Wednesday
April 15, 1998
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
1850
-------
-------
Federal Register/Vol, 63, No. 72-/Wednesday. April 15, 19987Notices
18399
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as
required by § 106, National Historic
Preservation Act, and the regulations of
the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, 36 CFR 800.4.
1.-Under Section 4.32(b)(7) of the
Commission's regulations (18 CFR
4.32(b)(7)), if any resource agency,
SHPO, Indian Tribe, or person believes
that the applicant should conduct an
additional scientific study to form an
adequate, factual basis for a complete
analysis of this application on its merits,
they must file a request for the study.
with the Commission, together with
justification for such request, not later
than 60 days after application is filed,
and must serve a copy of the request on
the applicant.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FRDoc. 98-9894 Filed 4-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FRL-5978-3]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Best Management
Practices for the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory of the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point •
Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). !
ACTION: Notice.
SUMMARY: In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C-
3501 et seq.), this notice announces that
EPA is planning to submit the following
proposed and/or continuing Information
Collection Request {ICR) to the Office of
Management andjBudget (OMB):
Information Collection Request for Best.
Management Practices, Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards,
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Manufacturing Category (40 CFR Part
430). Before submitting the ICR.to OMB
for review and approval, EPA is
soliciting comment on specific aspects
of the proposed information collection
as described below. !
DATES: Comments must be submitted on
or before June 15, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this
notice in triplicate to Mr. Troy
Swackhammer, Office of Water,
Engineering and Analysis Division
(4303), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20460. In addition to submitting
hard copies of the comments, the public
may also send comments via e-mail to:
swackhammer.j-troy@epamail.epa.gov.
Copies of the draft information
collection request are available at http:/
/www.epa.gov/OST/pulppaper/.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Troy Swackhammer by voice on (202)
260-712, by facsimile on 202-260-7185,
or by e-mail at Swackhammer j-
troy@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated entitles
Entities potentially affected by this
action are those operations that
chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft
or soda methods to produce bleached
papergrade pulp, paperboard, coarse
•paper, tissue paper, fine paper, and/or
paperboard; and those operations that
chemically pulp wood fiber using
papergrade sulfite methods to produce
pulp and/or paper.
Tide: Best Management Practices for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite
Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Point Source Category (EPA
ICRNo. 1829.01).
Abstract: The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established
Best Management Practice provisions as
part of final amendments to 40 CFR Part
430, the Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Point Source Category published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
See 40 CFR Part 430.03. These
provisions, promulgated under the
authorities of Sections 304, 307, 308,
402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act,
require that owners or operators of
bleached papergrade kraft, soda and
sulfite mills implement site-specific
BMPs to prevent or otherwise contain
leaks and spills of spent pulping
liquors, soap and turpentine and to
control intentional diversions of these ;
materials.
EPA has determined that these BMPs
are necessary because the materials
controlled by these practices, if spilled
or otherwise lost, can interfere with
wastewater treatment operations and
lead to increased discharges of toxic,
noncpnventional, and conventional
pollutants. For further discussion of the
need for BMPs, see Section VT.B.7 of the
preamble to the amendments to 40 CFR
Part 430 published elsewhere in today's
Federal Register.
The BMP program includes
information collection requirements that
are intended to help accomplish the
overall purposes of the program by, for
example, training personnel, see 40 CFR
430.03(c)(4), analyzing spills that occur,
see 40 CFR 430.03(c)(5), identifying :
equipment items that might need to be
upgraded or repaired, see 40 CFR
430.03(c)(2), and performing
monitoring—including the operation of
monitoring systems—to detect leaks,
spills and intentional diversion and
generally to evaluate the effectiveness of
the BMPs, see 40 CFR 430.03 (c) (3),
(c)(10), (h), and (i). The regulations also
require mills to develop and, when
appropriate, amend plans specifying
how the mills will implement the
specified BMPs, and to certify to the
permitting or pretreatment authority
that they have done so in accordance
with good engineering practices and the
requirements of the regulation. See 40
CFR 430.03 (d), (e) and (f). The purpose
of those provisions is, respectively, to
facilitate the implementation of BMPs
on a site-specific basis and to help the
regulating authorities to ensure
compliance without requiring the
submission of actual BMP plans.
Finally, the recordkeeping provisions
are intended to facilitate training, to
signal the need for different or more
vigorously implemented BMPs, and to
facilitate compliance assessment. See 40
CFR430.03(g).
EPA has structured the regulation to
provide maximum flexibility to the
regulated community and to minimize
administrative burdens on National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit and pretreatment
control authorities that regulate
bleached papergrade kraft and soda and
papergrade sulfite mills. Although EPA
does not anticipate that mills will be
required to submit any confidential
business information or trade secrets as
part of this ICR, all data claimed as
confidential business information will
be handled by EPA pursuant to 40 CFR
Part 2.
. 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 Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter
15.
Solicitation of Comments
EPA solicits comments that would
help the Agency to better:
(i) evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the Agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;
(ii) 'evaluate the accuracy of the
Agency's estimate of the .burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
-------
18400
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Notices
(iii) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(iv) minimize the burden of the
collection of information on those who
are to respond, including through the
use of appropriate automated electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology (e.g.. permitting
electronic submission of responses).
Burden Statement
The following discussion describes
the information collection requirements
of the BMP regulations and estimates
the burden associated with each one.
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 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 previously
applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
to respond to the collection of
information: search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
The BMP regulations at 40 CFR
430.03 include the following major
components: (1) Development, review
and certification of a BMP plan, which
should include programs to identify and
repair leaking equipment, to track
equipment repairs, to train personnel, to
report and evaluate spills, to review
planned mill modifications, and to
establish wastewater treatment system
influent action levels (including an
initial six-month monitoring program)
in addition to a detailed engineering
review of the pulping and chemical
recovery areas; (2) amendment and
periodic review of the BMP plan; (3)
reporting of spills; (4) additional
monitoring and reporting; and (5)
additional recordkeeping. See 40 CFR
430.03 (c) through (h) and the
"Technical Support Document for Best
Management Practices for Spent Pulping
Liquor Management, Spill Prevention,
and Control," October 1997, DCN
14489, EPA-821-R-97-015 (also
referred to below as the BMP TSD) for
more detailed information on the
requirements. The BMP requirements
apply to approximately 95 papergrade
kraft. soda, and sulfite mills.
a. Development, Review and
Certification of a BMP Plan
which is included in the annual
estimates presented in Table 2.
Development of a site-specific BMP
plan is a one-time initial burden. Plan
preparation costs will vary based upon
mill complexity. EPA anticipates that
mills will use outside consultants under
direction of mill personnel to prepare
the site-specific BMP plan, including
the detailed engineering review. Costs
for preparing the BMP Plan, which
range from $150,000 to $250,000, are
included in the compliance cost
estimates developed for the regulation
•(see Table 9.2 of the BMP TSD, DCN
14489). EPA anticipates mill labor
burden of 40. 60, arid 80 hours (at $30
per hour) for direction and oversight of
the consultant effort for simple,
moderately complex, and complex
mills, respectively. Review of the initial
plan by the senior technical manager
and certification by the mill manager is
expected to take less than one day of
effort (at $40 per hour). These one-time
burden estimates associated with the
BMP plan are summarized in Table 1 of
this notice.
As part of the BMP plan development,
mills must establish a training program
for technical personnel. This training
program must include both an initial
training effort and an annual refresher
training. The burden for initial training
is included in the compliance costs
referenced above (see Table 9.2 of the
BMP TSD, DCN 14489). Burden for
annual refresher training is included in
the annual estimates presented in Table
2 of this notice.
b. Amendment and Periodic Review of
a BMP Plan
Owners or operators must amend
their BMP Plans 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, soap or
turpentine from the immediate process
areas. See 40 CFR 430.03(e)(l). In
addition, owners or operators must
complete a review and evaluation of
their BMP plans at least once every five
years, and amend the plan within three
months if warranted. See 40 CFR
430.03(e)(2). Any BMP plan
amendments also require review by the
senior technical manager and
certification by the mill manager. See 40
CFR430.03(f).
EPA anticipates less than 50 hours of
mill labor per amendment, and based
the ICR burden on an assumption that
each mill would need to amend its BMP
• plan twice every five years, for an
annual burden of 20 hours ($620),
c. Reporting of Spills
Reports of spills of spent pulping
liquor, soap or turpentine not contained
in the immediate process area must list
the equipment involved, the
circumstances leading to. the incident,
the effectiveness of corrective actions
taken and plans to implement future
changes. These reports must be
maintained by the owner or operator,
and they need only be submitted to the
• NPDES permit or pretreatment control
authority upon request. EPA anticipates
that the burden of preparing a spill
report is approximately four hours and •
can be conducted by a mill engineer at
$30 per hour. ICR burden is calculated
on an annual basis using an assumption
of 1 spill per mill per month and is
included in the annual estimates
presented in Table 2.
d. Additional Monitoring arid Reporting
Mills are required to operate
continuous, automatic monitoring
systems that the mill determine are
necessary to detect and control leaks,
spills, and intentional diversions of
spent pulping liquor, soap, and
turpentine. See 40 CFR430.03(c)(3). The
burden for designing, testing, and -
operating the monitoring system,
expressed in the form of costs, is
included in the compliance cost
estimates developed for the regulation
(see Table 9.2 of the BMP TSD, DCN
14489).
In addition, all mills with the
exception of new sources are required to
perform two six-month monitoring
programs in order to determine the
characteristics (or action levels) of their
wastewater treatment system effluent.
See 40 CFR 430.03(h). (New sources are
required to perform only one six-month
monitoring program for this purpose.
See 40 CFR 430.03 (h) (5).) All mills are
also required to perform additional
monitoring to revise those action levels
after any change in mill design,
construction, operation, or maintenance
that materially affects the potential for
leaks or spills or spent pulping liquor,
soap, or turpentine from the immediate
process area. See 40 CFR 430.03 (h) (6).
The effort required to implement the
initial monitoring program and perform
the associated statistical analysis to
establish the action levels is included in
the compliance cost estimates
developed for the regulation, and the
burden to perform monitoring to revise
those action levels is included in the
incremental monitoring burden
discussed below.
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday; April 15, 1998/Notices
18401
The regulation also requires all mills
to conduct daily monitoring of
wastewater treatment system influent
for the purpose of detecting leaks and
spills, tracking the effectiveness of the
BMPs, and detecting trends in spent
pulping liquor losses. See 40 CFR
430.03 (i). EPA estimates the burden
associated with this monitoring to be
increnient of 1 additional hour per day
(at $20/hour) as included in annual
estimates shown in Table 2 of this
notice. Costs for monitoring equipment
were included in the compliance cost
estimates developed for the regulation
(see Table 9.2 of the BMP TSD, DCN
14489). , •
Mill operators are required to provide
•their NPDES permit or pretreatment
control authorities reports of the
monitoring required by the BMP
regulation. The 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
permit or pretreatment control
authority,! but in no case less than once
per year. EPA has based, the burden
estimates on a semi-annual reporting
frequency and estimates that each-report
will take 16 hours to complete,
including both engineer and senior
technical manager effort (also included
in Table 2 estimates).
e. Recordkeeping Requirements
The regulation requires that certain
equipment repair records, records of
employee training, reports of spills
outside the immediate process area, and
records of monitoring conducted as part
Of the BMP program be maintained for
'three years. See 40 CFR 430.03(g). EPA
expects that the level of effort will
depend upon mill complexity. Burden
estimates for recordkeeping are based on
an incremental level of effort to comply
with BMP requirements consisting of 2
to 4 hours per month for the operators/
shift supervisors over current shift log
recordkeeping (at $20 per hour), 2 to 4
hours per months for engineering
technicians (at $30 per hour), and two
hours per month for clerical support (at
.$15 per hour). These burden estimates
are also included in the annual
estimates presented in Table 2 below.
f. Total Industry Burden Estimates
Based on the assumptions listed
above, EPA estimates the following one-
time burden associated with mill labor
for the BMP requirements:
TABLE 1.—BURDEN ESTIMATES FOR PREPARING AND CERTIFYING THE BMP PLAN
[One-time burden]
Process (complexity)
Kraft (simple)
. Kraft (moderately complex) .....;
Kraft (complex) •.
