United States Office of Water (4303) EPA-821-R-97-019
Environmental Protection Office of Air and Radiation October 1997
Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (RTP)
ERA, 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
40 CFR Parts 63,261, and 430
-------
-------
This copy of the Pulp and Paper Industry "Cluster Rules " is being
provided as a service to the public before Federal Register Publication. It
is subject to editing and reformatting to conform to Federal Register
requirements. The only official version of the document mil be that
published in the Federal Register.
Environmental Protection Agency*
40 CFR Parts 63, 261, and 430
[FRL - XXXX-X]
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance
Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), .
ACTION: Final rules.
SUMMARY: This action promulgates effluent limitations guidelines
and standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for a portion of
the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry, and national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) under the clean
Air Act (CAA) as amended in 1990 for the pulp and paper
production source category.
EPA is also promulgating best management practices under the
CWA for a portion of the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry,
and new analytical methods for 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants
and for adsorbable organic halides (AOX). This action
1
-------
consolidates into 12 subcategories what had once been 26 ,^~
9
subcategories of effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry, and revises the
existing effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory and the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory. The revised effluent limitations guidelines
and standards require existing and new facilities within these
two subcategories to limit the discharge of pollutants into
i
navigable waters of the United States and to limit the
i
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works.
The NESHAP requires existing and hew major sources within the
pulp and paper production source category to control emissions
i
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
2
-------
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
3
-------
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 arid
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
i
"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 Notice, EPA is
concurrently proposing NESHAP to control hazardous air pollutants
i
4 '
-------
from chemical recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda,
T
sulfite, and stand-alone semi-chemical pulp mills.
Today, 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.
Although not proposing totally chlorine-free (TCP)
technologies for new source performance standards under the CWA
for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory at this time,
elsewhere in today's Federal Register Notice, 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.
5
-------
DATES: In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,: the regulations shall become
effective [Insert date 60 days from FR publication] . For
compliance dates, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section under
the heading "Compliance Dates."
ADDRESSES:
Air Dockets. The Air Dockets are: available for public inspection
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday except for
Federal holidays, at the following address: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Ai-r 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 M Street SW, Washington, DC'
20460. For access to Docket materials, call (202) 260-3027. The
Docket staff requests that interested parties call between 9:00
am and 3:30 pm for an appointment! before visiting the docket.
For additional information about the dockets, see section
X.A below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Background and support '..
6
-------
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 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,
enforement and applicability determinations, contact Ms. Maria
-*-33*
'"-.-''
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.
7
-------
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 regulation^
promulgated today. Of these mills, 155 will be affected by MACT
i
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: ;
8
-------
Category
Rule
Examples of regulated entities
Industry NESHAP
Pulp mills and integrated mills (mills
that manufacture pulp and
paper/paperboard) that: chemically
pulp wood fiber (using kraft, sulfite,
soda, or semi-chemical methods); pulp
secondary fiber; pulp nonwood fiber;
and mechanically pulp wood .fiber.
Effluent
Guidelines
Subset of mills subject to the NESHAP
that chemically pulp wood fiber using
kraft, sulfite, or soda methods to
produce bleached papergrade pulp
and/or bleached paper/paperboard
The foregoing table is not intended to be exhaustive, but
rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to
be regulated by the NESHAP and effluent limitations guidelines
and standards promulgated today. This table lists the types of
entities that EPA is now aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not listed in the table
could also be regulated. To determine whether your facility or
9
-------
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 Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations.
If you have questions regarding the applicability of the
NESHAP or the effluent limitations guidelines and standards, see
the section entitled "FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT."
Judicial Review
In accordance with 40 CFR § 23.2, the water portion of
I
today's rule shall be considered promulgated for the purpo'ses of
judicial review at 1 pm Eastern time on [insert date 2 weeks from
\ '** ~ '
FR publication]. 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 Appea.ls
by filing a petition for review within 120 days from the date of
promulgation of those guidelines and standards. Under
section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the NESHAP is
available only by petition for review in the U.S. Court of
10
-------
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 [insert date 36 months from FR publication] .
In addition, these dischargers must continue to comply with the
pretreatment standards for existing sources for pentachlorophenol
11
-------
and trichlorophenol.
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 [insert date
60 days from publication]. 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
j
part of the water regulations for Subpart B. Each existing
direct discharging mill that enrolls in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program must comply immediately with
limitations based on the mill's existing effluent quality or its
current technology-based permit limits for the baseline BAT
parameters, whichever are more stringent. Participating mills
must also comply with mill-specific interim milestones by the
dates specified in their NPDES permits. They must also achieve
the baseline BAT effluent limitations for dioxin, furan,
12
-------
^^ chloroform, 12 specified chlorinated organic pollutants and, for
mills enrolled at the Tier ll or Tier III level, AOX no later
than [insert date 6 years from publication of today's notice] .
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
.[insert date 6 years from date of publication} .
Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier II must be achieved by
' .[insert date 11 years from date of publication] .
Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier III must be achieved by
[insert date 16 years from date of publication].
For new direct discharging mills in Subpart B, EPA is
promulgating Voluntary NSPS at the Tier II and Tier III levels.
Participating new sources must achieve NSPS at the selected level
upon commencing operation.
Compliance dates for the NESHAP are as follows: Existing
sources must comply with the NESHAP no later than [insert date 3
years from date of publication], 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,
13
-------
oxygen delignification systems) must comply no later than . [insert
date 8 years from date of publication] . 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 [insert date 60 days after publication] and with 'the
second stage no later than [insert date 6 years from date of
publication] .
Once today's rules take effect on [insert date 60 days after
publication], new sources must comply with applicable MACT
requirements upon start-up. For a discussion of the
circumstances under which a source becomes a new source for
compliance with new source air emissions standards, see Sections
II.B.2.b. and VI.A.I.
[
Technology Transfer Network
j :
The Technology Transfer Network (TTN) is one of EPA's
electronic bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and
technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
New air regulations are now being!posted on the TTN through the
world wide web at "http://www.epalgov/ttn." For more information
on the TTN, call the HELP line atj (919) 591-5384.
Information on the water regulations may be accessed through
14 ;
-------
the world wide web at "http://www.epa.gov/OST/Rules/ttfinal.
Organization of This Document
I. Legal Authority
II. Scope of This Rulemaking
A. EPA's Long-Term Environmental Goals
B. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP)
C. Subcategorization and Schedule
III. Background
A. Prior Regulations, Proposal, Notices of Data
Availability, and Public Participation
B. Clean Air Act Statutory Authority
C. Clean Water Act Statutory Authority
D. Other EPA Activities Concerning the Pulp and Paper
Industry
IV. Changes in the Industry Since Proposal
V. Summary of Data Gathering Activities Since Proposal
A. Data Gathering for the Development of Air Emissions
Standards
B. Data Gathering for the Development of Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
VI. Summary of the Major Changes Since Proposal and Rationale
15
-------
for the Selection of the Final Regulations
A. Air Emission Standards
B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
VII. Environmental Impacts '.
A. Summary of Sources and Level of Control
B. Air Emissions and WaterjEffluent 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 arid Pretreatment Standards for
l
New Source (NSPS and PStfS)
VIII. Analysis of Costs, Economic Impacts, and Benefits
A. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts
B. Overview of Economic Analysis
C. Costs and Economic Impacts for Air Emissions Standards
D. Costs and Economic Impacts for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
E. Costs and Impacts for the Integrated Rule
F. Costs and Impacts of Rejected BAT/PSES Options fpr the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory ;
G. Benefits
16
-------
H. Comparison of Costs and Benefits
I. Costs and Benefits of Rejected Options for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory - Option B an 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
17
-------
K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act , ]^*.'
w
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, 13'18, 1342,
and 1361, and sections 112, 114, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C.. sections 7412, 7414, and 7601.
I
II. Scope of This Rulemaking , , .
I
Today1 s Cluster Rules consist of effluent limitations
i
guidelines and standards for the control of wastewater pollutsints
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
part-ies during the development of \ these regulations.
Section VI of this notice discusses the major changes since
proposal and the rationale for the regulatory decisions
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 tpday codifying the
m
-------
subcategorization scheme that was proposed for 40 CFR Parts 430
and 431, see 58 FR 66078, 66098-100 (Dec. 17, 1993) and is
redesignating the section and subpart numbers in 40 CFR Part 430
accordingly.
A. EPA's Long-Term Environmental Goals
EPA has integrated the development of the regulations
discussed today to provide greater protection of human health and
the environment, reduce the cost of complying with the wastewater
regulations and air emissions controls, promote and facilitate
coordinated compliance planning by industry, promote and
facilitate pollution prevention, and emphasize the multimedia
nature of pollution control.
The Agency envisions a long-term approach to environmental
improvement that is consistent with sound capital expenditures.
This approach, which is presented in today's notice, stems from
extensive discussions with a range of stakeholders. The effluent
"'"**'
limitations guidelines and standards and air emissions standards
are only one component of the framework to achieve long-term
environmental goals. The overall regulatory framework also
includes incentives to reward and encourage mills that implement
pollution prevention beyond regulatory requirements. The Agency
will continue to encourage mill-specific solutions to remaining
19
-------
-------
-------
environmental problems through water quality-based requirements
in permits and enforcement of those requirements. In addition,
I
continuing research on minimum impact technologies, such as
closed-loop and totally chlorine-free bleaching processes, will
help to identify economical ways of furthering environmental
improvement in this industry.
EPA's long-term goals include improved air quality, improved
! '
water quality, the elimination of;fish consumption advisories
-
downstream of mills, and the elimination of ecologically
significant bioaccumulation. An integral part of these goals is
an industry committed to continuous environmental improvement --
I =
an industry that aggressively pursues research and pilot projects
to identify technologies that will reduce, and ultimately
eliminate, pollutant discharges from existing and new sources. A
holistic approach to implementing[these pollution prevention
technologies would contribute to the long-term goal of minimizing
impacts of mills in all environmental media by moving mills
toward closed-loop process operations. Effective implementation
of these technologies is capable of increasing reuse of
recoverable materials and energy while concurrently reducing
consumption of raw materials (e.g.;, process water, unrecoverable
chemicals, etc.), and reducing air emissions and generation of
20
-------
hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. EPA expects that this
combination of regulation, research, pilot projects, and '
incentives will foster continuous environmental improvement with
each mill investment cycle. For this reason, EPA is including an
incentives program as part of the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards being promulgated today for bleached papergrade
kraft and soda mills that accept enforceable permit limits
requiring effluent reductions well beyond the rule's regulatory
baseline (see Section IX). To ensure that today's air emission
standards do not present barriers or disincentives to mills in
choosing technologies beyond baseline BAT, EPA is providing
additional time to comply with MACT beyond the three-year
cpmpliance 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)(1). To this end,
section 112(d) of the CAA directs EPA to set' standards for
21
-------
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
megagratns) . EPA is promulgating this NESHAP because pulp ! and
- i '
paper mills are major sources of HAP emissions. Individual mills
1
are capable of emitting as much as several hundred tons per year
I
(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,
L
nausea, and respiratory distress;; and possible reproductive
[
effects. .
a. Hazardous Air Pollutants,
Table II-l lists the 14 HAPSi 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,
i
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
i
per year (Mg/yr).
TABLE II-l HIGHEST EMITTED; HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FROM PULP AND' PAPER MILLS
22
-------
Hazardous Air Pollutant
Acrolein Methanol
Aeetaldehyde Methylene chloride
o-Cresol Methyl ethyl ketone
Carbon tetrachloride Phenol
Chloroform Propionaldehyde
Cumene 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
Formaldehyde o-Xylene
b.-- Volatile Organic Compounds
Emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) have been
r,
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
T
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
23
-------
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
i
the potential to emit ten tons pei* year of any one HAP or 25 tons
per year of all HAPs (one ton is equal to<0.908 megagrams).
i
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.1 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 jdevices to be properly operated
and maintained at all times, and clarify the applicability:of the
24;
-------
NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) to sources
subject to this rule.
[
The rule subcategorlzes 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
t -
wood using kraft, semi-chemical, sulfite, or soda processes are
I '
referred to in later sections as MACT I mills. Mills that
mechanically [pulp wood, or that pulp secondary fiber or non-wood
I
fibers, or that produce paper or paperboard from purchased pulp
t '
are referred |to in later sections as MACT III mills.
The emission control requirements for new and existing
I
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
I -
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
i
processing both kraft weak black liquor and spent liquor from a
semi-chemical process would have to comply with the kraft
! ' 25
-------
subcategory requirements for foul>condensate. This more ; j^fc,
stringent requirement is appropriate because there is no way to
l ' <
isolate the emissions for each pulping source to determine
compliance separately. i
i
I
i i
These standards do not address emissions from recovery area
combustion sources (referred to in later sections as MACT ,11) .
i
These sources are being regulatedjunder 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
l
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
l
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
l
system.
b. New Source MACT
New source MACT applies to: (1) an affected source that
commenced construction or reconstruction after initial proposal;
i
i
26 '
-------
(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 [insert date 3 years from publication in the
Federal Register], except for the following cases. Existing
kraft sources are required to control all the equipment'in the
HVLC collection system no later than [insert date eight years
from date of publication in the Federal Register]. 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
27
-------
existing source papergrade kraft and soda bleach mills that
elect, under the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program, to control wastewater discharges to levels surpassing
i
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--! .e. ,' no backsliding--during the
initial period when the mill is working toward meeting its,
i
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 presentlyjachieving. Therefore, the
effective date of the first phase|requirements is [insert date 60
_
days from the date of publication in the Federal Register] . 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
28
*
-------
than [insert 6 years from date of publication} .
Once today's rules take effect on [insert date 60 days from
date of publication}, new sources must comply with applicable
MACT requirements upon start-up.
d. Kraft Pulping Standards
For existing sources, the kraft pulping standards
promulgated today apply to the following equipment systems: the
low volume high concentration (LVHC) system, the pulp washing
system, the oxygen delignification system, decker systems that do
not use fresh water or Whitewater from papermaking systems or
that use process water with HAP concentrations greater than or
equal to 400 parts per million by weight (ppmw), and knotter
systems and screening systems that have total system emissions
greater than or equal to 0.05 and 0.10 kilograms of HAP per
megagram of oven-dried pulp (ODP) produced, respectively (or have
total [i.e., knotter and screening] system emissions greater than
or equal to 0.15 kilograms of HAP per megagram of ODP produced
combined). For new sources, the kraft pulping standards apply to
the'equipment systems listed above for existing sources, plus
weak liquor storage tanks, all knotter systems, all screening
systems, and all decker systems.
Sources subject to the kraft pulping standards must enclose
29
-------
open process equipment and route all emissions through a closed- ^^
9
vent system to a control device. iThe closed-vent system must be
designed and operated with no detectable leaks. The rule
provides three control device options, as follows: (1) reduce
l *
the HAP content by 98 percent by weight (or, for thermal
oxidizers, to- a level of 20 partsper 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 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)
i
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
i
following four alternative ways to meet the kraft condensate
i
standard: (1) recycle applicable,condensate streams to'process
30!
-------
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
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.£62, and 63.964 of subpart RR.
These essentially require that the means of conveyance be leak-
free. Air emissions of HAP from vents on any condensate
treatment systems (except biological treatment systems) that are
used to comply with the standards must be routed to a control
device meeting the kraft pulping standards.
All the pulping process condensates from the LVHC and HVLC
collection systems must be treated. However, the facility has
31
-------
the option of minimizing the condensate volume sent to treatment
from the digester system, turpentine recovery system, and weak
liquor feed stages in the evaporator system (i.e., condensate
segregation). If sufficient segregation is not achieved, then
the entire volume of condensate from the digester system,
turpentine recovery system, and weak liquor feed stages in the
evaporator system and the LVHC and HVLC collection systems must
be treated.
i
Two options are provided in Jthe rule for determining if
sufficient segregation has been achieved. The first option is to
I
isolate at least 65 percent of the total HAP mass in the total of
all condensates from the digester, system, turpentine recovery
i
system, and weak liquor feed stages in the evaporator system.
j
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
j
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
32
-------
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
33
-------
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 I rule provides an alternative
definition of the affected source. The alternative definition
allows for the CCA to apply to prbcess systems outside of the
kraft pulping system. The expanded source includes the
causticizing system and the papermaking system. The mill must
specify the process equipment within the expanded source with
which to generate the required HAP emissions reductions using the
CCA. The mass emission reduction of HAPs must equal or exceed
the reduction that would have been achieved through application'
of the kraft pulping vent standards. The final determination of
equivalency shall be made by the permitting authority based on an
evaluation of the HAP emission reductions.
j
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
34
-------
emissions from the effluent from any equipment used to reduce HAP
emissions to comply with the standards (e.g., acid plant scrubber
and nuisance scrubber). For new sources, the sulfite pulping
standards apply to the equipment systems listed for existing
sources, plus weak liquor tanks, strong liquor storage tanks, and
acid condensate storage tanks.
Sources subject to the sulfite pulping standards for
equipment systems must enclose open process equipment and route
all HAP emissions through a closed-vent system to a control
device. The closed-vent system must be designed and operated
with no detectable leaks. The'total HAP emissions from the
equipment systems and from the effluent from any control device
used to reduce HAP emissions must meet a mass emission limit or a
percent reduction requirement. Calcium- and sodium-based sulfite
pulping mills must meet an emission limit of 0.44 kilograms of
methanol per megagram of ODP or achieve a 92 percent methanol
reduction. Ammonium- and magnesium-based sulfite pulping mills
must meet an emission limit of 1.1 kilograms of methanol per .
megagram of ODP limit or achieve an 87 percent methanol removal.
g. Semi-Chemical Pulping Standards .
For existing sources, the semi-chemical pulping standards
apply to the LVHC vent system. For new sources, semi-chemical
35
-------
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 to a control device. Positive-pressure
I
I
portions of the closed-vent system must be designed and operated
i
with-no detectable leaks. The rule provides three control device
options, as follows: (1) reduce the HAP content by 98 percent by
i
weight (or, for thermal oxidizers, to a level of 20 pprnv of total
HAP, corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry basis); (2) reduce
i
HAPs by using a properly operated;thermal oxidizer (operated at a
minimum temperature of 1,600 °F and a minimum residence time of
i '
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.
i ',
Sources subject to the soda pulping standards must enclose
open process equipment and route all emissions through a closed-
l
vent system to a control device. Positive pressure portions of
36
-------
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
37
-------
chlorinated HAP emissions from bleaching systems that use
i
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
l
used as a surrogate for measuring total chlorinated HAP. The
closed-vent system must be designed and operated with no
i
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
baseline effluent limitations guidelines and standards for all
pollutants being promulgated today under the'Clean Water Act or
38
either to meet the applicable
-------
to certify that chlorine and hypochlorite are not used in the
bleaching system.
However, EPA at present lacks sufficient information to
establish new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
dissolving grade mills, and also lacks information to reliably
ascertain what a MACT standard for chloroform air emissions would
be for this unit operation. (It is not appropriate to set MACT
standards for chloroform based on the control technology in use
today to comply with current effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for dissolving grade mills because these technologies
are at the wastewater treatment system, rather than in the
bleaching process where the chloroform-emitting vents are
located.) 'EPA intends to set new effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for dissolving grade mills after analyses currently
underway by EPA are complete, and is deferring establishing MACT
standards for chloroform until these effluent limitations
guidelines and standards are established. Therefore, dissolving
grade mills will be required to control chloroform air emissions
three years after the new effluent limitations guidelines and
standards are promulgated.
In a related action, EPA is also deferring establishing MACT
for chlorinated HAPs other ,than chloroform from dissolving grade
39
-------
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
i
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
,
i
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
t
to levels surpassing the baseline;BAT limitations being
promulgated today under the CWA. I Phase one represents the
40
-------
present MACT floor for existing sources, i.e., no backsliding
from existing controls during the initial period when a mill is
working toward meeting its Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
requirements; phase two requires the mill either to meet baseline
BAT requirements for all pollutants for bleached papergrade kraft
and soda mills or to certify that chlorine and hypochlorite are
not used in the bleaching system. EPA is establishing MACT in
two phases in order to avoid discouraging plants from electing
environmentally superior levels of wastewater treatment
represented by the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program. These points are discussed in detail in section VI.A.7.
j. Mechanical Pulping Mill, Secondary Fiber Pulping Mill,
Non-wood Pulping Mill, and Papermaking System Standards
Mechanical pulping (groundwood, thermomechanical,
pressurized) mills, secondary fiber pulping mills, and non-wood
pulping mills must comply with the bleaching system standards
described in section II.B.2.1. There are no control requirements
for pulping systems or process condensates at these mills. For
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'
41
-------
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 isystems. Because the majority
i
of all non-chlorinated HAP emissions from process equipment and
in pulping process condensates is [methanol, in most cases the
I
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
i
I
concentration limit requirements, jmass emission limit
I :
requirements, and percent reduction requirements for bleaching
I
systems/ chlorine may be measured as a surrogate for total
i
chlorinated HAP emissions (other than chloroform).
1. Monitoring Provisions
Sources subject to the NESHAP are required to continuously
I
monitor specific process or operating parameters for control
devices and collection systems. Continuous emissions monitoring
i' '
is not required, except as an alternative to certain control
requirements. Parameter values ar.e 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
42
-------
selected parameter values are violations except for biological
treatment systems. If a biological treatment system monitoring
parameter is outside the established range, a performance test
must be performed. The parameters that must be monitored for
vent and condensate compliance are explained below.
Mills using a thermal oxidizer must install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a temperature monitoring device and
continuous recorder to measure the temperature in the firebox or
in the ductwork immediately downstream of the firebox before any
substantial- heat exchange occurs. Mills using gas scrubbers at
bleaching systems or sulfite processes must install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a device to monitor and continuously record
(1) pH or the oxidation/reduction potential of scrubber effluent,
(2) vent gas inlet flow rate, and (3) scrubber liquid influent
flow rate. As an alternative to monitoring these parameters,
mills complying with the bleaching system outlet concentration
option must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device to
monitor and continuously record the chlorine outlet
concentration. Mills complying with the bleaching system outlet
mass emission limit option must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a device to monitor and continuously record the chlorine
outlet concentration and the scrubber outlet vent gas flow.
43
-------
Bleached papergrade kraft and soda| mills enrolling in the > *j^
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 [insert date 60 days from date of publication]
and [insert date 6 years from date of publication] .
Mills using steam strippers must install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a device to (monitor and continuously record
I
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
I
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
44!
-------
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 BOD5, MLVSS, or the aerator
horsepower monitoring parameters fall outside the range
established during the initial performance test.
Monitoring requirements for the pulping process condensate
collection systems include initial and monthly visual inspections
of individual drain system components and vent control devices
(if used), and repair of defects. Additionally, inspection and
monitoring requirements from § 63.964 of subpart RR (National
Emission Standards for Individual Drain Systems) are incorporated
in the final rule. Monitoring requirements for vent collection
45
-------
systems are (1) a visual inspection of the closed-vent system and gg.
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 ithe 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
i
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
46
-------
system, and pulping process conclensate 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 subj ect 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 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
47
-------
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
I
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory (new Subpart B)
i
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
I
Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Pulp, Paper and;Paperboard Point Source
48
-------
Category, also referred to as the proposal Technical Development
Document (EPA 821-R93-019), and EPA's response to comments on
this issue (DCN 14497, Vol. 1).
Although the Agency is codifying the revised
subcategorization scheme for the whole industry today, EPA will
promulgate revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards,
as appropriate, for this industrial category in stages consisting
of several subcategories at a time. The Agency has labeled these
groupings of subcategories as "Phase I," "Phase II," and "Phase
III." The schedule for these phases is explained below and in
the following table.
49
-------
a
Cn
c*H
£j
g
O
M
ft
M-l
(J)
d
Q)
43 -.
U 0)
CO to
ns
0 43
§ °*
Irt £
(U
0 -O
2; H
in a
JJ r<
M ns
ns J->
*§ -0
CO C
cs ns
i ra
Table II
Scheme (with Previou
citations Guidelines
ri
4J C
nj o
N 0
fied Subcategori
Effl
H
U
,_!
n]
(3
H
fa
§
H W *
EH .3 -
SDH
ca a en
!D 'c SI
S w -
a,
co
o
o
H
1
Di
CD S W
S 0 0
S > s
2 ^ en
£5 ^ S
H S
r Cl«
Q r! CQ
W S D
D: S w
N
BBS
TYPES OF FACILITIES
SUBCATEGOR
40 CFR Part
§
FINAL
SUBCATEGORIZAT:
SCHEME
Q f..
pQ Cj
§ fa §
M Q CQ
fa Q O
u w
(1
H
Dissolving Kraft (F)
Dissolving Kraft
^
Je =
W
^
*~.
ffi
JJ
U-4
ns
fcj
a
A
o
n$
^4
rH C Qj Hi CD
3 (S .Q
CO - T! i >t
. -
-------
M
1-H
JJ
SH
(0
1
to
o
H
4H
-rl
U
4)
ft
to
IB
N
a
o
SH
1)
O
0
JJ
§
ta
rH
r-H
-H
E
to
o
rH
rH
O
O
to
-cH
2
rH
IB
U
-rl
E
0)
t_)
a
0
o
s
G r?
0 3
a
M
1-H
. .
2
SH
D
43
-rl
fa
SH co
* SH
T! co tt)
G ^ ft
O D (0 JJ
CJ ft 0. G
tt> IB -H
CQ cu CD SH
3 ft
A! a) to to
C C to S
-H -rl -H CD
tt) fa EH g
Q I i i
M
G
H
0)
Q
^_|
0)
H
fa
in"*
<0
Ti
G
O
U
CD
W
H
1-H
M
n
a*
^
£_i
(0
Cu1
K
o
o
rH
. tt)
W S fa
^ * *
Cn
- SH to G
EH 0) JJ -rl
* ft E u *w
(0 3 3 O
SH ft -H T> O
D tt) T5 O K
ft jj tt) SH
<8 to £ 2 Cn Ti
ft (S 3 G
tt) S -H tn Ti is
JJ T> G CD
to E tt> -H Ti SH
(0 O g JJ rH D
S SH (B 0 ft
>*H en tn 2 Ti OS
CO tt) SH O JJ rH ft
to ft O a co -H 42
-n ns U (033
EH ft i i K CQ CO
t
G
O
a
^_l
0)
-H
fa
J*
(8
a
G .M
0 G
O -rl
D D
W P
1-H
co
SH
(U
ft
« (S
a.
to jj
SH 43
tt) Cn rH
ft -H ta
IB 43 (U 0
Oj CO 3 -H
43 -H JJ 10 S-I .
tt) co G 43 SH JJ
G -H SH Cn a) o
H G 3 -H tt D
fa SH fa J 10 rH
3 CU trl
tt) Q) tt) JJ JJ S
JJ SH 42 JJ 43 43 Q)
(B tt) -H (B Cn Cn o.
SH 42 fa SH - O
-rl O SH
EH S 4H
T3
it)
-iH
E
0)
JJ
0
o
a)
43
o
jj
to
jj
ffl
T3
13 H
O M
rl
a m
oi ta
3 n.
E
O iw
SJ O
Dt
jj
IB"
H a
M
H CO
n!
1-8
S
W (8
M Ol
i-H
CD 3
(1) E
to o
* S4
0)
43
£ O
TJ JJ
J
J OJ
j jj
C E
0 -H
H i-H
JJ
8 SH
31 QJ
i-H JJ
3 Q)
= £
2 18
Cu ni
O.
H -H
(8
(U JJ
to ^
IB 0)
3 U
* *
-------
a. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and UB
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory (Subparts B and E)
Under the consent decree entered in the case
Environmental Defense Fund and National Wildlife Federation
v. Thomas. Civ. No. 85-0973 (D.D.C.), and subsequently
amended, EPA was required to ;use its best efforts to
promulgate regulations addressing discharges of dioxins and
furans from 104 bleaching pulp mills by June 17, 1995.
Despite making its best efforts, EPA was not able to
promulgate final effluent limitations guidelines and
standards applicable to those mills by that date. However,
i
guidelines and standards for,mills in the Bleached
l
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory (Subpart B) and the
I
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory (Subpart E), thereby
addressing discharges from 96 of the mills covered by the
consent decree. Regulating tihe discharge of dioxins and
furans from the mills in the'dissolving kraft and dissolving _
i
sulfite subcategories remains a very high priority; as
I
discussed in more detail below, EPA will promulgate effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for discharges of
,
i
52
-------
dioxins and furans from those mills as soon as possible.
b. Dissolving Kraft Subcategory and Dissolving Sulfite
Subcategory (Subparts A and D)
EPA is evaluating comments and preliminary new data
received since proposal affecting the Dissolving Kraft and
Dissolving Sulfite subcategories. The Agency anticipates
that the final effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for these subcategories will be based on different
technologies than those that served as the basis for the
proposed limitations and standards. For example, EPA has
received data suggesting that oxygen delignification is not
a feasible process for making some dissolving pulp products,
particularly high grade products. In addition, some use of
hypochlorite appears to be necessary to maintain product
quality for some products. Affected companies have
undertaken laboratory studies and mill trials to develop
alternative bleaching processes and to document the effects
on wastewater and air emissions. The Agency expects to
receive data on these studies and trials as the companies'
efforts progress.
Because EPA's record presently is incomplete, EPA is
not .promulgating final effluent limitations guidelines and
53
-------
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,
i
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
154
-------
produce dissolving grade pulp do so at a very high
percentage (typically greater than 85 percent) of their
total pulp output. It has come to EPA's attention, however,
that some specialty grade papergrade sulfite mills now have
the capability to produce low percentages of dissolving
grade pulp. EPA does not intend for these mills to be
regulated under Subpart D; rather, they are specialty grade
sulfite mills within the Papergrade Sulfite'subcategory
(Subpart E).
c. Schedule for the Remaining Subcategories
EPA is assessing comments and data received since
proposal for the remaining eight subcategories. These eight
subcategories are: 1) Unbleached Kraft; 2) Semi-Chemical; 3)
Mechanical Pulp; 4) Non-Wood Chemical Pulp; 5) Secondary
Fiber Deink; 6) Secondary Fiber^.Non-Deink; 7) Fine and
'>' '
Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp; and 8) Tissue,
Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp. For
example, EPA has received additional information from an
industry-sponsored survey of secondary fiber non-deink
mills. The Agency also has received additional data from
mills in other subcategories, including semi-chemical,
unbleached kraft, and secondary fiber deink. EPA plans to
55
-------
promulgate effluent limitations guidelines and standards for j|^
these subcategories in the near future. It should be noted
that air emission standards are being promulgated today for
these subcategories.
2. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently
Available (BPT) and Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT) for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory
Although the Agency has the statutory authority to
revise BPT effluent limitations guidelines, the Agency is
exercising its discretion not to revise BPT for Subparts B
and E at this time. In addition, none of the technologies tiff
that EPA evaluated for the purpose of setting more stringent
effluent limitations for the conventional pollutants *a
s
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 Supbarts B and E in this rulemaking.
3. Final Regulations for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda Subcategory (Subpart B)
a. Pollutants Regulated
In this rule, EPA is promulgating effluent limitations
' . 56
-------
guidelines and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDD ("dioxin"),
2,3,7,8-TCDF {ufuran"), 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 VLB. 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 of1 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.BJS.a.
57
-------
c. New Source Performance Standards
The Agency has determined that the technology basis
defining new source performance standards (NSPS) for toxics
and non-conventional pollutants is the BAT model technology
with the addition of oxygen delignification and/or extended
cooking. See Section VI.B.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 TCP and, if appropriate/ flow reduction technologies.
In this rule, NSPS are effective [insert date 60 days
after publication] . 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
;58
-------
model technology for NSPS, excluding secondary biological
treatment. A source is a new source for purposes of PSNS if
it meets the definitionof 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., [insert date 60 days after
publication] .
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
59
-------
discharging mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory. This program is discussed .in Section.IX.
4. Final Regulations for the Papergrade Sulfite
Subcategory (Subpart E) :
a. Segmentation of Subpart E and Best Available
Technology Economically Achievable (BAT)
After assessing comments and data received after the
proposal, EPA is segmenting the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory to account for production of specialty grade
pulps and the applicability of technologies to ammonium-
based pulping processes. ;
The Agency is segmenting this subcategory and
establishing BAT technology bases set forth below. (EPA has
established the same segments for new source performance
standards and pretreatment standards' for Subpart E.)
(1) For production of pulp and paper at papergrade
sulfite mills using an acidic cooking liquor of calcium,
magnesium, or sodium sulfite (unless the mill is a specialty
grade sulfite mill), the BAT ' technology basis is totally
!
chlorine-free bleaching. EPA is promulgating limitations
for AOX for this segment. See Section VI.B.S.b.
(2) For production of pulp and paper at papergrade
60
-------
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 VI.B.6.b.
61
-------
b. New Source Performance Standards
For each segment identified above, EPA is establishing
NSPS based on the model BAT technologies selected for the
particular segment. The pollutants are the same as those
regulated by BAT for the applicable segment. EPA is also
exercising its discretion not to revise NSPS for BOD5, TSS,
and pH. See Section VI.B.6.C.
c. Pretreatment Standards
The Agency is promulgating pretreatment standards for
the segments identified above. The pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSES) control the same pollutants
controlled by BAT for the particular segment. EPA is
promulgating pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS)
for the same toxic and nonconventional pollutants controlled
by NSPS for the particular segment. A source is a new
source for purposes of PSNS if it meets the definition of
new source in 40 CFR 430.01 (j) and if it commences
construction after the date of proposal, i.e., December 17,
1993. However, a new indirect discharger is not required to
meet PSNS for Subpart E until those standards become
effective, i.e., [insert date 60 days after publication} .
The technology bases for PSES and PSNS for the Papergrade
; 62
-------
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,
promulgating pretreatment standards, for chloroform and AOX
until it has sufficient performance data to set limitations
and standards for those parameters. EPA is promulgating
pretreatment standards for AOX for the calcium-, magnesium-,
and sodium-based sulfite segment. EPA has made no pass-
through determination at this time for COD for any segment.
More details are described below in section VI.B.S.d.
5. Best Management Practices for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade
Sulfite Subcategory .-'...'. .
EPA is codifying best management practices (BMPs)
applicable to direct- and indirect-discharging mills in the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite -
subcategories. In response to comments, EPA changed the
scope .of the BMPs to focus on spent pulping liquor,
turpentine, and soap control and to allow for more
flexibility in implementation. See Section VLB. 7.
v.
63
-------
III. Background ; ^^
w
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
64 '
-------
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
65
-------
mechanical pulping mills, secondary fiber pulping (deinked
and non-deinked) mills, and non-wood mills, and asked for
additional information on these mills. Furthermore, EPA
announced that it was continuing to investigate paper
machines and that no MACT standard for paper machines was
being proposed at the time. EPA acknowledged an industry
testing program was underway; EPA also acknowledged its
request to States for data on non-wood pulping mills. EPA
requested additional data on HAP emissions from, and control
technologies for, paper machines to supplement information
previously collected under the MACT process.
