepared in accordance with paragraph (c)(5) of this
section; and
(iv) Records of monitoring required by paragraphs (c)(10) and (i)
of this section.
(h) Establishment of wastewater treatment system influent action
levels. (1) Each mill subject to this section must conduct a monitoring
program, described in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, for the purpose
of defining wastewater treatment system influent characteristics (or
action levels), described in paragraph (h)(3) of this section, that
will trigger requirements to initiate investigations on BMP
effectiveness and to take corrective action.
(2) Each mill subject to this section must employ the following
procedures in order to develop the action levels required by paragraph
(h) of this section:
(i) Monitoring parameters. The mill must collect 24-hour composite
samples and analyze the samples for a measure of organic content (e.g.,
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) or Total Organic Carbon (TOC)).
Alternatively, the mill may use a measure related to spent pulping
liquor losses measured continuously and averaged over 24 hours (e.g.,
specific conductivity or color).
[[Page 18643]]
(ii) Monitoring locations. For direct dischargers, monitoring must
be conducted at the point influent enters the wastewater treatment
system. For indirect dischargers monitoring must be conducted at the
point of discharge to the POTW. For the purposes of this requirement,
the mill may select alternate monitoring point(s) in order to isolate
possible sources of spent pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine from
other possible sources of organic wastewaters that are tributary to the
wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., bleach plants, paper machines
and secondary fiber operations).
(3) By the date prescribed in paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of this
section, each existing discharger subject to this section must complete
an initial six-month monitoring program using the procedures specified
in paragraph (h)(2) of this section and must establish initial action
levels based on the results of that program. A wastewater treatment
influent action level is a statistically determined pollutant loading
determined by a statistical analysis of six months of daily
measurements. The action levels must consist of a lower action level,
which if exceeded will trigger the investigation requirements described
in paragraph (i) of this section, and an upper action level, which if
exceeded will trigger the corrective action requirements described in
paragraph (i) of this section.
(4) By the date prescribed in paragraph (j)(1)(vi) of this section,
each existing discharger must complete a second six-month monitoring
program using the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this
section and must establish revised action levels based on the results
of that program. The initial action levels shall remain in effect until
replaced by revised action levels.
(5) By the date prescribed in paragraph (j)(2) of this section,
each new source subject to this section must complete a six-month
monitoring program using the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2)
of this section and must develop a lower action level and an upper
action level based on the results of that program.
(6) Action levels developed under this paragraph must be revised
using six months of monitoring data after any change in mill design,
construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects the
potential for leaks or spills of spent pulping liquor, soap, or
turpentine from the immediate process areas.
(i) Monitoring, corrective action, and reporting requirements. (1)
Each mill subject to this section must conduct daily monitoring of the
influent to the wastewater treatment system in accordance with the
procedures described in paragraph (h)(2) of this section for the
purpose of detecting leaks and spills, tracking the effectiveness of
the BMPs, and detecting trends in spent pulping liquor losses.
(2) Whenever monitoring results exceed the lower action level for
the period of time specified in the BMP Plan, the mill must conduct an
investigation to determine the cause of such exceedance. Whenever
monitoring results exceed the upper action level for the period of time
specified in the BMP Plan, the mill must complete corrective action to
bring the wastewater treatment system influent mass loading below the
lower action level as soon as practicable.
(3) Although exceedances of the action levels will not constitute
violations of an NPDES permit or pretreatment standard, failure to take
the actions required by paragraph (i)(2) of this section as soon as
practicable will be a permit or pretreatment standard violation.
(4) Each mill subject to this section must report to the NPDES
permitting or pretreatment control authority the results of the daily
monitoring conducted pursuant to paragraph (i)(1) of this section. Such
reports must include a summary of the monitoring results, the number
and dates of exceedances of the applicable action levels, and brief
descriptions of any corrective actions taken to respond to such
exceedances. Submission of such reports shall be at the frequency
established by the NPDES permitting or pretreatment control authority,
but in no case less than once per year.
(j) Compliance deadlines. (1) Existing direct and indirect
dischargers. Except as provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for
new sources, indirect discharging mills subject to this section must
meet the deadlines set forth below. Except as provided in paragraph
(j)(2) of this section for new sources, NPDES permits must require
direct discharging mills subject to this section to meet the deadlines
set forth below. If a deadline set forth below has passed at the time
the NPDES permit containing the BMP requirement is issued, the NPDES
permit must require immediate compliance with such BMP requirement(s).
(i) Prepare BMP Plans and certify to the permitting or pretreatment
authority that the BMP Plan has been prepared in accordance with this
regulation not later than April 15, 1999;
(ii) Implement all BMPs specified in paragraph (c) of this section
that do not require the construction of containment or diversion
structures or the installation of monitoring and alarm systems not
later than April 15, 1999.