Sulfite (simple)
, Total " ;. . .
Number of
mills
41
30
13
11
95
Hours (in-
dustry-wide)
1 969
2 040
1,144
528
5680
Dollars ($)
(industry-
wide)
62,320
63600
35,360
16720
178000
Note: BMP plan development costs that are
contracted out are considered compliance
costs and are not included here; they are
presented in Table 9-2 of the BMP .TSD, DCN
14489.
Based on the assumptions listed
above, EPA estimates the following
recurring burden associated with mill
labor for the BMP requirements:
TABLE 2.—BURDEN ESTIMATE.FOR MAINTAINING BMP PLAN, SPILL RECORDS, PERSONNEL TRAINING, ETC,
[Recurring burden]
Process (complexity) .
Kraft (simple) " .' :
Kraft (moderately complex) . .. •.. .
Kraft (complex)
Sulfite (simple) ;
Total '.. :
Number of
mills
41
30
13
11
95
Annual
hours (in-
dustry-wide)
. 22017
1 6 830
7,605
5,907
52,359
Annual dol-
lars ($) (in-
dustry-wide)
487,080
374 400
170,040
130,680
1,162,200
g. Government Burden Estimates
EPA estimates the initial burden to
state NPDES permitting authorities and
state and local pretreatment control
authorities willbe 950 hours based on
ten hours per facility for the preparation
of new NPDES permit or pretreatment
control mechanism conditions
implementing the BMP regulation. EPA
estimates the recurring incremental .
burden to these state and local
authorities will be 950 hours per year
based on ten hours per year per facility
for administrative work associated with
reviewing periodic (e.g., annual or semi-
annual) reports of monitoring and
conducting compliance reviews. State
and local labor costs are estimated at
$19,000 per year, based on labor rates of
$20 per hour. EPA estimates that its
incremental labor burden will be 100
hours annually for the BMP regulation
and will incur costs of $3,000 per year,
based on labor rates of $30 per hour.
Dated: April 3, 1998.
Tudor T. Davies,;
Director, Office of Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. 98-9556 Filed 4-14-98: 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
-------
18504 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 paperfaoard 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 Sulflte 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 Pocicets. 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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday. April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 18505
M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460.
For access to Docket materials, call (202)
260-3027. The Docket staff requests that
interested parties calLbetween 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 arid 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
Industry '...'.
Rule
NESHAP w
Effluent Guidelines
, Examples of regulated entities
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.
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/paper-
board. , '
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
§ 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 § 430.20 and
§ 430.50 of Tide 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 § 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)(l) 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.
-------
18506
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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
dloxin, furan, chloroform, 12 specified
chlorinated organic pollutants and, for
mills enrolled at the Tier II or Tier HI
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 H
must be achieved by April 15, 2009.
Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier m
must be achieved by April 15, 2014.
For new direct discharging mills in
Subpart B, EPA is promulgating
Voluntary NSPS at the Tier H and Tier
in 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 deligniflcation
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 n.B.2.b. and
VI.A.1. ' , '
Technology Transfer Network
The Technology Transfer Network
CTTN) 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
n. 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 •
IK. 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. Summaiy 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
VIE. 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)
VH[. 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 Subcategoiy
G. Benefits
H. Comparison of Costs and Benefits
I. Costs and Benefits of Rejected Options
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Subcategoiy—Option B and TCP
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.
n. 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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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
pec. 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 eliminatiori offish
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 tti 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.), arid 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 TX). 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.S.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)(l). 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 11-1.—HIGHEST EMITTED HAZ-
ARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS FROM
PULP AND PAPER MILLS
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Acrolein
Acetaldehyde ,:,
o-Cresol
Carbon tetrachloride .
Chloroform
Cumene
Formaldehyde
Methanol.
Methylene chloride.
Methyl ethyl ketone.
Phenol.
Prppionaldehyde.
1,2,4-
Trichlorobenzene.
o-Xylene.
b. Volatile Organic Compounds.
Emissions of volatile organic
comp'ounds (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
-------
18508 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 MACTI 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 m
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 It). 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 them 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 °F and a minimum residence time
of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by
using a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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 §§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 Jhe 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 aphieved, 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
papennaking 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). Fpr 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
-------
18510
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 °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 °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 ancf
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, thermomechariical,
pressurized) mills, secondary fiber
pulping mills, and non-wood pulping
mills must comply with the bleaching
system standards described in section
E.B.2.i. There are no control
requirements for pulping systems or
process condensates at these mills. For
-------
-Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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). -
' 1. 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 (l)-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 arid 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 BODs
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
BODs) cannot be determined within a
short period of time. These samples are
to be used in conjunction with the
WATERS emissions model to
demonstrate compliance if the soluble
BODs, 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 §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
-------
18512 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 H," and "Phase
HI." The schedule for these phases is
explained below and in the following
table.
TABLE 11-2.—FINAL CODIFIED SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME (WITH PREVIOUS SUBPARTS NOTED) AND SCHEDULE FOR
PROMULGATING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS (BY PHASE)
Final codified
subpart
Final subcategorization scheme
Types of facilities covered including previous subcategories (with pre-
vious 40 CFR part 430 subparts noted)
Promul-
gation
schedule
(phase)*
A
B,
D
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
F....
G ...
H....
Papergrade Sulfite
Calcium-, Magnesium-, and So-
dium-based pulps.
Ammonium-based pulps.
Specialty grade pulps.
Semi-Chemical-
Mechanical Pulp
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp.
Dissolving Kraft (F)
Market Bleached Kraft (G), BCT Bleached Kraft (H), Rne Bleached Kreift
(I), Soda (P). ,
Unbleached Kraft (A) ;..
Linerboard
Bag and Other Products
Unbleached Kraft and Semi-Chemical (D, V)
Dissolving Sulfite (K)
Nitration
Viscose
Cellophane
Acetate
Papergrade Sulfite (J, U)
Blow Pit Wash
Drum Wash
Semi-Chemical (B) ,
Ammonia
Sodium
Groundwood-Thermo-Mechanical (M), Groundwood-Coarse, Molded,
News (N), Groundwood-Fine Papers (O), Groundwood-Chemi-Mechan-
ical (L).
Miscellaneous mills not covered by a specific subpart ....
Deink Secondary Fiber (Q)
Rne Papers
Tissue Papers
Newsprint • •
Tissue from Wastepaper (T), Paperboard from Wastepaper (E) .-. .....
Corrugating Medium
* Non-Corrugating Medium
Wastepaper-Molded Products (W)
Builders' Paper and Roofing Felt (40 CFR Part 431, Subpart A)
Non integrated Rne Papers (R)
Wood Rber Furnish
Cotton Rber Furnish
Nonintegrated Lightweight Papers (X)
Lightweight Papers
Lightweight Electrical Papers
III
III
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
18513
TABLE 11-2.—FINAL CODIFIED SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME (WITH PREVIOUS SUBPARTS NOTED) AND SCHEDULE FOR
PROMULGATING EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS (BY PHASE)—Continued
Final codified
subpart
L
Final subcategorization scheme
Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Pa-
perboard from Purchased Pulp.
, Types of facilities covered including previous subcategories (with pre-
' - vious 40 CFR part 4£0 subparts noted)
Non integrated
Tissue Papers (S)
Filter and Non-Woven (Y) '
Paperboard (Z)
Promul-
gation
schedule
(phase)*
II
* 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
Sultite 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
deligriification 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 arid 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, arid 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 futurfe. It
should b,e 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. , '
-------
18514 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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
deHgnification and/or extended
cooking. See Section VLB.S.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 DC.
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.B.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.G.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 VLB.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.G.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 430.0 l(j) arid if it
commences construction aftear 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,
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 sujfite 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.G.d.
5. Best Management Practices for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulflte
Subcategory • • :
EPA is codifying best management
practices (BMPs) applicable to direct-
and indirect-discharging mills in the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
and Papergrade Sulflte 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.
m. 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-
deiriked) 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
interestedparties. 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
-------
18516 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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
Managementv. 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 FRat 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 IE 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 p.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 CTEQ) 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 CD .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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday. April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 18517
but also diqxin 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
wafer, 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
Proposed
A description of the pulp and paper
industry, including manufacturing
processes, pulping processes, bleaching
processes, andpapermaking.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 (MACTI
and MACT HI) covered approximately
the same number. Under today's action,
approximately 490 mills will be covered
by the final MACT I and MACT ffl 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
(TCP) bleaching has not changed
substantially since proposal. As was the
case at the time of proposal, only one
U.S. mill produces TCP 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 filial
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
FR9813) and March 8, 1996 (61 FR
-------
18518
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 (TV-D1-98,
IV-D1-100), comments on definitions
(TV-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-
Dl-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-chemicaf, and sulfite pulp mills,
bleaching systems, or kraft cbndensate
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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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
1 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.S.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 VLA.S.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
H.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 the1 proposed rule. EPA
-------
18520
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 paperrriaiking
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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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 riot 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 (OOP) produced, and collected
data at one pressure knotter system and
found the methanol emissions to be
0.0042 kilograms per megagram OOP
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 OOP
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 Marph 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
-------
18522
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 concep>ts 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 jn 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
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday. April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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
WATER? (updated to WATERS 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 trie industry was
investigating the possibility of
monitoring inlet and outlet soluble
biochemical oxygen demand (BODs).
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
oh testing and monitoring requirements
for biological treatment systems. The
industry submitted studies on biological
treatment systems and on monitoring
soluble BODS. 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. Cpmmenters 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 BODs 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
-------
18524
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
removal of soluble BODs, the biological
treatment system was operating
properly and that the unit would be
meeting the standards. However,
industry argued that soluble BODs
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 cpmmenters that
soluble BODs is an appropriate
monitoring parameter for biological
treatment systems. However, EPA
disagrees with the commenters on their
position regarding the monitoring of
soluble BODs and operating parameters
for demonstrating continuous
compliance. After discussion with the
industry on this issue, EPA has
concluded that soluble BODs 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 BODs
and operating parameter values to
monitor. The final rule also allows '
owners and operators to demonstrate
compliance with the standard using the
WATERS 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 Ib 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 Ib
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 OOP
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
OOP 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 MAGT control requirements
for soda and semi-chemical mills based
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 cqntrol 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 hasjcbncluded 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 § 63.445
(a)-(c) of today's rule. However,
§ 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 nonrwood 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 pulpirtg 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
-------
18526
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 vfent 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 Ib 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 Ib 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, H-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 OOP produced
,(0.002 Ib/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 Ib/ODTP).
The Agency maintains that this option
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 727 Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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 § 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, n,
and HI, 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
-------
18528 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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
§ 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, n, or DI water limitations.