On July 15, 1996, the Agency published a Federal
Register notice announcing the Agency's thinking, based on
preliminary evaluation of the supplemented record and
stakeholder discussions, regarding the technology options
being considered as a basis for final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the proposed Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite
subcategories (61 FR 36835). Data were added to the record
and comments were solicited from interested parties. The
comment period for that notice closed on August 14, 1996.
The Agency has held numerous meetings on these proposed
66
-------
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
67
-------
paper source category were scheduled for promulgation by ^^
w
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 MB
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
68
-------
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 they can be land disposed
--placement in surface impoundments being a type of land
disposal. This requirement extends not only to wastes that
are identified or listed as hazardous under the RCRA rules
when they are land disposed, but also to wastes that are
hazardous when generated, cease to be hazardous as a result
of dilution, and are then disposed. Chemical Waste
Management v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir. 1992), cert.
denied. 507 U.S. 1057 (1993) r
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
69
-------
took action to temporarily defer applying LDR rules to this
f
type of situation in the pulp and paper industry in order to
allow unhindered promulgation of these Cluster Rules. See
61 FR at 15660, 15574 (April 8, 1996).
This issue, however, is now moot, at least for the time
being. As discussed in the April 8, 1996, notice partially
withdrawing the LDR Phase III final rule, 61 FR 15660, the
Land Disposal Program Flexibility Act of 1996 provides,
among other things, that RCRA characteristic wastewaters are
no longer prohibited from land disposal once they are
rendered nonhazardous, provided that they are managed in
either a treatment system whose ultimate discharge is
regulated under the CWA (including both direct and indirect
dischargers), a CWA-equivalent treatment system, or a Class
I nonhazardous injection well regulated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Under the Land Disposal Program
Flexibility Act of 1996, the LDR treatment standards for
RCRA characteristic wastes in the pulp and paper industry
(or any other industry) do ndt 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
70
-------
if a mill's treatment system provides wastewater treatment
that is CWA-equivalent.
It should be noted that the Act requires EPA to
undertake a five-year study to determine any potential risks
»
posed by cross-media transfer of hazardous constituents from
surface impoundments that accept these "de-characterized"
wastes and warrant RCRA regulation. The findings of this
study, begun by the Agency in April 1996, could eventually
result in RCRA regulations for these units.
\
2. Land Application of Sludges
Under the Consent Decree entered in the case
Environmental Defense Fund and National Wildlife Federation
v. Thomas, Civ. No. 85-0973 (D.D.C.), EPA was required to
propose rules under section 6 of the Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA) to regulate the use of sludge produced
from the treatment of wastewater effluent of pulp and paper
mills using chlorine and chlorine-derivative bleaching
processes (56 FR 21802; Docket OPTS-62100). EPA published
the proposed rules on May 10, 1991. The proposed
regulations sought to establish a final maximum dioxin and
furan soil concentration of ten parts per trillion (ppt)
toxic equivalents (TEQ) and site management practices for
71. .
-------
the land application of bleached kraft and sulfite mill J^t
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
72
-------
limitations guidelines and standards on sludge dioxin
concentration, EPA will re-evaluate the risk from sludge
land application and will choose the appropriate regulatory
or non-regulatory mechanism to address the situation.
Prior to that determination, however, EPA has taken
action to achieve risk reduction for situations where sludge
is being applied to land. While awaiting completion of the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards, air emission
standards and the dioxin reassessment, EPA has promoted the
establishment of an industry environmental stewardship
program for the practice of sludge land application.
3. Hazardous Listing Determination
Under the consent decree entered in the case of
Environmental Defense Fund v. Browner-. Civ. No. 89-0598
(D.D.C.), "EPA shall promulgate a listing determination for
sludges from pulp and paper mill effluent on or before the
date 24 months after promulgation of an 'effluent guideline
regulation under the Clean Water Act for pulp and paper
mills. This listing determination shall be proposed for
public comment on or before the date 12 months after
promulgation of such effluent guideline regulation.
However, EPA shall not be required to propose or promulgate
73
-------
such a listing determination,if the final rule for the ^^
pending effluent guideline ruletnaking (amending 40 C.F.R.
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
' 74
-------
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 but also dioxin sources.and pathways
for human exposure. Since the draft documents were
released, EPA received thousands of pages of public
comments. EPA submitted the documents to formal peer review
by the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB was
supportive of the overall reassessment effort and endorsed
the major conclusions of the exposure document and chapters
one through seven of the health document. They did,
however, believe that additional work was needed on the
dose-response modeling chapter and the risk characterization
chapter.
The reassessment is currently being revised and updated
in response to public comments. The two chapters singled
out by the SAB are being revised by specially established
75
-------
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
i
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
76
-------
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 PR at 66174. EPA
received thousands of pages of comments and expects to issue
a decision granting or denying the petition after 'completion
of the dioxin reassessment.
6. Cooling Tower Intake Assessment
EPA is developing regulations under section 316(b) of
the Clean Water Act, which provides that any standard
established pursuant to Section 301 or 306 and applicable to
a point source shall require that the location, design,
construction, and capacity of cooling water intake
structures reflect the best technology available for
minimizing adverse environmental impact. Section 316(b)
applies only to the intake of water, not the discharge. A
primary goal of the regulation that EPA is developing would
be to minimize the destruction of fish and other aquatic
organisms as they are drawn into an industrial facility's
water intake. EPA plans to conduct screening level and
detailed surveys to estimate the number and type of
facilities that utilize cooling water intake structures and
77
-------
thus are within the scope of;Section 316 (b) . The pulp and
paper industry uses a significant amount of cooling water.
EPA intends to gather data on pulp and paper facilities
during the Section 316(b) rulemaking through questionnaires
and site visits. The Section 316(b) regulation is scheduled .
for proposal in 1999 with the final rule due in 2001.
IV. Changes in the Industry Since Proposal
A description of the pulp and paper industry, including
manufacturing processes, pulping processes, bleaching
processes, and papermaking is included in the proposal. See
58 FR at 66095-96.
i
The proposed water regulation-encompassed the entire
pulp and paper industry of approximately 500 facilities. The
proposed air regulations (MACT I and MACT III) covered
approximately the same number. Under today's action,
approximately 490 mills will be covered by the final MACT I
and MACT III rules. Of these mills, 155 will be affected by
MACT standards for mills that chemically pulp wood. A
subset of these mills -- 96 mills -- will be covered by the
final effluent limitations guidelines and standards
!
I .
promulgated today.
Since the proposal, some facilities have modified their
;78
-------
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 final Cluster Rules, see the "Supplemental
79
-------
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
SO
-------
information on control technology performance and cost
information developed under other EPA standards to determine
MACT.
Industry commenters indicated that they would be
completing a comprehensive emission testing program after
proposal, and EPA considered this information to be vital to
the development of the final regulation. Therefore, EPA
agreed to consider the new data and issued two notices of
availability of supplemental information on February 22,
1995 (60 FR 9813) and March 8, 1996 (61 FR 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
81
-------
are located in section IV of ;this docket. These items
include additional information on sulfite mills (IV-D1-98,
IV-D1-100), comments on definitions (IV-D1-97, IV-D1-99,
IV-D1-104), -comments on the emission factor document
(IV-D1-102), clarification of the 1992 MACT survey responses
(IV-D1-101), and other information.
B. Data Gathering for the Development of Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
EPA has gathered a substantial amount of new
information and data since proposal in connection with
today's water regulations. Much of this information was
collected with the cooperation and support of the American
Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) and the National
Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement
(NCASI), and with the assistance of many individual mills in
the United States. Additional information also has been
submitted by environmental groups. EPA has gathered
additional information from pulp and paper mills outside of
the United States, primarily: in Canada and Europe.
Some of the new information and data were generated
through EPA-sponsored field sampling or visits at individual
mills in the United States, Canada, and Europe. Additional
; 82
-------
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
a
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
83
-------
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 supportthe 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
84
-------
equipment and pulping area condensates that require control.
For each subcategory, the Agency determined the MACT
floor level of control for existing and new sources, and
analyzed the cost and impacts for control options more
stringent than the floor. This analysis is presented in
chapter 20 of the background information document for the
promulgated NESHAP, and is also discussed in the proposal
preamble. Based on the results of this analysis, the Agency
determined that it was not reasonable to go beyond the MACT
floor level of control for sources at kraft, semi-chemical,
and sulfite pulp mills, bleaching systems, or kraft
condensate systems. The Agency determined that control
beyond the floor at soda mills was technically feasible and
could be achieved at a reasonable cost. A discussion of the
Agency's decision for soda mills is presented in the March 8
supplemental notice and in section VI.A.5.
In response to comments received on the proposed
standards, several changes have been made to the final rule.
While some of these changes are clarifications designed to
make the Agency's intent clearer, a number of them are
significant changes to the compliance requirements. A
summary of the substantive comments and changes made since
85
-------
the proposal are described in the following sections. ^k.
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 UM
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 [Insert date 60 days from date of publication],
whichever is later. However, the CAA and the CWA differ
;86
-------
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 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
87
-------
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
88
-------
to new source MACT and be required to be in compliance with
new source MACT at startup. In fact, EPA was concerned that
to do so could discourage mills from implementing pollution-
prevention changes as soon as practicable after promulgation
of the Cluster Rules, Such changes might include replacing
an existing rotary vacuum washer system with a low-flow
washer system or installing an oxygen delignification
system, both of which, if subject to existing source .
requirements, would get the eight-year compliance time,
discussed later in section VI.A.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
89
-------
following actions occurring after proposal are substantial
enough that new source MACT requirements apply:
A pulping or bleaching system at an existing mill
is constructed or reconstructed; or
A new pulping line or bleaching line is added to
an existing mill.
The proposal date for mills that chemically pulp wood is
December 17, 1993. The proposal date for mills that
mechanically pulp wood, pulp secondary fibers, or pulp non-
wood materials is March 8, 1996.
The final regulation also provides for an alternative
definition of source to facilitate implementation of the
clean condensate alternative. For mills using the
alternative to comply with the kraft pulping standards, the
final regulation defines a single broad source that includes
the total of all pulping, bleach, causticizing, and
papermaking systems. A more detailed discussion of the
clean condensate alternative is given in section VI.A.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
90
-------
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,
91
-------
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 favo'r of
specifically naming process equipment and condensate streams
that would be required to meet the rule, with the exception
of decker, knotter, and screen systems at existing sources.
For these systems, the additional industry data was used to
determine applicability cutoffs in the form of HAP emission
limits (for knotter and screen systems) and HAP
concentration limits in process water (for decker systems)
to identify the systems that should be controlled at
existing sources. A description of the vent and condensate
streams to be controlled is presented in sections II.E.2,
92
-------
VI.A.3.a, and VI.A.4-7. The Agency added language in the
definitions for the named systems to make the definitions .
applicable to equipment that serves a similar function as
those specifically listed. This addition was made because
there are no standard names for process equipment. The
EPA's intent was to include the equipment that function the
same as the equipment specifically named in the definitions,
even though the- mill may use a different name for that piece
of equipment.
The different approach used in the final rule does not
significantly change the number of emission points
controlled from those intended to be controlled in the
proposed rule. The emission points and condensate streams
that are being controlled in the final rule are
fundamentally the same emission sources that EPA intended to
be controlled in the proposed rule. EPA 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
93
-------
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
94
-------
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-9.2-40, 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.
95
-------
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
96
-------
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,
97
-------
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 MB
(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
j*i,
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
98
-------
Agency characterized the emissions from this source to
identify the types of decker systems with high emissions.
Information supplied in NCASI technical bulletin 678
provided a relationship between air emissions and methanol
concentrations in process water used in rotary vacuum drums.
EPA evaluated this relationship and determined that decker
controls and higher HAP emission rates were associated with
deckers that used process water with HAP concentrations
greater than or equal to 400 ppmw, or that did not use fresh
water or "Whitewater" from papermaking systems (Air
Docket A-92-40, IV-B-22).
Therefore, the Agency has determined that it is
appropriate to make a distinction among types of decker
systems at existing sources for the purpose of setting the
MACT standard. Decker systems at existing sources using
fresh water or "Whitewater" from papermaking systems, or
using process 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
99
-------
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
j-
considered the costs of control in choosing from this zone
100
-------
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 reportedas having no vents. NCASI
followed up by telephone surveys with these 28 mills (Air
Docket A-92-40, IV-D1-101, IV-D1-112, IV-D1-114). The
follow-up surveys indicated a fair amount of misreporting at
these 28 mills. NCASI did not resurvey for all 171 knotter
systems. Therefore, the following knotter system floor
determination assumes that the mills not resurveyed that
originally reported no knotter system controls did not
control any vents.
From the 28 mills resurveyed, it was determined that
six knotter systems or 3.6 percent (6/171) route all vents
into the NCG collection system; another two knotter systems
or 1.2 percent (2/171) route all knotter hood vents into the
NCG collection system; another eight knotter systems or 4.7
percent (8/171) use only pressure knotters; and another two
knotter systems or 1.2 percent (2/171) route all vents to
the smelt dissolving tank scrubber. Industry collected data
101
-------
at seven pressure/open (also referred to as
pressure/vibrating) knotter systems and found the methanol
emissions to range from 0.005-0.07 kilograms per megagram of
oven-dried pulp (ODP) produced, and collected data at one
pressure knotter system and found the methanol emissions to
be 0.0042 kilograms per megagram ODP produced. Emissions
data are summarized in the Chemical Pulping Emission Factor
Development Document (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-A-8). Because
the pressure knotter system emissions were lower than the
emissions at the pressure/open systems, pressure systems can
be considered a type of controlled system. Therefore, 18 or
10.5 percent (6+2+8+2 = 18/171) of the knotter systems have
some level of emissions control. The Agency believes that
this estimate of the number of knotter systems controlled
may be somewhat low because it is uncertain how many of the
mills not resurveyed may have had the lower emitting
pressure systems.
The 1992 voluntary MACT survey responses indicated that
96 screening systems out of the 199 reported are not vented.
NCASI resurveyed by telephone 41 of these 96 mills.
Assuming that the 55 mills not resurveyed look similar to
the 41, the follow-up survey determined that seven percent
102
-------
(6/41 x 96/1.99) route their vents to the NCG collection
system and 41 percent (35/41 x 96/199) have closed screens
that vent through auxiliary tanks. Therefore, 48 percent of
the screening systems have some level of control.
Industry collected data at one closed screen system and
one open screen system. The closed screen system tested had
methanol emissions of 0.004 kilograms per megagram of ODP
produced. The open screen system tested had methanol
emissions of 0.22 kilograms per megagram of ODP produced.
The Agency considered how best to characterize the
average emissions limitation achieved by the best controlled
12 percent of the knotter systems and screen systems given
the wide variety of control scenarios present in the
industry. Either collecting and controlling vents on an
open system or using closed equipment results in lower air
emissions. The Agency decided to select the emissions
limitation using the test data from the closed and open
equipment systems. The Agency's decision is due in part to
the fact that the technology basis for the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards being promulgated in
these Cluster Rules at 40 CFR Part 430 for bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills include closing the
103
-------
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
104
-------
requires that existing kraft sources are required to control
knotter systems with total mass emission rates greater than
or equal to 0.05 kilograms of HAP per megagram ODP produced.
Existing kraft sources are required to control screening
systems with total mass emission rates greater than or equal
to 0.10 kilograms of HAP per megagram ODP produced. Since,
it is often difficult to distinguish between the knotter
system and screening system at mills, a mill may also choose
to meet a total mass emissions limit of 0.15 kilograms of
HAP per megagram ODP produced across the knotting and
screening combined system. New sources are required to
control all knotter and screen systems, regardless of
emissions level.
b. Compliance Times for Kraft Mills
In the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice, the Agency
discussed that it was considering allowing kraft mills an
extended compliance time of five additional years (eight
years total) for pulp washing and oxygen delignification
systems (61 FR at 9394-95). The notice discussed how the
additional time would encourage the maximum degree of
overall multi-media pollution reduction and, in particular,
would avoid discouraging mills from installing oxygen
105
-------
delignification equipment to reduce water pollution. The ^^
9
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
106
-------
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
XW
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
107
-------
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 PR 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 [insert date 8 years from
publication in the Federal Register]. A mill that installs
an oxygen delignification system at an existing source after
[insert date 8 years from publication in the Federal
Register} 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
108
-------
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
109
-------
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
<-,
inciuded some of the concepts in the final rule.
The final rule states that the condensates from pulping
process equipment at kraft mills must be treated and allows
a number of alternative methods of complying with the
standards, all of which represent MACT. The final rule also
states that the entire volume of condensate generated from
the named pulping process equipment at kraft mills must be
110
-------
treated unless the volume from the digester, turpentine
recovery, and weak liquor feed stages in the evaporator-
systems can be reduced using condensate segregation. If
adequate segregation (as specified in the rule) is
performed, only the high-HAP fraction streams from the
digester system, turpentine recovery system, and the weak
liquor feed stages in the evaporator system and the non-
segregated streams from the LVHC and HVLC collection systems
must be sent to treatment.
Discussions with the pulp and paper industry after the
March 8, 1996 supplemental notice indicated that some mills
might not be able to achieve the proposed 65 percent mass
isolation with their existing equipment even though 'they are
achieving high levels of HAP removal in the steam stripper
system (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-E-84) . Therefore, the final
rule contains two options for demonstrating compliance with
the segregation requirements. The first option is to
isolate at least 65 percent of the HAP mass in the total of
all condensates from the digester system, turpentine
recovery system, and the weak liquor feed stages in the
evaporator system (condensate streams from the LVHC and HVLC
collection systems are not segregated). The second option
111
-------
requires that a minimum total HAP mass from the high HAP
concentrated condensates from the digester system,
turpentine recovery 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 emission's throughout the mill by
reducing the HAP mass in process water streams that are
112
-------
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.
113
-------
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
114
-------
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
115
-------
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 the 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 on testing and
monitoring requirements for biological treatment systems.
The industry submitted studies on biological treatment
116
-------
systems and on monitoring soluble BOD5. Discussions were '
also held with the industry representatives on this issue.
In general, commenters objected to the proposed
requirements to use Method 304 to calculate the site-
specific biorate constants. Commenters felt that the
laboratory-scale simulation of the biological treatment
unit, which is basically what Method 304 requires, does not
accurately reflect the biological degradation rates of the
full-scale system. Commenters also stated that according to
data collected, performance testing to demonstrate that
biological treatment systems can meet the standards does not
appear to be warranted given that methanol is highly
biodegradable. Commenters further requested that if they
had to conduct a performance test, they should also be
permitted to use the inlet and outlet concentration
procedures for calculating a site-specific biological
degradation rate (biorate) constant as set forth in
Appendix C of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON). See
59 PR 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
117
-------
meeting the standards.
Following proposal, industry also submitted data on
soluble BOD5 across biological treatment system units.
Industry stated that their data indicated that as long as
the biological treatment system was achieving at least
80 percent 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 BOD5 removal should not be a continuous monitoring
parameter that if exceeded, would indicate a violation of
the standards. Rather, a mill should be allowed to start
measuring methanol removal across the system to verify
compliance.
The Agency considered the comments and data received
and agrees that the provisions in Appendix C of the HON are
an acceptable alternative to Method 304 for calculating
site-specific biorate constants. However, EPA disagrees
with the commenters on the issue of the need to conduct
performance testing. While EPA agrees that methanol
degrades more rapidly than many compounds, there are other
HAPs present in the condensate streams subject to the
standards, and biological treatment systems can vary widely
118
-------
in their operation and performance, depending on their
design, maintenance, and even their geographical location.
As such, the final regulation retains the proposed
requirements for performance testing.
EPA also became concerned that allowing the use of
methanol as a surrogate for total HAP may not be appropriate
for this particular treatment technology. Because methanol
is one of the most difficult HAPs to remove with a steam
stripper (the technology on which the standards are based),
even greater removals of total HAP would occur when a steam
stripper is used. Thus/ methanol is a reasonable surrogate
under such conditions. The opposite is true for biological
treatment systems, where methanol is one of the easier HAPs
to degrade. As such, the final regulation specifies that a
total HAP removal (not just methanol) of 92 percent be
achieved by biological treatment systems.
EPA agrees with the commenters that soluble BOD5 is an
appropriate monitoring parameter for biological treatment
systems. However, EPA disagrees with the commenters on
their position regarding the monitoring of soluble BOD5 and
operating parameters for demonstrating continuous
compliance. After discussion with the industry on this
119
-------
issue, EPA has concluded that soluble BOD5 and operating
parameters are the most appropriate means available for
monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance (A-92-40,
IV-E-87). EPA understands the concerns raised on this
point, and as such the final regulation provides
flexibility. The regulation allows mills to establish,
through performance testing, their own range of treatment
system outlet soluble 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 lip
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.
120
-------
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
121
-------
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
-,-c>
raethanol 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
122
-------
commenters (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-20). This amount of
variability (confidence interval), therefore, was applied to
the average emission limits from the best controlled mills
to develop the final emission limit.
For ammonium- and magnesium-based sulfite pulping
processes, the final emission limit is 1.1 kilograms of
methanol per megagram of ODP produced. After the close of
the March 8, 1996, Federal Register supplemental notice
comment period, additional information was provided to the
Agency that indicated that the sodiutn-ba.sed sulfite pulping
process is in use at some mills (A-92-40, IV-E-94). No
emissions information was available for this process.
However, the Agency determined, that due to the similarities
in processes between calcium- and sodium-based sulfite
pulping processes, the same limit developed for calcium-
based mills would be applicable to sodium-based mills. For
calcium- and sodium-based sulfite pulping processes, the
final emission limit is 0.44 kilograms of methanol per
megagram of ODP produced. Because the variability is
incorporated into the mass emission limit, these emission
limits and corresponding monitoring parameters are never-to-
be-exceeded values.
123
-------
5. Soda and Semi-chemical Mill Standards
The proposed standards would have required the owners
or operators of new or existing kraft, semi-chemical, soda,
and sulfite mills to comply with the same emission
standards. In the March 8, 1996 notice, EPA proposed to
subcategorize the pulp and paper industry by pulping type
and develop different MACT control requirements for soda and
semi-chemical mills based 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
124
-------
final rule requires that existing semi-chemical mills
control the LVHC system, and new semi-chemical mills control
the LVHC and the pulp washing systems.
As discussed in the March 8, 1996 notice, the MACT
floor level of control for soda mills is no control. The
Agency has determined that HAP emissions from soda mills are
similar to kraft mills (with the exception that TRS
compounds are not emitted from the soda pulping process) and
control of LVHC system vents is technically feasible and can
be achieved at a reasonable cost. The Agency has also
determined that controlling additional vents at existing
sources cannot be achieved at a reasonable cost. However,
controlling the pulp washing system at new soda mills can be
achieved at a reasonable cost (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-12).
Therefore, the final rule requires that existing soda mills
control the LVHC system, and new soda mills control the LVHC
and the pulp washing system.
6. Mechanical Pulping Mill, Secondary Fiber Pulping
Mill, Non-wood Fiber Pulping Mill, and Papermaking System
Standards
In the March 8, 1996 Federal Register notice, EPA
proposed standards for pulping and bleaching processes at
125
-------
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) , p'apermaking 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 p'apermaking, 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
126
-------
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.
127
-------
Because of the operational similarities of the chlorine and
chlorine dioxide bleaching systems at non-wood fiber mills
to those at kraft, soda, and sulfite mills, EPA has
concluded that combustion following caustic scrubbers is
also not cost-effective at non-wood fiber mills. In
addition, data available to EPA indicate that HAP emissions
from chlorine bleaching systems at these mills are
relatively low. In fact, the data show that the three
largest non-wood pulping mills, of the ten currently in
operation, use elemental chlorine in their bleaching systems
and total HAP emissions from each of these three mills is
less than five tons of total HAP per year (Air Docket A-95-
31, IV-B-5).
For chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaching systems at
mechanical pulping mills, secondary fiber pulping mills, and
non-wood pulping mills, today's rule requires the same level
of control required for bleaching systems at kraft, soda,
and sulfite mills. Those requirements are specified in
§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
128
-------
mills. Additional requirements for the control of
chloroform emissions, based on the effluent limitation
guidelines for best available technology economically
achievable, are required in the standards for bleaching
systems for kraft, soda, and sulfite mills. However, EPA is
not aware of any controls presently in place or available
for reducing chloroform air emissions at mechanical,
secondary fiber, and non-wood pulping mills. Therefore,
MACT is no control'for chloroform air emissions from
bleaching systems at mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-
wood fiber pulping mills.
Since the March 8 proposal, EPA has also determined
that while mechanical pulping, secondary fiber pulping, and
other non-wood pulping mills do not typically use chlorine
or chlorine dioxide bleaching, these mills may brighten the
pulp stock through the use of hypochlorite and non-chlorine
bleaching compounds. However, data available to EPA
indicate that HAP emissions from these systems are
relatively low, and that none of the bleaching systems that
use hypochlorite and non-chlorine compounds have installed
emission controls. Based on these findings, EPA established
the MACT floor for bleaching systems at these mills that use
129
-------
hypochlorite and non-chlorine bleaching to be no control. j^fc
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 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).
130
-------
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
.a *
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).
131
-------
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
132
-------
floor and requiring HAP controls for these sources.
Specifically, EPA investigated the feasibility of routing
vent streams from these pulping systems to a combustion
device for HAP control. EPA determined that the cost of
combusting the vent streams was not justified by the HAP
emission reductions achieved, and that requiring HAP control
beyond the floor was not justified. Furthermore, pulping
chemical usage, which correlates with HAP emission levels at
kraft, semi-chemical, soda, and sulfite pulping mills, is
much lower at non-wood fiber and secondary fiber pulping
mills and minimal at mechanical pulping mills; thus the
potential for HAP emissions is lower (Air Docket A-95-31,
IV-B-7) .
7. Bleaching System Standards
In the proposed rule, bleaching systems would have been
required to control all HAP emissions by 99 percent using a
caustic scrubber. In the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice,
the Agency revised the proposal for the bleaching system
requirements based on information and comments received
after proposal. The new data indicated that caustic
scrubbing reduces emissions of chlorinated HAP compounds
(except chloroform), but does not control non-chlorinated
133
-------
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
134
-------
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, II-I-24). From this evaluation, the Agency
135
-------
determined that a scrubber outlet mass emission rate of j^fc,
0.001 kg of total chlorinated HAP (other than chloroform)
per Mg ODP 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
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
136
-------
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 PR 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
137
-------
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
138
-------
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
139
-------
later than [insert date 3 years from publication in the FR] ,
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.
140
-------
An additional issue relating to compliance dates
concerns bleaching systems at existing source papergrade
kraft and soda mills which have elected, under the Clean
Water Act portion of this rule, to treat wastewater to
levels surpassing baseline BAT requirements (such as adding
oxygen delignification prior to bleaching, and in some
cases, engaging in additional reduction of process
wastewater and further reductions in chlorinated bleaching
chemicals used and bleaching system modifications than are
necessary to meet BAT baseline limitations). As an
incentive to make this election, EPA is not requiring
participating mills to achieve compliance with the more
stringent portions of the "Advanced Technology" BAT
limitations for six, eleven, and sixteen years (for Tiers I,
II, and III, respectively) in order to afford these mills
sufficient time to develop, finance, and install the
Advanced Technologies. In light of this, the Agency is
concerned that requiring bleached papergrade kraft and soda
mills to comply in three years with MACT standards based on
process substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental
chlorine would discourage these mills from electing to
participate in the Advanced Technology program. This is
141
-------
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 MAGT 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 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
142
-------
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 stagerequires
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 [insert
date 60 days from publication] until compliance with the
143
-------
second-stage MACT standards is required [insert date 6 years
from publication]. This two-step alternative is available
only to bleached papergrade kraft and soda' mills actually
making the binding decision to comply with Tier I, II, or
III water limitations.
EPA believes that providing these mills six years to
comply with second-stage MACT (i.e., baseline BAT
requirements for all parameters) is an appropriate and
logical outgrowth of the discussions set forth in the Mairch
8, 1995 supplemental MACT notice (61 FR 9393) and the July
15, 1996 supplemental effluent guidelines notice (61 FR
36835-58). In the March 8 notice, EPA solicited comments on
its preliminary findings that MACT for chloroform air
emissions should be compliance with baseline BAT.
Commenters agreed with this preliminary determination. In
the July 15 notice, EPA set forth its vision of more
stringent BAT for mills that voluntarily enter the Advanced
Technologies Incentives program. As part of that voluntary
program under the water standards, EPA is promulgating a
requirement that mills in Tiers II and III, at a minimum,
meet all the limitations promulgated as baseline BAT no
later than [insert date 6 years after publication in the
144
-------
Federal Register] . See Section IX.A. Thus, more stringent
air emission controls than stage one MACT will likewise be
available at this time since compliance with these interim
BAT limitations will result in compliance with MACT. For
Tier II and Tier III mills, this means that the second stage
MACT requirement is compliance with the baseline BAT
limitations by [insert date 6 years from date of
publication] . 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 thatjnost 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
145
-------
of MACT. To ensure that there is no lessening of existing j/^
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 [insert date 60 days after
publication in FR] .
In the March 8 notice, the Agency proposed making a
distinction between requirements for bleaching systems at
papergrade and dissolving grade mills. The Agency solicited
data concerning chloroform emissions from dissolving grade
bleaching processes and requested comment on an appropriate
chloroform MACT for dissolving grade bleaching systems.
Several commenters suggested that a separate MACT standard
for chloroform be developed for bleaching systems at
dissolving grade mills. Some commenters requested that the
Agency defer chloroform control requirements for dissolving
grade mills until effluent limitations guidelines and
standards are established at those mills.
As stated in the July 15, 1996 Federal Register notice
(61 FR 36835), EPA is evaluating new data on the technical
146
-------
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,
147
-------
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
148
-------
scrubber will be needed that can adequately control both the
chlorine dioxide emissions for 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
149
-------
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 commenters1 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
150
-------
used Method 305 to obtain the methanol steam stripper
performance data (which was used as the basis for the
proposed pulping process condensate standards). For the
liquid sampling analysis, NCASI used a direct aqueous
injection gas chromatography/flame ionization detection
(GC/FID) method described in NCASI Technical Bulletin No.
684, Appendix I. Consequently, the industry contends that
Method 305 should not be specified in the final rule for
determining compliance with the pulping process condensate
standards. However, the NCASI test method has not been
-!*..
validated using EPA Method 301 procedures and it is unlikely
that the test method validation would be completed before
promulgation of the MACT standard.
The Agency has considered industry's argument and has
decided to proceed with specifying Method 305 in the final
rule to demonstrate compliance with the pulping process
condensate standards. However, if the Agency approves the
Method 301 validation procedures for NCASI's GC/FID test
method, this method will be referenced as either an
alternative or a replacement for Method 305 (for determining
methanol concentration only) with a supplemental Federal
Register notice. EPA believes that this course of action
151
-------
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
152
-------
controls would be minimal. Commenters recommended a
one percent downtime for the LVHC system, four percent for
the HVLC system, and ten percent for steam stripper systems.
Commenters contended that while most of the LVHC systems had
backup controls, very few of the HVLC systems had backup
controls. Several commenters added that the Part 63 General
Provisions do not address safety venting and downtime
necessary for trouble-shooting. Another commenter contended
that the Part 63 General Provisions already allow
significant emissions and should not be further weakened.
Since proposal, EPA has re-evaluated the need to
incorporate downtime or excess emission allowances for LVHC,
HVLC, and steam stripper .systems into the final rule. Based
on data submitted by the pulp and paper industry, EPA has
concluded that some allowance for excess emissions is part
of the MACT floor level of control. For the final rule, EPA
established appropriate excess emission allowances to
approximate the level of backup control that exists at the
best-performing mills and the associated period of time
during which no control device is available. The excess
emission allowances in the final rule include periods when
the control device is inoperable and when the operating
153
-------
parameter values established during the initial performance
test cannot be maintained at the appropriate level.
Based on an analysis of the public comments and the
available data regarding excess emissions and the level of
backup control in the industry, EPA has determined that an
appropriate'excess emissions allowance for LVHC systems
would be one percent of the operating hours on a semi-annual
basis for the control devices used to reduce HAP emissions.
The best-performing mills achieve a one percent downtime in
their LVHC system control devices. For control devices used
to reduce emissions from HVLC systems, EPA has concluded
that an, appropriate excess emissions allowance would be
four percent. The best-performing mills achieve a
four percent downtime in the control devices used to reduce
emissions from their HVLC system to account for flow
balancing problems and unpredictable pressure changes
inherent in HVLC systems. For control devices used to
control emissions from both LVHC and HVLC systems, the
Agency has determined that a four percent excess emissions
allowance is appropriate. This decision was made because
the control device would be used for the HVLC system, which
has the higher emissions allowance. For LVHC and HVLC
154
-------
system control devices, the excess emissions allowances do
not include scheduled maintenance activities that are
discussed in the Part 6.3 General Provisions. The allowances
address normal operating variations in the LVHC and HVLC
system control devices for which the equipment is designed.
The variations would not be considered startup, shutdown, or
malfunction under the Part 63 General Provisions (Air
Docket A-92-40, IV-D1-103, IV-D1-110, IV-D1-115, IV-E-85,
and IV-E-88).
The appropriate excess emissions allowance for steam
stripper systems was determined to be 10 percent. The
allowance accounts for stripper tray damage or plugging,
efficiency losses in the stripper due to contamination of
condensate with fiber or black liquor, steam supply
downtime, and combustion control device downtime. This
downtime allowance includes all periods when the stripper
systems are inoperable including scheduled maintenance,
malfunctions, startups, and shutdowns. The startup,
shutdown, malfunction allowances are included in the
stripper allowances because information was not available to
differentiate these emissions from normal stripper operating
emissions.
155 .
-------
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
156
-------
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
157
-------
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
158
-------
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 factor. Some
commenters claimed that incinerator exhaust streams in the
pulp and paper industry have an oxygen content in excess of
10 percent. Therefore, if the outlet concentration was
corrected to three percent oxygen, the concentration level
would not be achievable. Some commenters recommended
increasing the correction factor to 10 percent oxygen.
The 20 ppmv limit represents the performance that is'
achieved on low concentration streams by a well designed
combustion device. This limit was based on previous EPA
studies (Air Docket A-79-32, II-B-31). The three percent
oxygen correction factor at proposal was based ,on stream
characteristics of other industries, such as the synthetic
159
-------
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
-V
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
160
-------
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 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
161
-------
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
162
-------
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
163
-------
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
164
-------
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
165
-------
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 (802) and, to a lesser degree, nitrogen oxides
(NOX) . The emission increases of SC>2 and NO^ may be 6f stich
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,
166
-------
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 (PCP) exemption
allowed under the current PSD policy provides inadequate
relief from these potential impacts and recommended
including specific language in the pulp and paper rule
exempting MACT compliance projects from NSR/PSD.