(iii) Establish initial action levels required by paragraph (h)(3)
of this section not later than April 15, 1999.
(iv) Commence operation of any new or upgraded continuous,
automatic monitoring systems that the mill determines to be necessary
under paragraph (c)(3) of this section (other than those associated
with construction of containment or diversion structures) not later
than April 17, 2000.
(v) Complete construction and commence operation of any spent
pulping liquor, collection, containment, diversion, or other
facilities, including any associated continuous monitoring systems,
necessary to fully implement BMPs specified in paragraph (c) of this
section not later than April 16, 2001.
(vi) Establish revised action levels required by paragraph (h)(4)
of this section as soon as possible after fully implementing the BMPs
specified in paragraph (c) of this section, but not later than January
15, 2002.
(2) New Sources. Upon commencing discharge, new sources subject to
this section must implement all of the BMPs specified in paragraph (c)
of this section, prepare the BMP Plan required by paragraph (d) of this
section, and certify to the permitting or pretreatment authority that
the BMP Plan has been prepared in accordance with this regulation as
required by paragraph (f) of this section, except that the action
levels required by paragraph (h)(5) of this section must be established
not later than 12 months after commencement of discharge, based on six
months of monitoring data obtained prior to that date in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.
Subpart A--Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
Sec. 430.10 Applicability; description of the dissolving kraft
subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart apply to discharges resulting from
the production of dissolving pulp at kraft mills.
Sec. 430.11 Specialized definitions.
For the purpose of this subpart, the general definitions,
abbreviations, and methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR part 401 and
Sec. 430.01 of this part shall apply to this subpart.
[[Page 18644]]
Sec. 430.12 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous
dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30
consecutive days limitations but shall be subject to annual average
effluent limitations:
Subpart A
[BPT effluent limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
--------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
--------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant property Average of
daily Non-
Maximum for values for continuous
any 1 day 30 dischargers
consecutive
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................. 23.6 12.25 6.88
TSS.............................. 37.3 20.05 11.02
pH............................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
(b) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section,
resulting from the use of wet barking operations, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the
proportion of the mill's total production due to use of logs which are
subject to such operations. Non-continuous dischargers shall not be
subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive days
limitations, but shall be subject to annual average effluent
limitations:
Subpart A
[BPT effluent limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
----------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
--------------------------- Non-
Pollutant or pollutant property Average of continuous
daily values dischargers
Maximum for for 30 (annual
any 1 day consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................... 3.2 1.7 0.95
TSS............................ 6.9 3.75 2.0
pH............................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
(c) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant parameters, controlled by this section,
resulting from the use of log washing or chip washing operations, which
may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this
subpart. These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth
in paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the
proportion of the mill's total production due to use of logs and/or
chips which are subject to such operations. Non-continuous dischargers
shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive
days limitations, but shall be subject to the annual average effluent
limitations:
[[Page 18645]]
Subpart A
[BPT effluent limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
--------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
--------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant property Average of Non-
daily continuous
Maximum for values for dischargers
any 1 day 30 (annual
consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................. 0.35 0.2 0.1
TSS.............................. 0.70 0.4 0.2
pH............................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
(d) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section,
resulting from the use of log flumes or log ponds, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the
proportion of the mill's total production due to use of logs which are
subject to such operations. Non-continuous dischargers shall not be
subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive days
limitations but shall be subject to the annual average effluent
limitations:
Subpart A
[BPT effluent limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
----------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
---------------------------- Non-
Pollutant or pollutant property Average of continuous
daily values dischargers
Maximum for for 30 (annual
any 1 day consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................... 0.6 0.35 0.2
TSS............................ 1.45 0.8 0.4
pH............................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Sec. 430.13 Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart shall achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as those
specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40 CFR
401.16) in Sec. 430.12 of this subpart for the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Sec. 430.14 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart where chlorophenolic-containing
biocides are used must achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best available technology economically achievable
(BAT). Non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum
day mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) but shall be subject to
concentration limitations. Concentration limitations are only
applicable to non-continuous dischargers. Permittees not using
chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing
authority that they are not using these biocides:
[[Page 18646]]
Subpart A
[BAT effluent limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum for any 1 day
------------------------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant Kg/kkg (or
property pounds per
1,000 lb) of Milligrams/liter
product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentachlorophenol............ 0.0025 (0.011)(55.1)/y
Trichlorophenol.............. 0.016 (0.068)(55.1)/y
y = wastewater discharged in
kgal per ton of product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 430.15 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
new source performance standards (NSPS), except that non-continuous
dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30
consecutive days effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS, but shall be
subject to annual average effluent limitations. Also, for non-
continuous dischargers, concentration limitations (mg/l) shall apply,
where provided. Concentration limitations will only apply to non-
continuous dischargers. Only facilities where chlorophenolic-containing
biocides are used shall be subject to pentachlorophenol and
trichlorophenol limitations. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-
containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that
they are not using these biocides:
Subpart A
[NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
--------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
--------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant property Average of Non-
daily continuous
Maximum for values for dischargers
any 1 day 30 (annual
consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................. 15.6 8.4 4.4
TSS.............................. 27.3 14.3 7.5
pH............................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum for any 1 day
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or
pounds per
1,000 lb) Milligrams/liter
of product
Pentachlorophenol.............................. 0.0025 (0.012)(50.7)/y
Trichlorophenol................................ 0.016 (0.074)(50.7)/y
y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at
all times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Sec. 430.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) if it
uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using
chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing
authority that they are not using these biocides. PSES must be attained
on or before July 1, 1984:
[[Page 18647]]
Subpart A
[PSES]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum for any 1 day
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or
Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per
Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of
product a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentachlorophenol............................. (0.011)(55.1)/y................................... 0.0025
Trichlorophenol............................... (0.082)(55.1)/y................................... 0.019
y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of
product.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to
impose mass effluent limitations.