EPA believes that providing these
mills six years to comply with secohd-
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 n and ffl,
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 H and Tier HI
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 ari 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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72 /Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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 condehsate standards). For the
liquid sampling analysis, NCASI used a
direct aqueous injection gas
chromatography/fiame 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 thatwhile. 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 contr.ol. 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 th^
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
-------
18530 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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-
Dl-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 °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 feictor. 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, Et-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 °F
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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday. April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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 °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 °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
(SOa) and, to a lesser degree, nitrogen
oxides (NOx). The emission increases of
SOa 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
-------
18532 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April. 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
(POP) 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
fromNSR/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 NtACT
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 SOa 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
SOa 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 v/ater
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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday. April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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
SO2orNOx. '
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^IS), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
b. Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)/Boilersand
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 yent gas, using a
rectification column, and bum 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 sub'categorization
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
-------
18534 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 H-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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 18535
oxygen demand (BODs) 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 v
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
BODs 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
BODS 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 qontinuously 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)(l)(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 BODs, 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 n and HI). 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
BODs anal 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
-------
18536
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 Sulftte subcategory
was not divided into segments for the
purpose of conducting a BCT analysis
because EPA found that treatability of
BODs 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 subcategorlzation scheme. See 40
CFR 430.23 and 430.53.
3. Pollutant Parameters for BAT/NSPS/
PSES/PSNS
a. Dioxin, Fwan, 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
TCP 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 VLB.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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 DC.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 pqtential 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 otheronsite process
operations. EPA will also decide as part
of the Phase n 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 (BODs) analytical
method. -.'•,'
In order to assist permitting or
pretreatment authorities in developing
-------
18538 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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
ubparts 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 wa.s 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)(l)(Q) 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 arid 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), 43Q.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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday. April 15. 1998/Rules and Regulations 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.S.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 sHmicides 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 faiocides 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 pf 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,
§§ 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, §§ 403.10 and
403.12). Section 308 provides authority
for information gathering.
b. Background and History. In the
December 17,1993 proposal, EPA
referenced^ 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
|ig/L. Based on this MDL and on
calibration of the-microcoulometer, the
minimum level (ML) in Method 1650
has been determined to be 20 (xg/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.
-------
18540 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 DON 14497. Vol. VH.
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
Hg/L to allow for blank contamination.
In EPA's view, blank contamination can.
be controlled to levels well below 20 jig/
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. VH.
(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 pg/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 jig/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 promulgate^ 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 chlbrocatechols 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 QCAL)
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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 12 /Wednesday. April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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. VH, 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.andCDFs 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 pcta-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 OA5-]i
glass fiber filter. The filter is extracted
with toluene in a Sbxhlet/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 \iL and a 1-2 [iL .
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 v
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. Petected
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 ng/L can be
achieved, depending on the specific
pollutant. For chloroform, the minimum
level is 10 |ig/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
-------
18542
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 (TCP) 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 HI BAT
limitations. See 61 FR at 36850. EPA
considered basing Tier! limits on BAT
Option B technology (if Option A were
chosen as the basis for the baseline BAT
limitations). The Tier n and Tier IE
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 BODs. 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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 dioxiri 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
Busing only precursor-free condensates in
brownstock washers. The strategy or
strategies appropriate for the production,
of a given pulp depend on the raw
material (v^ood species and the form it
takes, i.e., chipsi 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 (TCP)
Bleaching Option Evaluated. The
Agency received many comments that it
should continue to investigate TCP
. bleaching because dioxin and furan are
not generated at any level with TCP
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 TCP 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
TCP bleaching. Samples collected at this
mill could not be used to characterize
treated TCP bleaching effluents because
they are combined with ECF bleaching
effluents for treatment.
Both of the sampled TCP 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 TCP
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
TCP 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 TCP
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 VQI 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 VLB.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
-------
18544 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 $2 million/year increased
costs estimated today. See the
Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487.
For the purpose of estimating the cost
of the regulations, EPA excluded the
costs of process changes that: were either
completed or under .construction as of
mid-1995. EPA incorrectly stated in the
July 1996 Notice that costs for process
changes committed to but not yet under
construction as of mid-1995 were also
excluded from the cost of this
regulation. These latter costs have been
included. See the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN
14487.
(iii) Final Cost Estimates of the
Options Considered. EPA's final cost
estimates for Option A and E! for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory (BAT, PSES, and BMPs)
follow in Table VI-1.
TABLE VI-1.—TOTAL BLEACHED
PAPERGRADE" KRAFT AND SODA
SUBCATEGORY CAPITAL AND ENGI-
NEERING O&M COSTS FOR BAT,
PSES AND BMPS
[1995 dollars]
Capital ($ million)
Rnal cost
estimates
Option
A
966
Option
B
2,130
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday; April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations' 18545
TABLE . VI-1.—TOTAL BLEACHED
PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA
SUBCATEGORY CAPITAL AND ENGI-
NEERING O&M COSTS FOR BAT,
PSES AND BMPs—Continued
[1995 dollars]
Engineering O&M ($
rnillion/yr) .
Final cost
estimates
Option
A
113
Option
,B
2.02
For both Option A and Option B, EPA
excluded costs for the use of dioxin- and
furari-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 TCP bleaching to provide
perspective on the likelihood of TCP
processes being found to be
economically achievable once they are
shown to be technically available. EPA
investigated the costs of two TCP 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 TCP 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 TCP 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 ENGI-
NEERING O&M COSTS OF TCP OP-
TIONS FOR BAT, PSES, AND BMP
" ' [1995 dollars]
Capital ($ million) ...
Engineering O&M
($million/yr)
Estimated costs
Perox-
ide-
TCF
(OQPP)
3,090
660
Ozone-TCF
(OZEopQPZP)
5,630
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 1448'7.
As discussed in the July 1996 Notice,
EPA recalculated the effluent reduction
benefits using a new baseline of mid-
1995. See 61 PR 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 TCP bleaching
sequences. Because chlorinated
compounds are riot used and are not
generated by TCP processes, EPA
assumed that TCP 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 fpr
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 CONSIDERED3
Pollutant parameter
2,3,7,8-TCDD 1
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform •.
Units
Q/VT
o/vr
kko/vr
Mid-1995
baseline -.'•
discharge
140
105
43.6
Estimated
reductions:
option A
9 88
98 0
35.5
Estimated
reductions:
option B
m R
QQ K
3R fi
Estimated
reductions:
., TCP
H A r\
•inc
43 fi
-------
18546 Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday, April 15. 1998/Rules and Regulations
TABLE Vl-s.-
-BASELINE DISCHARGES AND ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS OF POLLUTANTS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT
AND SODA MILLS COMPLYING WITH BAT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED «—Continued
Pollutant parameter
12 Chlorinated phenolic pollutants
AOX
Units
kko/vr
kka/vr
Mid-1995
baseline
discharge
51 7
QO -inn
Estimated
reductions:
option A
423
oo mri
Estimated
reductions:
option B
A A 1
0-7 onn
Estimated
reductions:
TCP
ctf 7
oo qnn
•Tha TCP 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 re-
ported detection limit.
The effluent reductions described and
shown above are used in Section VH 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 Vm. •
(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 EGF 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 TCP
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
TCP 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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday. April 15."1998/Rules and Regulations 18S47
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
,VLB.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 TCP
bleaching processes. See 40 CFR
430.24(a)(2). EPA sampled at two mills
with TCP bleaching processes, one U.S.
mill and one European mill. Analytical
data from sampling these twt> mills
during periods representative of TCP
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 TCP 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 TCP 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 cpmplete
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 (8.0 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.S.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 ("
-------
18548
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
relative to those analytes. See 40 CFR
430.01 (i). In the proposal and the July
1996 Notice, EPA referred to the ML
limitations as "ND limitations." EPA
has changed the terminology, but not
the concept, in response to comments
that the terminology was potentially
misleading. This section provides a
discussion of ML limitations.
Compliance with the ML limitations is
discussed in Section VI.B.8.c(2).
EPA expects that future analytical
methods will be more sensitive than
today's methods, and their minimum
levels will have values that are less than
those for the analytical methods
identified today in § 430.01(i). However,
the analytical methods (and their
minimum levels) specified in §430.01(i)
were used to chemically analyze the
wastewaters from mills with the BAT,
NSPS, PSES, and PSNS model
technologies selected today for Subparts
B and E. EPA used the data from these
chemical analyses to determine that
today's ML limitations Were technically
and economically achievable. EPA is'
unable to determine, based on the data
from these chemical analyses, whether
more stringent limitations (that is,
limitations with values or associated
with minimum levels less than the
minimum levels published today in
§ 430.01) would be technically and
economically achievable. To determine
whether the technologies are capable of
achieving more stringent limitations,
EPA would need to evaluate data from
chemical analyses using these future
more sensitive methods. Those data
obviously are not available today. Until -
any further revision of today's
limitations and standards for subparts B
and E, the limitations for these analytes
will continue to be associated with the
minimum levels specified today in
Section 430.0 l(i).
Table VT-4 identifies the analytical
methods used to generate the data for
today's rule. The minimum levels in
this Table are established by the
analytical methods and have; been
validated by use. ,
TABLE VI-4.—ANALYTICAL METHODS AND MINIMUM LEVELS FOR REGULATED POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
2378-TCDD '
2,3.7,8-TCDF
Trichlorosyringol
3 4,5-trichlorocatechoI . ...;
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacoI
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol .'.
4,5,6-trichIoroguaiacoI ..
2,4,5-trichIorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol ....: :
Tetrachlorocatechol '.
Tetrachloroguaiacol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
AOX
Method
1613
1613
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1650
Minimum
level
10 DO/L-
ID pq/L
2.5 ug/L
5.0 uq/L
5.0 ug/L
2.5 ug/L
2.5 ug/L
2.5 ug/L
2.5 UQ/L
2.5 uq/L
5.0 uq/L
5.0 ug/L
2.5 ug7L
5.0 ug/L
20 ug/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
TCDD (pg/L)
TCDF(pg/L)
Chlorinated Phenolic Pollutants* (ug/L)
Chloroform (o/kkq)
Daily maximum limitation
Option A
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 18549
monthly average limitation would be
based on the assumption that a mill
would be required to monitor more
frequently than once a month. For the
reasons set forth in (Section
VI.B.8.c(4)(b), EPA believes that one
monthly monitoring event is sufficient;
however, if permitting or pretreatrrient
authorities choose to require more
frequent monitoring for furan, they may
set monthly average limitations and
standards based on their best
professional judgment. See, e.g., 40 CFR
430.24(a)(l), footnote b. Today's rule
requires mills to monitor for chloroform
four times per month (i.e., weekly);
therefore, both daily maximum and
monthly average limitations are
presented.
EPA has, also calculated both daily
maximum and monthly average
limitations for AOX based on Option A,
Option B, and TCP bleaching processes.
These limitations are presented in Table
VT-6. Today's rules require AOX to be
monitored every day during the month.
See 40 CFR 430.02(a). Annual average
limitations for AOX apply only to non-
continuous discharges. The alternative
TCP effluent limitations.apply only to
AOX and are expressed as "
-------
18550
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
is economically achievable for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory as a whole for several
reasons. When EPA considered the
effect of BAT/PSES compliance in light
of the MACTI rule on subpart B mills,
EPA estimated that the selected BAT/
PSES Option would cause two mill
closures, with related direct loss of 900
jobs and a S275 million decrease in
shipments, and no firm failures that are
likely to result in additional job loss.