In a July 1, 1994 guidance memorandum issued by EPA
(available on the Technology Transfer Network; see
"Pollution Control Projects and New Source Review (NSR)
Applicability" from John S. Seitz, Director, OAQPS to EPA
Regional Air Division Directors), EPA provided guidance for
permitting authorities on the approvability of PCP
exclusions for source categories' other than electric
utilities. In the guidance, EPA indicated that add-on
controls and fuel switches to less polluting fuels qualify
167
-------
for an exclusion from major NSR. To be eligible to be
excluded from otherwise applicable major NSR requirements, a
PGP 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-
168
-------
case exclusion from major NSR. For the purposes of the pulp
and paper MACT rule, EPA considers that combustion for the
control of HAP emissions from pulping systems and condensate
control systems -to be a PCP/ because the combustion controls
are being installed to comply with MACT and will reduce
emissions of hazardous organic air pollutants. EPA also
considers the reduction of these pollutants to represent an
environmental benefit. However, EPA recognizes that the
incidental formation of SO2 and NOX due to the destruction-
of HAPs will occur. Consistent with the 1994 guidance, the
permitting authority should confirm that, in each case/ the
resultant emissions increase would not cause or contribute
to a violation of a NAAQS, PSD increment, or adversely
affect an AQRV.
The EPA believes that the^current guidance on pollution
control projects adequately provides for the exclusion from
major NSR of air pollution control projects in the pulp and
paper industry resulting from today's rule. Such projects
would be covered under minor source regulations in the
applicable state implementation plan (SIP), and permitting
authorities would be expected to provide adequate safeguards
against NAAQS and increment violations and adverse impacts
169
-------
on air quality related values in Federal Class I areas. wg^
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 SC>2 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
170
-------
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 PGP 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 PGP 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 PGP 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 PGP exclusion under
the NSR.proposed regulations. In the context of these
171
-------
notices, EPA received several comments in favor of extending
the PCP exclusion to multi-media activities, such as those
that would be undertaken for the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program but received little
information on appropriate criteria for determining the
relative benefits of reduced water pollution to potential
coincident increases in air pollution.
The Agency believes that, depending on the control
technologies selected by a mill, the potential exists for an
overall environmental benefit to result from control
strategies implemented under the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program. However, unlike the MACT
rule in today's action, where the controls that would be
installed to reduce hazardous air pollutants are fairly well
known and the potential pollutant tradeoffs within the same
v
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
172
-------
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 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
173
-------
the time necessary to get applicable permits approved.
While it is not possible at this time to identify the
criteria the Agency would use for approving a PCP exclusion,
the Agency would not consider projects which result in any
increases in emissions of highly toxic compounds to be an
acceptable candidate PCP. For example, the Agency believes
it would not be environmentally acceptable to give the PCP
exclusion to an activity which results in a chlorinated
material being sent to a boiler that would result in the
release of a chlorinated toxic air pollutant. The Agency
also believes that the public should be provided an
opportunity to review and comment on mill-specific cases
where a PCP exclusion is being considered for these advanced
water technologies, particularly if there would be a
potentially significant emissions increase of criteria air
pollutants such as SO2 or NOX.
Since mills must declare within one year of
promulgation of the cluster rules whether they will
participate in the Voluntary AT Incentives Program, the
Agency is aware that mills would like to know whether a
mechanism exists whereby they may apply for a PCP exclusion
among the many factors that may influence their
174
-------
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 PGP 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
175
-------
mills to make their decisions on participation in the
Voluntary AT Incentives Program. Stakeholders should submit
information on this topic directly to Ms. Penny Lassiter,
Emission Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
b. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA)/Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIF)
One of the options for controlling emissions from
pulping process condensates is to steam strip HAPs,
primarily methanol, from kraft pulping process condensate
streams. After the HAPs are removed, the vent gas from the
steam stripper is required to be sent to a combustion device
for destruction. Several commenters pointed out that some
mills may choose to concentrate the methanol in the steam
stripper vent gas, using a rectification column, and burn
the condensate as a fuel.
However, the concentrated methanol condensate that
would be derived from the steam stripper overheads may be
identified as hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) because it exhibits the
ignitability characteristic. See 40 CFR 261.21. Boilers
burning such a hazardous waste fuel would ordinarily be
176
-------
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 EPA1s 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
177
-------
appropriate or necessary. The rectification practice would j^,
not increase environmental risk, would reduce secondary i
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 UB
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
178
-------
for effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry replaces the
subcategorization of this industry that dates back to 1974;
EPA's reasons for combining and reorganizing the 26 old
subcategories (formerly found in Parts 430 and 431) into 12
new subcategories are set forth below, in the proposal, see
58 FR at 66098-100, and in "Selected Issues Concerning
Subcategorization" (DCN 14497, Volume 1).
In reorganizing Part 430 to comport with the new
subcategorization scheme, EPA has reprinted in their
entirety the current effluent limitations guidelines and
standards applicable to the newly 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
179
-------
new Subparts B and E for new sources that commenced JMt
discharge that met the 1982 NSPS after [insert date 10 years
before the date specified below] but before [insert date 60
days from publication of today's rules], 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 [insert date 10
years before the date specified below] and [insert date 60
days from publication of today's rules] .
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
180
-------
nonconventional pollutants. Limitations on conventional
pollutants -will be based on the formerly promulgated BPT/BCT
limitations corresponding to the BPT/BCT segment applicable
to the discharger or on the 1982 NSPS for conventional
pollutants, whichever is more stringent.
EPA is making no substantive changes to the limitations
and. standards applicable to any other subcategory. EPA will
promulgate new or revised effluent limitations guidelines
and standards, as appropriate, for the remaining
subcategories at a later date. See Table II-3. 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.
181
-------
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
182
-------
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 VLB. 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
183
-------
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
184
-------
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 oxygen demand (BOD5) and
total suspended solids (TSS) based on the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT) for all of the
proposed subcategories, including Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite. As presented in the
185
-------
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
186
-------
effluent limitations guidelines for conventional pollutants
for Subparts B and E at this time. Instead the current BPT
effluent limitations guidelines for conventional pollutants
will continue to apply to these subcategories.
EPA bases this decision on its determination that the
total cost of applying the proposed BPT model technology is
disproportionate in this instance to the effluent reduction
benefits to be achieved. See CWA section 304(b) (1) (B) .
When setting BPT limitations, EPA is required under section
304(b) to perform a limited cost-benefit balancing to make
sure that costs are not wholly out of proportion to the
benefits achieved. See, e.g., Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle.
590 F.2d 1011 (B.C. Cir. 1978). It therefore follows that
EPA is authorized to perform *such balancing when determining
whether to revise existing BPT limitations.
Mills in Subparts B and E have significantly reduced
their loadings of BOD5 and TSS since promulgation of the
current BPT effluent limitations guidelines in 1977.
Although additional removals could be achieved if BPT were
revised, EPA has determined for Subpart B and, separately,
for Subpart E that the costs of achieving that incremental
improvement beyond either the current BOD5 and TSS
187
-------
limitations or the current long term average for BOD5 and
TSS are disproportionate to the benefits. A single mill
might have to spend as much as $17.4 million in order to
upgrade to advanced secondary treatment. See the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
These expenditures are particularly significant when one
considers the cumulative costs of this rulemaking.
Therefore, EPA has decided not to revise BPT limitations for
conventional pollutants for mills in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory at this time.
EPA's decision not to revise BPT limitations for
Subpart B at this time is also informed by the Agency's
»
long-term goal for this industry: that the industry will
continuously improve its environmental performance primarily
through sound capital planning and expenditures. EPA has
determined that this interplay between potentially more
/
stringent revised BPT limitations and the industry's long-
term environmental improvement is an appropriate factor to
be considered in this rulemaking with respect to BPT. See
i
CWA section 304(b)(1)(B). It is also consistent with the
Clean Water Act's overarching objective, which calls upon
188
-------
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
189
-------
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
BODS are estimated to decline by approximately 30 percent at
the Tier I level, and EPA expects substantially greater
reductions from Tiers II and III). See Table IX-1. EPA
also expects comparable TSS loading reductions to occur..
See the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program
Technical Support Document, DCN 14488. In short, because
sufficient additional removals of conventional pollutants
from Subpart B mills can be obtained without revising BPT at
this time, EPA has determined that, on balance, the
incremental benefits attributable to revised BPT limits do
not justify the comparatively high costs associated with
achieving those limits. For these additional reasons, EPA
has decided not to revise BPT for conventional pollutants
for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory at this time.
Finally, if additional removals of BODS and TSS are
190
-------
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 proposal, EPA
191
-------
presented two alternative methodologies for developing BCT
limitations. The first assumed that BPT limits would be
revised in the final rulemaking; the alternative analysis
was based on the assumption that BPT limits would not be
revised. See 58 FR at 66106-07. The principal difference
between the two methodologies involved the BPT baseline that
EPA would use to compare the incremental removals and costs
associated with the candidate BCT technologies. Because the
Agency is not revising BPT, EPA used the second alternative
to determine whether to revise the current BCT limits for
Subparts B and E.
d. BCT Technology Options Considered
For the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory,
EPA identified two candidate BCT technologies for the final
rule. These were: (i) the technology required to perform at
the level achieved by the best 90 percent of mills in the
subcategory; and (ii) the technology required to perform at
the level achieved by the best 50 percent of mills in the
subcategory.
The Papergrade Sulfite subcategory was not divided into
segments for the purpose of conducting a BCT analysis
because EPA found that treatability of BODS and TSS in the
192
-------
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
193
-------
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
So.da subcategory, Subpart B) and former Subparts J and U
(now Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, Subpart E) remain in
effect. These limitations are recodified at Subparts B and
E in the form of segments corresponding to the old
subcategorization scheme. See 40 CFR 430.23 and 430.53.
3. Pollutant Parameters for BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS
a. Dioxin, Furan, and Chlorinated Phenolic Pollutants
EPA is promulgating, effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDD ("dioxin"), 2,3,7,8-TCDF
("furan"), and 12 specific chlorinated phenolic pollutants
for Subparts B and E (except for those mills regulated by
TCF limitations). For a discussion of EPA's rationale for
regulating these parameters, see the proposal, 58 FR at
66102-03 and the proposal Technical Development Document
194
-------
(EPA 821-R-93-019). For a discussion of EPA's pass-through
analysis regarding these pollutants, see Section VI.B.5.c(2)
and VI.B.S.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 PR.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
195
-------
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
(ECP) 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
196
-------
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
treatement 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
197
-------
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
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 arid
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
198
-------
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
199
-------
Document (DCN 14487) and response to comments on
justification for establishing limitations for AOX (DCN
14497, Vol. I).
EPA's decision to regulate AOX is also based on the
fact that AOX, unlike most of the chlorinated organic
compounds regulated today, is comparatively inexpensive to
monitor for and is easily quantified by applicable
analytical methods. Thus, while EPA could have decided to
control the formation of dioxin, furan, chloroform, and the
12 regulated chlorinated phenolic pollutants by requiring
mills to monitor for those pollutants on a daily basis, EPA
also recognizes that testing for those pollutants is
expensive and time consuming. In contrast, daily monitoring
for AOX as required in today's rule is considerably less
expensive. See Section VI.B.8.b(4) and DCN 14487.
Additionally, under the Voluntary Advanced Technology-
Incentives Program, enrolled mills are eligible for reduced
AOX monitoring. See Section IX.B.2 and DCN 14488.
Moreover, the presence of AOX can be readily measured in
mill effluent, in contrast to the presence of many of the
chlorinated organic compounds regulated in today's rule,
which for the most part are likely to be present at levels
200
-------
that cannot be reliably measured by today's analytical
methods. See Section VI.B.5.a(4). Thus, although EPA is
not required under the Clean Water Act to consider the
environmental or human health effects of its technology-
based regulations, EPA has also determined that regulating
AOX as part of BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS provides further
assurance that human health and the environment will be
protected against the potential harm associated with dioxin,
furan, and the other chlorinated organic pollutants.
d. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD)
The proposed rule included end-of-pipe BAT limitations
and PSES for COD. EPA continues to believe that COD
limitations can be used to ensure the operation of processes
that minimize the discharge of all organic compounds,
including toxic organic compounds that are not readily
biodegraded. However, the limited data available at this
time do not adequately characterize other sources of COD
that may be present at some complex mills, although it
appears that the COD contributed by these sources may be as
great as the COD contribution from the pulp mill and bleach
plant areas of the mill. These other sources of COD could
include paper machines, mechanical pulping, other on-site
201
-------
chemical pulping, and secondary fiber processing (including -^
deinking). See DCN 13958 and DCN 14495. Even if sufficient
data were now available to establish COD limitations and
standards for pulp mill operations in Subparts B and'E, EPA
does not have sufficient information at present to evaluate
the other sources of COD and the performance of control
technologies to limit COD at those sources in order to set
national effluent limitations guidelines and standards.
For this reason, EPA is not establishing final effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for COD at this time.
EPA does, however, intend to promulgate COD limitations and
NSPS for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories in a later rulemaking. For
this purpose, EPA will gather additional data to
characterize other sources of COD that may be present at
complex mills subject to Subparts B or E. This effort will
be undertaken concurrently with data gathering to assess the
need for establishing COD limits for mills operating in
other subcategories (Phase II rulemaking). EPA believes
that this data-gathering effort will facilitate setting
limits in permits for complex mills with other onsite
process operations. EPA will also decide as part of the
202
-------
Phase II rulemaking whether COD passes through or interferes
with the operation of POTWs and, therefore, whether
pretreatment standards for COD would be appropriate for
Subparts B and E.
While EPA does not have sufficient data to issue
national technology-based regulations for COD at this time,
EPA strongly urges permitting authorities to consider
including COD limitations in NPDES permits for Subpart B and
E mills on the basis of best professional judgment. See 40
CFR 125J3 (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
203
-------
families of non-chlorinated organic materials that are
measured by the existing COD analytical method. Some of
these materials, including several wood extractive
constituents found in pulping liquors, are refractory (i.e.,
resistant to rapid biological degradation) and thus are not
measurable by the five-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)
analytical method.
In order to assist permitting or pretreatment
authorities in developing 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
204
-------
include processes that can reduce discharges of primarily-
non-chlorinated organic compounds. These as yet
unidentified refractory organic compounds have been
correlated with chronic sublethal aquatic toxicity from pulp
mill effluents. By recovering much of the non-chlorinated
organic compounds prior to bleaching, discharges of
chlorinated organic compounds also are reduced. For
example, improved brownstock washing, which is part of the
model technology basis for today's regulations, can be
operated (for the purposes of achieving COD limitations) to
minimize black liquor carryover to the bleach plant and thus
reduce the formation of AOX and toxic chlorinated compounds.
Another process technology effective at reducing organic
discharges associated with pulping liquors is for a- mill to
return all water from pulp screening to the process, termed
a closed screen room.
EPA intends for the best management practices
promulgated today for Subparts B and E to lead mills to
retain spent pulping liquors in the process, to the maximum
extent practicable, through preventing leaks and spills and
through capturing those leaks and spills that do occur and
returning the organic material to the recovery system. The
205
-------
BMPs are also intended to lead mills to collect intentional jMfc.
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
206
-------
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.
207
-------
EPA did not propose effluent limitations for four
pollutants, including biphenyl, carbon disulfide, dimethyl
sulfone, and mercury, and indicated in the Technical
Development Document (at Section 7.3.5) that these four
pollutants were remaining under consideration for
regulation. Based on limited data available to date, EPA
has decided not to establish effluent limitations and
standards for these pollutants. EPA has reached this
decision because these pollutants are not found consistently
in effluents and thus they are not directly related to
pulping and bleaching processes serving as the basis for BAT
and NSPS. EPA notes that where mercury was found to be
present, the concentrations at which it was found suggests
that a possible source of this pollutant may be contaminants
of purchased chemicals. However, the Agency did not obtain
any information or data which would either clearly identify
the source or sources of mercury or the other pollutants, or
provide a basis for identifying applicable control
technologies or establishing effluent limitations.
Therefore, EPA is not developing effluent limitations and
standards. Individual mills may still receive water quality
based effluent limitations (Section 301(b)(1)(C)) for any of
208
-------
these pollutants where necessary to protect local water
quality. '
f. Blocides
EPA is retaining the current effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the biocides pentachlorophenol
and trichlorophenol for former Subparts G, H, I, and P (now
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, Subpart B)
and former subparts J and U (now Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory, Subpart E). These limitations and standards
are recodified at Subparts B and E. See 40 CFR 430.24(d),
430.25(d), 430.26(b), 430.27-{b), 430.54(b), 430,55(c),
430.56.(b),. 430.57(b). For Subpart B, the limitations and
standards are presented in the form of segments
corresponding .to the old subcategorization scheme. (EPA did
not need to track the old subcategorization scheme for
Subpart E because the limitations and standards for former
subparts J and U were the same.) EPA is not codifying any
minimum monitoring frequency for these pollutants. See 40
CFR 430.02. In addition, unless the permitting or
pretreatment authority decides otherwise, EPA expects that
mills would demonstrate compliance with these limitations at
the end of the pipe.
209
-------
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 CPR 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 also used as
biocides. See, e.g., 40 CFR 430.24(a)(1). (Those compounds
->%>
'S '
are included within the list of the 12 chlorinated phenolic
pollutants discussed in Section VLB.3.a.) EPA is requiring
dischargers to demonstrate compliance with these limitations
and standards by monitoring for those pollutants at the
point where the wastewater containing those pollutants
leaves the bleach plant. See, e.g., 40 CFR 430.24(e).
EPA believes it is appropriate to codify separate
210
-------
limitations and standards for those pollutants, even though
in very rare cases a mill may be required to comply with
both sets. First, although for the same pollutants the two
sets of limitations arise from different chemical
applications in different parts of the mill. As biocides,
pentachlorophenol or trichlorophenol could be used virtually
anywhere in a mill's industrial process, but were ^typically
used as slimicides in Whitewater recirculation systems. In
the limitations and standards promulgated today, however,
pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol and 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol are being regulated because they are found
in bleach plant wastewater when chlorine-containing
compounds are used for bleaching. Second, EPA expects these
pollutants to be reduced to quantities below the minimum
level of the applicable analytical method as a result of
bleach plant process changes, which is not the case when
they are used as biocides. Thus the different limitations
and standards found in Subparts B and E for these pollutants
respond to different situations and reflect, different model
process technologies. Finally, EPA believes that mills in
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory or the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory generally do not use
211
-------
pentachlorophenol or trichlorophenol as biocides today. See
the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
Therefore, EPA expects that each mill will be able to
certify that it is not using the compounds as biocides and
therefore will not be subject to the biocides- related
limitations.
,4. Analytical Methods
In this rule, EPA is promulgating Method 1650
for the analysis of AOX and Method 1653 for the analysis of
certain chlorinated phenolic compounds.
a. Authority
The analytical methods in this final rule are
promulgated under the authority of CWA sections 301, 304(h),
307, 308, and 501(a). Section 301 of the Act prohibits the
discharge of any pollutant into navigable waters unless the
discharge complies with an NPDES permit issued under section
402 of the Act. Section 301 also specifies levels of
pollutant reductions to be achieved by certain dates.
Section 304(h) of the Act requires the EPA Administrator to
"promulgate guidelines establishing test procedures for the
analysis of pollutants that shall include the factors which
must be provided in any certification pursuant to section
212
-------
401 of this Act or permit applications pursuant to section
402 of this Act.." These rest 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 a
compendium entitled "Analytical Methods for the
Determination of Pollutants in Pulp and Paper Industry
Wastewater." This compendium contained methods that had not
been promulgated at 40 CFR Part 136, but would be applicable
for monitoring compliance with the limitations and standards
proposed for Part 430 at that time. The compendium included
methods for the analysis of CDDs and CDFs (i.e., dioxin and
213
-------
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
214
-------
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 (GAG).
215
-------
The method involves adsorption of the organic halides
(chlorine, bromine, iodine) in water onto GAG, removal of
inorganic halides by washing, combustion of the organic
halides (along with the GAG) to form hydrogen halides, and
titration of the hydrogen halides with silver ions in a
microcoulometer. The results are reported as organic
chlorine even though other halides may be present because
chlorine is the halide of concern in pulp and paper
wastewaters. EPA studies have demonstrated a Method
Detection Limit (MDL) of 6.6 //g/L. Based on this MDL and on
calibration of the microcoulometer, the minimum level (ML)
in Method 1650 has been determined to be 20 /zg/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.
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
i
216
-------
comments and suggestions made following proposal of the
method. In response to comments, EPA made several changes
to Method 1650, including: adjustment of the breakthrough
specification to 25 percent based on recent data; allowance
of a 100- or 25-mL adsorption volume, provided the
sensitivity requirements in the method are met,- provision of
greater flexibility in allowable glassware sizes; use of
100-mL volumes of standards for calibration and other
purposes to conserve reagents; use of only 2-mm columns to
make the column procedure more reproducible; adjustment of
the QC acceptance criteria based on an industry
interlaboratory method validation study; and the addition of
a minimum integration time of 10 minutes to assure that all
AOX is measured. In addition, the format of the method has
been modified to reflect the standardized format recommended
by EPA's Environmental Monitoring Management Council (EMMC).
For a more detailed discussion of the changes made to Method
1650 since proposal, see DCN 14497, Vol. VII.
EPA disagreed with several comments on EPA's proposed
Method 1650 and therefore did not make the changes suggested
by commenters. In particular, EPA disagrees that the method
detection limit (MDL) should be increased to 20 /ug/L to
217
-------
allow for blank contamination. In EPA's view, blank
contamination can be controlled to levels well below 20
yug/L. EPA also disagrees that it should eliminate Section
8.1.2 of the proposed method. (Section 8.1.2 contained
provisions for flexibility.) EPA has received a large
number of requests that analytical methods be "performance-
based, " and has attempted to implement the means for
allowing changes in Section 8.1.2 (Section 9.1.2 in the
version of Method 1650 being promulgated today). Under
Section 8.1.2, the laboratory can make minor modifications
to Method 1650 provided that the laboratory performs all
quality control (QC) tests and meets all QC acceptance
criteria. In addition, contrary to a suggestion from a
commenter, EPA has not included examples of cell maintenance
in Method 1650 because EPA believes that analysts who
maintain the coulometric cell must be familiar with the cell
maintenance procedures provided by the instrument
manufacturer. For more information on these issues, see DCN
14497, Vol. VII.
(2) Method 1653: Chlorophenolics by In-Situ
Derivatization and Isotope Dilution GC/MS
Method 1653 can be used to measure chlorinated phenolic
218
-------
compounds in water and wastewater amenable to in situ
acetylation, extraction, and determination by HRGC combined
with low-resolution mass spectrometry (LRMS). In this
method, chlorophenolics are derivatized in situ to form
acetic acid phenolates that are extracted with hexane,
concentrated, and injected into the HRGC/LRMS where
separation and detection occurs.
EPA studies have demonstrated MDLs of 0.09-1.39 //g/L
for chlorophenolics in water. Based on these MDLs and on
calibration of the GCMS instrument, minimum levels have been
determined for the 12 chlorinated phenolics in today's rule.
These minimum levels of 2.5 or 5.0 //g/L depend on the
specific compound and have been validated in single
laboratory validation studies and by use in data gathering
for today's final rule. All laboratories that used Method
* .-,.5*.-
'> '
1653 in the data gathering effort calibrated their
instruments at the ML.
Since proposal, EPA has made changes to Method
1653 to improve the reliability of the method and to lower
costs of measurements. These changes are incorporated into
the version of the method being promulgated today; they
largely reflect comments and suggestions made following
219
-------
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
t,
extensive studies are more than adequate to validate Method
220
-------
1653 for use in data gathering to support this final rule
and for use in monitoring under this final rule. EPA also
disagrees with comments that Method 1653 is inadequate for
chlorocatechols. EPA believes that Method 1653 provides
more reliable data for catechols and the other
chlorophenolics than any other method available, and the
commenter provided no suggestions for how Method 1653 could
be improved for determination of chlorocatechols. EPA has,
therefore, kept chlorocatechols in Method 1653. EPA also
disagrees with comments that initial precision and recovery
(IPR) and ongoing precision and recovery (OPR) tests should
be replaced with initial calibration (ICAL) and calibration
verification (VER) tests. (The ICAL and IPR are different
in both form and function. The calibration test is for
calibrating the analytical system while the IPR test is
conducted to check performance. The OPR and VER tests are
the same; only the terminology is different. EPA has
retained use of the OPR terminology to be consistent with
other methods.) EPA also disagrees with comments that use
of labeled compounds is not worth the benefit and that all
phenols and guaiacols should be quantitated against 3,4,5-
trichlorophenol. EPA believes that data gathered to support
221
-------
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 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
222
-------
that a future sample is encountered that produces an
emulsion that cannot be broken. If all efforts to break the
emulsion fail, Method 1653 allows the use of a dilute
aliquot. For more discussion, see Comment Response
Document, Vol. VII, DCN 14497.
d. Other Methods.
In addition to the methods promulgated today, the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards also call for
the use of Method 1613 (for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-
dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlbrodibenzofuran (TCDF))
and any of the approved methods for chloroform to monitor
compliance. These methods are discussed below.
(1) Method 1613: CDDs and CDFs by HRGC/HRMS
Method 1613 uses isotope dilution and high-
resolution gas chromatography combined with high-resolution
mass spectrometry (HRGC/HRMS) for separation and detection
of 17 tetra- through octa-substituted dibenzo-p-dioxin and
dibenzofuran isomers and congeners that are chlorinated at
the 2, 3, 7, and 8 positions. Separate procedures are
available for the determination of these analytes in water
and solid matrices. In the procedure, a 1-L sample is
passed through a Q.45-/J. glass fiber filter. The filter is
223
-------
extracted with toluene in a Soxhlet/Dean-Stark (SDS)
extractor. The aqueous filtrate is extracted with methylene
chloride in a separatory funnel. Extracts from the SDS and
separatory funnel extractions are combined and concentrated.
To remove interferences, the combined, concentrated extract
is cleaned up using various combinations of acid and base
washes, acidic and basic silica gel, gel permeation
chromatography (GPC), high-performance liquid chromatography
(HPLC), and activated carbon. The cleaned up extract is
concentrated to 20 (tL and a 1-2 //L aliquot is injected into
the HRGC/HRMS.
The MDL determined for TCDD is 4.4 part-per-quadrillion
(ppq). Minimum levels for Method 1613 are 10 ppq for TCDD
and TCDF. These MLs have been validated through an
interlaboratory study and by use in the analysis of mill
effluents.
EPA recently promulgated Method 1613 for the
determination of CDDs and CDFs at 40 CFR 136, Appendix A in
a final rule published on September 15, 1997 (62 FR 48394).
Of the 17 congeners that may be measured with this method,
only TCDD and TCDF are regulated under this final rule.
Method 1613 was first proposed for general use in compliance
224
-------
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 4.0 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
225
-------
volatile pollutants in water and wastewater. It employs a
gas chromatograph coupled to a mass spectrometer (GC/MS) to
separate and quantify volatile pollutants. Detected
pollutants are quantified by isotope dilution. Samples of
water or solids suspended in water are purged of volatile
organic pollutants by a stream of inert gas into the gaseous
phase where they are concentrated onto a trap. Subsequent
heating of the trap introduces the concentrated volatile
organics into a GC/MS for separation and quantification.
With no interferences present, minimum levels of 10-50
/zg/L can be achieved, depending on the specific pollutant.
For chloroform, the minimum level is 10 Atg/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);
226
-------
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
227
-------
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 assuz-e
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
228
-------
delignification or extended cooking 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 PR-at 66111. At the time of
proposal, EPA was unable to fully analyze this alternative
229
-------
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 PR 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 FE at 66109. TCP 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 TCP
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 TCP 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 TCP processes.
In the July 1996 Notice, EPA also described an
230
-------
incentives program that it was considering for Subpart B
mills in order to promote more widespread use of advanced
pollution prevention technologies. See 61 FR at 36849-58.
As part of this voluntary program, EPA proposed to establish
up to three sets of alternative BAT limitations that would'
complement the compulsory baseline BAT requirements. EPA
identified the proposed alternative BAT limitations as Tier
I, Tier II, and Tier III BAT limitations. See 61 FR at
36850. EPA considered basing Tier I limits on BAT Option B
technology (if Option A were chosen as the basis for the
baseline BAT limitations). The Tier II and Tier III
limitations, in turn, would be based on technologies and
processes that EPA expected to achieve substantial
reductions in pulping area condensate, evaporator
condensate, and bleach plant wastewater flow.
(b) Final ECF Options Evaluated
For this final rule, EPA considered two ECF technology
options -- Option A and Option B -- as the basis for BAT
effluent limitations. Option A consists of conventional
pulping followed by complete substitution of chlorine
dioxide for elemental chlorine, as well as the following
nine elements:
231
-------
(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
defearners (i.e., water-based'defearners 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
232
-------
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 TCP 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
233
-------
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
v
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 £S at
36848 and the Supplemental Technical Development Document,
DCN 14487.
Kappa factor, also known as active chlorine multiple,
234
-------
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 furnish averaged 0.17 and all were less
than 0.2. At the mills whose data were used to characterize
Option B performance, kappa factors for softwood furnish
averaged 0.23, with all but one at less than 0.21. Well-
operated and maintained mills using comparable kappa factors
will be capable of achieving limitations corresponding to
Option A or B, respectively. Based on certain site-specific
factors, such as furnish, some mills will be capable of
achieving today's limitations with higher kappa factors.
There are numerous strategies a mill can employ to minimize
its kappa factor. See the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487.
In addition, there are numerous strategies a mill can
employ to minimize precursors of dioxin and furan contained
in brownstock pulp. These strategies include, but are not
235
-------
limited to, improved brownstock washing, improved screening
to produce cleaner pulp, eliminating compression wood
(knots) from brownstock pulp, and using only precursor-free
condensates in brownstock washers. The strategy or
strategies appropriate for the production of a given pulp
depend on the raw material (wood species and the form it
takes, i.e., chips, waste wood, or sawdust), process
equipment, and the specifications of the final pulp product
(brightness, cleanliness, strength, absorbency, and others).
For a discussion of these strategies, see the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
(c) Totally Chlorine-Free (TCF) Bleaching Option fir
Evaluated
The Agency received many comments that it should
continue to investigate TCF bleaching because dioxin and
furan are not generated at any level with TCF bleaching,
thus assuring that these pollutants are not released to the
environment. The Agency conducted two sampling programs at
the one U.S. mill that produces TCF bleached kraft softwood
pulp. EPA collected samples of bleach plant filtrates but
could not collect samples of treated effluent because the
mill does not employ secondary treatment. The Agency 'also
236
-------
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
237
-------
representative of TCP operations. The average bleach, plant jOj*
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 TCP 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 TCP
processing is known to be technically feasible and thus
could be the basis of compulsory BAT limitations. Despite
238
-------
these impediments, EPA believes that.the progress being made
in TCP process development is substantial, and that
additional data may demonstrate that TCP processes are
indeed available for the full, range of market products. For
this reason, EPA also evaluated the performance of TCP mills
in order to establish alternative limitations for mills that
voluntarily choose to employ TCP processes. -See Section
VLB.. 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
239
-------
Spent Pulping Liquors Management, Spill Prevention, and
Control, DCN 14489.) (For a discussion of the costs
associated with the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program BAT technologies, see the Technical Support
Document, DCN 14488.) All cost estimates in this section
are expressed in 1995 dollars. The cost components reported
in this section are engineering estimates of the cost of
purchasing and installing equipment and the annual operating
and maintenance costs associated with that equipment. See
Section VIII of this preamble for a discussion of the costs
used in the economic impact analysis.
Because EPA considers efficient biological wastewater.
treatment to be current industry practice, EPA has not
included its costs in the estimates-of costs of BAT. See
the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
As discussed in Section VI.B.5.c. below, for PSES for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA
evaluated the same process change technology options that it
evaluated for BAT, with the exception of biological
wastewater treatment. As a result, EPA used the same cost
model to estimate the costs of PSES and BAT. Set forth
below are the total costs for all mills in the subcategory.
240
-------
(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 thecost estimates it made at 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
241
-------
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
licfuor 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
242
-------
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 jpnly 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.
243
-------
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
244
-------
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
245
-------
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 $2 million/year increased costs estimated
today. See the Supplemental Technical Development Document,
''V
DCN 14487.
For the purpose of estimating the cost of the
regulations, EPA excluded the costs of process changes that
were either completed or under construction as of mid-1995.
EPA incorrectly stated in the July 1996 Notice that costs
for process changes committed to but not yet under
construction as of mid-1995 were also excluded from the cost
246
-------
of this regulation. These latter costs have been included.
See the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN
14487.
(iii)
Considered
Final Cost Estimates of the Options
EPA's final cost estimates for Option A and B for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory (BAT, PSES,
and BMPs) follow in Table.VI-1.
Table VI-l
Total Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Capital and Engineering O&M Costs for BAT, PSES and BMPs
(1995 dollars)
Capital ($ million)
Engineering O&M
($ million/yr)
Final Cost Estimates
Option A
966
113
Option B
2,130
2.02
For both Option A and Option B, EPA excluded costs for
the use of dioxin- and furan-precursor-free defearners,
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
247
-------
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
248
-------
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.
249
-------
Table VI-2
Total Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Capital and Engineering O&M Costs of TCP Options
for BAT, PSES, and BMP
(1995 dollars)
Capital ($ million)
Engineering O&M
($million/yr)
Estimated Costs
Peroxide -TCF
(OQPP)
3,090
660
Ozone-TCF
(.OZEppQPZP)
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 14487.
As discussed in the July 1996 Notice, EPA recalculated
the effluent reduction benefits using a new baseline of mid-
1995. See 61 FR at 36840. In addition, EPA revised and
simplified the methodology used to estimate that baseline
(using a model mill approach) . Id. EPA also used a second
250
-------
approach to estimate the effluent loads of dioxin and furan
using data for individual mills as compiled in the NCASI
1994 Dioxin Profile (see DON 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)
251
-------
for ECF mills. The methodology was modified slightly for
mills that use TCP bleaching sequences. Because chlorinated
compounds are not 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 for dioxin and
furan, were used to calculate effluent reductions summarized
in Table VI-3. The table shows the estimated baseline and
the reduction from baseline expected if the option were
implemented by all the existing direct discharging mills in
the subcategory (i.e., those mills to which BAT will apply) .
The slightly greater removals of the bleach plant pollutants
by Option B are a result of the reduced bleach plant flow
found at mills employing Option B technology.