Sec. 430.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment
works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) if it uses
chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using
chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing
authority that they are not using these biocides:
Subpart A
[PSNS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum for any 1 day
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or
Pollutant or pollutant property pounds per
Milligrams/liter (mg/l) 1,000 lb) of
product a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentachlorophenol............................. (0.012)(50.7)/y................................... 0.0025
Trichlorophenol............................... (0.089)(50.7)/y................................... 0.019
y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of
product.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to
impose mass effluent limitations.
Subpart B--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Sec. 430.20 Applicability; description of the bleached papergrade
kraft and soda subcategory.
The provisions of this subpart apply to discharges resulting from:
the production of market pulp at bleached kraft mills; the integrated
production of paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper at bleached
kraft mills; the integrated production of pulp and fine papers at
bleached kraft mills; and the integrated production of pulp and paper
at soda mills.
Sec. 430.21 Specialized definitions.
(a) The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis
set forth in 40 CFR part 401 and Sec. 430.01 of this part apply to this
subpart.
(b) Baseline BAT limitations or NSPS means the BAT limitations
specified in Sec. 430.24(a) (1) or (2), as applicable, and the NSPS
specified in Sec. 430.25(b) (1) or (2), as applicable, that apply to
any direct discharger that is not ``enrolled'' in the ``Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program.''
(c) Enroll means to notify the permitting authority that a mill
intends to participate in the ``Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program.'' A mill can enroll by indicating its intention to
participate in the program either as part of its application for a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, or
through separate correspondence to the permitting authority as long as
the mill signs the correspondence in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22.
(d) Existing effluent quality means the level at which the
pollutants identified in Sec. 430.24(a)(1) are present in the effluent
of a mill ``enrolled'' in the ``Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program.''
(e) Kappa number is a measure of the lignin content in unbleached
pulp, determined after pulping and prior to bleaching.
(f) Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program is the program
established under Sec. 430.24(b) (for existing direct dischargers) and
Sec. 430.25(c) (for new direct dischargers) whereby participating mills
agree to accept enforceable effluent limitations and conditions in
their NPDES permits that are more stringent than the ``baseline BAT
limitations or NSPS'' that would otherwise apply, in exchange for
regulatory- and enforcement-related rewards and incentives.