(See Section Vffl.F and Table Vffl-4 for
other economic impacts associated with
the selected BAT/PSES option, with and
without MACT I compliance costs.) The
number of closures (two) is less than 3
percent of the affected mills (86) in the
subcategory. The loss of jobs associated
with these closures is about one percent
of subcategory employment. EPA
believes that, even with these projected
impacts, the selected BAT/PSES is
economically achievable for this
subcategory as a whole. When the cost
of the MACT I rule on subpart B mills
is not considered, the selected BAT/
PSES would cause one mill closure and
no firm failures they are likely to result
in additional job loss. See Section
Vffl.E. For confidentiality reasons,
related losses of jobs and shipments
cannot be disclosed in this Federal
Register notice, but are described in the
CBI portion of the record.
EPA concluded that Option B is not
economically achievable for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory as a whole. When EPA
considered the effect of BAT/PSES
compliance in light of the MACT I rule
on subpart B mills, EPA estimated that
Option B would cause four mill
closures, with a related direct loss of up
to 4.800 jobs, and a $1.3 billion decrease
in shipments, and one or more firm
failures that are likely to result in
additional job loss. (See Section Vffl.F
and Table VIII-4 for other economic
impacts associated with Option B with
and without MACT I compliance costs.)
EPA estimates that when the cost of the
MACT I rule is not considered, Option
B would cause two mill closures, with
a related direct loss of 900 jobs and a
S275 million decrease in shipments, and
one or more firm failures. See Section
vm.F.1.
While the increased number of
closures and related job losses
associated widi Option B are strong
indicators of economic unachievability, .
the potential firm failures (i.e.,
bankruptcies) associated with this
Option are particularly problematic. For
each option, EPA's bankruptcy analysis
focuses on whether each affected
company can afford to make the
collective investment required to install
the technology upon which the option
is based for all of its facilities. The
substantially higher capital cost
associated with Option B results in the
potential failure of one or more firms
that Option A does not cause. In most
cases, requirements to raise capital to
upgrade each mill to meet Option B
limitations and standards may seriously
jeopardize some companies' ability to
cover interest on the new investments as
well as other costs. In other words, some
companies with insufficient cash or
equity resources to cover the costs of
these upgrades may be in jeopardy of
bankruptcy. It takes an event of
considerable magnitude to induce
bankruptcy in a firm. The fact that
Option B, even when considered
.without regard for the impact of the
MACT I rule on this subpart, .is
projected to drive one or more firms into
bankruptcy indicates to EPA the
significant magnitude of Option B's
capital requirements. In EPA's view, the
overall effect of Option B on those firms
would be substantial. See Section YELP.
For a more detailed discussion of EPA's
firm failure analysis, see the Economic
Analysis, Chapter 6 (DCN 14649).
The magnitude of the effects that may
arise from large firm bankruptcies is a
substantial indicator of the economic
unachievability of Option B. The
negative effects are indefinite and
unquantifiable, but EPA has reason to
believe, based on the recent history of
the domestic pulp and paper industry,
that they are likely to be significant. The
effects include, as examples, stock price
turmoil, reduced workforces, and
foreign ownership of formerly
American-owned assets. Which impacts
occur would depend on the responses of
the potentially affected firm(s) to the
increased costs. Companies that enter
bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy are more
likely to see their stock prices fall,
causing substantial loss of investor
value and possibly becoming the target
of a hostile takeover by a domestic or
foreign company. Recent history of
hostile or friendly takeovers shows that
the acquiring companies subsequently
divested themselves of unproductive
assets, closed a number of mills and
eliminated over 15,000 jobs, affecting
both smaller and larger communities,
with the most devastating consequences
on the smaller communities. Some
companies may downsize some
operations without closing any mills,
thus potentially causing job losses in
communities that depend on the mills
direcfly or indirectly for their economic
well-being. The potential job losses
associated with the likely firm failure(s)
represent an unacceptably large portion
of the employment losses associated
with this option for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory.
See DGN 14379, 14382, and 14388
(contained in CBI record). In addition,
weaker companies might be forced to
sell off blocks of assets, or their
corporate existence might be
endangered. Companies may choose to
close marginal plants to avoid the cost
of upgrade or to sell off mills both to '
avoid the costs of upgrade and to raise
capital to upgrade the remaining mills.
Closed mills' equipment could be sold
to overseas companies, who could
initiate low cost pulp or paper
production and gain market share from
U.S. firms as a result. Foreign
companies acquiring U.S. mills might
close or alter those mills to gain market
share (although such behavior is not
necessarily economically efficient).
Substituting foreign for domestic
production means an additional loss of
jobs and income for Americans. See
Economic Analysis, Chapter 6 (DCN
14649).
EPA also considered the effects of
delaying the implementation of Option
B for five years. EPA acknowledges that
the uncertainties of the pulp and paper
market and the financial circumstances
of individual firms make questionable
the validity of any assumptions
regarding the relative effects of a five-
year delay. EPA's evaluation of delaying
the implementation of Option B for five
years involves consideration of
discounting Option B costs for five
years, the expected industry price and
revenue cycle, and resulting aggregate
costs, closures, and firm failures. EPA
has determined, due to expected effects
of the industry cycle, that deferring the
costs of this technology for five years
would not appreciably reduce the
economic impacts for this subcategory
as a whole compared to immediate
compliance. See Economic Analysis,
Chapter 6 (DCN 14649). For example,
EPA found that under the most likely
scenario (in which the costs of
complying with MACT I are taken into
account), the same number of mills
(four) would be predicted to close even
if implementation of Option B were
delayed for five years. Firm failure
predictions could not be made for five
years hence because the analysis is
based on several financial components,
each of which may change dramatically
and unpredictably in the interim.
Based on the above discussion, EPA
concludes that only the selected BAT/
PSES technology option—Option A—is
economically achievable today for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory as a whole. EPA
acknowledges that the number of
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 18551
predicted closures attributable to Option
B, when considered without regard for
the impact of the MACTI rule on
subpart B mills, is the same as the
number of predicted closures under
Option A when MACT I impacts are
considered. (This is also true for job
losses and effects on shipments.)
However, EPA does not believe that
these impacts alone are a compelling
decision'basis for this rulemaking. Not
only would such an analysis fail to
account for the real-world economic
impacts of the concurrent MACT I
rulemaking, but the closures and related
impacts by themselves fail to express
the total economic impacts EPA predicts
for Option B. For the reasons described
above, EPA concludes that it is
appropriate to take into account the
potential firm failures attributable to
Option B in this rulemaking. Further,
EPA concludes that it is appropriate in
this rulemaking to base the economic
acbievability determination on the total
economic impacts (the closures and the
projected firm failures, coupled with
predicted regional and market impacts)
of its BAT/PSES options on the
industry. Those total economic impacts
constitute the principal and deciding
difference between the selected BAT/
PSES technology basis and Option B.
Based on that conclusion, EPA has
determined that only Option A is
economically achievable for subpart B •
' as a whole, both when the impacts of
compliance with the MACT I rule are
considered and when they are not.
EPA is also rejecting Option B
because its capital costs are simply too
high when compared to Option A.
Implementation of Option B would •
result in capital costs that are more than
$1 billion greater than those associated
with Option A. EPA believes that this
consideration is particularly relevant in
this rulemaking for several reasons.
First, these Cluster Rules represent the
fourth, set of effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated
for subpart B mills. Since 1977, the
. industry has incurred substantial capital
costs to achieve its current level of
' pollutant control and has achieved
significant pollutant loading reductions.
This is also the first pulp and paper
regulation to employ process changes,
rather than treatment technologies, as
the core of its model BAT/PSES
technology. EPA is authorized, in the
' exercise of its discretion, to consider
these factors as the Administrator deems
appropriate in selecting BAT. See CWA
section 304 (b) (2) (B). For all of these
additional reasons, EPA has concluded
that Option B is not the best available
technology economically achievable for
subpart B at this time.
EPA also evaluated the economic
.achievability of TCF process
technologies for subpart B mills. EPA
concluded that the annualized cost of
retrofitting existing sources for TCP is
substantially greater than the
annualized cost of Option B (regardless
which bleaching chemicals 'are used),
with additional impacts ranging from
seven estimated closures and 7,100 job
losses to the potential that a greater
number of firms would be placed in
jeopardy of bankruptcy. See Section
YELP. (When this option is considered
in light of MACT I compliance costs, the
economic impacts would be even
greater. See id.) EPA, therefore,
concluded that TCF bleaching processes
are not economically achievable for the
subcategory as a whole at this time.
Nevertheless, EPA is promulgating
voluntary alternative BAT limitations
and PSES based on TCF bleaching
processes in order to encourage mills to
use this technology whenever possible.
See 40 CFR 430.24(a)(2), 430.26(a)(2).
EPA determined that Option A is the^
best technology because no other option
that was both available and
economically achievable resulted in
greater reductions in effluent loadings
for dioxin, furan and other significant
pollutants of concern. (See 58 FR at
66110 for other options considered at
proposal.) For a discussion of the
effluent reduction benefits associated
with Option A, see Section VIE. G.
(6) Point of Compliance Monitoring.,
EPA is requiring mills in subpart B to
demonstrate compliance with BAT
limitations for dioxin, furan,
chloroform, and 12 chlorinated phenolic
pollutants inside the discharger's
facility at the point where the
wastewater containing those pollutants
leaves the bleach plant. EPA is
authorized by the Clean Water Act and
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i),
122.45(h), and 125.3(e) to specify an in-
plant point of compliance monitoring'
for technology-based limitations.
Hereafter, EPA refers to the BAT
limitations for which compliance must
be demonstrated in-plant as,"in-plant
limitations." As set forth in more detail
below, EPA is establishing in-plant
limitations on bleach plant effluent
because limitations imposed on those
pollutants at the point of discharge are ,
impractical and infeasible as measures
of the performance of process
technologies representing the
technology-based levels of control.
Moreover, in-plant effluent limitations
are consistent with the MACT standards
for chloroform, which independently
require achievement of BAT limitations
on dioxin, furan, chloroform and the 12
chlorinated phenolic compounds at the
bleach plant (in addition to compliance
with AOX limitations) in order to -
ensure that the removals represented by
the MACT technology floor—complete
substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine and elimination of
hypochlorite—are attained.
. -Mills using the model BAT
technology, described in section
VI.B.5.a(l), are able to achieved the
bleach plant concentrations of dioxin
and the 12 chlorinated phenolic '
pollutants at levels below the minimum
levels of currently available analytical
methods. Furan concentrations, in turn,
are very near the analytical minimum
levels. (At the end of the pipe, furan in
many mills' effluent cannot be detected
by available analytical methods.)
'Because only 10 to 40 percent of the
wastewater discharged by mills in
subpart B originates in the bleach plant,
(see the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN.14487)
the concentrations of pollutants in the
final effluent would be one-tenth to two-
fifths of their concentrations at the
bleach plant. In the biological
wastewater treatment system, the
pollutants may be present but in
concentrations below the applicable
analytical minimum levels. When they
are discharged to receiving streams,
however, dioxin and furan
bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms.
Were EPA to allow compliance
monitoring of the final effluent, there
would be no way to determine whether
the bleach plant effluent has been
adequately controlled or whether the
effluent has simply been diluted below
the analytical minimum level by the
other flows. Diluting pollutants in this
manner rather than preventing their
discharge is inconsistent with achieving
the removals represented by the
technology-based levels of control, and
hence with the purpose of the BAT"
limitations. It is also inconsistent with
the goals of the Clean Water Act in
general. See sections 101 (a) and
301 (b)(2)(A). While no mill is required
to install EPA's model BAT technology,
establishing limitations at the bleach
plant is the only way EPA can ensure
that none of these pollutants will be
discharged at Concentrations greater
than the levels achievable through
implementation of the best available
technology. See E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112,
129 (1977).