252
-------
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
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
12
Chlorinated
phenolic
pollutants
AOX
Units
g/yr
g/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
Mid-1995
Baseline
Discharge
14.0
105 '
43.6
51.7
33,300
Estimated
Reductions :
Option A
9.88
98.0
35.5
42.3
22,100
Estimated
Reductions :
Option B
10.8
99.5
35.5
44.1
27,900
Estimated
Reductions :
TCF
14.0
105
43.6
51.7
33,300
The TCF calculations assumed that chlorinated pollutants will not be
present. For all other calculations, EPA assumed that pollutants
reported as "not detected" were present in a concentration equivalent to
one-half the minimum level specified in 40 CFR 430.01(i) or one-half of
the reported detection limit.
The effluent reductions described and shown above are
used in Section VII to estimate reduced human health and
environmental risk attributable to today's rules. These
estimates also form the basis for estimating monetized
benefits in Section VIII.
(4) Development of Limitations
The proposed BAT regulations included limitations for
dioxin, furan, 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants, acetone,
chloroform, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and methylene
chloride (based on BAT process changes); and limitations for
253
-------
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 VLB.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
254
-------
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
255
-------
mills that use ECF bleaching at levels at or only slightly
above the minimum level specified in the applicable
analytical method. In this case, the value of mass-based
limitations and standards are predominantly influenced by
the variability in the bleach plant effluent flow rate and
thus may not be a consistent and reliable measurement of the
presence of furan. Since the July 1996 Notice, EPA has used
one additional data set to calculate the furan limitation;
this data set was from an Option B bleach line with a
typical unbleached kappa number of 20. Because of this
change and because of changes to assumptions used in the
statistical analysis and changes to the computer programs,
see Section VI.B.5.a(4) (b) , the value of the furan
limitations and standards has changed slightly from that
presented in the July 1996 Notice.
EPA has made no changes to the limitations for dioxin
and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants presented in the
July 1996 Notice. Upon further review after the July 1996
Notice, EPA discovered that some sample-specific minimum
levels for some chlorinated phenolic pollutants were
incorrectly entered into the databases. These values have
been corrected. See DCN 14496, and Record Section 22.5.
256
-------
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-TCP 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
.-feit
s
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
257
-------
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
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
258
-------
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 two
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
259
-------
EPA proposed a monthly average chloroform limitation of
2.01 g/kkg based on sampling results from one mill that used
extended delignification and complete substitution of
chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine, and that did not
use hypochlorite during bleaching. Data collected by EPA
after proposal indicated that bleach plant loads of
chloroform did not differ between mills that used
conventional pulping (Option A) and extended delignification
(Option B), as long as bleaching was carried out without
elemental chlorine or hypochlorite. However, these data
indicate that the type of pulp washers used in a mill's
bleach plant influence the partitioning of chloroform
between the air and effluent. Use of low air flow washers
results in less emission of chloroform to the air and
greater loads of chloroform in bleach plant effluent than
use of high air flow washers. See DCN 14494. In general,
modern low air flow washers (such as pressure diffusion)
also use less water to accomplish equivalent washing, i.e.,
they are more efficient than conventional vacuum drum
washers (high air flow washers) . See DCN 14494, and DCN
14497, Vol. 'I. Because of their efficient use of water and
their potential to reduce non-water quality environmental
260
-------
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
reevaluated 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
261
-------
mills that bleach pulp to a high brightness (88 to 90 ISO).
In developing the variability factors, EPA also considered
data from the other three mills with low air flow washers to
obtain a more realistic estimate of variability associated
with operating low air flow washers. Two of these mills
bleach pulp to a lower brightness (80 to 85 ISO). EPA
believes that the resulting limitations and standards can be
met by all well-operated and maintained ECF mills regardless
of the type of bleach plant washers used. (EPA's revised
bleach plant monthly average chloroform limitation is now
4.14 g/kkg.) The data in the record indicate that it is
highly unlikely that a mill employing elemental chlorine or
hypochlorite in its bleach plant could comply with the
chloroform limitations promulgated in this rule. See DCN
14494.
(iv) COD
As discussed in VI.B.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
262
-------
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 ("
-------
abbreviation for the minimum level identified in §430.01(i)
of today's rule for the analytical methods that EPA used to
determine the level of pollution reduction achievable
through the use of BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS model
technologies for the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants,
dioxin, and, for alternative TCP technologies, AOX. (For
Subpart E, limitations and standards for furari and AOX are
also expressed as "
-------
of ML limitations. Compliance with the ML limitations is
discussed in Section VI.E.S.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
265
-------
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 430.01(i).
Table VI-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 ,
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Trichlorosyringol
3,4, 5-Trichlorocatechol
3,4, 6-Trichlorocatechol.
3 , 4 , 5-Trichloroguaiacol
3,4, 6-Trichloroguaiacol
4,5, 6-Trichloroguaiacol
2,4, 5 -Trichlorophenol
2,4, 6 -Trichlorophenol
Method
1613
1613
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
. 1653
1653
Minimum level
10 pg/L
10 pg/L
2.5 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
5.0 ug/L
2.5 ug/L
2.5 ug/L
2.5 ug/L
2.5 ug/L
2.5 ug/L
266
-------
Pollutant
Tetrachlorocatechol
Tetrachloroguaiacol
2,3,4, 6-Tetrachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
AOX
Method
1653
1653
1653
1653
1650
Minimum level
5 . 0 ug/L
*
5.0 ug/L
2.5 ug/L
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
(g/kkg)
Daily Maximum
Limitation
Option A
-------
* Trichlorosyringol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, 3,4,5-
trichlorocatechol, 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol, 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol,
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol, 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol, tetrachlorocateohol,
tetrachloroguaiacol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, and pentachlorophenol.
ML or Minimum level - the level at which the analytical system gives
recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point. See 40 CFR 430.01 (i').
N/A Not applicable.
EPA did not establish monthly average limitations and
standards for dioxin and the 12 chlorinated phenolic
pollutants because the daily maximum limitations and
standards for these pollutants are expressed as less than
the Minimum Level (
-------
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
pretreatment 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)(1), 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 VI-6. Today's rules require AOX to be monitored every
**-T '
day during the month. See 40 CFR 430.02(a). Annual average
limitations for AOX apply only to non-continuous discharges.
The alternative TCF effluent limitations apply only to AOX
and are expressed as "
-------
Table VI-6
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
AOX Limitations
(Comparison of Options A and B,
and Alternative TCP Limitations)
Annual Average
Monthly Average
Limitation
Daily Maximum
Limitation
Option A
(kg/kkg)
0.512
0.623
0.951
Option B
(kg/kkg)
0.208
0.272
0.476
Al t erna fcive
TCF
limitations
(kg/kkg)
N/A
N/A
-------
provide monitoring results for three composite bleach plant
wastewater samples for dioxin, furan, and the 12 chlorinated
phenolic pollutants and three grab samples for chloroform in
order to qualify for those limitations. See 58 PR at 66195.
EPA believes that the additional proposed requirement is
unnecessary because EPA has no reason to believe that a
discharger would falsify its TCP certification and because a
discharger certifying to TCP processes at a particular fiber
line is required in any case to notify the permitting
authority if it converts the fiber line in whole or in part
to bleaching processes employing chlorine or chlorine-
containing compounds. As a result .of this notification, the
discharger's TCP-based permit limits would need to be
modified to reflect the new processes. See, e.g., 40 CFR
'122. 21 (g) (3) , 122.21 (g) (7) , and 122 .41 (1)'.
(5) Selection of BAT/PSES Technology Basis
After considering all of the technology options
described in the December 1993 proposal and the July 1996
Notice in light of the factors specified in section
304(b)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act, EPA has selected Option
A as its technology basis for the BAT limitations
promulgated today for Subpart B. For the reasons set forth
271
-------
below, EPA has also selected Option A as its technology jj^
basis for the PSES promulgated today for Subpart B. (For a
discussion of PSES options, parameters, and EPA's pass-
through analysis, see Section VI.B.S.c.) The record
establishes that Option A is technically available. See the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. As
discussed in more detail below, EPA,has also concluded that
it is economically achievable. Further, EPA has determined,
for the reasons set forth in Section VII, that Option A has
no unacceptable adverse non-water quality environmental
impacts. Finally, EPA determined that Option A achieves
greater environmental benefits than any other economically
achievable technology considered by EPA and, for that
reason, also represents the best technology among those
considered.
.<.&«
X, - *
EPA considered the age, size, processes, other
engineering factors, and non-water quality environmental
impacts pertinent to mills in this subcategory for the
purpose of evaluating the BAT and PSES technology options.
None of these factors provides a basis for selecting
different technologies than EPA has chosen as the basis for
today's BAT limitations and PSES.
272
-------
In order to evaluate economic achievability, EPA
concluded that it was appropriate to examine BAT/PSES in
view of the MACT requirements also being promulgated today
for mills subject to Subpart B. As a general matter, when
evaluating the economic impact of the candidate BAT/PSES .
technologies, EPA generally looks at the industry as it
exists at the time the decision is made. In this industry,
Subpart B mills will be subject to significant additional
costs as a result of today's MACT I rule. See Section VIII.
Therefore, although EPA has not ascribed MACT I costs to the
BAT/PSES costs of today's rule, EPA is taking those costs
into account when considering the total impact of the
various BAT/PSES options on Subpart B mills. This is
particularly appropriate here because EPA undertook this
Cluster rulemaking in order to consider at one time a range
of air and water controls and their total economic
consequences, among other things. Thus, EPA believes that
its BAT/PSES analysis more accurately reflects the actual
costs and economic impacts that mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory will experience. EPA
also performed its economic achievability analysis based on
the impact of BAT/PSES costs without considering the impact
273
-------
of the MACT I rule on Subpart B mills. This analysis did
not change EPA's final conclusions. Additionally, in
response to comments, and because more information is now
available regarding estimated costs, EPA also considered the
economic impacts of the MACT II requirements being proposed
at this time. The additional consideration of projected
MACT II costs also does not alter EPA's determination of
economic achievability in this instance.
EPA has determined that the selected BAT/PSES model
technology (Option A) 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 MACT I 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 $275 million decrease in shipments, and no firm
failures that are likely to result in additional job loss.
(See Section VIII.F and Table VIII-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
274
-------
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
VIII.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 VIII.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
275
-------
two mill closures, with a related direct loss of 900 jobs
and a $275 million decrease in shipments, and one or more
firm failures. See Section VIII.F.I.
While the increased number of closures and related job
losses associated with 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
276
-------
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
VIII.F. 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
277
-------
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 directly 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 DCN
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
278
-------
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
279
-------
(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 predicted closures attributable to Option
B, when considered without regard for the impact of the MACT
I 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
280
-------
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 achievability
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.
*-*W '
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
281
-------
bankruptcy. See Section VIII.F. (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 TCP 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 TCP 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 PR at 66110 for other
options considered at proposal.) For a discussion of the
effluent reduction benefits associated with Option A, see
Section VIII.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
283
-------
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
284
-------
section VI.B.5.a(l), are able to achieve at 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
i
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
285
-------
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 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
286
-------
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 1^22.45 (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 PR 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
287
-------
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
288
-------
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"
289
-------
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 430.01 (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
290
-------
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
291
-------
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
292
-------
performance of a 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 OZE0D
bleach sequence to bleach softwood to 84 ISO, somewhat less
than full market brightness. EPA collected data from this
293
-------
line that confirm that OZE0D bleaching results in much lower
water use and pollutant loadings than either Option A or
Option B. Because of this level of performance, EPA
strongly encourages further development of ozone-based
bleaching sequences --' as part of either ECF or TCP
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 TCP softwood
kraft pulp at full market brightness. However, EPA's data
are not sufficient,to confirm that TCP 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 TCP bleaching processes are
known to be technically feasible and thus could be the basis
for NSPS. EPA believes that progress being made in
developing TCP bleaching processes is substantial, however,
and that additional data may demonstrate that TCP processes
are indeed available for the full range of market products.
294
-------
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
TCP 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 TCP 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 TCP technologies. See 40 CFR 430.25(b)(2).
For the conventional pollutants BOD5 and TSS, EPA is
basing NSPS upon the best available demonstrated performance
of a secondary wastewater treatment system as characterized
by the average of the best 50 percent of the existing mills
in the subcategory. EPA has determined that the performance
of the single best mill does not account for all sources of
process-related variability in conventional pollutant
295
-------
generation and treatability expected in the entire
subcategory, including raw materials (i.e., furnish),
process operations, and final products. In selecting the '
final NSPS technology basis for conventional pollutants, EPA
found it necessary to consider the secondary wastewater
treatment performance of the best 50 percent of the existing
mills in this subcategory in order to ensure that the
resulting standards reflect the full range of processes and
raw materials to produce the full range of products covered
by this subcategory. For further discussion, see the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487, and
DCN 14497, Vol. I and II.
EPA is not revising NSPS for pH for Subpart B; however,
for the convenience of the permit writer, EPA has recodified
the 1982 NSPS for pH as part of the table of newly
promulgated NSPS for toxic, non-conventional, and other
conventional pollutants. See 40 CFR 430.25(b).
In selecting its model NSPS technologies, EPA
considered all of the factors specified in CWA section 306,
including the cost of achieving effluent reductions. The
incremental capital cost of complying with the selected NSPS
for all pollutants, as compared to the costs of complying
296
-------
with standards based on the next best technology, BAT Option ^^
w
A, is only 0.5 to 2.0 percent of the total capital cost of
constructing either a new source fiber line at an existing
mill or a new greenfield mill. Moreover, the process
technologies that form the basis for NSPS result in lower
pollutant loadings requiring biological treatment. Loadings
of 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/BCT effluent limitations guidelines, the cost of
treating wastewater from a NSPS bleach line to meet NSPS for
conventional pollutants will be the same or lower. Finally,
as of mid-1995 there are 14 existing mills representing
approximately 16 percent of the bleached papergrade kraft
-<-3>
'<%
production that employ the Option B technology. For these
reasons, EPA concludes that the costs of complying with NSPS
for toxic, non-conventional or conventional pollutants do
not present a barrier to entry. See the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. See also Section
VIII and Chapter 6 of the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649.
The Agency also considered energy requirements and
297
-------
other non-water quality environmental impacts for the
selected NSPS option. EPA concluded that increased chemical
recovery and reduced- energy consumption and operating costs
would occur for this option. EPA also concluded that non-
water quality environmental impacts were only marginally
different than for the selected BAT technology option and
are acceptable. Thus, EPA concluded that none of the
statutory factors justified selecting a different NSPS model
technology than the one chosen. See Section VII. See also
the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
EPA is also promulgating NSPS as part of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program with standards set at
the Tier II and Tier III levels. See 40 CFR 430.25 (c) . For
a discussion of this program, see Section IX. A new source
may choose to enroll in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program at the Tier II or Tier III NSPS level and
therefore to commit to achieve those standards at the time
it commences operation. Alternatively, a new source may
choose to commence operation at the compulsory NSPS level
and then later enroll in the Incentives Program at the Tier
II or Tier III level as an existing source, or enroll in the
Incentives Program once Tier II or Tier III limitations are
298
-------
achieved. jflfc
Finally, EPA notes that the previously promulgated NSPS
for the biocides pentachlorophenol-and trichlorophenol
continue to apply to all new sources. See 40 CFR 430.25(d).
(4) Limitations and Point of Compliance Monitoring
EPA is promulgating NSPS for dioxin, furan, chloroform,
the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and AOX for Subpart
B at the levels set forth in Tables VI-5 and VI-6 for BAT
Option B. See 40 CFR 430.25(b)(1). For a discussion of
EPA's development of those standards (presented in the
context of possible BAT limitations derived from Option B
technologies), see Section VI.B.5.a(4). The numerical
values of today's NSPS for 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.
299
-------
Table VI-7
New Source Performance Standards for Conventional
Pollutants for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda Subcategory
NSPS
Pollutant
or
pollutant
property
BODS
TSS
pH
Continuous dischargers
Maximum for
any 1 day
(kg/kkg)
4.52
8.47
(x)
Monthly
Average
(kg/kkg)
2.41
?
3.86
P)
Non- continuous
dischargers
Annual average
(kg/kkg)
1.73
2.72
(x)
(x) Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times
EPA is requiring mills to demonstrate compliance with
the NSPS for dioxin, furan, chloroform and the 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants inside the discharger's
facility at the point where the wastewater containing those
pollutants leaves the bleach plant. See 40 CFR 430.25(e).
EPA bases this decision on the reasons discussed in Section
VI. B. 5. a (.6) for BAT limitations. 'EPA is not specifying a
point of compliance monitoring for AOX, BOD5, TSS, pH, or
the biocides.
300
-------
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 ec[ual
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 fl?
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
301
-------
these pollutants. See 40 CFR 430.26(a)(1) and 430.27(a)(1).
EPA's record shows that both direct discharging mills
and POTWs accepting wastewaters from pulp and paper mills in
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory operate
secondary biological treatment systems. The indirect
discharging mills in this subcategory contribute the
majority of the pollutant loading and up to 90 percent of
the flow to these POTWs. (EPA refers to these POTWs as
"industrial POTWs.") EPA has reviewed data available in the
record for BOD5 and TSS, among other pollutants, and has
determined that the biological treatment systems at these
POTWs are comparable to the biological treatment systems
operated by direct discharging mills in Subpart B. See the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
EPA reviewed all available data in the record to
conduct a pass-through analysis. EPA compared the percent
of removals achieved by Subpart B mills implementing the BAT
technologies to the percent of the same pollutants removed
by the industrial POTWs receiving effluent from Subpart B
mills. EPA's record shows that dioxin and furan are not
removed by biological treatment systems and so are not
removed by the POTW. Therefore, these pollutants pass
302
-------
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
303
-------
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
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 volatilize's from collection, conveyance, and
aeration systems. EPA has consistently refused in these
circumstances to regard such transfers of pollutants from
wastewater to air as treatment. See, e.g., 59 FR 50638,
50665 (Sept. 28, 1993) (pesticides chemicals guidelines); 58
FR 36872, 36886-88 (July 9, 1993)(organic chemicals,
304
-------
these chlorinated phenolic pollutants, the removals achieved vflhk
are less than the removals achieved by the BAT process
changes alone. Therefore, because overall chlorinated
phenolic pollutant removals with implementation of the model
BAT technologies are substantially greater than removals
achieved by POTWs, chlorinated phenolic pollutants pass
through POTWs.
EPA has also determined that AOX passes through. EPA
bases this conclusion on its review of all available data
regarding removals of AOX achieved by industrial POTWs that
receive a majority of their flow or a majority of their BOD5
or TSS loadings from indirect dischargers covered by Subpart MBr
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
306
-------
pulp and paper wastewaters cannot achieve the same overall
removals of AOX as achieved by direct dischargers complying
with the BAT limitations for AOX. The same is also true
when considering removals achieved by new sources complying
with NSPS. Therefore, contrary to the preliminary finding
in the July 1996 Notice, EPA concludes that AOX passes
through POTWs and is setting pretreatment standards for AOX
for new and existing indirect discharging mills. See 40 CFR
430.26(a) and 430.27(a).
The pretreatment standards promulgated today for AOX
are equivalent to the AOX loadings present in the bleach
plant wastewaters of mills employing the BAT/NSPS
technologies prior to biological treatment systems at direct
discharging mills. EPA expects that removals achieved by
indirect dischargers employing the PSES or PSNS model
technology, in combination with removals achieved by
biological treatment systems at POTWs, will be comparable to
the removals achieved by direct dischargers complying with
BAT limitations or NSPS.:
In reviewing the information available in the record
for the pollutants BODS and TSS, EPA concluded that
pollutant reductions attained by direct dischargers'
307
-------
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 EAT
and NSPS technologies. Since proposal, EPA has made new
findings with respect to the pass-through of BOD5 and TSS.
EPA has also received comments indicating that the lack of
sufficient land for the installation of biological treatment
at some indirect dischargers makes such systems infeasible
and unavailable. This finding, combined with EPA's finding
that biological wastewater treatment systems at POTWs
308
-------
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 VLB. 5. a. (3) above, after
proposal EPA recalculated the effluent reductions
attributable to its PSES technology options using a new
baseline of mid-1995. See the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487.
Table VI-8 shows the estimated baseline and the
reduction from baseline expected if the presented options
were implemented by all the existing indirect discharging
mills in the subcategory (i.e., those mills to which PSES
will apply).
Table VI-8
Baseline Discharges and Estimated Reductions of Pollutants
for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Mills for Technology
Options Considered3
Pollutant
Parameter
2,3,7,8-TCDD
Units
g/yr
Baseline
Discharge
1.25
Estimated
Reductions :
Option A
0.92
Estimated
Reductions :
Option B
1.00
Estimated
Reductions :
TCF
1.25
309
-------
Pollutant
Parameter
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
12
Chlorinated
phenolic
pollutants
AOX
Units
g/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
Baseline
Discharge
9.47
4.89
3.58
3, 010
Estimated
Reductions :
Option A
8.94
4.28
2.81
2,100
Estimated
Reductions :
Option B
9.04
4.28
2.97
2,600
Estimated
Reductions :
TCP
9.47
4.89
3.58
3,010
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-wa£er 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.
310
-------
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 VLB. 5. a (2).
As discussed in Section VI.B.5.a(5), EPA found PSES based on
BAT Option A to be economically achievable. Similarly, EPA
considered the cost of the PSNS technology for new mills
(based on BAT Option B) and determined that such costs do
not present a barrier to entry, as reflected in' the barrier
to entry discussion for NSPS in Section VI.B.5.b(3).
The rationale for choosing BAT Option A as the basis
for PSES is set forth in Section VLB. 5. a (5). The rationale
for selecting NSPS Option B as PSNS is the same as that
provided in Section VI.B.5.b for selecting that model
technology as the basis for NSPS for this subcategory.
, Although for the reasons set forth in those sections EPA is
not selecting 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
311
-------
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 VLB.7. For a discussion of the pass
through of pollutants controlled by BMPs, see Section
VI. B. 7. In addition, the previously promulgated PSES arid
PSNS for former subparts G, H, I and P for the biocides
pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol continue to apply
unless the discharger certifies that it does not use those
compounds as biocides. See 40 CFR 430.26(b) and 430.27(b).
(6) Limitations
With the exception of AOX, the limitations promulgated
as PSES for Subpart B are identical to those promulgated as
BAT limitations for this subpart. See 40 CFR 430.26(a)(1).
For a discussion of the development of those pretreatment
standards see Section VLB. 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
312
-------
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
VLB. 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.
313
-------
Table VI-10
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
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
VLB.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 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
314
-------
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 thebleach plant, prior to mixing with
other wastestreams. This will reduce the burden on the
pretreatment authority in implementing the PSES/PSNS
315
-------
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,
316 '
-------
magnesium, or sodium sulfite, unless those mills are
specialty grade sulfite mills. See 40 CFR 430.51 (c) (1) .
Mills in this segment are "calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-
based sulfite mills,-"
(2) production of pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite
mills that use an acidic cooking liquor of ammonium sulfite,
unless those mills are specialty grade sulfite mills-. See
40 CFR 430.51 (c) (2). Mills in this segment are "ammonium-
based sulfite mills;" and
(3) production of pulp and paper at specialty grade
sulfite mills, or "specialty grade sulfite mills."
Specialty grade sulfite mills are those mills where a
significant portion of production is characterized by pulp
with a high percentage of alpha cellulose and high
brightness sufficient to produce end products such as
plastic molding compounds, saturating and laminating
products, and photographic papers. EPA considers a
significant portion of production to be 25 percent or more.
The specialty grade segment also includes those mills where
a major portion of production is 91 ISO brightness and
above. EPA considers a major portion of production to be 50
percent or more. See 40 CFR 430.51(c)(3). In order to
317
-------
determine whether a sulfite mill belongs in the specialty J^
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 (TCP) 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
318
-------
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 TCP bleaching, as
proposed. See 58 PR at 66114-15. Existing TCP 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
TCP 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
319
-------
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'
TCP 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
320
-------
for that segment.
(i) Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-based Sulfite
Mills
As proposed, EPA has concluded that TCP bleaching is
the appropriate technology basis for BAT limitations for the
calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based segment of the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. (The following discussion
also applies to PSES.) For this segment, 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 TCF
bleaching was based on an oxygen stage with peroxide
addition, followed by a peroxide bleaching stage. This
'>'"
change to the TCP bleaching sequence reflects the more
common approach to TCF bleaching within this segment of the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory and also reflects the
technology basis of the mill from which TCF performance data
have been collected. EPA also included pulp cleaning to
ensure that existing product quality specifications would
continue to be achieved. EPA has selected this technology
321
-------
because it is technically available and economically
achievable for mills in this segment.
In evaluating the technical availability of TCF
processes for this segment, EPA developed a database of
mills in the United States and Europe that produce pulp
using TCF bleaching technology. There is at least one mill
in the United States and 13 in Europe using acid cooking
liquors of calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite that are
using TCF bleaching processes. Among them, these mills
produce a full range of paper products at up to 91 ISO
brightness using TCF bleaching. These mills are able to
produce the same products using TCF technology that they
produced prior to converting to TCF, with no negative impact
on product quality. EPA has incorporated pulp cleaners as
an element of TCF technology to ensure that pulp quality
requirements are maintained. See the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487. For these reasons, EPA
concluded that TCF bleaching is technically available for
the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based segment. See the
record at section 21.2.1. (As noted above, EPA has
established a separate segment for specialty grade sulfite
mills using these cooking liquors.)
322
-------
In order to evaluate the economic achievability 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 MACT I 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).
323
-------
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
*'&*
V"J
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
324
-------
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
325
-------
exception is specialty grade sulfite mills using ammonium jam*
cooking liquors.)
EPA is also promulgating voluntary alternative BAT
limitations and PSES based on TCF bleaching processes in
order to encourage mills to use this technology whenever it
is consistent with their product mix. See 40 CFR
430.54(a)(2) and 430.56(a)(2). Alternative TCF limitations
are also available for new sources in this segment.
In addition to finding that the ECF bleaching process
described above is technically available for the ammonium-
based segment, EPA has also determined that it is
economically achievable. In order to evaluate the economic
achievability of ECF bleaching for this segment, EPA
considered the costs that existing mills would incur to
convert to the ECF process under consideration. As part of
that analysis, EPA also included the costs of complying with
today's BMP regulations. Because of the small size of this
segment, EPA is not disclosing here the estimated capital
costs, operation and maintenance costs, or post-tax
armualized 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
326
-------
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) .
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
327
-------
pollution-preventing process changes. These research
efforts have progressed to the point where data are
available at this time to promulgate limitations for this
segment for dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic
pollutants. For specialty grade sulfite mills, the
technology basis for limitations is use of dioxin- and
furan-precursor-free defearners, 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 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)(3)
and 430.56(a)(3). Alternative TCP limitations are also
available for new sources in this segment.
328
-------
In addition to finding that the ECF bleaching process
described above is technically available for the specialty
grade segment, EPA has also determined that it is
economically achievable. In order to evaluate the economic
achievability of ECF bleaching for this segment, EPA
considered the costs that the one mill currently in this
segment would incur to convert to ECF processes. As part of
that analysis, EPA also included the costs of complying with
today's BMP regulations. Because of the small size of this
segment, EPA is not disclosing here the estimated capital
costs, operation and maintenance costs, or post-tax
annualized costs for this segment in order to protect
confidential business information. However, EPA has
determined that the sole existing mill in this segment is
not projected to close, nor is its firm projected to fail,
as a result of today's BAT limitations and PSES for this
segment. This result obtains both when the impacts of
today's BAT/PSES are considered together with the impacts of
compliance with the MACT I costs, and when they are
considered alone. Therefore, EPA has concluded that ECF
bleaching is economically achievable for the specialty grade
segment. See DCN 14376 and DCN 14388 (both CBI). '
329
-------
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 TCP 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 TCP 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 TCP bleaching
processes. See 40 CFR 430.54(a)(1). EPA is reserving
330
-------
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 Mill,s
EPA is promulgating effluent limitations for dioxin,
furan, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants for the
ammonium-based segment. See 40 CFR 430.54(a)(2). EPA is
reserving promulgation of chloroform limitations, AOX
limitations, and COD limitations for this segment until such
time that sufficient performance data are available because
the performance of the BAT technology basis on these
parameters cannot be accurately predicted from laboratory-
scale data. One mill is currently 'installing, on a full
scale, the promulgated BAT technology basis. EPA expects to
have data to develop chloroform, AOX, and COD limitations
for this segment once this installation is complete, the
mill is operating the new equipment in a routine manner, and
appropriate samples are collected and analyzed.
(iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Mills
EPA is promulgating effluent limitations for dioxin,
331
-------
furan, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants for the
specialty grade segment, based on laboratory scale data.
See 40 CFR 430.54(a) (3) . EPA is reserving promulgation of
chloroform, AOX, and COD limitations for this segment until
such time that sufficient full scale performance data are
available because the performance of the BAT technology
basis on these parameters cannot be accurately predicted
from laboratory scale data.
(4) Costs
As discussed in the July 1996 Notice, EPA revised its
cost estimates for mills in the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory by using the revised bleaching sequences
outlined in paragraph (2) above. EPA also updated equipment
cost curves and unit operating costs. See 61 FR at 36845.
The detailed basis of these revised cost estimates are
provided in the record.
The following cost estimates reflect the total costs
that mills in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are likely
to incur as a result of today's BAT limitations, PSES, and
BMP regulations, and are the bases for EPA's economic impact
analyses discussed in paragraph (2) above. For this
subcategory, EPA's estimated capital costs are $73.8
332
-------
million, operation and maintenance costs are $7 million, and
post-tax annualized costs are $9.8 million. (The general
and administrative costs discussed in Section VIII.B.I.e. are
already included here.) See Section VIII for additional
!
discussion of costs and economic impacts.
(5) Effluent Reductions
EPA has updated the calculation of effluent reductions
for each papergrade sulfite mill, adjusting the baseline to
mid-1,995. 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 TCP bleaching). Total
'-, :
discharges of chlorinated phenolic pollutants will be
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
333
-------
4,010 metric tons to 370 metric tons per year. For a
discussion of the environmental benefits resulting from
these reductions, see Section VIII.G.2, and Chapter 8 of the
Economic Analysis, DCN 14649.
(6) Development of Limitations
All of the limitations and standards promulgated today
for Subpart E are expressed as "
-------
Section VI.B.3.f.
(i) Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-based Sulfite
Mills
Limitations for this segment were developed based on
data from sampling at a European papergrade sulfite
facility. (EPA did not set limitations based on performance
data from the TCP U.S. mill in this segment because that
mill produces sulfite pulp using hardwood furnish, which is
easier to bleach than softwood sulfite pulp.) AOX was not
measured at the end-of-pipe at the European facility so the
AOX limitation is based on the transfer of data collected at
the bleach plant effluent within that facility. This
transfer is appropriate because the technology basis for the
limitations, TCP bleaching, reduces AOX to concentrations
below the method minimum level prior to any potential
biological wastewater treatment. Therefore, since AOX is
not detected above the minimum analytical level in bleach
plant effluent, it should not be detected in final treated
effluent.
(ii) Ammonium-based Sulfite Mills
EPA is promulgating^limitations for dioxin, furan, and
12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants for this segment. These
335
-------
limitations are expressed as "r
expressed as "
-------
would not be detected and therefore did not need analysis.
For the purpose of establishing limitations for dioxin and
furan in this segment, EPA is transferring laboratory data
for ECF bleaching trials supplied by an ammonium-based
papergrade sulfite mill. The transfer of limitations for
dioxin and furan to this segment is supported by published
reports that ECF bleaching of sulfite pulp will result in
values of dioxin and furan in bleach plant effluent at
levels below the minimum levels identified for the
appropriate analytical methods. The transfer is further
supported by the low levels of AOX measured (0.253 kg/ODMT)
in the bleaching effluent from the specialty grade,
laboratory-scale ECF bleaching trial. This AOX level
suggests minimal chlorinated organics .are formed during ECF
bleaching of specialty grade pulp. For these reasons, EPA
does not expect dioxin and furan to be present at or above
the minimum level for these pollutants and is setting the
limitations accordingly. EPA is reserving AOX, COD, and
chloroform limitations for this segment until it has
sufficient data upon which to base the limitations, because
the performance of the BAT technology basis on these
parameters cannot be accurately predicted from laboratory
337
-------
scale data.
(7) Point of Compliance Monitoring
EPA is requiring mills in the ammonium-based sulfite
and specialty grade sulfite segments to demonstrate
compliance with the BAT limitations on dioxin, furan, 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 430.54(c). EPA bases this decision on the reasons
discussed in Section VLB.5.a(6) for the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory. Unless otherwise determined by
the permit writer, mills in the calcium-, magnesium-, and
sodium-based sulfite segment may demonstrate compliance with
the BAT limitations for AOX at the end of the pipe.
c. NSPS
EPA is promulgating new source performance standards
for each segment of the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. See
40 CFR 430.55. The technology bases of NSPS for toxic and
nonconventional pollutants for the three segments of the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are the same as the model BAT
technologies for those segments. For calcium-, magnesium-,
or sodium-based sulfite mills, TCP bleaching technology is
338
-------
the technology basis for NSPS. ECF bleaching is the basis
of NSPS for mills in the ammonium and specialty products
segments because TCP bleaching has not been demonstrated for
the full range of products made by mills in these segments.
The toxic and nonconventional pollutants regulated, the
limitations, and the points of compliance monitoring for
NSPS for each segment are also the same as for BAT for those
segments.
EPA proposed NSPS for conventional pollutants based on
best demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater
treatment. The treatment system with the lowest long-term
average BOD5 discharge was used to characterize the best
demonstrated performance. EPA concluded that data in the
record is not representative of the performance that can be
achieved in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory as a whole.
For this reason, the new source performance standards for
conventional pollutants promulgated today for each segment
of the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are the same as those
promulgated,in the 1982 NSPS regulation. See 47 FR 52006,
52036 (Nov. 18, 1982) (for former Subpart O); 48 FR 13176,
13177 (Mar. 30, 1983) (for former Subpart J).
In selecting its NSPS technology, EPA considered all of
339
-------
the factors specified in CWA section 306, including the cost
of 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
340
-------
EPA is promulgating pretreatment standards for new and
existing sources for three segments of the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory based on the BAT and NSPS technologies
selected for each segment. In determining PSES, EPA
considered the age, size, processes, other engineering
factors, and non-water quality environmental impacts
pertinent to Subpart E mills. None of these factors
provided a basis for selecting different PSES technologies.
For each segment, EPA selected the best technology available
to produce the products in each segment. Each of the
selected PSES technologies is economically achievable and
has no unacceptable adverse non-water quality impacts. With
respect to PSNS for these segments, EPA concluded that the
selected technologies represent the best available
demonstrated control technologies that are capable of
producing each segment's products. EPA also concluded that
there was no barrier to entry for the reasons set forth in
section VI.B.6.C. above for NSPS for this subcategory.