Sec. 430.22 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
(a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):
[[Page 18648]]
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market
pulp is produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
----------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
Pollutant or pollutant ---------------------------- Non-
parameter Average of continuous
daily values dischargers
Maximum for for 30 (annual
any 1 day consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................... 15.45 8.05 4.52
TSS............................ 30.4 16.4 9.01
pH............................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where
paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
---------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
---------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant parameter Average of Non-
daily continuous
Maximum for values for dischargers
any 1 day 30 (annual
consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................ 13.65 7.1 3.99
TSS............................. 24.0 12.9 7.09
pH.............................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and
fine papers are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
--------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
--------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant parameter Average of Non-
daily continuous
Maximum for values for dischargers
any 1 day 30 (annual
consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................. 10.6 5.5 3.09
TSS.............................. 22.15 11.9 6.54
pH............................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and paper are
produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
--------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
--------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant parameter Average of Non-
daily continuous
Maximum for values for dischargers
any 1 day 30 (annual
consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................. 13.7 7.1 3.99
TSS.............................. 24.5 13.2 7.25
pH............................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
[[Page 18649]]
(b) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section,
resulting from the use of wet barking operations, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the
proportion of the mill's total production due to use of logs which are
subject to such operations:
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market
pulp is produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
---------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
--------------------------- Non-
Pollutant or pollutant parameter Average of continuous
daily values dischargers
Maximum for for 30 (annual
any 1 day consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................ 2.3 1.2 0.70
TSS............................. 5.3 2.85 1.55
pH.............................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where
paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
--------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
--------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant parameter Average of Non-
daily continuous
Maximum for values for dischargers
any 1 day 30 (annual
consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................. 2.25 1.2 0.65
TSS.............................. 5.75 3.1 1.70
pH............................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and
fine papers are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
----------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
Pollutant or pollutant ---------------------------- Non-
parameter Average of continuous
daily values dischargers
Maximum for for 30 (annual
any 1 day consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................... 1.95 1.0 0.55
TSS............................ 5.3 2.85 1.55
pH............................. (1) (1) (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are
produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
----------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
Pollutant or pollutant ---------------------------- Non-
parameter Average of continuous
daily values dischargers
Maximum for for 30 (annual
any 1 day consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................... 2.05 1.1 0.60
[[Page 18650]]
TSS............................ 5.25 2.8 1.55
pH............................. (1) (1) (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
(c) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant parameters, controlled by this section,
resulting from the use of log washing or chip washing operations, which
may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this
subpart. These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth
in paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the
proportion of the mill's total production due to use of logs and/or
chips which are subject to such operations:
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market
pulp is produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
----------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
Pollutant or pollutant ---------------------------- Non-
parameter Average of continuous
daily values dischargers
Maximum for for 30 (annual
any 1 day consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................... 0.2 0.1 0.1
TSS............................ 0.6 0.3 0.15
pH............................. (1) (1) (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times..
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where
paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
----------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
Pollutant or pollutant ---------------------------- Non-
parameter Average of continuous
daily values dischargers
Maximum for for 30 (annual
any 1 day consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................... 0.25 0.15 0.05
TSS............................ 0.65 0.35 0.20
pH............................. (1) (1) (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and
fine papers are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
----------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
Pollutant or pollutant ---------------------------- Non-
parameter Average of continuous
daily values dischargers
Maximum for for 30 (annual
any 1 day consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................... 0.2 0.1 0.05
TSS............................ 0.55 0.3 0.15
[[Page 18651]]
pH............................. (1) (1) (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are
produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
----------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
Pollutant or pollutant ---------------------------- Non-
parameter Average of continuous
daily values dischargers
Maximum for for 30 (annual
any 1 day consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................... 0.15 0.1 0.05
TSS............................ 0.5 0.25 0.15
pH............................. (1) (1) (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
(d) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section,
resulting from the use of log flumes or log ponds, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the
proportion of the mill's total production due to use of logs which are
subject to such operations:
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market
pulp is produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
----------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
Pollutant or pollutant ---------------------------- Non-
parameter Average of continuous
daily values dischargers
Maximum for for 30 (annual
any 1 day consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................... 0.4 0.2 0.15
TSS............................ 1.15 0.6 0.35
pH............................. (1) (1) (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where
paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
----------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
Pollutant or pollutant ---------------------------- Non-
parameter Average of continuous
daily values dischargers
Maximum for for 30 (annual
any 1 day consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5........................... 0.45 0.25 0.10
TSS............................ 1.25 0.7 0.35
[[Page 18652]]
pH............................. (1) (1) (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and
fine papers are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
--------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
--------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant parameter Average of Non-
daily continuous
Maximum for values for dischargers
any 1 day 30 (annual
consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................. 0.35 0.2 0.10
TSS.............................. 1.15 0.6 0.30
pH............................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Subpart B
[BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are
produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
product
--------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers
--------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant parameter Average of Non-
daily continuous
Maximum for values for dischargers
any 1 day 30 (annual
consecutive average)
days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................. 0.3 0.2 0.10
TSS.............................. 1.1 0.55 0.35
pH............................... (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.
Sec. 430.23 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT). The limitations shall be the same as those
specified in Sec. 430.22 of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT).
Sec. 430.24 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section--
(1) The following effluent limitations apply with respect to each
fiber line that does not use an exclusively TCF bleaching process, as
disclosed by the discharger in its NPDES permit application under 40
CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22:
[[Page 18653]]
Subpart B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAT effluent limitations
----------------------------------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant property Monthly
Maximum for any 1 day average
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCDD....................................................... a (b)
TCDF....................................................... 31.9 c (b)
Chloroform................................................. 6.92 d 4.14 (d)
Trichlorosyringol.......................................... a (b)
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol.................................... a (b)
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol.................................... a (b)
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol.................................... a (b)
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol.................................... a (b)
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol.................................... a (b)
2,4,5-trichlorophenol...................................... a (b)
2,4,6-trichlorophenol...................................... a (b)
Tetrachlorocatechol........................................ a (b)
Tetrachloroguaiacol........................................ a (b)
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol.................................. a (