With respect to the 12 chlorinated
phenolic pollutants, EPA acknowledges
that these pollutants could be degraded
by biological treatment of the facility's
combined wastewater. However, the
-------
18552
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
same process technologies necessary to
address dioxin and furan also reduce
the levels of chlorinated phenolic
pollutants to concentrations below
minimum levels at the bleach plant.
Commenters have supplied no data
showing that the chlorinated phenolic
pollutants should or indeed, as a
practical matter, could be segregated
from the dioxin- or furan-bearing
wastestreams in order to utilize a mill's
secondary treatment system fully. Nor is
there any assurance that BAT
limitations for these pollutants, if
monitored at the end of the pipe, would
be achieved by treatment rather than
simply by the effects of dilution. See 40
CFR 122.45(h). Thus, EPA believes that
it is appropriate to require compliance
monitoring for the BAT limitations on
the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants
at the point they most easily can be
achieved and measured—at the bleach
plant.
In the case of chloroform, in-plant
limits are authorized by 40 CFR
122.45(h) because they offset the effects
of dilution, in this case, the occurrence
of uncontrolled volatilization. In other
regulatory contexts, EPA recognizes that
dilution includes not only mixing a
pollutant of concern with other
wastestreams, but also mixing it with
excess air in the form of uncontrolled
volatilization. See 52 FR 25760, 25778-
79 (July 8,1987). Volatilization, like
dilution, does nothing to remove,
destroy, or immobilize pollutants, and
for this reason is not in itself a form of
treatment, id. at 25779. The policy
reasons supporting .that principle in the
hazardous waste context similarly apply
here.
Finally, EPA is setting effluent
limitations at the bleach plant in order
to avert the non-water quality
environmental impacts caused by the
volatilization of chloroform to the air
and in order to be consistent with its
Clean Air Act determination that the
MACT floor for chloroform consists of
bleach plant process modifications, i.e.,
complete chlorine dioxide substitution
and elimination of hypochlorite as
bleaching agents. Specifically, EPA is
requiring under the Clean Air Act that
chloroform emissions be controlled by
complying with the BAT requirements
for all regulated pollutants. See 40 CFR
63.445(d). Therefore, EPA has
determined under its Clean Air Act
authority that bleach plant
technologies—and bleach plant
limitations on dioxin, furan, chloroform
and the 12 chlorinated phenolics—are
necessary to regulate air emissions of
chloroform. The situation presented
here is very different from the situation
EPA faced when promulgating effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for
the organic chemicals, plastics and
synthetic fibers industrial category in
1987. See 52 FR 42522, 42658-62 (Nov.
5, 1987). In that rulemaking, the issue
before EPA was whether to use in-plant
limitations and standards to regulate air
emissions of certain volatile and semi-
volatile pollutants; EPA chose not to set
in-plant requirements for that purpose
because it determined that the
regulation of such emissions was best
accomplished in a Clean Air Act
proceeding, which EPA was
commencing at that time. See 52 FR at
42560-62. In contrast, EPA in this
rulemaking integrated its decision-
making under the Clean Water Act and
the Clean Air Act expressly to address
these cross-media issues. Taking into
account both the air and water
objectives of these Cluster Rules, EPA
therefore concludes that it is highly
appropriate for EPA to set effluent
limitations under the Clean Water Act to
correspond to and support its
concurrent regulation of air emissions
under the Clean Air Act.
b. New Source Performance
Standards. (1) Background^ The Agency
proposed to revise NSPS for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory. New mills have the
opportunity to incorporate the best
available demonstrated technologies,
including process changes, in-plant
controls, and end-of-pipe treatment
technologies.
(a) Definition of "New Source". EPA
had proposed supplemental definitions
of the term "new source," as provided
in National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program regulations found at 40 CFR
122.2 and 122.29, for the pulp and
paper industry only. See 58 FR at
66116-17. EPA is codifying a definition
of "new source" in Part 430 for subparts
B and E. See 40 CFR 430.0 l(j). The new
definition provides that new source
performance standards are triggered by
new "greenfield" mills, complete
replacements of entire fiber lines (e.g.,
pulping and bleaching), or the
construction of a new source whose
processes are substantially independent
of an existing source, such as a new
fiber line built to supplement an
existing fiber line. Specifically excluded
from the definition of new source are
existing mills that modify existing fiber
lines for purposes of complying With
either BAT limitations or PSES, and
existing mills that replace entire fiber
lines in order to comply with Advanced
Technology BAT limitations. For more
details, see Section VI.B.8.a(2).
(b) Proposed NSPS. EPA proposed
NSPS for toxic and nonconventional
pollutants for the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory based on the
combination of both oxygen
delignification and extended cooking
followed by 100 percent substitution of
chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine
and elimination of hypochlorite
(identified at proposal as Option 5). The
proposed technology bases for NSPS
also included the other elements
described as part of BAT in VI.B.5.a(l).
EPA also proposed NSPS for BOD5 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 TCP 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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 OZE0DD 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 EGF 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 TCP 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 arid 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 BODs
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
coyered'by this subcategory. For further
discussion, see the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN
14487, and DCN 14497, Vol. I and H. '
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 gfeenfield mill. Moreover, the
process technologies that form the basis
for NSPS result in lower pollutant
loadings requiring biological treatment.
Loadings of BODs 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/BCf 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
Vm 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 n and'Tier ffl
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
HI 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 n or Tier in level as
an existing source, or enroll in the
Incentives Program once Tier H or Tier
HI limitations are achieved.
Finally, EPA notes that the previously
promulgated NSPS for the biocides
pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol
-------
18554
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
continue to apply to all new sources.
See40CFR430.25(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)(l). 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 BODS 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
Pollutant or
pollutant property
BOD5 ; -
TSS
pH
Continuous
dischargers
Maximum for
any 1 day
(kg/kkg)
4.52
8.47
(1)
Monthly aver-
age (kg/kkg)
2.41
3.86
(1)
Non-
continuous
dischargers
.Annual aver-
age (kg/kkg)
1.73
2.72
(
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, BODs,
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
BODs 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)(l) and 430.27(a)(l).
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 BODs
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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 Only 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 BODS 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)and430.27(a).
The pretreatment standards
promulgated today for AQX 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 BODs
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 arid 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 Vl-^.—BASELINE DISCHARGES AND ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS OF POLLUTANTS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT '
; . AND SODA MILLS FOR TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED3
Pollutant parameter
2,3,7,8-TCDD ,
Units
o/vr
Baseline '
' discharge
1.25
Estimated
reductions:
Option A '
0.92
Estimated
reductions:
Option B
1 nn
, Estimated
Reductions:
TCP1
1 OR
-------
18556 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
TABLE VI-8.—BASELINE DISCHARGES AND ESTIMATED REDUCTIONS OF POLLUTANTS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT
AND SODA MILLS FOR TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS CONSIDERED3—Continued
Pollutant parameter
2,3,7,8-TCDF
12 Chlorinated phenolic pollutants
AOX
Units
o/vr
kkd/vr
kkg/yr
kko/vr
Baseline'
discharge
947
4 89
3.58
3.010
Estimated
reductions:
Option A
894
4 28
281
2.100
Estimated
reductions:
Option B
9 04
A. 9R
297
2.600
Estimated
Reductions:
TCP
9 47
- A QQ
3 58
3.O10
«The TCP 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
VLB.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 VLB.S.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 TCP bleaching processes as the
model technology for PSES or PSNS,
EPA nevertheless is promulgating
voluntary alternative pretreatment
standards based on TCP 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)(l).,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
Pollutant parameter
AOX
Daily
maximum
limitation
(kg/kkg)
2.64
Monthly
average
limitation
(kg/kkg)
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 Vl-10.—BLEACHED PAPER-
GRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUB-
CATEGORY PSNS AOX LIMITATIONS
Pollutant parameter
AOX
Daily
maximum
limitation
(kg/kkg)
1.16
Monthly
average
limitation
(kg/kkg)
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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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(l)-(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 specially grade sulfite
mills. See 40 CFR 430.5l(c)(l).,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 (e) (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
-------
18558 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
appropriate technology basis for BAT
limitations for the calcium-,
magnesium-, or sodium-based segment
of the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.
CThe following discussion also applies
to PSES.) For this segment, TCP
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 TCP, the bleaching
sequence is a change from proposal,
when TCP bleaching was based on an
oxygen stage with peroxide addition,
foflowed by a peroxide bleaching stage.
This change to the TCP bleaching
sequence reflects the more common
approach to TCP bleaching within this
segment of the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory and also reflects the
technology basis of the mill from which
TCP 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 TCP processes for this segment, EPA
developed a database of mills in the
United States and Europe that produce
pulp using TCP 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 TCP
bleaching processes. Among them, these
mills produce a full range of paper
products at up to 91 ISO brightness
using TCP bleaching. These mills are
able to produce the same products using
TCP technology that they produced
prior to converting to TCP, with no
negative impact on product quality. EPA
has incorporated pulp cleaners as an
element of TCP technology to ensure
that pulp quality requirements are
maintained. See the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN
14487. For these reasons, EPA
concluded that TCP 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
achlevability of TCP bleaching for this
segment, EPA considered the costs that
existing mills would incur to convert to
TCP 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 MACTI costs, and
when they are considered alone.
Therefore, EPA has concluded that TCP
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 TCP 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 TCP
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 TCP
bleaching to ammonium-based sulfite
mills. After reviewing these comments
and data, EPA concluded that TCP
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 TCP bleaching. TCP 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 liqiuors.)
EPA is also promulgating voluntary
alternative BAT limitations and PSES
based on TCP 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 TCP 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).
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 TCP
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-rpreventing 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 MACTI 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 currendy
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 outiined 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 Vm.B. 1 .c are ,
already included here.) See Section VHI
for additional discussion of cosjs 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
-------
18560 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
reduced by 1,770 kilograms to 240
kilograms per year. As a result of the
TCP 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
Vffl.G.2, and Chapter 8 of the Economic
Analysis, DON 14649.
(6) Development of Limitations. All of
the limitations and standards
promulgated today for Subpart E are
expressed as "
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 Siibpart 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.S.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
specially 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
"
-------
18562
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
systems and to reduce the cost of
process operation through increased
chemical recovery. The BMPs
summarized below are discussed in
detail in the Technical Support
Document for Best Management
Practices for Spent Pulping Liquor
Management, Spill Prevention and
Control, DCN 14489 (hereafter "BMP
Technical Support Document").
Under this regulation, mills must
implement the BMPs codified at section
430.03(c). BMP requirements for new
and existing direct dischargers apply
when incorporated as special conditions
in NPDES permits, consistent with CWA
sections 304(e) and 402(a). BMP
requirements for new and existing
indirect dischargers are pretreatment
standards; therefore, they are self-
implementing. The BMPs are:
(l) Return of spilled or diverted spent
pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine to
the pulping and recovery processes to
the maximum extent practicable as
determined by the mill; recovery of such
materials outside the process; or
discharge of spilled or diverted material
at a rate that does not disrupt the
receiving wastewater treatment system;
(2) Inspection and repair programs to
identify and repair leaking equipment
items;
(3) Operation of continuous,
automatic spill detection systems that
the mill determines are necessary to
detect and control leaks, spills, and
intentional diversions of spent pulping
liquor, soap, and turpentine. Examples
of such systems are 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) Employee training for those
personnel responsible for operating,
maintaining, or supervising the
operation and maintenance of
equipment items in spent pulping
liquor, soap, and turpentine service;
(5) Preparation of brief reports that
evaluate spills of spent pulping liquor,
soap, or turpentine that are not
contained at the immediate process area
and intentional diversions of spent
pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine that
are not contained at the immediate
process area, (this requirement takes
effect on the date an OMB control
number is issued);
(6) 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 to prevent '
leaks and spills during construction;
(7) Secondary containment for spent
pulping liquor bulk storage tanks. As an
alternative, mills may substitute an
annual tank integrity testing program, if
coupled with other containment or
diversion structures, in place of
secondary containment;
(8) Secondary containment for
turpentine bulk storage tanks;
(9) Curbing, diking, or other means of
isolating soap and turpentine processing
and loading areas from the wastewater
treatment facilities; and
(10) Wastewater monitoring to detect
leaks and spills, to track the
effectiveness of the BMPs, and to detect
trends in spent pulping liquor losses.