In order to determine which pollutants to regulate
under PSES and PSNS, EPA used the same pass-through analysis
it employed for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory described in section VI.B.5.c(2) above. EPA
341
-------
concluded that dioxin, furan, and the 12 chlorinated
phenolic pollutants pass through or interfere with POTW
operations for the ammonium and specialty grade segments for
the reasons set forth in section VI.B.5.c(2) for Subpart B.
This reasoning applies because the BAT/PSES model
technologies for Subparts B and Ev 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 "
-------
Because no chlorine or chlorine-containing bleaching
chemicals are used, no chlorinated pollutants are generated
during bleaching. Therefore, EPA is not establishing
pretreatment standards for dioxin, furan, chloroform, and
the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants for this segment.
With respect to AOX in the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-
based segment, EPA finds that TCP bleaching will reduce AOX
discharge loads from the 1 to 3 kg/metric ton typically
found at baseline to less "than minimum levels, even at
indirect discharging facilities with no on-site biological
treatment.. This reduction is greater than 99 percent, which
far exceeds the AOX reduction that can be demonstrated by
POTW treatment. Therefore, EPA concludes that AOX passes '
through for this segment and is promulgating PSES and PSNS
for AOX, with the limitation expressed as less than the
minimum level, or U
-------
available.
The pretreatment standards for all segments of the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory also include best management
practices. See 40 CFR 430.03. These requirements are
described below in Section VI.B.7.
EPA is requiring mills to demonstrate compliance with
PSES and PSNS on dioxin, furan, and the 12 chlorinated
phenolic pollutants for the ammonium-based sulfite and
specialty grade sulfite segments inside the discharger's
facility at the point where the wastewater containing those
pollutants leaves the bleach plant. EPA bases this decision
on the reasons discussed in Section VI.B.5.a(6) for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. 7. Best
Management Practices
The regulations promulgated today include provisions
requiring mills with pulp production in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory (Subpart B) and the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory (Subpart E) to implement BMPs
to prevent or otherwise contain leaks and spills of spent
pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine and to control
intentional diversions of those materials. These BMPs apply
to direct and indirect discharging mills within these
344
-------
subcategories and are intended to reduce mill wastewater
loadings of non-chlorinated toxic compounds and hazardous
substances. For direct dischargers, EPA is authorized to
establish BMPs for those pollutants under CWA section
304(e). The same BMPs will also remove, as an incidental
matter, significant loadings of color and certain oxygen-
demanding substances in pulping liquors that are not readily
degraded by biological treatment. EPA also expects
incidental reductions in conventional water pollutants and
certain air pollutants as a result of the BMPs. To the
extent these pollutants are present in the wastestreams
subject to section 304(e), EPA has authority under that
section to regulate them. In addition, EPA has independent
authority under CWA sections 402(a) and 501 (a) and 40 CFR
122.44(k) to require direct dischargers to implement BMPs
>-,'
for pollutants not subject to section 304(e). To impose
these BMPs on indirect dischargers, EPA relies on section
307(b) and (c). Finally, EPA is authorized to impose the
BMP monitoring requirements under section 308(a).
EPA has determined that these BMPs are necessary
because the materials controlled by these practices, if
spilled or otherwise lost, can interfere with wastewater
345
-------
treatment operations and lead to increased discharges of
toxic, nonconventional, and conventional pollutants. The
practices included in this rule are known to reduce the
amount of spent pulping liquor discharged to wastewater
treatment 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:
1) 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
346
-------
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);
. ' . 347
-------
6) A program to review any planned modifications to the j^
w
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, section 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
348
-------
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 [insert date 12 months after publication in FR], see
40 CFR 430.03 (j) (1) (i), or the date an OMB control number
for this requirement is issued, whichever is later. See 40
CFR 430.03(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 actidn
(depending on the action level exceeded) to reduce the
wastewater treatment system influent mass loading. This
349
-------
requirement takes effect [insert date 12 months after
publication in FR] , see 40 CFR 430.03. (j) (1) (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
. 350
-------
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 mill 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 section 430.03(j), 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 [insert date 12 months after date of
publication] . Operation of any new or upgraded continuous,
automatic monitoring systems that the mill determines to be
necessary (other than those associated with construction of
new containment or diversion structures) must commence no
later than [insert date 24 months after date of
351
-------
publication]. The mill 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 [insert date 36 months after date of
publication]. Existing indirect dischargers must establish
the initial action levels by [insert date 12 months from
date of publication], and the revised action levels as soon
as possible after fully implementing the BMPs, but not later
than [insert date 45 months from date of publication] . 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 information collection
request. See 40 CFR 430.03(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 430.03 (j) (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. JEd.. EPA
believes this is appropriate because the record shows that
, 352
-------
mills can implement the substantive requirements of the B'MPs
-- 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
[insert date 45 months after date of publication] and to
require all new sources to establish action levels no later
353
-------
than twelve 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. For 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
354
-------
spent pulping liquor (e.g., kraft black liquor, sulfite
red liquors) and should exclude kraft green and white
liquors and fresh sulfite pulping liquors;
the proposed regulation was overly prescriptive in
general and, in particular, the requirement for
secondary containment was unnecessary to meet the
objectives of the proposed regulation;
EPA underestimated the costs for implementing BMPs;
. EPA lacks the authority to establish BMPs to control
pollutants that are not identified as toxic under CWA
section 307(a) or hazardous under CWA section 311; and
EPA lacks the authority to impose BMPs on indirect
dischargers.
In response to comments, EPA undertook several
initiatives to understand industry's concerns about the
proposed BMP requirements; to better understand the status
of the industry with respect to pulping liquor management
and spill prevention and control; and to better assess the
BMP compliance costs. To supplement its understanding of
industry's spent pulping liquor management and spill
prevention and control practices, EPA visited more than 25
chemical pulp mills in the United States and 15 mills in
355
-------
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 ill
associated costs. Much of this information was included in
the Docket and made available to the public in conjunction
with the Notice of Data Availability published in the
Federal Register on July 5, 1995 (60 FR 34938). Additional
information related to development of the BMP requirements,
including changes in the wording and organization of the
proposed rule, was discussed in the July 1996 Notice. See
61 FR at 36835.
Based on the information and data received since
proposal, EPA revised the scope of the BMP requirements to
356
-------
focus on control of spent pulping liquor, turpentine, and
soap. The BMP requirements were restructured to allow
greater flexibility in how BMPs are implemented to address
site-specific circumstances in achieving meaningful
prevention and control of leaks and spills. EPA also
reorganized the regulatory text from that presented in the
record for the July 1996 Notice to provide greater ease of
use by mill operators and permit writers, and to clarify the
intent of particular BMP requirements. The most significant
changes since proposal are discussed below.
In December 1993, EPA proposed BMPs for seven
subcategories of the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry
(58 FR at 66078}, all of which chemically pulp wood and non-
wood fibers. EPA still believes BMPs are appropriate for
each of these chemical pulping subcategories; however, to be
consistent with the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards promulgated in this final rule, the -BMPs
promulgated today are applicable only to the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite
subcategories. EPA expects to promulgate BMPs for the
remaining five chemical pulping subcategories [(Subparts A
(Dissolving Kraft), C (Unbleached Kraft), D (Dissolving
357
-------
Sulfite), F (Semi-chemical), and H (Non-wood Chemical Pulp)3
as it promulgates new effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for these subcategories. Until new regulations
for Subparts A, C, D, F, and H are promulgated, permit
writers may wish to use the BMP regulations in this rule as
a guide to issuing permits containing BMPs based on best
professional judgment for mills with production covered by
these other subparts. See CWA Section 402(a) (1) ; 40 CFR
122.44(k). POTWs may need to impose BMPs as local limits to
facilities in these subcategories. See 40 CFR 403.5.
The BMP provisions in the proposed rule were structured
to apply to all pulping liquors. In response to comments,
EPA has revised, the scope of the BMPs and for the final rule
is limiting the BMP applicability to spent pulping liquors,
turpentine, and soap. EPA has determined that spent pulping
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
358
-------
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 secondarycontainment 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
359
-------
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 (TOG)). 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
360
-------
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) .
361
-------
The regulation was proposed to be self-implementing for jjj^
both direct and indirect dischargers. EPA has revised the
regulation to make it clear that BMPs imposed on direct
dischargers are not self-implementing, but rather apply only
when incorporated into NPDES permits. See 40 CFR 430.03(j).
This is consistent with CWA sections 304(e) and 402. The
final regulation remains self-implementing for indirect
di s chargers. 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
362
-------
rational and effective manner.
The final BMP regulation is less prescriptive than,
proposed with regard to inspection, repair and log-keeping
requirements. While many of the elements included in the
proposed rule remain, EPA determined that the specificity of
the language in the proposed regulation could be redundant
to existing practices in place at some mills and be
unnecessarily burdensome. EPA believes the language in the
final rule will achieve the same results as it intended in
the proposed rule while allowing mills to use existing
maintenance and repair tracking systems to fulfill the
requirement. See 40 CFR 430.03(c).
As discussed in the July 1996 Notice, EPA used the
information obtained since proposal to revise its cost
estimates for BMPs. See 61 PR 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
363
-------
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
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
364
-------
mills as was done at proposal. Finally, EPA incorporated
the estimates of net operating and maintenance costs of BMPs
into the BAT/PSES cost model. The cost model tracked the
impacts of increased pulping liquor recovery on the
evaporators and chemical recovery system and determined the
need for equipment upgrades resulting from the combined
effect of BAT/PSES process changes and BMPs. The savings
from reduced load on the wastewater treatment system and
increased recovery of fiber, chemicals and energy were
subtracted from the BMP operating costs (i.e., increased
evaporation energy, tank integrity testing, operator
training, and O&M costs for new equipment).
EPA disagrees with comments asserting that EPA lacks
authority to establish BMPs for pollutants that are not
identified as toxic under CWA section 307(a) or hazardous
under CWA section 311. First, the non-toxic and non-
hazardous pollutants controlled by these BMPs are found in
the same wastestreams bearing pollutants specifically
identified as toxic pollutants or hazardous substances under
sections 307(a) and 311 and implementing regulations.
Although reductions of these pollutants are significant in
environmental effect, their control is incidental to the
365
-------
control of all the pollutants subject to section 304(e). jflfc
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 MB
authority to establish permit conditions under section
402(a)(1) is very broad. See NRDC v. Costle. 568 F.2d 1369,
1380 (D.C. Cir. 1977). EPA has determined that mills
without an adequate BMP program, such as that codified
today, may experience undetected and uncontrolled leaks and
spills that could disrupt the efficiency of their treatment
systems, thus resulting in exceedances of the BAT
limitations and NSPS promulgated today for Subparts B and E.
Moreover, the BMPs control pollutants that are not
explicitly regulated under BAT and NSPS. Therefore, EPA
366
-------
determined that BMPs applicable to all pollutants in a
mill's spent pulping liquor,, turpentine, and soap were
necessary in order to carry out the purposes of the Clean
Water Act and hence are authorized under section 402(a)(1)
and 40 CFR 122.44(k). Similarly, as discussed below, BMPs
are authorized as, pretreatment standards for pollutants in
the spent pulping liquor, turpentine,.and soap when they
pass through or interfere with POTW operations.
Some commenters also objected to EPA's decision to
establish the BMP program by regulation rather than
deferring to the case-by-case determinations of permit
writers. EPA agrees that a requirement to establish and
implement BMPs of the type required by this rule could be
imposed on a case-by-case basis under CWA section 402(a)(1)
and 40 CFR Part 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,
t
EPA determined that implementing the BMP program by
367
-------
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
i
processes or sludge disposal methods at POTWs. To determine
368
-------
whether pollutants associated with spent kraft and sulfite
pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine that are indirectly
discharged by mills with pulp production in Subparts B or E
interfere with POTW operations or pass through untreated,
EPA reviewed data collected from 1988 through 19'92 at a POTW
that receives effluent from a bleached papergrade kraft
mill. Prior to 1990-91, the mill had virtually no
facilities for control and collection of spent pulping
liquor leaks and spills. POTW discharge monitoring records
show the fully treated effluent exhibited consistent chronic
toxicity to Daphnia from April 1988 until June 1991. The
data further show that the toxic effects of the POTW's
effluent have been reduced since implementation by the mill
of effective spent pulping liquor management and spill
prevention and control. These effluent toxicity effects can
be related to the wood extractive components that are
measurable by COD and are found in leaks and spills of spent
kraft and sulfite pulping liquors that interfere with the
performance of biological treatment systems and allow toxic
pollutants' to pass through inadequately treated. Indeed,
evidence of such interference and pass^through was found in
data from this mill and the POTW, which showed higher mass
369
-------
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 at POTWs. For this reason, EPA is
including as part of its pretreatment standards the
370
-------
requirement that indirect discharging mills implement BMPs
in accordance with this regulation.
8. Regulatory Implementation for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
a. Applicability of Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards
Effluent limitations act as a primary mechanism to
control discharges of pollutants to waters of the United
States. These limitations are applied to individual mills
through NPDES permits issued by EPA or authorized States
under section 402 of the CWA. In addition, the pretreatment
standards are directly applicable to indirect dischargers.
Once today's regulations become effective, the effluent
limitations and standards for the appropriate subcategory
must be applied in all Federal and State NPDES permits
-<-&£
*-,
issued to direct dischargers affected by this rule. See
Section 301(b)(2), 402(a). This section describes the
applicability of these limitations and standards to process
and other wastewaters generated by the mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite
subcategories, defines new sources subject to today's NSPS
and PSNS, defines non-continuous dischargers and the
371
-------
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
372
-------
not be process wastewaters. EPA proposed to require
separate permitting for the discharge of such groundwaters.
The proposed definition also specifically excluded certain
process materials from the definition of process wastewater.
These process materials included: green liquor at any liquor'
solids level; white liquor at any liquor solids level; black
liquor at any liquor solids level resulting from processing
knots and screen rejects; black liquor after any degree of
concentration in the kraft or soda chemical recovery
process; reconstituted sulfite and semi-chemical pulping
liquors prior to use; any pulping liquor at any liquor
solids level resulting from spills or intentional diversions
from the process; lime mud and magnesium oxide; pulp stock;
bleach chemical solutions prior to use; and papermaking
additives prior to use (e.g., alum, starch and size, clays
and coatings). The proposed regulation then would have
prohibited the discharge of these materials into POTWs or
waters of the United States without an NPDES permit or other
authorization. ,
In this final rule, EPA is promulgating a definition of
process wastewater applicable to Subparts B and E. In
response to the comments opposing the exclusion of these
373
-------
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.
374
-------
EPA has promulgated a subcategory-specific definition of
process wastewater in order to clarify the applicability of
Subparts B and E and to assist permit writers and
pretreatment authorities in developing limitations and
standards. The effluent limitations guidelines and
standards promulgated today do not apply to discharges that
are not associated with manufacturing or processing. Any
mill wishing to discharge such wastewaters would need to
obtain authorization in an NPDES permit or individual
control mechanism administered by a POTW.
EPA's use of the term "during manufacturing or
processing" should not be taken to exclude wastewaters
generated during routine maintenance, including maintenance
occurring during a scheduled temporary mill shut-down.
Maintenance wastewaters were not explicitly excluded from
the definition of process wastewater at proposal, nor are
they excluded from the definition promulgated today.
Wastewaters generated during routine maintenance are a
result of pulp manufacturing processes and as such are
included in the definition of process wastewater.
(2) Definition of New Source
In today's rule, EPA is promulgating a definition of
375
-------
"new source" applicable to Part 430, Subparts B and E. See
40 CFR 430.01 (j) . This definition restates the definition
set forth in 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1) , but with the additional
reference to certain process changes that, in and of
themselves, would not cause a mill to become a new source.
See 40 CFR 430.01 (j) (2) . EPA intends that permit writers
will consult the specific "new source" criteria in Part 430,
rather than the more general criteria set forth in 40 CFR
122.29(b)(1) and 403 when determining whether pulp and paper
mills subject to Subparts B or E are new sources. The other
provisions of 40 CFR 122.29 continue to apply to these
Subparts, as do 40 CFR 122.2 and 40 CFR 403.3(k). The
definition of "new source" in Part 430 does not affect the
definition of "new source" for purposes of the NESHAP
portion of these integrated rules.
EPA is aware that application of the definitions in
Part 122 to pulp and paper mills in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories has
sometimes caused controversy, leading to disagreement
between the permitting authority and the facility whether a
particular change at the mill triggers NSPS or PSNS. EPA is
promulgating a definition of "new source" specifically for
376
-------
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 new
source status. Indeed, the decision to promulgate
subcategory-specific criteria in this rule is specifically
contemplated by the general criteria codified at 40 CFR
122.29(b)(1). EPA believes this tailored definition is
particularly important in view of the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program EPA is also promulgating today
for Subpart B mills. Through the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives .Program, EPA is encouraging mills to
install new process technologies and even to redesign bleach
plant operations in order to achieve effluent reductions
beyond those required at the baseline BAT level. EPA does
not want existing mills that voluntarily choose to
participate in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program to be required to meet NSPS simply as a consequence
of that election. Therefore, by promulgating a definition
of "new source" specifically for Subparts B and E, EPA hopes
not only to clarify application of the Part 122 definitions
but also to provide certainty to Subpart B mills choosing to
participate in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
377
-------
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 (j)(1)(i); see 40 CFR
122.29(b) (1) (i) . As applied to Part 430, this criterion is
intended to ensure that a greenfield mill is characterized
as a new source and hence is subject to NSPS or PSNS.
The second criterion specified in today's definition of
new source incorporates the language of 40 CFR
122.29(b)(1)(ii) with two additions. First, it provides
that a fiber line that totally replaces an existing fiber
line is a new source (unless that fiber line is enrolled in
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program).
Second, it includes a list of modifications that would not
trigger the new source definition if made by Subpart B or E
mills. See 40 CFR 430.01 (j) (1) (ii) and (2). This criterion
provides essentially that a fiber line that is modified to
comply with baseline BAT effluent limitations or that is
378
-------
totally rebuilt to comply with Advanced Technology BAT
limitations is not a new source. (A fiber line is a series
of operations employed to convert wood or other fibrous raw
material into pulp. If the final product is bleached pulp,
the fiber line encompasses pulping, de-knotting, brownstock
washing, pulp screening, centrifugal cleaning, and multiple
bleaching and washing stages.)
Among the changes specified in the regulation that
alone do not cause an existing fiber line at a mill to be
considered a new source are: upgrades of existing pulping
operations; upgrades or replacement of pulp screening and
washing operations; installation of extended cooking and/or
oxygen delignification systems or other post-digester, pre-
bleaching delignification systems; and bleach plant
modifications including changes in methods or amounts of
chemical applications, new chemical applications,
installation of new bleaching towers to facilitate
replacement of sodium or calcium hypochlorite, and
installation of new pulp washing systems. 40 CFR
430.01(j) (2) (i)-(iv) . By expressly excluding these process
modifications from the new source definition, EPA thus
allows a mill to implement the baseline BAT/PSES
379
-------
technologies without triggering NSPS or PSNS. EPA believes
that interpreting process modifications that are designed to
achieve compliance with baseline BAT/PSES limitations as an
existing source modification is consistent with Congress'
intentions in" the Clean Water Act concerning the respective
roles of standards for existing and new sources.
As discussed in more detail below in connection with
the third new source criterion, EPA believes it is
appropriate to define a new fiber line as a new source
because the construction of the new fiber line (whether to
supplement or replace an existing fiber line) presents the
type of pollution prevention opportunities customarily
represented by NSPS. However, EPA believes it is also
appropriate to treat the replacement fiber line as an
existing source if that fiber line is enrolled in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. See 40
CFR 430.01 (j) (2) (v) . EPA has decided to do this because
requiring the new fiber line to meet baseline NSPS
requirements would defeat the purpose of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program by undercutting the
more environmentally protective pollution prevention
opportunities and limitations associated with that program.
380
-------
In the first place, Advanced Technology BAT limitations at
the Tier II and Tier III levels are more stringent than the
baseline NSPS requirements; EPA's definition of new source
thus is intended to allow mills to commit to greater
pollutant reductions than EPA could otherwise compel and to
do so incrementally while maintaining use of the existing
fiber line in the interim. Similarly, the Advanced
Technology BAT limitations at the Tier I level promote
pollution prevention opportunities not necessarily assured
by NSPS, even though the technology bases for NSPS and Tier
I are similar. EPA has established different limitations
for Tier I than for NSPS because the regulations are
intended to achieve different objectives. The new source
performance standards for AOX are more stringent because, as
a statistical matter, EPA determined that this performance
level reflects the best demonstrated performance by mills
using.the NSPS technology. The Tier I limitations for AOX,
in contrast, are intended to reflect a more inclusive
performance level that EPA believes existing mills employing
extended delignification can achieve, in order to encourage
more mills to implement extended delignification
technologies. The Tier I limitations also require the
381
-------
recycle of filtrates to the recovery systems and impose
limitations on the lignin content of unbleached pulp, which
EPA hopes will promote the use of particular pollution
prevention technologies and, in turn, encourage mills to
look beyond Tier I to the Tier II and Tier III levels. This
goal contrasts with the objective of NSPS, which simply is
to compel mills to achieve certain discharge levels by any
combination of technologies the mill selects, and would be
defeated if the definition of new source would have the
effect of moving Tier I mills into NSPS. Therefore, EPA has
decided that, on balance, imposing NSPS on mills that
replace fiber lines for the purpose of participating in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program would
discourage rather than encourage the long-term goal of
achieving even greater environmental performance.
The third criterion appearing in the definition of new
source in §430.01(j)(1)(iii) is identical to the third ,
criterion at §122.29(b)(1)(iii), and provides that a source
is a new source if its processes are substantially
v!
independent of an existing source at the same site. In
determining whether processes are substantially independent,
the permitting or pretreatment authority is directed to
382
-------
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 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),
383
-------
increased energy recovery, the possibility of improving
yield, and other operation and maintenance improvements.
EPA notes that a fiber line that is substantially
independent of an existing fiber line is a new source even'
if the new fiber line is enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program. EPA believes that this is
appropriate because the supplemental fiber line increases
both the mill's production capacity and its discharge of
pollution to the environment. However, the fiber line could
qualify for incentives if it is enrolled in the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program for NSPS at the. Tier
II or Tier III level.
As reflected in the July 1996 Notice, 61 FR at 36848,
EPA had considered excluding from the definition of new
source those mills that renovated existing fiber lines but
remained at existing production levels. In response to
comments, EPA has decided not to introduce production levels
as a factor in determining new source status. First, taking
production levels into account in determining whether an
existing source becomes a new source would be a departure
from current practice that EPA believes is not justified in
this case. EPA believes that the new source status of a
384
-------
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
Subparts B or E frequently undergo changes in various
degrees to increase production levels and that many of these
changes do not result in or from substantially independent
facilities or the total replacement of existing facilities.
See DCN 25538 at 70-72. Therefore, the mere fact that a
mill increases its production levels does not mean that it
concurrently has the opportunity to install the type of
advanced pollution prevention technologies represented by
NSPS.
(3) Non-continuous Discharger
EPA is changing the regulatory language defining non-
continuous dischargers as it applies to Subparts B and E.
See 40 CFR 430.01(k)(2). EPA is also republishing, without
change, the current definition of non-continuous dischargers
because it continues to apply to the other subparts in Part
385
-------
430 and to the determination of technology-based effluent rfjflk
limitations on conventional pollutants for existing
dischargers subject to Subpart B or E. See 40 CFR
430.01(k)(1).
EPA had proposed a new definition that would have
defined as a non-continuous discharger a mill that stored
wastewaters for periods of at least 24 hours and that
released that wastewater on a batch basis. In the final
definition applicable to Subparts B and E, EPA is retaining
the storage component of the proposed (and existing)
regulation but is not specifying a minimum 24-hour storage
period because EPA determined that it had no particular
significance for these Subparts. However, as indicated in
the July 1996 Notice, 61 FR at 36842, EPA is adding language
defining as a non-continuous discharger a discharger that
releases stored wastewater on a variable flow or a pollutant
loading rate basis. Finally, in this new definition, EPA is
clarifying that it applies to storage or release of
wastewaters required by the permitting authority for the
purpose ofprotecting 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
386
-------
existing regulation, at 40 CFR-430.01(c) (1996 ed.), for the
NPDES authority to include maximum day and maximum 30 day
average concentration limitations consistent with BPT, BCT,
or NSPS limitations as appropriate. See 40 CFR 430.01(k).
EPA will defer to the NPDES authority to establish maximum
day and maximum 30 day average limitations that are
necessary to protect receiving water quality. In later
final rulemaking phases (see section II, table II-2), EPA
intends to adopt for remaining subcategories the same
definition for non-continuous dischargers as is being
promulgated today for Subparts B and. E.
(4) Retention of Previously Promulgated Effluent
Limitations.Guidelines and Standards
As discussed in more detail in Section VLB. 2, EPA is
not revising BPT or BCT effluent limitations for
conventional pollutants for Subparts B and E. Therefore,
EPA is retaining the previously promulgated limitations for
these pollutants and subparts. See 40 CFR 430.22, 430.23,
430.52, 430.53.
EPA is also retaining previously promulgated NSPS for
Subparts B and E because new sources that commenced
operation prior to the effective date of today's NSPS remain
387
-------
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 that
do not use those chemicals as biocides to certify this fact
to the permitting or pretreatment authority with the result
that they would not be subject to those limitations or
standards. .Id..
In addition to today's new regulations for Subparts B
and E, EPA is recodifying the previously promulgated BPT,
BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS for the other subparts of the
pulp, paper, and paperboard category. These limitations
regulate the discharges of BOD5, TSS, zinc, and other
analytes. Although EPA is reorganizing the former
subcategories in accordance with the new subcategory
designations, EPA is not changing these limitations and
standards. See Section VI.B.I.
b. Determination of Effluent Limitations for Permits
388
-------
(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-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
389
-------
B and Subpart E. See 40 CFR 430.01(n)(1).
However, EPA is codifying a new definition of
production for the AOX and chloroform limitations being
promulgated today for Subparts B and E. See 40 CFR
430.01(n)(2). Under the new specialized definition, the
production-normalizing parameter to be used by permit
writers in calculating mass-based limitations for chloroform
and AOX is air-dried metric tons of brownstock pulp (10
percent moisture) entering the bleach plant at the stage
during which chlorine or chlorine-containing compounds are
first applied to the pulp. In the case of bleach plants
that use totally chlorine-free bleaching, the production-
normalizing parameter used to calculate mass-based
limitations shall be air-dried metric tons of brownstock
pulp (10 percent moisture) entering the first stage of the
bleach plant from which wastewater is discharged. Id.
Production, in turn, is defined as the annual unbleached
pulp production that enters the bleach plant (at ten percent
moisture) divided by the number of operating days of the
bleach plant. Id.
The Agency had proposed to change the current
definition of production in Part 430 by adding the following
390
-------
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 6S189. EPA has
decided not to revise the definition to include a new time
basis because EPA is not revising the current BPT and BCT
effluent limitations guidelines at this time for Subparts B
and E. Codifying a new time basis for determining
production of AOX and chloroform would have required permit
writers to apply different time bases for determining
production for purposes of calculating BAT limitations and
limitations for conventional pollutants. In EPA's view,
this would have unduly complicated the permitting process.
In addition, for NSPS, introducing a time basis would be
illogical because new sources do not have five years of data
from which to determine the one highest year.
(2) Determination of Permit Limitations for Multiple
Subcategory Mills
For facilities with multiple point source categories,
subcategories, and segments, the appropriate guidelines for
each category, subcategory (or subpart), and segment are
used to determine a single permit limit for each pollutant.
391
-------
Chapter 5 of the U.S. EPA NPDES Permit Writers' Manual (EPA-
833-B-96-003, December 1996) provides guidance in
determining permit limits in situations when the effluent
guidelines for one subcategory regulates a different set of
pollutants than the effluent guidelines applicable to
another subcategory. For mill subject to today's rule, this
situation may arise in setting permit limits for AOX when
the mill has production in multiple subcategories.
For pollutants regulated today at the bleach plant
(i.e., dioxin, furan, chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and
chloroform, and, for Subpart B PSES/PSNS, AOX), EPA does not
believe that multiple guidelines will be relevant. The
bleach plant is unlikely to be used for more than one
subcategory (or segment in Subpart E), and thus, the permit
limit will be determined by the limitations and standards
for a single subcategory (or segment).
There may be instances where a pollutant is regulated
under the limitations and standards promulgated today and
the permitting authority also wishes to establish limits for
that particular pollutant have yet to be established. For
example, the permitting authority might need to use best
professional judgment to determine end-of-pipe limits for
392
-------
AOX for a mill with production not only in Subparts 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
393
-------
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
394
-------
composited or through chemical reaction when the acid and
alkaline samples are combined. If separate acid and
alkaline sewers do not exist, compliance samples must be
collected from the point closest to the bleach plant that is
or can be made physically accessible.
(2) Compliance with ML Limitations
In today's rulemaking for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
>
and Soda subcategory, EPA is establishing limitations and
standards for 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants and dioxin,
and alternative TCF limitations and standards for AOX, that
are expressed as less than the Minimum Level ("
-------
subparts . (Section VLB. 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 §430.01(1.).
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 VP
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.
396
-------
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 "
-------
§430.01(1). Using such future methods could conceivably
allow laboratories to reliably measure values less than
today's minimum levels. Such measurements resulting from
either situation would be considered to demonstrate
compliance with the ML limitations, because these
measurements are less than the method ML specified in
§430.01 (i) .
When monitoring for compliance with this final rule, a
sample-specific Minimum Level greater than the method
Minimum Level will not demonstrate compliance with an ML
limitation. Such sample-specific Minimum Levels may result
from sample volume shortages, breakage or other problems in
the laboratory, or from failure to properly remove
analytical interferences from the sample. EPA believes that
all of these situations can be avoided by careful adherence
>-**»*
-%
to sample collection and laboratory analysis procedures.
For example, in the Agency's long-term variability study,
some of the one-liter jars that were sent to laboratories
for analysis were not filled to capacity. In this example,
adjustments to the Minimum Levels could have been avoided if
a sufficient volume of sample had been collected by filling
the one-liter jars to capacity, or by using larger or extra
398
-------
jars. Mill personnel should collect sufficient volume to
allow for analysis of the entire sample volume specified in
the method and for dilutions, re-analyses, or other problems
that may occur. In addition, it is often possible for the
laboratory to adjust for extraction of smaller sample
volumes by further concentrating the resulting extracts
prior to analysis.
Table VI-11 provides some examples demonstrating
compliance with the ML limitations. In these examples, the
method ML specified in §430.01 is 10 ppq.
Table VI-11
Examples demonstrating compliance with ML limitations
Is
concentration
reported as
"detected" or
"non-detected"
in the sample?
Detected
Detected
Detected
Non- detected
Value reported
by laboratory
(ML in these
examples is 10
ppq)
4 ppq
10 ppq
11 ppq
<5 ppq
Does the
sample
demonstrate
compliance?
Yes
No
No
Yes
Explanation for
compliance determination
4 ppq is less than the
ML specified in §430.01.
Compliance is
demonstrated only with
measurements less than
the ML specified in
§430.01.
The measured value is
greater than the ML
specified in §430.01.
<5 ppq is less than the
ML of 10 ppq specified
in §430.01.
399
-------
IS
concentration
reported as
"detected" or
"non-detected"
in the sample?
Non- detected
Non-detected
Value reported
by laboratory
(ML in these
examples is 10
ppq)
<10 ppq
<11 ppq
Does the
sample
demonstrate
compliance?
Yes
No
Explanation for
compliance determination
Compliance is
demonstrated for all
values less than the ML
specified in §430.01.
The sample- specific ML
must be less than the ML
of 10 ppq specified in
§430.01.
(3) AOX at Calcium-,Magnesium-, or Sodium-Based
Sulfite Mills
The AOX limitation for calcium-,magnesium-, or sodium-
based papergrade sulfite mills is expressed as less than the
Minimum Level (ML) of the analytical method. As discussed
in section VLB.6, this AOX limitation is based on transfer
of data collected at the bleach plant effluent to the end-
of-pipe for BAT. EPA received comments asserting that this
transfer of data does not account for potential sources of
AOX other than the bleach plant. Examples of these
potential sources of AOX include the release of AOX from
purchased pulp used in papermaking, the use of chlorinated
compounds for control of biological growth on paper
machines, chlorine use in water treatment, and bleaching
400
-------
colored broke in the stock preparation area. Hypochlorite
is also used in deinking processes to strip color from post-
consumer waste.
AOX contributions from deinking operations are not
, covered by this rule and would be addressed in developing
appropriate permit limitations as described in VI.B.8.b(2)
above. AOX contributions due to chlorine use in treating
process water supplies are not taken into account in the
development of limitations and standards for the calcium-,
magnesium-, or sodium-based 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
401
-------
discharges. See 58 FR at 66189. Although EPA proposed
minimum monitoring requirements for BOD5 and TSS limitations
established as part of NSPS, EPA is not specifying such
requirements in the final rule because permit authorities
have ample experience regulating these pollutants and can
determine the appropriate monitoring frequencies. See
Section VI.A. 3 for a discussion of BOD5 monitoring
requirements under today's air rule. See also Section
VLB.7 for a discussion of monitoring requirements
associated with BMPs.
The final rule specifies minimum monitoring frequencies
for AOX, dipxin, furan, chloroform, and chlorinated phenolic
pollutants for non-TCF mills because of the nature and
composition of the discharges from non-TCF bleached
papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite mills. See
40 CFR 430.02(a) and (b). Wastewaters from these mills have
been found to contain chlorinated organic compounds that are
highly toxic and bioaccumulative (e.g., dioxin, furan, and
chlorinated phenolic pollutants). Process-related
variability in generating these pollutants is clearly
reflected in available data. Therefore, given the
environmental significance of these pollutants, minimum
402
-------
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 BODS and TSS, receiving water effects from
discharges of these chlorinated pollutants are not as easily
detected, are not as well understood, and do not manifest
themselves in a manner that enables a mill to quickly become
aware of and react to releases that may be harmful to the
environment.
The monitoring requirements imposed in 40 CFR 430.02
will not take effect until EPA has obtained approval of
these information collection requirements from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. For monitoring requirements
applicable to direct dischargers, EPA will seek to amend the
NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report ICR.No. 229, OMB approval
number 2040-0004, prior to its expiration on May 31, 1998.
For indirect dischargers, EPA will seek to add specified
monitoring requirements for indirect dischargers to the
National Pretreatment Program ICR No. 2, OMB approval number
2040-0009, when it expires on October 31, 1999. EPA will
403
-------
not seek to amend this ICR prior to its expiration date
because the monitoring requirements for indirect dischargers
do not become effective until [insert date three years from
publication] for existing indirect dischargers, and EPA
anticipates no new indirect dischargers commencing discharge
prior to the ICR expiration date.
(b) Duration of Minimum Monitoring Frequency
The final rule includes minimum monitoring frequency
requirements for demonstrating compliance with limitations
and standards for dioxin, furan, chloroform, the 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and AOX for non-TCF mills
See 40 CFR 430.02(a). Permitting and pretreatment
authorities retain authority to specify more frequent
monitoring on a case-by-case basis and must specify AOX
monitoring frequency for TCF mills on a best professional
judgment basis. The minimum monitoring frequencies are
applicable to mills in Subparts B and E for a duration of
five years after inclusion in NPDES permits for direct
dischargers. See 40 CFR 430.02(b). For existing indirect
dischargers, the minimum monitoring requirements apply until
[insert date 8 years from date- of publication} , which
reflects a five-year monitoring period following the
404
-------
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 arid
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
405
-------
those regulated yet also are the most costly to analyze
(total cost of approximately $1,325 per sample; $825 per
sample for dioxin, furan, and $500 per sample for. all 12
chlorinated phenolic analytes). EPA expects that 12 data
points for each pollutant per year, together with daily end-
of-pipe AOX data and information on process conditions from
detailed mill logs (e.g., unbleached pulp kappa numbers,
bleach plant kappa factors, bleached pulp brightness, etc.)
that are reviewable upon request, will yield a meaningful
basis for establishing compliance with the promulgated
limitations through long-term trends and short-term
variability in dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic
pollutant discharge loading patterns.
The Agency has selected a minimum monitoring frequency
of once per week for chloroform. See 40 CFR 430.02(a).
This minimum monitoring frequency has been selected because
data available indicate there can be considerable temporal
variability of this pollutant in bleach plant wastewaters.
Therefore, more data are required to adequately assess
compliance with the promulgated limitations and standards on
t,
both a long-term and short-term basis. While the cost for
laboratory analysis of chloroform (approximately $270 per
406
-------
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
f-,
in chlorinated organic discharge loadings to receiving
streams 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
407
-------
laboratories on-site at many mills. While this bulk jflfe
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
pretreattnent 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
409
-------
be useful for permit writers and pretreatment authorities in *jt±
w
determining alternative monitoring frequencies at the close
of the compulsory five-year period imposed by this rule.
(See Interim Guidance for Performance-Based Reductions of
NPDES Permit Monitoring Frequencies, April 1996, EPA-833-B-
96-001). This document provides guidance to permit writers
on implementing EPA's NPDES regulations regarding
appropriate monitoring in permits and describes the
conditions under which reduced monitoring would be
justified. Pretreatment control authorities also may find
this guidance useful in setting monitoring frequencies for
industrial users of POTWs. The current guidance applicable
to all industrial point sources is dated April 19, 1996, and
is subject to revision.
(c) Certification for TCF Bleaching
.*.«*
n, '
Mills certifying in their permit application process
that all bleaching processes are totally chlorine-free are
exempted from the minimum monitoring frequencies established
in this rule, provided that analytical data routinely
submitted as part of the permit application confirm the
absence of chlorinated compounds. See 40 CFR 430.02. EPA
believes it is appropriate to exclude TCF mills from the
410
-------
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 VLB.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
411
-------
bleaching processes and that these processes are operated in
a. manner consistent with certain process and related
factors. In this notice, EPA also is seeking additional
chloroform data, along with corresponding process data, to
determine whether an ECF certification process for
chloroform should require certification of certain process
factors, for example factors relating to residual ligniri
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
noncompliance with technology-based permit effluent
limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control
412
-------
of the permittee. EPA's regulations concerning bypasses and
upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41(m) and (n) .
e. Variances and Modifications to Permits
(1) Variances
Dischargers subject to the BAT and PSES limitations
promulgated in these final regulations may apply for a
Fundamentally Different Factors (FDF) variance under the
provisions of section 301(n) of the CWA. The FDF variance
considers those facility-specific factors that a permittee
believes to be uniquely different from the factors
considered by EPA in developing an effluent guideline to
determine whether the effluent guidelines limitations should
be inapplicable to the permittee's facility. An FDF
variance is based only on information submitted to EPA
during the rulemaking establishing the effluent limitations,
or on information the applicant did not have a reasonable
opportunity to submit during the rulemaking process. See
CWA section 301(n)(1)(B). If fundamentally different
factors are determined to exist, the alternative effluent
limitations for the petitioner must be no less stringent
than those justified by the fundamental difference. See CWA
section 301(n)(1)(C). The alternative effluent limitation
413
-------
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)(1), 40 CFR Part
125 Subpart D, and 40 CFR 403.13.
Dischargers may also apply for a variance from the BAT
limitations on nonconventional pollutants in these final
regulations under CWA section 301 (c) (for economic reasons)
and 301(g) (for water quality reasons). Regulations for the
administration of these variances are specified in 40 CFR
122.21(m)(2).
New sources subject to NSPS or PSNS are not eligible
for variances. See E.I. DuPont v. Train, 430 U.S. 112
(1977).
(2) Permit Modifications
It may be necessary to modify a permit at some point
414
-------
after it has been issued. In a permit modification, only
the conditions subject to change are reconsidered. All
other permit conditions remain in effect unchanged. A
permit modification may be triggered in several ways, such
as when the regulatory agency inspects the facility and
finds a need for the modification, or when information
submitted by the permittee suggests a need for a
modification. Any interested person may request that a
permit modification be made. There are two classifications
of modifications: major and minor. From a procedural
standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public
notice requirements. Major modifications require,public
notice while minor modifications do not. See 40 CFR 122.63.
Virtually all modifications that result in less stringent
conditions are treated as a major modification, with
provisions for public notice and comment. Conditions that
would necessitate a major modification-of a permit are
described in 40 CFR 122.62. Minor modifications are
generally non-substantive changes. The conditions for minor
modification are described in 40 CFR 122.63.
VII. Environmental Impacts
This section of the preamble describes the
415
-------
environmental impacts of the air and water regulations being.
promulgated today, and the environmental impacts of the MACT
II regulations being proposed today. These impacts are
described in terms of reductions in air pollution emissions
expected as a result of the final MACT I and proposed MACT
II rules, as well as the reduction in water pollution
(effluent) discharges expected as a result of today's
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for Subparts B
and E. (In this section, all references to MACT I include
MACT III unless expressly noted.) The emissions and
effluent reductions described in this section generate the
quantified and monetized benefits described in Section VIII
of this preamble. This section also discusses the non-water
quality environmental impacts of the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated today, including air
emissions, energy requirements, solid waste generation,
water use, and wood consumption. Sections I I.E. 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 III
standards; and bleached papergrade kraft and soda and
papergrade sulfite mills that are subject to effluent
416
-------
limitations guidelines and standards. EPA estimates that
the application of these technologies by the 155 mills
regulated by today's air rules, including 96 of those mills
also regulated by today's water rules, will substantially
reduce air emissions and water pollution discharges, as
described in Section VII.B,
A. Summary of Sources and Level of Control
Table VII-1 shows a summary of sources and technology
bases/level of control for the final BAT/PSES effluent
\
limitations guidelines and standards, and the final MACT I
standards. The summary of sources and level of control for
MACT II are discussed in the preamble for the proposed MACT
standards elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
417
-------
tH
I
H
H
I
m Control
ontrol)
a w
iH Dl
§11
l«l
J2 H to
0 H K,
01 -d ra
* H
m f.
°<
a S
» £
H
(S
o
S
u
a
o
0
**
t2 "
Is
M «
S fej
en
xi °
S i &
3|l
O A)
nfil
§c^
u a S
a *
o «
ts
o £
c
o
u
1
Secondary and
Konwood Fiber,
and Mechanical
Wood Fiber
H
0]
r-l
18 . tO
J. 0
IS B -H
0 § B
o
4J
UJ
OS
3 « m
§ g 5 ~
m H* O K O| ^2
2 Rj ^i (Q 5
5 Vf 3
M Pi 03
5
-rl
ra -d
H 10
U 14
0) C9
0,
to
g 0
H "***
° S
J| M
Of
| 1 1 |
| §1^
BJ m CO
^ ti
S
o
3 TJ OJ
G t-l it t O
O C) TI W
rt & x C
ma a
P<
10
1-1
&
X g
O
<0 O* fl) t!J
O4->-l M C
CQ *q & 10
CO
a
CO
D4
S
CO
a
OJ
H
CO
oo
-------
Control
Control
Control
13 13
18 (8 C
Ol rH 1C
C E - O rl EH
H tt) CO rl O
a x; jj jj jj a o
3 (8 >* CO O -H CJ
JJ
r?E ^
rl , HI 0>
0. S CO > !3
Selected
HVLC Vents
and Named
High HAP
Concentrat
Sources
ed
Condensate
Vents at
New Sources
Streams
rom Vents at Stages ||
s, and Control ||
orinated HAP f
ching Chemical
.: Control Chi
orinated Blea
:**
<8 rl (8
O
a a)
01 - 13
-H O -H
rl O
rO *O 'H"
O C 13
O (8
0)
£-1 C
<; ^8 -H
tomplying with
. 40 CFR 430.54
rine with chlo
C rH
>i 18 XI
Q O
01 "ffi E
0) 18 rH Oi'O -rl
rH X! J3 b 0 rH
M EH O O H 01
H CO
a
18 1
01
0 3
rH CO
01
a
01 -H
c n
H O
rl rH
O X!
x!u
CJ X!
jj
O 3
0)
B
-H
O
i-H
O X!
JJ
4-1 -H
0 5
a
o
13 -H
01 JJ
o u
B <8
fl rl
C X
(D O
-H JJ
JJ CO
O B
CO 3
n-l O
M-l rl
0) XI
13 1
01 JJ
U U
a 18
(8 rl
"a x
0) (D
.^
a
o
13 -H
CJ JJ
o o
a <8
(8 rl
J3 JJ
a x
01 01
1
a
rH -H
rH }H
(8 O
rH
O 0
B
O
H
JJ
H -rl
X! E
01 -rl
(8 rH
S 01
M-l
O -
01
a jj
O -rl 1-1
-H rl O
JJ O
(8 rH 01
C Xi 01
H CJ 3
-H a TJ
rH S B
CU X 18
a
O
H
JJ i 01
§O JJ
a-H
rl S iH
E x: o
-H rH
"a! *o o
13
B.-S!
C 01 O
rl 13 rl
18 O -rl
JJ a
0 0 C
CJ O 18
CO
i> 13
-H B
M (8
O
r-l 1
X! G
O 01
0 Ol
« gx1
o x: o
13
S
B
H B
X <8
O rl
H 3
13 V-t
a
4 H
*i-i a 'i-i
i
a
- s
c o
0 rl
rl XI
JJ
O 13
(8 0) X
S-l 01 O
JJ O O
X rH i!
ON
-------
B. Air Emissions and Water Effluent Reductions
1. Air Emissions Reductions
The reductions described in this section are derived
from estimated air emissions reductions at all 155 pulp and
paper mills in the CAA kraft, soda, sulfite and semichemical
subcategories that are subject to MACT I and MACT II
standards. These mills include the 96 mills subject to the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated
today. All references in this section to MACT I air
emissions refer to the expected effects of implementing both
the air and water portion of the final Cluster Rules.
Implementation of the MACT portion of the Cluster Rules
is expected to significantly decrease HAP emissions. Table
VII-2 presents the environmental impacts of the Final
Cluster Rules (BAT, PSES, BMPs, and MACT I) and the Final
Cluster Rules in combination with the MACT II proposed
standards.
The air emission impacts presented in Table VII-2 are
calculated based on mill-specific processes and emission
control information, emission factors, and control levels
summarized in Table VII-1. A more detailed discussion of
the calculation of the environmental impacts for the final
420
-------
MACT standards is presented in Chapter 20 of the Background
Information Document described in Section XI of this
preamble. A detailed discussion of the environmental
impacts of the proposed MACT II is contained in the docket
for the proposed MACT II standard. As shown in Table VII-2,
these final Cluster Rules not only reduce HAP emissions from
all CAA and CWA subcategories regulated, but they also
result in decreases of volatile organic compounds and total
reduced sulfur using industry data updated to 1996.
Emissions of particulate and carbon monoxide are estimated
to increase under the final rules, but are expected to
decrease when combined with the proposed MACT II standards.
Emissions of sulfur dioxides, and, to a lesser degree,
nitrogen oxides are estimated to increase. Sulfur dioxide
emissions are generated primarily from the combustion of
sulfur-containing compounds, such as TRS, in the vent
streams at kraft mills. The increases in carbon monoxide,
nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter air emissions are
primarily from the combustion of air vents in the pulping
area and increased energy to produce additional steam for
steam strippers and chlorine dioxide for the bleaching
system. However, these emission increase estimates are
421
-------
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 increases. The health effects and benefits
of these emission reductions and increases are discussed in
Section VIII.G.I of this notice.
TABLE VII-2
AIR EMISSION IMPACTS OF PULP & PAPER RULES
(All CAA Subcategories)
Air Pollutants
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Volatile Organic Compounds
Total Reduced Sulfur
Particulate
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides
Sulfur Dioxides
Baseline Air
Emissions
(Mg/Year)
240,000
900,000
150,000
NAa ^.».
NA
NA
NA
Air Emission Reductions (Mg/Year)
Final Cluster
Rules
139,000
409,000
WSi-
79,000
{83}b
{8,700}
{5,200}
{94,500}
Final Cluster
Rules & Proposed
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.
Values in { } are estimated emission increases over baseline air
emissions.
422
-------
2.
Water Pollutant Reductions
Table VII-3 shows the estimated baseline (as of mid-
1995) and the reductions from baseline expected from the BMP
requirements being promulgated today for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite
subcategories. (Hereafter, references to BAT/PSES impacts
include impacts associated with today's BMP requirements.)
Calculation of these pollutant reductions is discussed in
Sections VI.B.5.a(3) and VI.B.6.b(5). For a discussion of
the estimated effluent reduction benefits associated with
the BAT limitations promulgated for the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program for the Bleached Papergrade .
Kraft and Soda subcategory, see Section IX. A.6 and Table
IX-1. ,
TABLE VII-3
ESTIMATED POLLUTANT REDUCTIONS FROM BASELINE
FOR BAT/PSES
Pollutant
Parameter
2,3,7,8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
Units
g/yr
g/yr
kkg/yr
Baseline
Discharge
for BPK
Mills
15
115
48
Estimated
Reductions :
Final
BAT/PSES for
BPK Mills
11
107
40
Baseline
Discharge
for PS
Mills
0.78
6.7
5.4
Estimated
Reductions :
Final
BAT/PSES for
PS Mills
0.65
6.4
5.2
423
-------
Pollutant
Parameter
Chlorinated
Phenolics
AOX
Units
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
Baseline
Discharge
for BPK
Mills
55
36,300
Estimated
Reductions :
Final
BAT/PSES for
BPK Mills
45
24,200
Baseline
Discharge
for PS
Mills
2.0
4,380
Estimated
Reductions :
Final
BAT/PSES for
PS Mills
1.8
4, 010
BPK - Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory
PS - Papergrade Sulfite subcategory
g - grains
kkg - metric ton (1,000 kilograms or 1 megagram (Mg)
The air quality impacts shown in Table VII-2 and
the water pollutant effluent reductions shown above are
used in the following section to estimate reduced human
health and environmental risk attributable to today's
rules. These estimates also form the basis for
estimating monetized benefits in the following section.
C. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards (BAT, PSES, and
BMPs)
Sections 304(b)(2)(B) and 306(b)(1)(B) of the
Clean Water Act require EPA to consider the non-water
quality environmental impacts of effluent limitations
guidelines and standards. To address these statutory
R
requirements, EPA analyzed the air emissions, energy
424
-------
requirements, solid waste generation impacts, and other
environmental impacts of the compulsory BAT, PSES, and BMPs
being promulgated today for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. The results
of this analysis are presented below. In performing the
analysis, EPA assumed that each mill in the regulated
subcategory would install the model technologies upon which
today's limitations and standards are based.
1. Air Emissions
The air emissions reductions of BAT, PSES, BMPs, and
MACT I, in combination, are presented in Section VII.B.I
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
425
-------
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 VTI-4, the
process changes at bleached papergrade kraft and soda
and papergrade sulfite facilities subject to BAT, PSES,
and BMPs decrease the emissions of some HAPs but have
little impact on others. For example, the elimination
of chlorine and hypochlorite from bleaching processes,
part of the basis for BAT and PSES, will reduce the
emission of chloroform in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda subcategory by 66 percent [but will have a
much smaller impact on the emission of methanol.] The
application of the BAT, PSES, and BMPs promulgated
today for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory will reduce the emission of total HAPs from
the sources controlled by MACT I from 149,000 Mg/year
to 139,000 Mg/yr (7 percent reduction) without taking
into account further reductions achieved by MACT I
controls.
TABLE VII-4
IMPACT OF BAT, PSES, AND BMP: BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT
AND SODA AND PAPERGRADE SULFITE MILLS
426
-------
AIR EMISSIONS FROM SOURCES SUBJECT TO CONTROL BY MACT I
Air Pollutants
Total Hazardous Air
Pollutants
Chloroform
Volatile 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
S
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
427
-------
and 1.9 percent at papergrade sulfite facilities above the
1995 baseline. However, the net increase in HAP emissions
from these combustion sources {235 Mg/yr) represents 1.1
percent of the HAP emissions from all sources subject to
control by MACT I, II, and III. Although BAT, PSES, and
BMPs result in a small increase in HAP emissions from
recovery boilers, the combined effect of the Cluster Rules
(including proposed MACT II) is a net decrease of 60 percent
in total HAP emissions from all controlled sources. See
Table VII-2.
TABLE VII-5a
IMPACT OF BAT, PSES, AND BMP: BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND
SODA
AIR EMISSIONS FROM RECOVERY BOILERS AT BLEACHED PAPERGRADE
KRAFT AND SODA MILLS SUBJECT TO PROPOSED MACT -II
[Mg/year]
Hazardous Air
Pollutants
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Total Reduced
Sulfur
Particulate Matter
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides
1995
Baseline
Emission
19,900
19,500
2,650
31,400
124, 000
36,100
Emission
Increases
from
BAT/PSES/
BMPS
220
213
27
360
1,440
423
MACT 131
Emission
Reductions
25
0
0
12,900
0
0
Net Change
after MACT
IIa
195
213
27
(12,540)
1,440
423
428
-------
[I Sulfur Dioxides | 67,800 | 784 | oj 784
a Parentheses indicate emissions decreases below baseline
429
-------
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
Reduction
s
N/S
Net Change
after MACT
II
40
N/S - Not Significant
Increases in the emission of criteria pollutants are
also listed in Table VII-5a. The emission of total criteria
air pollutants from spent pulping liquor combustion sources
(i.e., recovery boilers) at mills in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory will increase by 1.2 percent as a
result of BAT, PSES, and BMPs and will be only slightly
mitigated by MACT II controls. The increases in nitrogen
oxides (423 Mg/yr), sulfur dioxides (784 Mg/yr), and carbon
monoxide (1440 Mg/yr) emissions are minor relative to
nationwide emissions, which are 19.8 million Mg/yr for
nitrogen oxides, 16.6 million Mg/yr for sulfur dioxides, and
83.6 million Mg/yr for carbon monoxide (OAQPS, 1995).
EPA concludes that the technologies that form the basis
of BAT, PSES, and BMPs for bleached papergrade kraft and
430
-------
soda and papergrade sulfite mills pose no significant
adverse impacts to and indeed have some benefits for air
quality. EPA bases this determination on the following:
- Total HAP emissions from the sources subject to
control by MACT I and proposed MACT II from kraft and
sulfite pulping and bleaching processes decrease as a
result of BAT, PSES, and BMPs;
- HAP emissions would increase by less than one percent
from bleached kraft combustion sources and increase by
less than two percent from papergrade sulfite
combustion sources; and
- the increase in criteria air pollutants for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade
Sulfite subcategories is minor relative to current
national industrial emissions.
EPA examined the effect of BAT combined with BMPs on
the generation of CO2 by considering the overall mill carbon
balance and the energy balance. Anthropogenic generation of
water vapor is minuscule relative to atmospheric recycling
and is normally ignored in greenhouse gas analysis.
Therefore, water vapor is ignored here. EPA concluded that
neither option would have an impact on the total emission of
431
-------
greenhouse gasses from mills due to pulping processing.
There, EPA concludes that the increased CO2 emissions
attributable to BAT pose no significant adverse non-water
quality environmental impact.
2. Energy Impacts
The impacts of BAT, PSES, and BMPs on the energy use of
the 86 mills with production in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory and the 11 mills with production
in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are summarized in
Table VII-6. The process changes that form the basis of the
regulations promulgated today are estimated to result in an
increased energy -requirement of 3.70 trillion Btu/yr in oil
equivalent at the 96 affected pulp and paper mills. This
represents a 0.82 percent increase from the current total
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategories energy
consumption (papergrade sulfite total energy consumption is
minor relative to bleached papergrade kraft) of 499.4
trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent (DCN 14510). The
increased energy use is due to the increased off-site
chemical manufacturing electrical demand (met by off-site
electric generating stations) and on-site electrical demand
(also met by off-site electric generating stations, and
432
-------
commonly referred to as "purchased energy"). These
increased demands are partially offset by the decreased
steam demand (met by on-site power boilers and recovery
furnaces). Oil equivalent is used to express the combined
effects of changes in thermal energy and electric power. It
is based on the assumption that marginal changes in electric
power demand caused by the regulation will be supplied by
conventional condensing-type oil-fired power stations. See
DCN 14487.
TABLE VII-6
ENERGY IMPACTS OF BAT, PSES, AND BMP: BLEACHED PAPERGRADE
KRAFT AND SODA AND PAPERGRADE SULFITE MILLS
Energy Impacts
On-Site Electricity
Demand*
Off-Site Electricity
Demand*
Steam Demand
Total Energy
Demand* *
Total Energy
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
Papergra
de Kraft
(2.37)
10.0
(2.88)
4.78
46,100
Papergrade
Sulfite
(all
segments)
(0.0381)
(1.05)
(0.010)
(1.08)
(10,400)
Combined
Total
(2.41)
8.95
(2.89)
3 .70
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.
433
-------
Refer to Section 11 of the Supplemental Technical Development.
Document which presents detailed energy estimates.
*** Assumes 103.6 million Btu/household/yr (Energy Information
Administration (DOE) 1993)
The manufacture of sodium chlorate, the raw material
used at pulp mills to manufacture chlorine dioxide, requires
much more electrical energy than the manufacture of chlorine
or other commonly used bleaching chemicals. As a result,
off-site electrical demand increases by 8.95 trillion Btu/yr
(2.61 million MWhr/yr) because of the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated today. EPA estimates
of changes in energy demand as mills install advanced
technologies can be found in DCN 14488.
The total increase in energy demand resulting from this
rule is equivalent to the energy required for 35,700
households. Compared to the most recent data for total
national energy consumption, the rule represents a 0.004
percent increase in energy demand. EPA concludes that the
technologies that form the basis of BAT, PSES, and BMPs for
bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite
mills do not pose significant adverse impacts in nation-wide
energy demand.
3. Incidental BOD5 Removal and Sludge
434
-------
The proc'ess changes that form the basis for BAT, PSES,
and BMP increase by approximately 1.5 percent the amount of
spent pulping liquor collected and combusted by bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills. Spent pulping liquor is a
significant source of BOD5 loadings at these mills. The
collection and combustion of this spent pulping, liquor
results in an approximately 20 percent decrease in BOD5 load
into treatment. (EPA expects that papergrade sulfite mills
will have similar trends, but lacks data to calculate
residuals.)
Sludge is generated as a byproduct of the wastewater
treatment systems used at pulp and paper mills. Primary
sludge (i.e., solids removed during physical wastewater
treatment processes such as sedimentation prior to
biological treatment) is high in wood fiber and volatile
solids. Secondary sludge is the product of biological
treatment in which microorganisms consume organic matter
(BOD5) in the wastewater. Secondary sludge is a gelatinous
mixture of bacterial and fungal organisms.' Because of the
reduction in BOD5 load into treatment, the combined
application of BAT limitations, PSES, and BMPs promulgated
today will decrease sludge generation by 35,900 kkg/yr
435
-------
(39,600 short tons/yr), which represents a 2 percent ^^
w
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.
436
-------
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
437
-------
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.
438
-------
D. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of New Source
Performance Standards and Pretreatment Standards for 'New
Source (NSPS and PSNS)
EPA analyzed the projected non-water quality
environmental impacts of BAT for the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory for BAT, PSES, and BMPs based on
complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for chlorine and
other technology elements. This section presents the non-
water quality environmental impacts of a second technology
configuration (NSPS and PSNS) which is equivalent to BAT,
PSES, and BMPs with the addition of extended delignification
(oxygen delignification or extended cooking) on a new 1000
tpd bleached papergrade kraft fiber line.
Table VII-7 presents the non-water quality
environmental impacts of the selected technology basis for
NSPS and PSNS, compared to conventional pulping and
bleaching technology. These estimates are based on the same
calculational methodology described under BAT and PSES,
applied to a 1000 tpd model mill. Based on these estimates,
EPA concludes that the process technologies that form the
basis for NSPS and PSNS for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda subcategory pose no significant adverse non-water
439
-------
quality environmental impacts.
Table VII-7
NON-WATER QUALITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF NSPS/PSNS FOR THE
BLEACHED PAPERGRADE KRAFT AND SODA SUBCATEGORY
Wood Consumption:
Effluent Flow:
BOD to Treatment:
Sludge Generation:
Carbon Dioxide :
" '' l!
1000 tpd Fiber Line
No Difference
Moderate Decrease1
Decrease by 11,300 kg/day
Decrease by 890 kg/day
Decrease by 21,700 Mg/year
Energy Impacts:
Total Electricity
Demand
Total Steam Demand
Total Energy Demand
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 fl
Air Emissions: ||
Hazardous Air
Pollutants
Chloroform
Volatile Organic
Compounds
Total Reduced Sulfur
Particulate Matter
Carbon Monoxide
Nitrogen Oxides
Sulfur Dioxides
Increase by 407 Mg/year
No Difference
Increase by 707 Mg/year
Increase by 28 Mg/year
Decrease by 12 kg/year
Decrease by 3 Mg/year
Decrease by 28 Mg/year
Decrease by 56 Mg/year
«See Section 11.4.1.3 of the
Document, DCN 14487.
Supplemental Technical Development
440
-------
NSPS and PSNS that EPA is promulgating today for the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are equivalent to BAT and
PSES. Therefore, the NSPS and PSNS present no additional
non-water quality environmental impacts.
VIII. Analysis of Costs, Economic Impacts, and Benefits
A. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts
This section presents a summary of EPA's evaluation of
the costs, economic impacts, and benefits of the Cluster
Rules. A more detailed analysis is contained in the
Economic Analysis for the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper
Production; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment
Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Category--Phase 1 (DCN 14649;
hereafter, the Economic Analysis).
Today's action is a significant departure from prior
EPA rulemakings in that, for one industry, EPA is
considering the ramifications of implementing two major
environmental statutes with respect to pollution control,
industrial technology and operations, environmental impacts,
costs, and economic impacts. As noted in Section II of this
preamble, today's rulemaking establishes regulations that
441
-------
implement elements of both the CAA and CWA. The objective
of this economic analysis is to provide the most accurate
portrayal possible of the aggregate costs that the industry
will face by implementing these regulations, as well as the
economic, financial, and social impacts that EPA estimates
will result from these costs. The economic impacts of the
combined, or joint, costs of the final CWA (BAT, NSPS, PSES,
PSNS, and BMP) requirements and the final and proposed CAA
requirements (MACT I, MACT III, and proposed MACT II) are
different than the impacts that would result from the costs
of the CWA or CAA requirements considered separately. While
EPA presents separately the CWA and CAA compliance costs and
the economic impacts of those costs in this section, the
Agency believes the most accurate estimation of the economic
impacts that the pulp and paper industry will experience is
derived by considering total (combined) compliance costs of
both the CAA and CWA rules. Under the CWA, EPA considered
the economic impacts of each option by subcategory,
combining indirect and direct dischargers. EPA combined
these groups because there are no differences between direct
and indirect dischargers in each subcategory with respect to
442
-------
characteristics of wastewater generated or the model process
technologies considered.
The compliance costs described in this section are
EPA's best estimates of the actual costs facilities will
incur to comply with the promulgated and proposed rules.
The total annualized and operation and maintenance (O&M)
costs differ somewhat from the engineering cost estimates
shown in Section VI. The annual O&M costs shown in this
section include a general, and administrative cost of four
percent of capital costs, which makes these O&M costs
significantly higher than the engineering O&M cost estimates
shown in Section VI. The annualized costs shown in Section
VIII are both pre-tax and post-tax. Pre-tax costs because
they capture total economic losses to society, are
considered the social costs of the rule andare used for
examining cost-effectiveness (Sections VIII.D.4 and
VIII.F.I) and for comparing the costs and benefits of the
rule (Section VIII.H).' Post-tax costs, which represent the
projected costs to a firm after tax shields for depreciation
and other factors are accounted for, are used in the
economic achievability determination under the Clean Water
443
-------
Act to evaluate facility closures, firm failures, and
related impacts. Post-tax costs are used in Sections
VIII.A, VIII.B, VIII.C, VIII.E, VIII.J, and most of Section
VIII.D and VIII.F.
EPA's financial and economic analyses reflect as
accurately as possible the information that pulp and paper
industry managers will consider in making financial
decisions. The economic impacts described in this section
(such as facility closures, job losses, and reduced
shipments) result from the total costs that a facility will
bear (including environmental compliance costs) compared to
the facility's expected revenues. EPA also evaluated the
aggregate costs for all facilities borne by each company to
determine if each company will be in jeopardy of bankruptcy
as a result of aggregate compliance costs.
In this section, EPA also describes the qualitative,
quantitative, and monetized benefits of environmental
improvements expected to result from compliance with these
rules, and compares these benefits to the costs of the
rules. EPA identified 158 mills at proposal with kraft,
soda, sulfite or semi-chemical pulping processes. Of these,
444
-------
EPA now projects that 155 mills will bear costs under the
final MACT I and 149 mills will bear costs under the
proposed MACT II (six mills do not practice chemical
recovery). These numbers could change over time as mills
change processes or close operations.
EPA separately evaluated the compliance costs and
economic impacts of: (1) MACT I for the 155 mills that pulp
wood using kraft, soda, sulfite, or semi-chemical pulping
processes; (2) combined final MACT I and proposed MACT II .
for those mills; and (3) proposed MACT II for combustion
sources at the 149 mills. Although all of the regulatory
options and alternatives under consideration for MACT II are
evaluated in the EA, only the economic impacts related to
the proposed regulatory alternative are presented here. EPA
-<«*
estimates that there will be no economic impacts associated
with the MACT III regulations, which are promulgated for
mills that practice mechanical, secondary fiber, or non-wood
pulping or that produce paper or paperboard from purchased
pulp, because EPA believes that compliance with MACT III
requirements will neither impose costs nor result in
additional emissions reductions. For this reason, Section
445
-------
VIII presents no further analysis of the MACT III
regulations.
EPA separately evaluated the impacts of the BAT, PSES,
NSPS, PSNS, and BMP requirements for the 86 mills currently
in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory and
the 11 mills currently in three segments of the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory. (One mill is in both CWA
subcategories.) Both direct and indirect discharging mills
are subject to BMPs. Hereafter, EPA's reference to BAT/PSES
costs includes the costs of complying with the final BMP
requirements.
EPA also evaluated the costs and impacts for the
combination of MACT I and BAT/PSES for the 96 bleached
papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite mills that
are affected by both rules. EPA also provides an estimate of
the economic impacts when the proposed MACT II costs are
combined with the MACT I and BAT/PSES costs for these 96
mills. Finally, the economic impacts and costs for all 155
kraft, soda, sulfite, and semi-chemical mills affected by
air and/or water regulations are reported.
EPA also evaluated the impacts of NSPS or PSNS costs
446
-------
for new sources, both singly and in combination with MACT I
and proposed MACT II costs.
EPA evaluated economic achievability based on the
relative magnitude of compliance costs (in the form of total
annualized costs) and the resulting potential facility
closures, potential job losses, firm failures (potential
bankruptcies), reduced value of shipments, balance of trade
effects, and indirect effects (reduced regional and national
output and employment which reflect the fact that impacts on
the pulp and paper industry will resonate throughout the
economy). Table VIII-1 presents a summary of annualized
costs and projected mill closures for the various rules and
rule combinations. The level of detail for reporting
results in the preamble (and in the EA) is sometimes
constrained in order to protect confidential business
information. For that reason facility closures and job
losses, for example, are not identified for certain
combinations of rules. All of the results are contained in
the confidential portion of the rulemaking record.
447
-------
Table VIII-1
Summary: Costs and Economic Impacts of CAA and CWA Rules
Costs and
Impacts
Pre-Tax
Annual ized
Costs ($
MM)2
Post-Tax
Annualized
Costs{$ MM)
Mill
Closures
Firm
Failures
Rules
MACT I
(final)
(All
Mills)
125
82
0
0
MACT II
(proposed)
(All
Mills)
32
23
0
0
BAT/PSES
(final)
(BPK&PS)1
263
172
1
0
MACT I &
BAT/PSES
(final)
(BPK&PS)
351
229
2
0
MACT I,
BAT/PSES
& MACT
II
(BPK&PS)
365
240
3
0
MACT I,
BAT/PSES
& MACT
II
(All
Mills)
420
277
3
0
BPK: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory
PS: Papergrade Sulfite subcategory
2 Pre-Tax costs are not used in determining economic achievability.
MACT Costs: Total annualized MACT I costs for 155
facilities in all subcategories..s,regulated today are $82
»,
million (all annualized costs presented in Section VIII are
post-tax costs in 1995 dollars, except where noted). These
costs differ from the engineering MACT control cost
estimates presented in Section VI, as noted above and in
Section VIII.B.I.e. Total annualized proposed MACT II costs
for all subcategories that EPA proposes to regulate are $23
448
-------
million. No mill closures, job losses, or firm failures are
projected when either MACT I or proposed MACT II costs are
analyzed individually. When the costs for final MACT I and
proposed MACT II are combined, the (post-tax) annualized
costs are $105 million and result in one estimated mill
closure and losses of up to 700 jobs. No firm failures are
predicted as a result of the combined costs of MACT I and
MACT II.
BAT/PSES Costs: EPA estimated economic impacts for
three BAT/PSES options (Option A, Option B, and TCP) for all
bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills. Section
VI.B.S.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.S.b and.