In addition, § 430.03(d) requires each
mill to prepare a BMP Plan, based on a
detailed engineering review of the mill's
pulping and recovery operations, that
specifies: (1) The procedures and the
practices to be employed by the mill to
meet the BMP requirements listed
above, as tailored to recognize site-
specific conditions; (2) the construction
the mill determines is necessary to meet
the BMP requirements, including a
schedule for such construction; and (3)
the monitoring program that will be
used to meet the BMP requirements.
This requirement takes effect April 15,
1999 see 40 CFR 430.03 (j)(l)(i), or the
date an OMB control number for this
requirement is issued, whichever is
later. See 40 CFR430.03(a)(2).
Each mill must also certify to the
appropriate permitting or pretreatment
authority that it has prepared the Plan
in accordance with the BMP regulation.
See 40 CFR 430.03 (f). The mill is not
required to obtain approval of the BMP
Plan by the permitting or pretreatment
authority. Id. The permitting or
pretreatment authority at its discretion,
however, may conduct a review of the .
BMP Plan, BMP Plan amendments, and
BMP Plan implementation.
Finally, section 430.03 (h) requires
mills to establish action levels (a
measure of daily pollutant loading) that,
when exceeded, trigger investigative
and corrective action (depending on the
action level exceeded) to reduce the
wastewater treatment system influent
mass loading. This requirement takes
effect April 15, 1999 see 40 CFR
430.03.(j)(l)(iii), or the date an OMB .
control number for this requirement is
issued, whichever is later. The purpose
of the action levels is to provide a
framework for monitoring the
performance and effectiveness of BMPs
on a continuing basis and to establish an
early warning system so that mills can
detect trends in spent pulping liquor,
soap, and turpentine losses that might
not be obvious from other sources.
Under the regulation, a mill has
considerable flexibility to choose its
monitoring parameter. For more
discussion of action levels, see the BMP
Technical Support Document, DCN
14489. EPA had considered requiring all
mills to employ specific statistical
action levels. See 61 FR at 36847. EPA
rejected this approach because it was
concerned that such action levels might
fail to trigger appropriate investigative
and corrective actions for some mills,
while being too restrictive for other
mills. Instead, EPA determined that
authorizing mills to choose their own
monitoring parameters and to set their
own action levels better accounts for the
variability in organic loadings at
different mills and differences in
treatment plant effectiveness and
evaporator capacity, among other mill-
specific factors. This flexibility" thus
ensures that the action levels reflect the
actual performance of mill-specific
BMPs and procedures. In this way, EPA
believes the action levels will better
achieve the spill and leak control
objectives of the BMP requirements.
Exceedances of the action levels will not
constitute violations of an NPDES
permit or pretreatment standard. See 40
CFR 430.03(i) (3). However, a null that
fails to take corrective action as soon as
practicable in response to the
exceedances will be violating its NPDES
permit or pretreatment standard. Id.
As set forth in § 430.03Q), the
following deadlines apply: Existing
indirect dischargers are required to
prepare BMP Plans and implement all
BMPs that do not require the
construction of containment or
diversion structures or the installation
of monitoring and alarm systems no
later than April 15, 1999. Operation of
any new or upgraded continuous,
automatic monitoring systems that the
mill determines to be necessiary (other
than those associated with construction
of new containment or diversion
structures) must commence no later
than April 17, 2000. The milt must
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 by
April 16, 2001. Existing indirect
dischargers must establish the initial
action levels by April 15,1999, and the
revised action levels as soon as possible
after fully implementing the BMPs, but
not later than January 15, 2002. The
requirements to develop the BMP Plan
and to perform other record-keeping and
reporting requirements do not apply
until OMB has approved the associated
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. .72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 18563
information collection request. See 40
CFR430.03(a)(2).
NPDES permits must require existing
direct discharging mills to meet the
same deadlines specified for existing
indirect dischargers which is calculated
from the date of publication. See 40 CFR
430.03Q) (1). If the applicable deadline
has passed at the" time the NPDES
permit containing the BMP requirement
is issued, the NPDES permit must
require immediate compliance with the
BMP requirement. Id. EPA believes this
is appropriate because the record shows
that mills can implement the
substantive requirements of the BMPs—
which are well-known within the
industry today—without significant
uncertainty or difficulty. In addition,
timely implementation will avert the
adverse environmental effects of
uncontrolled leaks, spills, and
intentional diversions. Finally, the
affected mills have been on notice for
several years that these requirements
would likely be imposed and therefore
should not be prejudiced by prompt
compliance obligations. EPA expects
that the compliance date for full
implementation of the BMP
requirements will not extend beyond
five years from the effective date of the
final rule because EPA expects NPDES
permits for those mills to be reissued on
a timely basis; With the exception of the
requirement to, establish action levels,
which must occur not later than 12
months after commencing discharge,
new direct and indirect discharging
mills must prepare the BMP Plan and
implement all BMPs upon commencing
discharge. See 40 CFR 430.03(j)(2).
EPA believes it is reasonable to
require existing indirect dischargers to
establish revised action levels by
January 15, 2002 and to require all new
sources to establish action levels no
later than 12 months after commencing '
discharge. These requirements apply
only after full implementation of the
required BMPs and reflect the amount of
time EPA believes is necessary for mills
'to collect monitoring data regarding the
effectiveness of these newly
implemented practices and to perform
the statistical analysis to develop the
required action levels. Because the
required action levels are intended to
reflect normal mill operating conditions
using the BMPs, they cannot be
established prior to the implementation
of the BMPs or, in the case of new
sources, prior to commencing discharge.
Fpr a discussion of EPA's basis for the
other deadlines in this rule, see the BMP
Technical Support Document, DCN
14489, '
The proposed regulations had
included provisions for leak and spill
prevention, containment, and control
through the use of BMPs. See 58 FR at
66078. The comments received by EPA
on the^proposed rule and subsequent
Federal Register notices generally
supported the use of BMPs, but a
number of comments challenged EPA's
compliance cost estimates and claimed
that certain requirements were too
prescriptive. In particular, industry
asserted:
• 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; arid 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
arid 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 arid 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 reorgariized 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), aU 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
pissolvirig Sulfite), F (Semi-chemical)^
and H (Non-wood Chemical Pulp)] as it
promulgates new effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for these
subcategories. Until riew 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)(l); 40 CFR
122.44(k). POTWs may need to impose
BMPs as local limits to facilities in these
subcategoriesi 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 scopeof
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
-------
18564
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 7.2/Wednesday, April 15, "1998/Rules and Regulations
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 430.03Q). 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 traclcing
systems to fulfill the requirement. See
40CFR430.03(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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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
. nbt 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).(I) is very broad. See NRDCv.
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 spillathat 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 arid ,
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 arid 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
fequired by this rule could be imposed
on a case-by-case basis under CWA
section 402(a)(l) 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 of
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 toxiciry to Daphnia
from April 1988 until June 1991. The
data further show that the toxic effects
of the POTWs 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
-------
18566
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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
tales. 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
dlrecdy 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 oxiide; 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 weire 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 wasfewater.
(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)(l), 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 430.0 l(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)(l)
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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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)(l). 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
§ 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
0)(l)(i); see 40 CFR 122,29(b)(l)(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)(l)(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
430.0 l(j)(l)(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
430.01fl)(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 ah 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 enrblled'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
n and Tier HI 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
p'romote the use of particular pollution
prevention technologies and, in turn,
encourage mills to.look beyond Tier I to
the Tier H and Tier m 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
§ 430.01 (j) (1) (iii) is identical to the third
criterion at §122.29(b)(l)(iii), and
provides that a source is a new source
if its processes are substantially
independent of an existing source at the
same site, tn 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
-------
18568
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 tiiat 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 H or Tier m 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
republishlng, 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.
See40CFR430.01(k)(l).
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 die 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 430.0 l(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 H, table H-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 p>ollutants
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.S.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 tiiat 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, BODS, 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-
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 1&569
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 (1,0 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, sufacategories, 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 subcategpry 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
TCP limitations and standards for AOX,
that are expressed as less than the
Minimum Level ("
-------
18570
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
pollution reduction achievable for these
pollutants through the use of BAT,
NSPS. PSES and PSNS technologies for
these subparts. (Section VI.B.5.a(4)
provides a detailed discussion about ML
limitations.) EPA intends for mills
subject to ML limitations to have
pollutant discharges with
concentrations less than the Minimum •
Levels of the analytical methods
specified today in § 430.0 l(i).
Compliance with the ML limitation
for an analyte can only be demonstrated
by using the method specified in
§ 430.01 (i) for that analyte, or other
methods approved in 40 CFR Part 136
that have Minimum Levels equal to or
less than the minimum level specified
today in §430.01 (i). Mills are not
authorized under this rule to
demonstrate compliance with an ML
limitation codified today by using an -
analytical method with a minimum
level above the Minimum Level
specified in § 430.01 (i).
The Minimum Level specified for
each method is the lowest level at
which calibration is performed. See 40
CFR 430.01 (i). Laboratories calibrate
their equipment by using standards (i.e.,
samples at several known
concentrations of each analyte).
Calibration is necessary because
laboratory equipment does not measure
concentrations directly. Rather, the
equipment generates signals or
responses from analytical instruments
that must be converted to concentration
values. The calibration process
establishes a relationship between the
signals and the known concentration
values of the standards. This
relationship is then used to convert
signals for samples with unknown
concentrations.
In the calibration process, one of the
standards will have a concentration
value'at the Minimum Level for each
analyte. Because the minimum levels
are the lowest levels for which
laboratories calibrate their equipment,
measurements below the Minimum
Level are to be reported as being "less
than Minimum Level," or "
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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 BODs 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 BODS
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 p'apergrade 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, etseq. 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 TCP 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 pf 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
-------
18572 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 TCP Bleaching.
MUls 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 TCP 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(1).
(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 am 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)(l)(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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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). PDF 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 PDF variance
requirements and administration are
found at 40 CFR 122.21(m)(l), 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.
DuPontv. 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
iri 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 nqt. 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 n
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 n 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 m unless expressly
noted.) The emissions and effluent
reductions described in this section
generate the quantified and monetized
benefits described in Section Vffl 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 n.B.2 and VILA 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 m 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 n are discussed in the
preamble for the proposed MACT
standards elsewhere in today's Federal
Register.
-------
18574 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
TABLE VIM.—FINAL CLUSTER RULES—SOURCES AND TECHNOLOGY BASES/LEVEL OF CONTROL
Toxic and nonconventional pollutant effluent control (BAT, PSES, and BMP
technology bases) by subcategory
Bleached
papergrade
kraft and soda
EOF: 100%
Substitution
of Chlorine
with Chlorine
Dioxide; ef-
fective
brownstock
washing;
elimination of
hypochlorite;
oxygen-and
peroxide-en-
hanced ex-
traction;
closed
bfown-stock
screening;
and other
processes
discussed at
Section
Papergrade sulfite
Calcium,
magnesium,
and sodium
sulfite
Ammonium
sulfite
Specialty
grade
Selected BAT/PSES
TCF:
Oxygen-
and perox-
ide-en-
hanced ex-
traction;
peroxide
bleaching;
elimination
of all chlo-
rine-con-
taining
com-
pounds;
and im-
proved
pulp clean-
ing.