449
-------
d). EPA presents a summary of the economic impacts of the
selected BAT/PSES technology bases immediately,below. A
summary of the economic impacts for the rejected BAT/PSES
options in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory is presented in Section VIII.F.
Total annualized costs for the selected BAT/PSES for
the 96 mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories are $172 million. One mill
closure is predicted for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory as a result of compliance costs. Estimates
of job losses are not presented in order to protect
confidential business information. EPA estimates no
closures for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory as a result
of compliance costs. EPA estimates that no firm failures
will result from BAT/PSES in these subcategories. Based on
current information, EPA projects that there may be some new
sources, most likely new fiber lines at existing pulp and
paper mills. EPA has identified the per plant NSPS/PSNS
costs for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. EPA did not have
sufficient information to reliably project the likely number
450
-------
of new sources (see Section VIII.D).. EPA also expects that
many replacement fiber lines constructed at Subpart B mills
will be enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program and will therefore be existing sources
rather than new sources. 40 CFR 430.01 (j) (2) . EPA also
conducted a barrier to entry analysis for new sources,
discussed below.
Combined Costs: The combined annualized costs for MACT
I and BAT/PSES, affecting 96 bleached papergrade kraft and
soda and papergrade sulfite mills, are $229 million. As a
result of these costs, two mills in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory are projected to close with an
associated loss of 900 jobs. See Table VIII-3. No mills
are projected to close in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory
as a result of compliance costs. No firm,failures are
predicted.
The combined annualized costs for the proposed and
final rules (MACT I, BAT/PSES, and proposed MACT II)
affecting the 96 bleached papergrade kraft and soda and
papergrade sulfite mills are $240 million. With these
combined costs, three mills are projected to close. The
451
-------
associated job losses increase with the additional projected
closure, but the estimate is not reported here in order to
protect confidential business information. No firm failures
are expected to result from the combined costs of MACT I,
BAT/PSES, and proposed MACT II) for these mills.
The annualized costs for the proposed and final rules
(MACT I, BAT/PSES, and MACT II) applicable to all 155 kraft,
soda, sulfite, and semi-chemical mills are $277 million.
With these combined costs for all rules and all 155 mills,
the impacts are unchanged; i.e., three mills are projected
to close, job losses exceed 900, and no firm failures are jj^
9
expected.
B. Overview of Economic Analysis
1. Revisions in Analysis from Proposal
a. Subcategories
Based on the subcategorization described in Sections
II.C.I, VI.A and VI.B.I, 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
452
-------
mills in the CWA subcategories. The 96 CWA mills are a
subset of the 155 CAA mills.
b. Options
(1) Air Emissions Standards
The selected technology bases for the MACT I & III
standards are discussed fully in Section II.B.2 of this
preamble. Regulatory options and alternatives for MACT II
are discussed in Section IV.F of the preamble to the
proposed MACT II standards, which appears elsewhere in
today's Federal Register, and in the Economic Analysis (DCN
14649). EPA's economic analysis presents results for eight
regulatory alternatives. The summary presented here
pertains only to the final MACT I standard and proposed MACT
II standard.
(2) Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
For the BAT/PSES analyses for the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA's economic analysis
addresses three technology options. The summary presented
in this section of the preamble focuses on Option A, the
selected BAT/PSES option, but a brief discussion of the
impacts for the rejected options appears below in Section
453
-------
VIII.F. For the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, EPA's
economic analysis (and the summary presented here) analyzes
only the technologies selected as the bases for the BAT/PSES
for each segment. This is because EPA identified no
technically available options for the three papergrade
sulfite segments other than those considered and selected.
NSPS/PSNS costs for new sources are presented in
Section VIII.D.
c. Methodology
The methodologies used by EPA to evaluate economic
impacts at the time of proposal are fully discussed in the
Economic Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the
Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and NESHAP for the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry (EPA-821-R-93-021,
November, 1993). Revisions to these methodologies are
discussed below and more fully in Chapters 3 and 4 of the
Economic Analysis (DCN 14649) .
As discussed or referenced in the July 15, 1996 Notice,
EPA revised components of the economic methodology to
account for recent changes that have occurred in the pulp
and paper industry, including: (1) revision of the discount
454
-------
rate; (2) integration of market (price change) effects into
the financial closure model; (3) incorporation ofnew
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.
455
-------
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
456
-------
of results presented in this preamble does not reflect the
effects of price increases, because such changes did not
materially affect EPA decisions. Chapter 6 of the Economic
Analysis (DCN 14649) presents all of the results.
The last year of price information available at
proposal was 1988. Between 1988 and 1995, the pulp and
paper industry completed a full industry revenue cycle, with
revenues peaking in 1988, falling through 1992, and reaching
historic heights in 1995. For the final rule, this newer
information was incorporated into the forecasting methods
for the financial closure model, which assumes this seven-
year cycle (a six-year cycle was used at proposal) of
falling and rising prices will continue into the future.
Additionally, the starting year for the analysis was
<&.
adjusted to 1996 (from 1989, wh'ich was used at proposal) .
To identify potential firm failures (i.e.,
bankruptcies) using the Altman's Z financial ratio analysis,
EPA obtained updated financial information, including mill
ownership data, for publicly held companies. Because
updated information for privately held companies was not
available from public sources, EPA did not evaluate possible
457
-------
failures among private firms. To include these companies
would have required a new industry survey.
A facility-level financial analysis that was conducted
at proposal was discontinued because EPA was also unable to
update facility-level financial information without a new
survey. The facility-level analysis is not a component of
the Altman's Z analysis, on which EPA has relied to identify
firm failures for this final rule. While providing some
useful information, the facility financial analysis was not
used to identify firm-level bankruptcies at proposal and did
not provide the basis at proposal for making determinations
of economic achievability.
As noted in Section VIII.A., EPA considers general and
administrative as well as variable annual costs in the cost
annualization calculation. At proposal, general and
administrative costs (GAG) 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, GAG
is now calculated as four percent of capital costs for
458
-------
effluent control (see DCN 14086). GAG 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.
VIII.C. Costs and Economic Impacts for Air Emissions
Standards
Table VIII-2 presents the engineering control cost
estimates for MACT I and for the regulatory alternative
proposed for MACT II: $755 million in total capital costs
and $172 million in annualized costs. A more detailed
discussion of the control costs for the final MACT standard,
including emission reductions and cost-effectiveness, is
provided in Chapter 20 of the Background Information
Document. Table VIII-2 also presents the capital costs and
pre-tax and post-tax annualized costs used in the economic
analysis. EPA has determined that the MACT III standards
459
-------
will impose no costs; therefore, none is presented here or
in Table VIII-2.
As noted in Section VIII.A. and Chapter 5 of the
Economic Analysis, the'engineering control cost estimates of
the cost of MACT regulations differ from the costs used in
EPA's economic impact analysis of those standards. The
economic analysis also differentiates between pre-tax
annualized costs and post-tax annualized costs as discussed
in Section VIII.A.
Table VIII-2
Estimates of the Cost of Air Regulations
(Millions of dollars)
Regulation
MACT I
MACT II
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
Annualized 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
460
-------
combined, EPA projects one mill closure with up to 700 job
losses. No firm failures are anticipated for the combined
MACT rules. .
D. Costs and Economic Impacts for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
1. BPT and BCT
As explained in Section VLB.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
461
-------
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 VLB. 6. a, EPA is dividing the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory into three segments. For
462
-------
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 recover the capital cost
associated with the NSPS/PSNS technology.
4. Cost-Effectiveness
463
-------
EPA uses a cost-effectiveness ratio of dollars per
toxic pound equivalent removed (see Economic Analysis (DCN
14649), Chapter 5) to evaluate the relative efficiency of a
technology option in removing toxic pollutants. The results
reported below are expressed in 1981 dollars, as prescribed
by EPA's cost-effectiveness methodology (DCN 14649). For
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, the
cost-effectiveness ratio for both BAT and PSES is $14 per
toxic pound equivalent removed. The cost-effectiveness
ratios for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are $13 per
toxic pound equivalent removed for BAT and $45 per toxic
pound equivalent for PSES. EPA considers the selected
technology bases for the BAT/PSES limits for both
subcategories to be cost-effective.
E. Costs and Impacts for the Integrated Rules
EPA estimates that 155 kraft, soda, sulfite, and semi-
chemical mills will incur costs to comply with the CAA
rules; 96 bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade
sulfite mills will incur costs to comply with the CWA rule,
and the same 96 mills will incur both CAA and CWA rule
costs. Table VIII-3 is a summary of the expected costs and
464
-------
impacts for various combinations of CAA and CWA rules. The
losses of jobs, shipments, exports, and indirect effects
reported in Table VIII-3 are the impacts derived from mill
closures. Some results are not disclosed where
confidentiality might be compromised.
465
-------
Table VIII-3
Costs and Economic Impacts of CAA and CWA Rules
Costs & Impacts
Capital Costs
($MM)
Post-Tax
Annualized
Costs ($MM)
Mill Closures
Firm Failures
OTob Losses
(from mill
closures)
Decreased
Shipments ($MM)
Decreased
Exports ($MM)
Direct and
Indirect
Effects ($MM)
Rules
MACT I
(final)
501
82
0
0
0
0
0
-
MACT II
(proposed)
258
23
0
0
0
0
0
-
BAT/PSES
(BPK&PS)1
1,039
172
1
0
400
150
19
430
MACT I &
BAT/PSES
(96
mills)
1,394
229
2
0
900
273
19
795
MACT I,
BAT/PSES
& MACT II
(BPK&PS)
(96
mills)
1,524
240
3
0
1,700
479
22
1,393
4-
MACT I,
BAT/PSES &
MACT II
(155 mills)
1,799
277
3
0
1,700
479
22
1,393
BPK: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda s.ubcategory
PS: Papergrade Sulfite subcategory
While no mills are predicted to close due to MACT I
costs alone, and one mill in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda subcategory is predicted to close due to BAT/PSES
costs alone, EPA estimates that two mills in the Bleached
466
-------
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory may close as a result
of the combined costs imposed by these rules. The two
predicted closures represent approximately 2.3 percent of
the 86 bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills and 1.3
percent of all 155 kraft, sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical
mills affected by this rulemaking. As a result of these two
closures, 900 jobs could be lost. These jobs represent 0.9
percent of the jobs in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory.. These costs generate a maximum estimated
price increase of 1.5 percent for any product (pulp, paper
or paperboard). Estimated losses in the value of shipments
are approximately $273 million, or 0.8 percent of bleached
papergrade kraft and soda shipments, while losses in the
value of bleached papergrade kraft and soda exports are
approximately $19 million, or 0.5 percent of subcategory
exports.
No mills are projected to close in the GWA 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
' 467
-------
regulations (MACT I, MACT III and BAT/PSES) on employment
and output using a national-level input-output model
developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The model
provides multipliers that enable EPA to estimate national-
level impacts based on the loss of employment and output
from closing mills. Total projected effects on the U.S.
economy of the combined MACT I and BAT/PSES are
approximately 5,700 jobs lost and $795 million in lost
economic output. While some local communities could
experience some economic dislocation as a result of
closures, overall national impacts would be insignificant.
For comparison, the 1995 U.S. gross domestic product was
$7.3 trillion. The loss is approximately one-tenth of 1
percent of the gross domestic product for 1995. EPA also
evaluated regional (county-level) economic impacts when
determining the economic achievability of the regulation.
For the final MACT I and BAT/PSES, in the two counties where
mills are projected to close, the unemployment rate would
increase by 0.4 percent and 0.7 percent respectively.
In response to public comments, EPA also estimated the
economic impacts associated with the combined costs of
468
-------
promulgated and proposed rules. When the MACT I, BAT/PSES,
and MACT II costs are considered jointly, EPA projects an
additional mill closure with 800 additional jobs lost and
further decreases of $206 million in shipments and $3
million in exports. The total projected effects of the
combined MACT 1, BAT/PSES, and MACT II costs are
approximately 10,000 jobs lost and $1.4 billion in lost
economic output.
F. Costs and Impacts of Rejected BAT/PSES Options for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
1. Summary of Results
Table VI11-4 presents costs and impacts for two options
(Option B and TCP) that EPA evaluated, but did not select,
as the basis for BAT/PSES for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
-c-cfe
and Soda subcategory., EPA's rationale for selecting Option
A for BAT/PSES for this subcategory is presented in Section
VI.B.5.a(5). Table VIII-4 presents results in three ways:
considering CWA costs and impacts alone; considering the
costs and impacts of the rejected BAT/PSES options and MACT
I; and considering the costs and impacts of the rejected
BAT/PSES options, MACT I, and MACT II.
469
-------
Table VIII-4
Costs and Economic Impacts of Rejected BAT/PSES Options
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Costs & Impacts
Capital Costs
($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
1 or more
900
273
19
795
TCP
(BAT/PSES)
3,100
688
7
1 or more
7,100
2,300
308
NR
Option B
(BAT/PSES)
+ MACT I
2,600
292
4
1 or more
4, 800
1,300
24
3,850
TCP +
(BAT/
PSES)
MACT I
3,600
764
9
1 or
more
10,200
3,200
310
NR
Option B
(BAT/PSES)
MACT I &
MACT II
2,700
300
ND1
1 or more
ND
ND
ND
ND
TCP,
(BAT/PSES)
MACT I &
MACT II
3,700
772
9
1 or more
10,200
3,200
310
NR
1 ND: not disclosed to protect confidential business information
2 NR: not reported
Option B: The BAT/PSES capital costs for Option B for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory are
estimated at $2.1 billion; O&M costs are $87 million; and
annualized costs are $216 million. These costs result in
two projected mill closures, with direct impacts of at least
470
-------
900 jobs lost, $273 million in decreased shipments, $19
million in decreased exports, and one or more potential firm
failures. The firm failures may also result in thousands of
additional jobs lost (see Section VI.B.5.a(5) and Chapter 6
of the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649). Indirect and direct
economic loss (i.e., losses throughout the economy as a
result of the closed mills) would be approximately $795
million. The mill closures are projected to increase county
unemployment rates for the affected counties by 0.4 percent
and 0.7 percent, respectively.
EPA also calculated cost-effectiveness ratios for
Option B for this subcategory (for Option A results, see
Section VIII.D.4, above). For direct dischargers, the
average and incremental (compared to Option A) cost-
effectiveness ratios are $15 per toxic pound-equivalent and
$36 per toxic pound-equivalent, respectively (1981 dollars).
For indirect dischargers, the incremental cost-effectiveness
(compared to Option A), is $115 per toxic pound-equivalent.
Option B and MACT I: The combined capital costs for
Option B and MACT I for mills in this subcategory are
estimated at $2.6 billion; O&M costs are $154 million; and
471
-------
annualized costs are $292 million. MACT I annualized costs
are greater under Option B than under Option A due to the
additions of MACT controls for oxygen delignification
equipment installed to comply with Option B. With the
combined costs of Option B and MACT I, the number of
projected mill closures increases to four, and the estimated
number of firm failures remains unchanged at one or more.
The four closures cause losses of approximately 4,800 jobs,
$1.3 billion in shipments, and $24 million of exports.
Direct and indirect losses would total nearly'$4 billion.
The mill closures are also projected to increase county
unemployment rates; the range of increased unemployment for
the affected counties is from less than 0.5 percentage
points to nearly 10 percentage points (as a hypothetical
-*£*
example, from a baseline county^ unemployment rate of 10
percent to 10.5 percent after a closure in County X and from
a baseline of 10 percent to 20 percent after a closure in
County Y).
Option B, MACT I, and MACT II: The combined capital
costs for Option B, MACT I, and proposed MACT II for mills
in this subcategory are estimated at $2.7 billion; O&M costs
472
-------
are $153 million; and annualized costs are $300 million.
With the combined costs of Option B, MACT I, and MACT II,
the number of projected mill closures increases (number not
disclosed), and the estimated number of firm failures
remains unchanged at one or more. The analysis projects
additional losses to jobs, shipments, and exports from the
additional mill closures (amounts not disclosed). Direct
and indirect losses would also increase, as would the
unemployment rates in the counties in which the mill
closures are located.
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
473
-------
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 II for mills in this subcategory
are estimated at $3.7 billion; O&M costs are $849 million;
and annualized costs are $772 million. With ,the combined
costs of TCP, MACT I, and MACT II, EPA estimates that the
474
-------
number of mill closures, job losses, and 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 MACT I and/or MACT II.
Although EPA cannot determine the actual outcome of the
projected failures in terms of lost production, closed
facilities, and lost jobs, the level of displacement would
almost certainly cause detrimental impacts to the U.S. pulp
and paper industry. Section VLB.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
475
-------
the CAA and CWA requirements. Section VII of this preamble
describes the estimated reductions in air emissions and
effluent discharges. The incremental environmental
improvements noted in Section VII.E. 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
476
-------
improvement and compromises the validity of a cost-benefit
analysis. The economic benefit values described below and
in the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649) should be considered a
limited subset of the total benefits of these rules, and
should be evaluated along with descriptive assessments of
benefits and the acknowledgment that even these may fall
short of the real-world benefits that will result from the
rule.
1. Air Quality Benefits
Section VII.B.I of this preamble describes the
emissions reductions expected as a result of implementing
MACT I and MACT II standards. Implementation of the final
MACT I standard is expected to reduce emissions of HAPs,
VOCs, and TRS, but increase emissions of PM, SO2, CO, and
NOX. The proposed alternative for MACT II is expected to
reduce emissions for HAPs, VOCs, PM, TRS, CO, and SO2, while
it is expected to create a slight increase in NOX emissions.
The technology bases for BAT/PSES have secondary impacts on
the level of air emissions. The combined effect of MACT I
and MACT II for all subcategories regulated under the CAA is
to decrease emissions for all of the above mentioned
477
-------
pollutants except NOX and SO2. See Table VIII-5 below.
EPA performed an evaluation of the benefits associated with
the air regulations based on the emission reductions
estimated in Section VII.B.I. 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. jMt
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
478
-------
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
479
-------
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.
480
-------
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 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
481
-------
emissions will diminish these potential effects.
SO2 oxidizes in water to form both sulfurous and
sulfuric acids. When SO2 dissolves in the water of the
respiratory tract of humans, the resulting acidity is
irritating to the pulmonary tissues, causing nasal
irritation and breathing difficulties (especially to
individuals with respiratory diseases such as asthma). When
SO2 dissolves in the atmosphere in rain, fog, or snow, the
acidity of the deposition can corrode various materials and
cause damage to both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. S02
can also transform into PM2.S, the effects of which are
discussed above.
b. Monetized Air Quality Benefits
Table VIII-5 below presents both the health and welfare
benefits described in this section as well as the emission
reductions identified in Section VII.B.I 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
482
-------
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
NOX
VOC
PM
CO
SO2
Total
Standard
MACT I
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
(1,040)
- 1,054
MACT II
Decrease
(Mg)
2,600
-
(500)
32,600
24,000
58,000
-s. 3 0
'>T '
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
benefits values.
Numbers in table rounded.
negative
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
483
-------
revising the ozone national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) (see docket no. A-95-58: Regulatory Impact Analysis
for the Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS and proposed
Regional Haze Rule; July 1997). EPA values a range of VOC
benefits reflecting (1) an assumption that the transfer of
benefits must correlate with the areas that violate the
ozone standard, and (2) an assumption that recognizes that
reductions outside areas of violation of the ozone standard
can have a positive benefit. Therefore, the range of values
reflects the application of a range of values for the
average benefit per Mg as they are applied to (1) the subset
of VOC emission reductions in areas of violation, and (2) to
all VOC emission reductions expected to be achieved by the
integrated rule. The true value is likely to fall within
this range. Using the range of values of the average
benefit per Mg for ozone, monetized annual VOC benefits of
MACT I emission reductions range from $24 million to $1,055
million. The lower-end of this range reflects an assumption
of zero mortality effects associated with ozone exposure and
assumes morbidity benefits occur only in areas predicted to
violate the ozone standard, while the upper-end includes
484
-------
mortality estimates as are calculated for the upper-end of
the range of ozone benefits in included in the NAAQS RIA and
assumes morbidity benefits occur in all areas. For the
proposed MACT II alternative, total annual VOC benefits
range in value from approximately $2 million to $84 million.
Therefore, total monetized VOC benefits of the integrated
rule are approximately $26 million to $1,139 million.
For PM, a benefit transfer estimate is obtained from
a benefit analysis of PM10 that was prepared to support the
evaluation of the revised PM NAAQS (see Appendix C of.the
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Particulate Matter and
Ozone NAAQS and proposed Regional Haze Rule; July 1997).
The average benefit per Mg derived from this study is
applied to all changes in emissions of PM that result from
the integrated rule. Using this value, the loss in total
monetized annual PM benefits associated with MACT I is
approximately $1 million. The proposed MACT II alternative
achieves a positive benefit approximately equal to $300
million. Thus the combined value of PM benefits for the
final and proposed pulp and paper air standards is $299
million.
485
-------
For SO2, the EPA transfers a benefit estimate from a
national S02 strategy analysis conducted for the evaluation
of the revised PM NAAQS (see docket no. A-95-54: Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS
and proposed Regional Haze Rule; July 1997). This analysis
shows that benefit values are higher in the eastern regions
of the country when compared to the western regions.
Therefore, EPA derives a range of benefit per Mg values for
each segment of the country. In addition, EPA takes into
consideration the uncertainty inherent in the estimate of
MACT I SO2 emission increases that may result from the MJ±
rulemaking. Therefore for MACT I, EPA values all SO2
emission increases to obtain a lower bound estimate of
(negative) benefits and assumes zero emission increases due
to the likely effects of mitigating behavior to obtain an
upper bound estimate of zero disbenefits. For MACT II, all
emission reductions are valued. Using the range of values
for the average benefit per Mg for SO2 and the assumptions
for the changes in emissions, monetized annual SO2
disbenefits of MACT I range from $1,064 million down to $0.
For the proposed MACT II alternative, total annual SO2
486
-------
benefits are from approximately $0.1 to $0.3 million.
Therefore, total monetized SO2 benefits (disbenefits) of the
integrated rule are approximately ($1,064) million to $0.3
million.
Summing the monetized benefits and disbenefits for VOC,
PM, and SO2 emission changes provides a range of total
annual benefits (disbenefits) for MACT I of approximately
($1,040) million to $1,054 million. Aggregate annual
benefits attributed to MACT II range in value from $302
million to $384 million. Combining the benefits of the
final and proposed air standards yields a range of total
annual benefits from approximately ($739) million to $1,438
million.
These benefits are incomplete due to EPA's inability to
quantify many benefit and disbenefit categories including
individual health and welfare endpoints as well as the
benefits and disbenefits of controlling entire pollutant
categories. Pollutant categories that are not monetized are
HAPs, TRS, CO, and NOX.
c. Uncertainties Associated With Air Quality Benefits
Benefit per Mg estimates used to monetize PM and VOC
487
-------
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
488
-------
aquatic habitats, affect aquatic life, and adversely impact
human health. See Section VII.B.2. Chlorinated organic
compounds from chlorine bleaching, particularly 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) are human carcinogens and
human systemic toxicants and are toxic to aquatic life.
These pollutants are persistent, resistant to
biodegradation, and bioaccumulative in aquatic organisms.
As of December 1995, states have issued 19 dioxin/furan-
related fish consumption advisories near 18 papergrade
sulfite and bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills (EPA,
National Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories,. June 1996).
EPA's analysis of these environmental and human health
risk concerns and the water-related benefits resulting from
the final effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
these two subcategories is contained in the "Water Quality
Assessment of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the
Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategories of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry"
(WQA) . (DCN 14650) .
a. Qualitative Description of Water-Related Benefits
489
-------
The final BAT limitations and PSES promulgated today .
for Subparts B and E will benefit aquatic life by reducing
the pulp and paper industry's discharge of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants, including a 91 percent reduction
in TCDD and TCDF, a 69 percent reduction in AOX, an 83
percent reduction in chloroform, and an 82 percent reduction
in chlorinated phenolic pollutants compared to mid-1995
discharge levels. Toxic and nonconventional pollutants will
be reduced to levels below those considered to impact biota
in many receiving waters. Pollution reduction numbers are
provided in Section VII.B.2. Such impacts include acute and
chronic toxicity, sublethal effects on metabolic and
reproductive functions, and loss of prey organisms.
Chemical contamination of aquatic biota may also directly
and indirectly impact local pescivorous wildli.fe 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
490
-------
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.
491
-------
(1) Fish Consumption Cancer Risks and Non-cancer
Hazards
Upper-bound individual cancer risk, aggregate risk, and
non-cancer hazards from consuming contaminated fish are
estimated for recreational, subsistence, and Native American
subsistence anglers. At proposal, concentrations of
carcinogenic and systemic toxicants in fish were estimated
using two site-specific models --a simple dilution model
and EPA's draft Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation model
(DRE)(DCN 14650). For the final rule, EPA used only the DRE
model to estimate TCDD and TCDF levels in fish below 92
mills discharging into 73 receiving streams, as well as
individual cancer risks and non-cancer hazards. Of these
mills, two in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory discharge through the same pipe and therefore
were treated as a single discharger. As a result, a total
of 91 discharges from 92 mills were evaluated for the water
quality assessment. EPA continues to use the simple
dilution model to evaluate other chlorinated organics (i.e.,
three carcinogens and four systemic toxicants). EPA
believes the DRE approach provides more reliable estimates
492
-------
of dioxin and furan fate and transport in.the environment
for use in human health assessments. The reasons for
relying exclusively on the ORE for assessing impacts due to
dioxin and furan are explained in greater detail in 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" (CSEII), 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
493
-------
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.
494
-------
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
495
-------
total population of the tribes with treaty-ceded fishing
rights near pulp and paper mills consumed an average of
7Og/person/day of TCDD/TCDF contaminated fish. The
projected number of increased cancer cases for this
population under baseline conditions due to pulp and paper
discharges is 0.14 annual cancer cases. EPA estimates this
number would decline to 0.008 excess cancer cases per year
after implementation of the final BAT/PSES.
With respect to non-cancer benefits, EPA examined the
current discharge of four pollutants that have reference
doses (RfDs) contained in EPA/s Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS). The four pollutants are chloroform,
pentachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, and 2,4,5-
trichlorophenol. The RfD represents an estimate, with
uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude, of daily
exposure -- expressed in milligrams per kilogram of body
weight per day (mg/kg/day) -- that is likely to be without
an appreciable risk of deleterious effects to a given
population during a lifetime. (EPA notes that this analysis
considers only the contribution of Subpart B and E pulp and
paper current discharge effluent to the RfD; the
496
-------
contribution from other sources (background level of
exposure) is not evaluated.)
For the four pollutants with RfDs in IRIS, EPA used the
simple dilution model to determine fish tissue
concentrations. EPA then estimated whether human
consumption of fish by recreational, subsistence, and Native
American subsistence populations exposed to the pollutants
below pulp and paper mills would exceed a chemical-specific
noncancer hazard quotient of 1.0. Hazard quotients are
based on the relationship between fish tissue
concentrations, . fish consumption, and RfDs. If a hazard
quotient exceeds 1.0, adverse effects might occur. None of
the four pollutants with RfDs in IRIS is estimated to exceed
a non-cancer hazard quotient of 1.0 under baseline or
BAT/PSES conditions for recreational, subsistence, or Native
American subsistence anglers.
EPA did not use the reference dose (RfD) approach to
evaluate potential noncancer effects associated with
dioxin/furan. The use of an RfD for dioxin/furan presents
special problems. If EPA were to establish an RfD for
dioxin/furan using the standard conventions of uncertainty,
497
-------
the RfD value would likely be one to two orders of magnitude
below average background population exposure. As stated
above, the RfD is a level that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk; it is not an "action level" or exposure
level where non-cancer effects are predicted. Where the RfD
is below background levels, and where effects are not
readily apparent at background levels, it is not appropriate
to use the RfD for quantifying benefits.
As an alternative to using the RfD, EPA evaluated
potential noncancer effects of dioxin/furan by comparing the
modeled incremental exposure of dioxin/furan from fish
consumption (based on results from the DRE model) to
estimated ambient background levels (i.e., 120 picograms of
toxic equivalents/day (pgTEQ/day))- EPA estimates that
a*
adverse impacts associated witft 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
498
-------
background exposure by an order of magnitude for two mills,
with the size of the exposed population ranging from 4,910
to 16,205 recreational and subsistence anglers. The
selected BAT/PSES are projected to reduce the incremental
exposure from fish consumption to a level that was not
significantly different from estimated ambient background
exposure. The size of the recreational and subsistence
angler population exposed to dioxin/furan doses exceeding
one order of magnitude greater than the background level
would be zero under the selected BAT/PSES.
For Native American subsistence populations with
treaty-ceded fishing rights, the maximum dioxin/furan
exposure under baseline conditions is projected to be 803
pgTEQ/day. Under the selected-BAT/PSES, the maximum
exposure is reduced to 39 pgTEQ/day, 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
499
-------
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
500
-------
organisms only under baseline conditions or under the final
rule. With respect to the ingestion of water and organisms,
at baseline, three mills exceed AWQCs for two pollutants,
chloroform and pentachlorophenol (a total of four
exceedances). Under the rule, only one mill exceeds AWQCs
(for pentachlorophenol).
EPA did not estimate exceedances of AWQCs for dioxin
and furan because the simple dilution model is not well-
suited for use in estimating human health effects associated
with water column concentrations of hydrophobic chemicals
like dioxin and furan. EPA did not use the DRE model for
this analysis for dioxin/furan because results of the DRE
model would not be comparable with AWQCs.
(4) Aquatic Life Benefits
EPA used the simple dilution approach to estimate
exceedances of aquatic life AWQCs. This is a conservative
approach that assumes all pollutants (including dioxin and
furan) discharged to receiving streams are available to the
biota. Although hydrophobic chemicals such as dioxins and
furans will be associated primarily with suspended
particulates and sediments, some concentrations will also be
501
-------
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
502
-------
aquatic life or recreational benefits depending on the
natural color of the receiving water, but they are not
quantifiable or monetizable at this time.
c. Monetization of Water Quality Benefits
Monetized benefits of the final BAT/PSES for mills in
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade
Sulfite subcategories are presented in Table VIII-6. EPA
has monetized the human health benefits resulting from
elimination of 0.73 to 2.41 cancer cases per year for the
nation as a whole (see Section VIII.F.2.b.(1)). The
projected benefits range from $2 million to $22 million.
EPA estimates the value to anglers of contaminant-free
fisheries as a result of lifting 16 of the 19 dioxin/furan-
related fish consumption advisories to be $2 million to $19
million. (Because these values are based on a benefits
transfer from a study of contamination of the Great Lakes
trout and salmon fishery, which may differ greatly from some
of the areas affected by this rule, these values provide
only a general sense of the magnitude of the benefits of the
rule.) Because non-dioxin/furan fish consumption advisories
(PCBs and mercury) will remain in place on three streams,
503
-------
EPA did not monetize this benefits of removing the
dioxin/furan fish consumption advisories on these streams.
EPA also estimates that recreational fishing would increase
*
on the 16 streams by 115,000 angling days to 379,000 angling
days post-compliance. However, the monetary value of this
increase is not estimated because of the difficulty of
determining the extent to which this increased participation
reflects a net increase in fishing activity or merely a
shift from other locations (see the Economic Analysis, DCN
14649, Chapter 4).
Because of dioxin/furan removals due to compliance with ^^
BAT limitations and PSES, sludge from pulp and paper mills
may be disposed of through land application, instead of more
costly landfilling or incineration. (Pursuant to a January
1994 Memorandum of Agreement between EPA and the American .
Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), a maximum dioxin/furan
concentration of 50 ppt is allowed for land application of
sludge or a sludge-derived product. See DCN 14399) . Mill
sludge disposal costs could be expected to decline by $8
million to $16 million. EPA estimated these values based on
the reduced tonnage of expected dioxin/furan-contaminated
504
-------
sludge, which in'turn was based on the proportional
reduction of dioxin/furan in effluent (see the Economic
Analysis, DCN 14649, Chapter 8).
Total monetized water-related benefits for all the
above categories range from $12 million to $57 million.
As noted previously, the above estimates do not include
1 *
the benefits that have been identified but not monetized,
such as health effects for Native American subsistence
fishermen, reduction in AWQC exceedances, reduction of
projected non-cancer effects and improvements in fish and
wildlife habitat.
Table VIII-6
Monetized Water Quality Benefits of Final BAT/PSES
for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
and Papergrade Sulfite Mills
Benefit Category
Water- related Benefits
Human health
(recreational fish
consumption)
Recreational angling
"Contaminant -free" fishery
Increased participation
Reduced Sludge Disposal
Total Water-related Benefits
+ Positive benefits expected but
Costs
Final BAT/PSES
(millions 1995$)
$2 - $22
$2 - $19
+
$8 - $16
$12 - $57
not estimated.
505
-------
H. Comparison of Costs and Benefits
This section provides the individual and combined
costs, economic impacts, and benefits of the proposed and
final CAA and CWA pulp and paper regulations described in
earlier sections. See Table VIII-7. The costs and benefits
of the CAA (MACT) rules apply to all 155 kraft, soda,
*
sulfite and semi-chemical mills subject to final or proposed
MACT requirements, while the costs and benefits for the
final CWA (BAT/PSES) regulations apply to the 96 mills in
the Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategories.
Using the pre-tax annualized cost estimates reported in
Section VIII.C, net monetized air-related benefits are
estimated to range between net costs of $1,165 million to
net benefits of $929 million per year for the final MACT I
rule considered in combination with the pre-tax annualized
cost estimates for the final BAT/PSES. Pre-tax annualized
cost estimates are used as a proxy for the social costs of .
the rules. Net benefits of the proposed regulatory
alternative for MACT II are $270 million to $352 million.
Thus, the range of net benefits (disbenefits) of the final
506
-------
.
d
o
-H
rH
rH
-H
S
H
00
CO
..
H
CO*
O
4J
rH
0
-H
, 1
i^n
rH
-H
E
^
u>
OT
00
CO-
** -
CQ
-H
CQ
d
rd
d
d
4J
CQ
r*1
j_)
-H
rH
rd
^
D1
<._[
H
rd
-d
CD
CQ
o
ft
o
ft
rj-J
d
rd
CD
Cj
4-)
^_J
O
4-1
CO
pr]
CO
DH
EH
rtj
CQ
rH
rd
d
H
4-1
CD
4J
O
4-1
CQ
4-)
-H
4-1
CD
d
CD
43
4->
(D
d
i
r-n
rd
d
d
rd
CD
jj
rd
H
-H
4J
CQ
d)
j i
0
d
d
-H
*d
^
PH
O
CQ
CD
CQ
^
rd
u
CD
43
CQ
CD
-H
r-l
O
Cn
4-1
rd
U
43
^
CQ
rd
Tf
O
CO
d
d
rd
4J
4-4
rd
rH
r^H
CD
d
rd
^_]
tn
M
CD
rd
d
CD
41
rj
rd
CD
rH
PQ
d
d
rd
CD
4-)
-H
4-1
rH
£J
CO
CD
*d
rd
rH
fjl
CD
ft
rd
OH
rji
d
-H
T3
rd
CD
rH
CQ
-H
£
CD
43
'd
rH
rjj
0
d
o
CQ
-H
4J
rd
4-3
TJ
CD
N
H
4J
CD
d
o
s
d
CD
M
rd
CQ
4->
-H
4-1
CD
d
CD
43
4-1
0
CQ
CD
-H
5-4
O
in
CD
4-)
rd
u
><
d
rd
E
c-
i
H
H
H
8
(Q
4J
a
S
b ^
-
|
g s
.5 =
2 «
S
o
U
S - .