EOF: 100%
Substi-
tution of
Chlorine
with Chlo-
rine Diox-
ide; perox-
ide-en-
hanced ex-
traction;
elimination
of hypo-
chlorite;
and use of
dioxin-and
furan-pre-
cursor-free
defoamers.
ECF: 100%
. Substi-
tution of
Chlorine
with Chlo-
rine Diox-
ide;
oxygen-
and perox-
ide-en-
hanced ex-
traction;
elimination
of hypo-
chlorite;
and use of
dioxin and
furan pre-
cursor-free
defoamers.
Best Man-
agement
Practices
(BMP), (Sub-
parts B and
E)
Spent
Pulping .
Liquor Spill
Prevention
and Con-
trol.
Hazardous air pollutant emission control (MACT I and III
levels of control) by subcategory
Kraft
Soda and
semi-
chemical
Sulfite
Control LVHC System Vents
Control Se-
lected
HVLC
Vents and
Named
High HAP
Con-
centrated
Conden-
sate
Streams.
Control Pulp
Washing
System
Vents at
New
Sources.
Control Pulp
Washing
System
Vents, and
Control
Liquor and
Acid Tank
• Vents at
New
Sources.
t
Secondary
and nonwood
fiber, and
mechanical
wood fiber
See Bleach
Plant Block
Below
Bleach Plant: Control Chlorinated HAP frorh 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 die CAA kraft, soda,
sulfite and semichemical subcategories
that are subject to MACT I and MACT
n standards. These mius 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 VH-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 n proposed standards.
The air emission impacts presented in
Table VJJ-2 are calculated based on
mill-specific processes and emission
control information, emission factors,
and control levels summarized in Table
Vn-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 n is contained in the docket for
the proposed MACT II standard. As
shown in Table VIJ-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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 18575
increases. The health effects and
benefits of these emission reductions
and increases are discussed in Section
VEDLG. 1 of this notice.
TABLE VII-2.—AIR EMISSION IMPACTS OF PULP AND PAPER RULES (ALL CAA SUBCATEGORIES)
( ' .Air pollutants
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Volatile Organic Compounds : ;
Total Reduced Sulfur
Particulate ;
Carbon Monoxide , ;
Nitrogen Oxides '.
Sulfur Dioxides : t
Baseline air
emissions
(Mg/year)
. 240,000
900,000
150,000
*NA
NA
NA
NA
Air emission reductions
(Mg/year)
Final cluster
rules
139,000
409,000
« 79,000
b(83)
(8,700)
(5,200)
(94,500)
Final cluster
•rules and pro-
posed MACT II
142,000
440,000
79,000
24,000
49,000
(5,700)
(94,400)
=» 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 VH-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
DC. A.6 and Table IX-1.
TABLE VI1-3.—ESTIMATED POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FROM BASELINE FOR BAT/PSES
Pollutant parameter
2,3,7,8-TCDD . '.
2,3,7,8-TCDF ...:..
Chloroform ..:
Chlorinated Phenolics
AOX •. •.
Units
o/vr
o/vr
kko/vr .
kko/vr
kkg/yr
Baseline
discharge
for BPK
mills
15
115
48
55
36 300
Estimated
reductions:
Final BAT/
PSES for
BPK mills
11
107
40
45
24200
Baseline dis-
charge for
PS mills
078
67
54
20
4 380
Estimated re-
ductions:
Final BAT/
PSES for PS
mills
0 65
64
52
1 s
A nm
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 VH-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)(l)(B)
of the Clean Water Act require EPA to
consider the non-water qualify
. environmental impacts of effluent
limitations guidelines and standards. To
address these statutory requirements,
EPA analyzed the air emissions, energy
requirements, solid waste generation
impacts, arid 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 Vri-4, the process
changes at bleached papergrade kraft
-------
18576 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 subcategbry 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 MACTI 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
•f
Air pollutants
Total Hazardous Air Pollutants
Chloroform
Volatilo Organic Compounds
Total Reduced Sulfur '.
Bleached papergrade kraft
and soda [Mg/year]
Baseline
emissions
149,000
9,510
569,000
100,000
Emission
reductions
from BAT/
PSES/
BMPs
10,000
6,060
11,000
1,300
Papergrade sulfite (all
segments) [Mg/year]
Baseline
emissions
5,190
13
6,020
0
Emission
reductions
from BAT/
PSES/
BMPs
1,930
8
2,270
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, E,
and m. 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 H) is a net
decrease of 60 percent in total HAP
emissions from all controlled sources.
See Table VH-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]
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Volatile Organic Compounds
Total Reduced Sulfur
Particulate Matter
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides "......
Sulfur Dioxides
1995
baseline
emission
19900
19500
2650
31 400
124000
36 100
67 800
Emission
increases
from BAT/
PSES/
1 BMPs
220
213
27
360
1 440
423
784
MACT II
emission
reductions
25
0
o
12 900
o
Net change
after MACT
II"
195
213
27
M 9 *54ftt
1 AATt
423
784
•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]
,
Hazardous Air Pollutants
1995
baseline
emission
2,110
Emission
increases
from BAT/
PSES/
BMPs
40
MACT II
emission
reductions
N/S
Net change
after MACT
II
40
N/S—Not Significant.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, ApriL 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
18577
Increases in the emission of criteria
pollutants are also listed in Table Vfl"-
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 H
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 n 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 tt> 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.lt 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
PAPERGRAQE SULFITE MILLS
: Energy impacts
On-Site Electricity Demand* ....
Off-Site Electricity Demand*
Steam Demand
Total Energy Demand**
Total Enerav Equivalent .'
Units
Trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent
Trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent
Trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent
Trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent
Number of Households***
Bleached
papergrade
Kraft •
(2.37)
10.0
(288)
478
' 46.100
Papergrade
sulfite (all
segments)
(00381)
1 tt 05)
(0010)
n 08)
(10.400)
Combined
total
(241)
895
(289)
370
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 BODs 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
BODs loadings at these mills. The
collection and combustion of this spent
pulping liquor results in an
approximately 20 percent decrease in
BODs 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
-------
18578 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
(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
(BODs) in the wastewater. Secondary
sludge is a gelatinous mixture of
bacterial and fungal organisms. Because
of the reduction in BODs 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 m3/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 forim 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
Effluent Flow
BOD to Treatment
Sludge Generation
Carbon Dioxide
Energy Impacts:
Total Electricity Demand ,
Total Steam Demand
Tola! Energy Demand ,
Air Emissions:
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Chloroform
Volatile Organic Compounds.
No Difference.
Moderate Decrease.1
Decrease by 11,300 kg/day.
Decrease by 890 kg/day.
Decrease by 21,700 Mg/year.
Decrease by 222,600 million BTU/year in oil equivalent.
Increase by 60,180 million BTU/year in oil equivalent.
Decrease by 162,400 million BTU/year in oil equivalent.
Increase by 407 Mg/year.
No Difference.
Increase by 707 Mg/year.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday. April 15. 1998/Rules and Regulations 18579
TABLE VI1-7.—NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF NSPS/PSNS FOR THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE
KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY—Continued
Total Reduced Sulfur ,
Particulate Matter ..
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides ;
Sulfur Dioxides : '.
Increase by 28 Mg/year
Decrease by 12 kg/year
Decrease by 3 Mg/year
Decrease by 28 Mo/year
Decrease by 56 Mg/year
1 000 tpd fiber line
iSee 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.
. 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 n 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 IE, and proposed
MACT E) 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 sufacategory 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 VQI 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 Vffl.D.4 and
Vin.F. 1) and for comparing the costs
and benefits of the rule (Section VEI.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 VELA, VEI.B, VHI.C, VULE,
Vm.J, and most of Sections VOID and
VHI.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 how projects
that 155 mills will bear costs under the
final MACT I and 149 mills will bear
costs under the proposed MACT E (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 E for those mills; and (3)
proposed MACT n for combustion
sources at the 149 mills. Although all of
.the regulatory options and alternatives
under consideration for MACT n 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 HI 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 ffl requirements will
neither impose costs nor result in
additional emissions reductions. For
this reason, Section VIE presents no
-------
18580
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
further analysis of the MACT ffl
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 n 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 n 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 VHI-1
presents a summary of annualized costs
and projected mill closures for die
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
Costs and impacts
Pro-Tax Annualized Costs ($ MM)2
Post-Tax Annualized Costs($ MM)
Mill Closures
Firm Failures
Rules
MACTI
(final) (all
mills)
125
82
0
0
MACT II
(proposed)
(all mills)
32
23
0
0
BAT/PSES
(final)
(BPK&PS) i
263
172
1
0
MACT I and
BAT/PSES
(final)
(BPK&PS)
351
229
2
0
MACT I,
BAT/PSES
and MACT
II (BPK&PS)
366
240
3
0
MACT I,
BAT/PSES
and MACT
II (all mills)
420
277
3
0
1BPK: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory PS: Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.
2Pre-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 WH 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 Vin.B.l.c. Total annualized
proposed MACT n 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 n costs are analyzed
Individually. When the costs for final
MACT I and proposed MACT E are
combined, the (post-tax) annualized
costs are S105 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 H.
BAT/PSES Costs: EPA estimated
economic impacts for three BAT/PSES
options (Option A, Option B, and TCP)
for all bleached papergrade kraft and
soda mills. Section VI.B.5.a(l) of this
preamble contains a description of each
option. The naming conventions of
Option A, Option B, and TCP, 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
VUJ.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 die
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. EPA
did not have sufficient information to
reliably project the likely number of
new sources (see Section VELD). 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 VHI-3. No '
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday. April 15. 1998/Rules and Regulations 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 n)
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 n for these
mills.
The annualized costs for the proposed
and final rules (MACT I, BAT/PSES,
and MACT n) 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 :
n.C.l, VIA and VLB.l. 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 &r3H standards are
discussed fully in Section n.B.2 of this
preamble. Regulatory options and
alternatives for MACT n 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 n
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 VHI.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 VELD.
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, fallmg 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 Altaian'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 withouta new survey. The
facility-level analysis is not a
-------
18582 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 VELA., 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 Vm-2 presents the engineering
control cost estimates for MACTI 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 MAGT standard, including
emission reductions and cost-
effectiveness, is provided in Chapter 20
of the Background Information
Document. Table Vm-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 in standards will impose
no costs; therefore, none is presented
here or in Table Vni-2.
As noted in Section VIHA. 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 VELA.
TABLE vm-2.—ESTIMATES OF THE COST OF AIR REGULATIONS
[Millions of dollars]
Regulation
MACT 1 ...
MACT 11 .
Total Air
MACT control cost
estimates
Capital
costs
$496
259
755
Annualized
cost
$130
42
172
Economic analysis MACT cost estimates
Capital cost
$501
258
759
AnnualizEid costs
Pre-tax
$125
32
157
Post-tax
$82
23
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
l.BPTandBCT
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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 19987 Rules and Regulations 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 $45 per toxic
pound equivalent for PSES. EPA
considers the selected technology bases
for the BAT/PSES limits for both ,
subcategories to be cost-effective.
E. Costs and Impacts for the Integrated
Rules
EPA estimates that 155 kraft, soda,
sulfite, and semi-chemical mills will
incur costs to comply with the CAA
rules; 96 bleached papergrade kraft and
soda and papergrade sulfite mills will
incur costs to comply with the CWA
rule,- and the same 96 mills will incur
both CAA and CWA rule costs. Table
VflI-3 is a summary of the expected
costs and impacts for various
combinations of CAA and CWA rules.
The losses of jobs, shipments, exports,
and indirect effects reported in Table
VHI-3 are the impacts derived from mill
closures. Some results are not disclosed
where confidentiality might be
compromised.
TABLE VIII-3.—COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF CAA AND CWA RULES
Costs and Impacts
Capital Costs ($MM) „
Post-Tax Annualized Costs ($MM)
Mill Closures '.
Firm Failures
Job Losses (from mill closures)
Decreased Shipments ($MM) '.
Decreased Exports ($MM)
Direct and Indirect Effects ($MM)
Rules
MACTI
(final)
501
82
0
0
0
0
0
MACTII
(proposed)
258
23
0
0
' , 0
0
0
BAT/PSES
(BPK&PS)i
1,039
172
1
0
400
'. 150
19
430
MACT I &
BAT/PSES
(96 mills)
1,394
229
2
0
900
273
19
795
MACTI,
BAT/PSES
& MACT II
(BPK&PS)
(96 mills)
1,524
240
3
0
1,700
479
22
1,393
MACTI,
BAT/PSES
& MACT II
(155 mills)
1,799
277
3
0
1,700
479
22
1,393
1BPK: 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/PS.ES 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 £.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 HI
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 H
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 H costs are
approximately 10,000 jobs lost and $1.4
billion in lost economic output.
F. Costs and Impacts of Rejected BAT/
PSES Options for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
1. Summary of Results
Table VHI-4 presents costs and
impacts for two options (Option B and
TCF) that EPA evaluated, .but did not
select, as the basis for BAT/PSES for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory. EPA's rationale for
selecting Option A for BAT/PSES for
this subcategory is presented in Section
VI.B.5.a(5). Table VTfl-4 presents results
in three ways: considering CWA costs
and impacts alone; considering the costs
and impacts of the rejected BAT/PSES
options and MACT I; and considering
-------
18584
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
the costs and impacts of the rejected
BAT/PSES options, MACT I, and MACT
E.
TABLE Vlll-4.—COSTS AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF REJECTED BAT/PSES OPTIONS FOR THE BLEACHED PAPERGRADE
' KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY
Costs & Impacts
Capital Costs ($MM)
Post-Tax Annualized Costs ($MM)
Mill Closures
Firm Failures
Job Losses (from mill closures)
Decreased Shipments ($MM)
Decreased Exports ($MM)
Direct and Indirect Effects ($MM)
Rules
Option B
(BAT/PSES)
2,100
216
2
(3)
900
273
19
795
TCP (BAT/
PSES)
3,100
688
7.
(3)
7,100
2,300-
308
. NR
Option B
(BAT/
PSES)+
MACTI
2,600
292
4
(3)
4,800
1,300
24
3,850
TCF + ,
(BAT/
PSES)
MACT I
3,600
764
9
(3)
10,200
3,200
310
NR
Option B
(BAT/PSES)
MACT I &
MACT II
2,700
300
ND1
(3)
ND
ND
ND
ND
TCP, (BAT/
PSES)
MACT I &
MACT II
3,700
772
9
(
10,200
3,200
310
NR
1 ND: not disclosed to protect confidential business information.
a NR: not reported.
* 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 S87 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
VLB.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
S15 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.
Opt/on 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 iri County Y).
Option B, MACT I, and MACT'27; The
combined capital costs for Option B,
MACT I, and proposed MACT n 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 E, 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 iri the counties in
which the mill closures are located.
TCP: The capital costs for retrofitting
mills in this subcategory for TCP
technology are estimated at $3.1 billion
for TCP based on peroxide bleaching
and $5.6 billion for TCP based on ozone
and peroxide bleaching, respectively.
EPA evaluated mill closures for the TCP
option with the lower capital costs.
O&M costs for this option are $783
million, and annualized costs are $688
million. (TCP 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)).
TCP and MACT I: The combined
capital costs for TCP 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.
TCP, MACT I, and MACT II: The
combined capital costs for TCP, MACT
I, and MACT E 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 TCP, MACT I,
and MACT E, EPA estimates that the
number of mill closures, job losses, and
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday. April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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 TCP
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 MACTI and/or
MACT H. 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 YE of this preamble describes
the estimated reductions in air
emissions and effluent discharges. The
incremental environmental
improvements noted in Section Vn.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 yn.B:l of this preamble
describes the emissions reductions
expected as a result of implementing
MACT I and MACT H 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 n 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 H for all
subcategories regulated under the CAA
is to decrease emissions for all of the
above mentioned pollutants except NOx
and SO2. See Table VHI-5 below. EPA
performed an evaluation of the benefits
associated with the air regulations based
on the emission reductions estimated in
Section Vn.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
-------
18586 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 SOz 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.s, the
effects of which are discussed above.
b. Monetized Air Quality Benefits.
Table VTH-5 below presents both the
health and welfare benefits described in
this section as well as the emission
reductions identified in Section W.B.l
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
Pollutant
HAPs
TRS
M£V,
VOC
PM
CO
so*
Total
Standard
MACTI
Decrease
(Mg)
139,000
79,000
(5,200)
409,000
(83)
(8,700)
(94,500)
Value
($MM)
NE
NE
NE
24-1,055
(1)
NE
(1,064)-0
(1,040H,054
MACT II
Decrease
(Mg)
2,600
(500)
32,600
24,000
58,000
30
Value
($MM)
NE
NE
NE
2-84
300
NE
0.1-0.3
302-384
Combined
Decrease
(Mg)
142,000
79,000
(5,700)
441,000
24,000
49,000
(94,400)
Value
($MM)
NE
NE
NE
26-1,139
299
NE
(1,064)-0.3
(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
Paniculate 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 n 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 PMio
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 n 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 ISO2
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 2;ero
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 18587
disbenefits. For MACT E, 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 SOz benefits are from
approximately $0.1 to $0.3 million.
Therefore, total monetized SOz 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 n
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 Vn.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 finai EAT
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
Vn.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
(ORE) (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
-------
18588 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 (rag/
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 offish 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 Sae 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
leyel'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,
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72 / Wednesday. April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations 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
arid 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 of 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 VHI-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 Sectipn VuT.F.2.b.(l)).
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/
fufan-contaminated sludge, which in
turn was based on the proportional,
reduction of dioxin/furan in effluent
(see the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649,
Chapters). . ,
Total rrumetized water-related
benefits for all the above categories
range from $12 million to $57 million.
As noted previously, the above
estimates do not include the benefits
that have been identified but not
monetized, such as health effects for
Native American subsistence fishermen,
reduction in AWQC exceedances,
reduction of projected non-cancer
effects and improvements in fish and
wildlife habitat.
-------
18590
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
TABLE VIII-6.—MONETIZED WATER QUALITY BENEFITS OF FINAL BAT/PSES FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND
SODA AND PAPERGRADE SULFITE MILLS
Benefit category
Water-related Benefits
Human health (recreational fish consumption) ;
Recreational angling
"Contaminant-free" fishery
Increased participation
Reduced Sludge Disposal Costs
Total Water-related Benefits
Final BAT/PSES
(millions 1995$)
$2-$22
$2-$19
+
$8-$16
S12-S57
+ 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 Vffl-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 Vni.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 H 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 VI11-7.—SUMMARY OF COSTS, ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND BENEFITS
Capital Costs
Pre-Tax Annualized Costs*
Monetized Annual Benefits
Net Annual Benefits (Benefits-Costs)
Projected Mill Closures
Potential Job Losses (due to mill clo-
sures)
Projected Firm Failures
r
MACTI
$501
$125
($1,040)-
$1,054
($1,1 65V-
$929
0
0
0
MACT II
$258
$32
$302-$384
$270-$352
0
0
0
Combined
air rules
$759
$157
($739V-
$1,438
($896)-
$1,281
1
ND
0
Final BAT/
PSES
$1,039
$263
$12-$57
NE
1
ND
0
MAPT 1 anrl
final BAT/
PSES (96
$1 394
$351
($1 028V-
$1,111
NE
2
900
0
MACT I,
MACT II,
and final
BAT/PSES
(96 mills)
$1 524
$366
NE
NE
3
ND
0
MACTI, ,
MACT II,
and final
BAT/PSES
(155 mills)
$1 799
$420
($727>—
$1,495
NE
3
ND
O
* 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 s not estimated.
ND = not disclosed to protect confidentiality.
Figures in table reflect rounding.
L Costs and Benefits of Rejected Options
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Subcategoiy—Option B and TCP
1. Air Benefits
As noted in Section VTJI.F.l, the
oxygen delignification technology used
as a component of Option B and TCP
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 wh'ere 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 TCP 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
TCP range from $29 million to $1,050
million. MACT H 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 TCP are $31
million to $1,134 million. PM related
disbenefits for MACT I are $1 million,
while MACT E PM benefits aire $300
million for a total PM benefit of
approximately $299 million, for either.
Option B or TCP. SO2 related disbenefits
for MACT I are from $ 1,043 million
down to $0, while MACT H 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
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
18591
' B or TCP (see the Economic Analysis,
DCN 14649, Chapter 8). Aggregate
annual benefits attributed to MACT n
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 VIILG.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 TCP—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 Vm.G.2.b(l), 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. TCP 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 TCP 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-ce'ded 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 TCP
were promulgated.
Both Option B and TCP 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 VHI.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 TCP could be expected to
decline by $8 million to $16 million (see
the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649,
Chapters).
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
TCP, 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 TCP,
chlorine and chlorinated compounds
are not used for bleaching, and therefore
no dioxin was attributed to mills tinder
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
benefit? 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.S.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. Severed 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 VLB.S.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.
-------
18592 Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Rules and Regulations
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 toxiciry. TCP 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
vm-8.
TABLE VIII-8.—MONETIZED WATER QUALITY BENEFITS OF REJECTED BAT/PSES OPTIONS FOR BLEACHED PAPERGRADE
KRA'FT AND SODA & PAPERGRADE SULFITE MILLS
Benefit category
Water-related Benefits
Human health (Recreational fish consumption)
Recreational angling
"Contaminant-free" fishery .'
Increased participation
Reduced Sludge Disposal Costs
Total Monetized Water-related Benefits .'. ;
Option B
(millions
1995$)
$2-$23
$2— $19
+
$8-$16
$12-$58
TCF
(millions
1995$)
$2-$25
$2-$19
+
$8— $16
$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 n 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 H and BAT/PSES based on TCF
would total ($701) million to $1.493
million.
/. 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 VQ1.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 n
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
VTH-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
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63. No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 /Rules and Regulations
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 VIH-9.—COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL ANNUAL BENEFITS TO POTENTIAL ANNUALIZED COSTS FOR SEVEN CASE
STUDY SITES
[Millions of 1995 dollars]
Site
Water-related
benefits
Air-related benefits'1
MACT 1
MACT II
Total monetized
benefits
Total compli-
ance costs3
ORIGINAL CASE STUDIES
Penobscot River
Wisconsin River
Lower Columbia River
' $0.7-$23
$0 1-$1 5
$1 5-$86
($9 5}-7 7
($16 9)— 15 6
($26 9)— 56 2
$0 1
$2 1
$07
($87) 10 1
($147)— 19 2
fip4. 7\_fiS Z
M
\ 1
• |