1
f
r>
rH
to-
*
01
in
H
to-
m
rH
ta-
rn
o
o\
in
to-
co
01
to-
o
in
a
a
S
rH
US
-rl
s-
U
0
PI
vr>
ro
rH
ro
eg
r~
in
"S
ta-
in
(S
rH
W-
Pre-Tax
Annualized
Costs*
in
Ol
*
rH
to-
r*
01
c~
H
rH
H
rH
rH
1
CO
o
rH
O
** r-
2 **
to-
1 CO
3 5
-------
n
n
M
H
H
o
o
Projected Mill
Cloauroo
o
0
o
H O OJ H
(!) X 0
U O H i)
ra o< u
1) 01 0)
LI i) O rH
On ra .u 14-1
O 0)
0) U TJ 'O M
H 0)0)
*Pre-tax costs a
Net costs (where
HE = not estimat
ND = not disclos
Figures in table
oo
o
10
-------
Os
O
10
-------
I. Costs and Benefits of Rejected Options for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory - Option B and
TCP
1. Air Benefits
As noted in Section VIII.F.I, 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 where oxygen delignification is
utilized. (As noted above, only VOC, PM, and SO2 benefits
are monetized here.) However, because the MACT I
technologies control all of the increased emissions
..'«>
associated with oxygen deligniftication, 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
510
-------
million to $1,050 million. MACT II VOG 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
II PM benefits are $300 million for a total PM benefit of
approximately $299 million, for either Option B or TCP. S02
related disbenefits for MACT I are from $1,043 million down
to $0, while MACT II SO2 benefits are from $0.1 to $0.3
million.
Total monetized benefits (disbenefits) for MACT I are
($1,015) million to $1,049 million under BAT/PSES Option B
or TCP (see the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649, Chapter 8).
Aggregate annual benefits attributed to MACT II range in
value from $302 million to $384 million. Combining the
benefits of the final and proposed air quality standards
yields a range of total annual air quality benefits
(damages) from ($713) million to $1,433 million.
2. Water Benefits
The water quality benefits described in this section
include benefits for rejected BAT/PSES options for the
511
-------
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory in
combination with benefits for the selected BAT/PSES for the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. (Benefits for the two CWA
subcategories were also combined in Section VIII.G.2 foar 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 VIII.G.2.b(1), excess
cancer cases refers to cancer cases attributable solely to
pulp and paper dioxin/furan discharges. This represents a
reduction of 90 percent from baseline. The monetized value
of this reduction is $2 to $23 million. TCP is projected to
result in a reduction from the mid-1995 discharge baseline
512
-------
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-ceded fishing
rights near pulp and paper mills would consume an average of
7Og/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.
513
-------
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
VIII.G.2.c, EPA did not monetize the benefits of removing
the dioxin/furan fish consumption advisories on these
streams. EPA estimates the value to anglers of the 16
"contaminant-free" fisheries as a result of removing these
advisories to be $2 million to $19 million. EPA also
estimates that recreational fishing would increase on these
16 streams by an estimated 115,000 angling days to 379,000
angling days post-compliance. However, the monetary value
of this increase is not estimated because of the difficulty
of determining the extent to which this increased
participation reflects an 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,
514
-------
Chapter 8). ; ;
With respect to non-cancer human health benefits, none
of the four pollutants with RfDs is estimated to exceed a
non-cancer hazard quotient of 1.0 under baseline or under
conditions 'associated with rejected Option B for
recreational, subsistence, or Native American subsistence
anglers. The same is true for the selected BAT/PSES.
Similarly, Option B would reduce projected health-based AWQC
exceedances to one facility for one pollutant
(pentachlorophenol). Under 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 TCF, chlorine and chlorinated compounds are not used
for bleaching, and therefore no dioxin was attributed to
mills under this option.
With respect to aquatic life benefits, EPA's modeling
results show that, for the four pollutants exceeding chronic
aquatic life criteria at 19 mills (up to 25 total
exceedances), rejected Option B would reduce these
515
-------
exceedences to one pollutant (TCDD) at three mills (three
total exceedences). TCP would reduce these exeeedances to
zero.
In addition to the benefits of reducing dioxin in fish,
EPA investigated other potential benefits associated with
Option B and TCP, including color, COD, AOX, and chronic
sub-lethal toxicity.
Increased color in a receiving water can decrease light
penetration there, thus resulting in shifts of phytoplankton
community structure to undesirable species, reduced primary
productivity (which can alter the trophic structure of fish
communities), and elevated receiving stream temperatures.
However, the actual impact on the receiving water of
reducing color in mill effluent is highly site-specific and
depends in particular on the natural color of the receiving
water and other factors. Therefore, the monetized benefits
will also be site-specific, to the extent that they can be
determined at all. EPA is not promulgating national
technology-based limitations or standards for color, but
rather has determined that the potential aesthetic or
aquatic impacts are best addressed on a site-specific basis
516
-------
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. Several studies indicate that, as
wastewater COD is reduced, indices of these chronic toxicity
effects also are reduced. EPA is deferring regulation of
COD to the individual.permitting process for the time being,
although EPA intends to promulgate effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for COD for Subpart B mills in the
future. See Section VI.B.3.d.
Although a statistically significant relationship
between AOX and adverse environmental effects has not, been
established, EPA believes that reduction of AOX (a valid
517
-------
in water quality benefits. See Section VI.B.3.C. However,
these cannot be quantified at this time.
Compared to current discharges, the incremental
benefits associated with OD (Option B) include: reduction of
color (by 40 percent); COD (by 40 percent); AOX (by 84
percent); and chronic sub-lethal aquatic toxicity. 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 VIII-8. ^t
518
-------
Table VIII-8
Monetized Water Quality Benefits of Rejected BAT/PSES
Options for Bleached Papergrade Kraft 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
-t^t
Option B for all 155 mills regrllated by today's rule,
including final MACT I, proposed MACT II and BAT/PSES based
on Option B, would total ($701) million to $1,491 million.
Combined annual air and water benefits related to TCF,
including final MACT I, proposed MACT II and BAT/PSES based
on TCF would total ($701) million.to $1,493 million.
519
-------
J. Benefit1Cost Comparison Using Case Studies
Many benefits are highly site-specific. At proposal,
EPA estimated the costs and benefits of the pulp and paper
rule at three sites using a case study approach. EPA has
expanded the case study analysis to incorporate additional
sites. The case studies focus on water quality benefits,
resulting from installation of BAT/PSES technologies, with
air quality benefits modeled for case study mills as they
are at the national level (see Section VIII.G.I, 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
520
-------
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
521
-------
the retrospective assessment of BAT/PSES costs and benefits.
Where mills have installed BAT-like technologies, capital
investments may include: 70 percent to 100 percent
substitution; oxygen delignification plus 100 percent
substitution; and/or totally chlorine-free technologies.
EPA evaluated control cost estimates and air benefits
for emission controls necessary to meet the MACT I and II
standards on a prospective basis, assuming the level of
controls currently existing at mills in the case study areas
as a baseline.
As with the national-level analysis, significant water- ,4^,
V
related benefits are derived from removal of dioxin/furan
from fish, and air-related benefits from improved
agriculture arid 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-
522
-------
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 unquan-tified and unmonetized.
Benefits and costs for the case studies are summarized
and compared in Table VII.I-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
523
-------
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 percent to 170 percent, of
water-related costs.
The case studies were not selected to be, and are not
necessarily, representative of national benefits with
respect to air quality.
Table VIII-9
Comparison of Potential Annual Benefits to Potential
Annualized Costs for Seven Case Study Sites
(Millions of 1995 dollars)
Site
Water-
Related
Benefits
Air-Related
Benefits13
MACT I
MACT II
Total
Monetized
Benefits
Total
Compliance
Costs"
Original Case Studies
Penobscot River
Wisconsin River
Lower Columbia
River
$0.7-$2.3
$0.1-$1.5
$1.5-$8.6
($9.5)-7,7
($16.9)-
15.5
($26.9)-
56.2
$0.1
$2.1
$0.7
($8.8) -10.0
($16.8)-
17.1
($25.4)-
64.8
c
$9.3
$16.6
Newer Case Studies
Lower Tombigbee
and Mobile
Rivers
Pigeon River
$1.1-$12.0
$2.7-$8.7
($136.8)-
113.2
($5.8)-
$5.7
$81.7
$2.1
($135.7)-
$125.2
($3.1)-
$14.4
$32.5
c $7.1
524
-------
Samoa Peninsula
Upper Columbia
River/Lake
Roosevelt
$0.1-$1.4
$1.5-$11.6
($5.0)-
10. r
NA
$0.0
NA
($4.9)-
$11.5
$1.5-$11.6
d $5.0
$3.0
aThe total compliance costs shown in this Table (for BAT/PSES, MACT I and
proposed MACT II Option #1) differ from compliance costs usedto determine
economic achievability. The cost estimates for the case studies were based
on custom analysis of technology in-place corresponding to the case study
'timeframes. In contrast, estimates used to determine economic achievability
used a standard mid-1995 baseline for technology in-place
bBased on implementation of technologies consistent with Option A.
cConfidentiality agreements preclude disclosure of total costs for this
site.
dThis mill has indicated EPA's cost estimate is too high because EPA did not
fully account for technology in-place.
NA Not applicable.
IX. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements
A. The Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program
1. Introduction
EPA is promulgating BAT limitations today that will
achieve significant pollutant reductions using technologies
within the economic capability of the subcategory as a
whole. At the same time, EPA wants to encourage the
widespread use and perfection of technologies such as
extended delignification and to promote the development of
even more advanced technologies, such as those aimed at
reducing bleach plant flow. EPA also wants to encourage the
525
-------
widespread use and perfection of TCP processes. These
technologies and processes have the ability to surpass the
environmental protection that would be provided by
compliance with the baseline BAT. Indeed, EPA's vision of
long-term environmental goals for the pulp and paper
industry includes continuing research and progress toward
such environmental improvement. The Agency believes that
individual mills can be encouraged to make substantial
environmental progress beyond the base level compelled by-
law. This industry's participation in the 33/50 program,
its progress toward reducing toxic discharges in advance of
the proposed BAT revisions, its joint initiative with the
U.S. Department of Energy to,reduce future energy demands,
and its development and implementation of the Sustainable
Forestry Initiative, among other voluntary environmental
undertakings, indicate that an incentives program may be
widely accepted and utilized by individual mills.
For this reason, EPA is establishing a Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program to encourage mills in
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory to move
beyond today's baseline BAT technologies toward the "mill of
526
-------
the future," which EPA believes will have a minimum impact
on the environment. EPA also intends the program to serve
as a pilot program for determining the effectiveness of
regulatory incentives as a means of stimulating development
of environmentally beneficial technologies. As a result of
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, EPA
hopes to achieve within sixteen years greater pollutant
reductions than it could achieve solely by establishing a
technological floor. Indeed, the development of
increasingly more advanced bleach plant process technologies
is a critical step toward the Clean Water Act's ultimate
goal of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into the
Nation's waters. See CWA Section 101(a)(1).
The BAT program under the Clean Water Act is widely and
justifiably applauded as a critical tool in forcing the
development and installation of environmentally beneficial
technologies. The statute demands progress toward the goal
of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants, CWA Section
301(b)(2)(A), but emphasizes that that progress must be
"reasonable." Id. This Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program marries the twin objectives embodied in
527
-------
Section 301(b)(2)(A): compelling the industry to go as far
as it reasonably can go, through the achievement of limits
that are technically and economically achievable, while
holding out through the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program an array of alternative effluent limits
that EPA believes will lead to zero discharge. The baseline
BAT limitations discharge EPA's statutory mandate: to
promulgate limitations based on the best available
technology economically achievable. The Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program, in turn, promotes EPA's
statutory goal: to establish limitations that act as a
beacon to show what is possible.
EPA is codifying three tiers of Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT effluent limitations and two tiers of
Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS, which together form the
backbone of the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory. The three BAT tiers are labeled Tier I, Tier
II and Tier III; the two NSPS tiers are labeled Tier II and
Tier III. Tier III is the most stringent of the tiers.
Each BAT tier is made up of an array of increasingly more
528
-------
stringent enforceable effluent limitations, culminating in
the ultimate performance requirements for that particular
tier. The NSPS tiers consist entirely of the ultimate
performance requirements for each tier. In addition to the
Voluntary Advanced Technology effluent limitations and NSPS
codified today, EPA has also assembled a number of
incentives relating to permitting and enforcement matters
and public recognition. EPA hopes these incentives will
encourage many mills to develop and install advanced and
even innovative technologies that will lead the industry as
a whole toward the elimination of pollutant discharges.
EPA believes it is appropriate as a matter of policy to
offer mills incentives to reach beyond the baseline BAT and
NSPS process technologies. Capital costs associated with
the Tier I technology are substantially greater than the
capital costs of Option A, which is the technology basis for
the baseline BAT limits. Although over ten years a mill
employing Tier I technologies will likely save money in
operating costs, the capital outlay involved may discourage
mills from doing more than the regulatory minimum. For
Tiers II and III, the costs and risks are even more acute,
529
-------
when one considers the cost of research, development, and
full scale commercial trials of technologies in the early
stages of development and implementation, as well as the
associated uncertainties concerning possible product
impacts. EPA is interested in encouraging research,
development and installation of emerging technologies in
order to motivate the development of these technologies for
broader commercial applications. As these technologies
become proven and their efficiencies publicized, EPA hopes
that they will become--in effect if not as a matter of law--
the industry floor. Thus, EPA believes it is in the public
interest to encourage mills today to develop environmentally
beneficial technology and to reward mills that are
innovative and forward-looking in their use of new and more
environmentally effective technology despite its greater
cost.
EPA received suggestions for an incentives program from
a number of stakeholders. From these and other stakeholder
suggestions, EPA has developed a program, presented below,
that is intended to provide incentives for further long term
environmental improvements. EPA is incorporating several
530
-------
types of incentives in this program. In addition, because
mill-specific factors, including product specifications and
existing equipment, will affect the technical approach taken
and the environmental goal attainable by an individual mill,
EPA is establishing several tiers of Advanced Technology
performance objectives, each with limitations and standards
specific to the model technology EPA is positing. In order
to promote ambitious use of Advanced Technologies, EPA is
offering greater incentives for greater reductions in
pollutant discharge.
EPA recognizes that some mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory have already installed
or have committed to install Advanced Technologies that are
achieving or have the potential to achieve effluent
limitations equivalent to the ultimate performance
requirements of one or more of the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentive Tiers. If these mills accept
enforceable NPDES permit limitations at one of the Tier
levels, they will qualify for the incentives program at that
level. In some instances, therefore, the incentives will
actually serve as rewards for effluent reductions already
531
-------
achieved.
2. Mechanics of the Incentives Program
The Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory will
supplement the otherwise compulsory baseline BAT and NSPS
program. EPA emphasizes that the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program is entirely voluntary; no mill
in Subpart B is required to participate. Rather, mills
subject to the baseline BAT limits and NSPS contained in
Subpart B may enroll in the incentives program and thus
subject themselves to more stringent technology-based
limitations corresponding to the Incentives Tier they
select. For example, a mill that determines that it can
achieve Tier II limits may designate itself as a BAT Tier II
mill. A mill with more than one fiber line subject to
Subpart B may choose to enroll all or some of its fiber
lines in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program. A mill wishing to experiment with advanced or even
innovative bleaching technologies also may choose different
Tiers for different fiber lines. After the mill enrolls in
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, the
532
-------
permit writer must place the corresponding BAT limitations
in the mill's permit. Achievement of the Advanced
Technology BAT limitations thereafter would be compulsory
for that mill. A mill that chooses not to participate in
the program will receive the baseline BAT limitations or
NSPS; similarly, a mill that chooses to enroll some but not
all of its Subpart B fiber lines in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program will receive baseline BAT
limitations or NSPS for its non-participating fiber lines.
EPA expects that an interested mill would formally
enroll in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program prior to issuance of its next NPDES discharge
permit. Enrollment can be made by indicating the mill's
intent on its permit application or through separate
correspondence to the permitting authority as long as the
signatory requirements of 40 CFR 122.22 are met. However,
as discussed in more detail in Section IX.A.7 below, EPA
assumes that most mills, for practical purposes, will decide
whether to participate in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program in the next year in order to assure that
they will have the maximum amount of time to achieve the
533
-------
various Tier limitations and to receive the additional
compliance time for MACT, established under these rules for
mills enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technolpgy
Incentives Program. Any mill can voluntarily enter at any
tier appropriate to its individual circumstances. Further,
mills that enter either at Tier I or Tier II may decide,
after making such a commitment in permits but before
termination of the appropriate compliance period (i.e., not
later than six years after publication of these rules - Tier
I, or not later than 11 years after publication of these
rules - Tier II), to commit to the requirements of a more
stringent tier (i.e., Tier II or Tier III). Such mills will
be subject to the deadlines specified in the regulation for
the newly chosen tier.
i
-*"=°^ -.
Existing dischargers volunteering to participate in the
incentives program would receive BAT limitations that become
progressively more stringent over time. Although applied in
stages, the limitations represent a continuum of progress
that a participating mill commits, and is required, to
achieve. At the first stage in the continuum are
limitations for the enrolled fiber line that reflect either
534
-------
a mill's existing effluent quality or its current
technology-based permit limits for the BAT parameters,
whichever are more stringent. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(1) . For
the bleach plant parameters, such as dioxin, existing
effluent quality would be determined at the bleach plant,
while existing effluent quality for AOX would be determined
at the end of the pipe based on loadings attributable to
that fiber line. Id. The next stage in the continuum
consists of enforceable interim milestones. Under one set
of milestones, existing dischargers enrolled in Tiers II or
III are required to meet interim BAT limitations equivalent
to the baseline BAT limitations by [insert date six years
from publication date] . 40 CFR 430.24 (b) (3) . (By that
date, dischargers enrolled are required to meet the baseline
BAT limitations for all pollutants, except for Tier I; the
AOX limitation for mills enrolled in Tier I is the ultimate
performance requirement for Tier I.- Id.) Under the second
set of milestones, existing dischargers enrolled in any tier
are required to meet enforceable requirements determined by
the permitting authority based on best professional
judgment; these milestones would be expressed as narrative
535
-------
or numeric conditions in the mill's NPDES permit. 40 CFR
430.24(b)(2). EPA intends the milestones to reflect each
step in a mill's progress toward achievement of the Tier's
ultimate performance requirements. Elsewhere in today's
Federal Register, EPA is proposing to require each
participating mill to submit to its permitting authority a
plan detailing the steps it plans to take (with
corresponding dates) in order to meet its applicable BAT
Tier limitations. Under the proposed regulation, permit
writers would be authorized to use the information in the
milestone plan as a basis for setting milestone limitations.
The final stage in the BAT continuum represents the ultimate
Advanced Technology performance levels for the Tier
selected. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). As noted above, the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program is also
available for new sources that elect to exceed baseline NSPS
requirements. See 40 CFR 430.25 (c). For new sources (as
defined at 430.01 (j)), the incentives program begins at Tier
II. The ultimate Tier II and Tier III performance
requirements constitute NSPS for such mills, with the
addition of standards for conventional pollutants at the
536 W
-------
baseline NSPS level. See 40 CFR 430.25(c)(1) and (2). The
NSPS Tier II and Tier III performance requirements are the
same as the ultimate BAT Tier II and Tier III performance
,-*
requirements for BAT. As required by CWA Section 306, new
«
sources must comply with the applicable NSPS upon commencing
operation; therefore, the incremental approach of achieving
progressively more stringent performance levels discussed
above for existing sources would not apply to new sources
enrolled in the incentives program.
In addition to Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limitations and NSPS, the NPDES permit of a mill enrolled in
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program will
need to contain all other permit limitations and conditions
otherwise applicable to the mill, including any conventional
pollutant limitations and standards, any water quality-based
effluent limitations required under CWA Section
301(b)(1)(C), and best management practices provisions,
including those promulgated today. Schedules for complying
with those requirements, if any, are determined by the
applicable law; nothing in this incentives program alters in
any way those compliance deadlines.
537
-------
Because mills enrolling in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program are subject to more stringent
BAT limitations and NSPS than EPA could otherwise compel
through national effluent limitations guidelines, EPA has
assembled a package of rewards and incentives for
participating mills. The public recognition incentive is
available as soon as a mill accepts Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT limitations in its NPDES permit. The reduced
monitoring incentive applicable to dioxin, furan, chloroform
and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants is available as
soon as participating mills achieve those limitations. See
40 CFR 430.02(c). The reduced monitoring incentive
applicable to AOX is available only after the ultimate
Advanced Technology performance level for that pollutant is
achieved. See 40 CFR 430.02(d) and (e). The remaining
incentives/ including greater permit certainty, reduced
inspections, and reduced penalties, are available only cifter
the mill achieves all of the ultimate. Advanced Technology
performance levels.
EPA has decided not to make the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program available to indirect
538
-------
discharges at this time because it would be much more
difficult to administer than the baseline PSES program and
therefore would impose substantial burden on local
governments. Further, EPA does not believe that commitments
by indirect dischargers to reduce AOX or flow levels
warrants any delay in compliance with limitations on dioxin
and furan due to POTW pass-through and biosolids
contamination concerns. Similarly, EPA has not identified
feasible technologies beyond BAT that can significantly
reduce pollutant discharges from mills in the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory at this time, and so is not able to
develop an incentives program for this subcategory.
Moreover, stakeholders have offered no specific suggestions
or supporting information and data upon which EPA reasonably
could develop a program for the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory. However, EPA will consider developing
incentive programs for other subcategories as BAT
limitations are promulgated for those subcategories.
3. The Technology Bases for the Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT Limitations and NSPS
In order to determine the appropriate Voluntary
539
-------
Advanced Technology BAT limitations and NSPS, EPA first
selected a model technology for each Tier. For Tier I,
which applies only to BAT, EPA determined that the most
appropriate technology was extended delignification with
complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental
chlorine, closing up wastewater discharges from the fiber
line prior to bleaching, and efficient biological wastewater
treatment. EPA selected this technology basis because it is
available today (see discussion of BAT Option B and NSPS
technology in Section VLB.5. (a) and (b) ) , because it is
economically achievable for mills voluntarily choosing to
implement it (see Section IX.A.6), and because it represents
an important step in the direction of a minimum impact mill.
The model technology for Tier II Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT limitations and NSPS consists of extended
delignification with complete substitution of chlorine
dioxide for elemental chlorine, supplemented with increased
use of water conservation practices, water reuse practices,
bleach plant filtrate recycling practices, and efficient
biological wastewater treatment. EPA anticipates that Tier
II mills will maximize the capability of extended
540
-------
delignification technology, thereby reducing the amount of
chlorine dioxide used in bleaching. The model Tier II mill
also will have highly effective pulping liquor spill
prevention and control and will have evaporators that
minimize the amount of black liquor carryover, to allow for
extensive condensate reuse. EPA expects that Tier II mills
also will employ a closed fiber line prior to bleaching
improved water reuse within the bleach plant, and .will
recycle a portion of bleach plant filtrate back through the
fiber line to the recovery cycle. The Tier II Advanced
Technology BAT limitations and NSPS represent the
performance demonstrated by mills that minimize effluent.
flow and reduce the formation of chlorinated organic
compounds using these technologies and practices.
Three mills in the United States are approaching the reduced
wastewater, flow levels equivalent to Tier II, which leads
EPA to conclude that 'flow reduction technologies are
emerging. Although the flow volume projected or reported by
these mills excludes pulping area or evaporator condensates,
which EPA includes within its Tier II flow limitation, EPA
expects that over the next ten or eleven years condensate
541
-------
reuse strategies and discharge flow reduction technologies
will mature to allow mills to achieve the pulping area
condensate, evaporator condensate and bleach plant
wastewater flow level being codified today as part of Tier
II. For further discussion of EPA's rationale for selecting
this technology as the basis for Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT limitations and NSPS at the Tier II level,
see Section IX.A.6.
The model technology for the Tier III Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT limitations and NSPS represents what
EPA believes can be achieved in 15 or 16 years by mills on
the cutting edge of minimum effluent technology. In EPA's
view, such mills will fully reuse pulping area and
evaporator system condensates, have a closed fiber line
prior to bleaching, and recycle the majority of bleach plant
filtrates back to the recovery cycle. EPA expects that
these mills will also operate efficient biological treatment
systems. To achieve this degree of mill closure, in
addition to the level of technology described under Tier II,
EPA expects the model Tier III mill will have "kidney"
technology to remove metals from bleach filtrate and
542
-------
chloride from the mill liquor .cycle, and may perform
extensive steam stripping or other treatment of condensates
to allow for full reuse. Mills that choose to use ozone
delignification may avoid the need for a chloride removal
system. EPA also expects that the Tier III mills will have
advanced process control systems and negligible losses of
black liquor through leaks and spills. Finally, the model
Tier III mill will likely have extended liquid storage
capacity as part of its water recycle and liquor management
systems to help maintain the good hydraulic balance required
for low discharge flow operation. While no U.S. mill today
is achieving these limitations, EPA believes that the
continuing progress being made by mills toward closed-loop
processing will lead to greater innovation regarding
technologies and practices necessary to achieve the Tier III
limitations. For further discussion of EPA's rationale for
selecting this technology as the basis for Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT limitations and NSPS at the Tier III
level, see Section IX.A.6. For a more detailed discussion
of the technology bases for the Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT Limitations and NSPS, see Voluntary Advanced
543
-------
Technology Incentives Program Technical Support Document
(DCN 14488).
4. Pollutants Regulated by Voluntary Advanced Technology
BAT and NSPS Limitations
Except for TCP-based processes, each Advanced
Technology tier consists of limitations for dioxin, furan,
chloroform, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants monitored
at the bleach plant. EPA is not codifying limits for these
pollutants for TCP processes. As discussed in more detail
below, each Tier also includes AOX limitations monitored at
the end of the pipe and, depending on the Tier, limitations
on lignin content or wastewater flow. In addition, each BAT
Tier includes limitations on pentachlorophenol and
trichlorophenol (when used.as biocides), see 40 CFR
430.24(d), and each NSPS Tier includes limitations on BODS,
TSS and pH, as well as biocides. See 40 CFR 430.25 (c) and
(d) .
EPA has chosen to use AOX as a performance standard for
each of the three Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT tiers
because AOX is a measure of progress in reducing the total
chlorinated organic matter in wastewaters resulting from the
544
-------
bleaching of pulps. In addition, the use of AOX rather than
other measures of organic matter (e.g., BOD5) will further
encourage a pollution prevention approach instead of end-of-
pipe treatment technologies. The final rule establishes
minimum monitoring frequencies for AOX for each of the
Tiers, except for TCP fiber lines. See 40 CFR 430.02(d) and
(e)., For TCP fiber lines, permit writers should determine
the appropriate monitoring frequency to assure continued
compliance with the AOX limitation.
In addition to the AOX criterion, EPA is establishing
BAT limitations requirements for Tier I that include kappa
numbers measured prior to bleaching and a narrative
limitation calling for recycling of all filtrates generated
prior to the point at which that kappa number is measured.
.-,-&*
See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). Tne kappa number is a measure
of lignin content in unbleached pulp, and is routinely
determined by mills. EPA is not establishing minimum
monitoring requirements for kappa numbers in this
regulation. Permit writers maintain the authority to
establish monitoring frequencies on a best professional
judgment basis.
545
-------
By meeting the kappa number limitations, Tier I mills
will achieve substantial, reductions in precursors for
chlorinated organic pollutants found in lignin beyond
reductions achieved by mills,with conventional pulping
processes. See DCN 14488. Some industry commenters
suggested that EPA simply specify qualifying Advanced
Technologies and require participating mills to employ one
or more of those technologies in order to receive
incentives. EPA rejected this approach because it would
inhibit development of equivalent technologies that EPA
cannot foresee today and is inconsistent with the
traditional performance-based structure of technology-based
effluent limitations under the Clean Water Act.
Nevertheless, EPA agrees with these commenters that Tier I
mills will in all likelihood employ extended delignification
technologies or other technologies that similarly reduce the
kappa number prior to bleaching; EPA, therefore, is
requiring Tier I mills to achieve specified kappa numbers
that reflect the performance capabilities of well-operated,
extended delignification systems. In addition, EPA's Tier I
limits reflect EPA's expectation that Tier I mills will be
.,-rw
-------
bleaching pulps with less lignin and, hence, will realize
significant reductions in the amount of unrecoverable
bleaching chemicals required to achieve their target
brightness. By using less bleaching chemical, Tier I mills
will further reduce the formation and discharge of
chlorinated organic pollutants generated by bleaching pulps
with chlorine-containing compounds, including chlorine
dioxide. By recycling the pulping area filtrates, Tier I
mills also will be implementing an important building block
for long-term flow reduction goals, and eliminating an
important source of weak black liquor discharge that would
otherwise go to the mill's wastewater treatment plant. See
DCN 14488.
By defining Tier I with parameter values (AOX, kappa
numbers) and recycle requirements as presented above, EPA
intends to provide maximum encouragement to as many mills as
possible to achieve the performance of at least the initial
thre'shold of the Advanced Technology program. Adopting
threshold performance criteria that are too stringent could
discourage mills from making additional capital investments
beyond those necessary to achieve the baseline BAT. This
547
-------
could undermine one goal of the incentives program, which is
to achieve the greatest environmental results possible
consistent with mills' capital investment cycles.
Conversely, setting threshold criteria at levels that could
be met by some mills that comply only with the baseline BAT
limitations and that do not "employ Advanced Technologies
could serve as a disincentive to invest in Advanced
Technologies that achieve dramatic reductions in pollutant
loadings and flow. The kappa numbers defined above for Tier
I, while at the upper end of the range of values achieved by
extended delignification technologies, nonetheless appear to
separate mills that employ them from mills that would use
conventional pulping technologies to achieve the BAT
limitations. See DCN 14488.
_<&*-
EPA is setting the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limitations and NSPS for Tier II and Tier III based on a
different philosophy than for Tier I. EPA believes that
Tiers II and III should reflect a movement toward the long-
term goal of minimizing impacts of mills in all
environmental media through partially or fully closed loop
processes. For Tier II, EPA is setting an AOX limit based
548
-------
on a long-term average (0.10 kg/kkg) that is currently being
achieved by some of the best mills in the industry. See DCN
14488. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). For
Tier III, EPA is setting an AOX limit based on a long-term
average (0.05 kg/kkg) that is being achieved by only a very
few mills, including one ECF mill. See DCN 14488. Id.
This ECF mill achieved the AOX limit only with hardwood
furnish; moreover,, it did so without the level of flow
reduction anticipated for Tier III. See DCN 14488. It is
the Agency's judgment, ba.sed on trends in ECF technology
development to date, that with recycle of pulping and
evaporator condensates and bleach plant filtrates necessary
to achieve a wastewater flow of 5 m3/kkg, and removal of
chlorides from the liquor cycle, commensurate reductions in
the mass of chlorinated organic pollutants contained in
wastewaters discharged also are likely to occur. For this
reason, it is EPA's judgment that the Tier III AOX limit
will be achievable by advanced ECF mills for both hardwood
and softwood furnishes as well as advanced TCF mills.
The Tier II and Tier III BAT limitations and NSPS also
include restrictions on wastewater flow and a requirement
549
-------
that all pulping-area filtrates be recycled to chemical
recovery prior to bleaching. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i) and
430.25(c)(2). As discussed above for Tier I, the filtrates
recycle requirement is an important step toward long-term
flow reduction. Flow reduction and progress toward closed
loop mill operations, in turn, are very important long-term
environmental goals because pollutant releases to all
environmental media would be minimized. While mills
currently measure end-of-pipe flow at the point of permitted
discharges, Tier II and Tier III mills will be required to
establish and maintain flow measurement equipment to verify
compliance with the annual average reduced flow limits for
those tiers for bleach plant ,and pulping area and evaporator
condensates. EPA is not establishing minimum monitoring
frequencies for flow in this regulation. Permit writers
maintain the authority to establish monitoring frequencies
on a best professional judgment basis. See 40 CFR 430.02.
Review of currently available data and literature
indicates that the numerical values for flow set forth to
define Tiers II (10 m3/kkg) and III (5 m3/kkg) are
appropriately stringent reduced flow targets by comparison
550
-------
to current wastewater flow for mills with extended
delignification -technologies. See DCN 14488. EPA believes
it is appropriate to include condensates as part of the
specified wastewater flow volume because technologies are
available today that allow for their recycle and reuse; use
of these technologies therefore ensures that the cumulative
volume of wastewater flow is reduced to the greatest extent
possible. See DCN 14488. One technology in particular is
the "clean condensate alternative," which is a viable MACT
compliance alternative. See 40 CFR 63.447. This
alternative facilitates the segregation, treatment, and
reuse of condensates and thus will assist mills in achieving
the wastewater flow objectives. Inclusion of pulping and
evaporator condensates in these reduced flow targets
therefore is consistent with the "clean condensate" MACT
compliance alternative and will promote flow reduction
through recycle and reuse of the greatest possible volume of
process wastewater.
EPA has the legal authority to establish Advanced
Technology effluent limitations for non-chemical parameters,
such as lignin content measurements and flow, and to do so
551
-------
where appropriate in narrative form. For Tier I, these
limitations take the form of kappa numbers to measure lignin
content in unbleached pulp and a narrative requirement to
recycle pulping area filtrates; for Tiers II and III, they
take the form of numerical limitations on process wastewater
flows, as well as the narrative requirement to recycle
pulping area filtrates. EPA has the authority to establish
limits for lignin content in unbleached pulp, for recycle of
filtrates, and for reduced process wastewater flows because
each of these parameters functions as a restriction on the
quantities, rates or concentrations of chlorinated organic
pollutants and other pollutants in a mill's wastestream.
See CWA Section 502(11). Restrictions on lignin content of
unbleached pulp, measured as a kappa number, can be used to
reduce the presence of precursors for chlorinated organic
* pollutants in a mill's wastewater. In addition, lignin
itself is a material that includes polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons; a number of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
are included in EPA's list of priority pollutants. See
Appendix A to Part 403 (reprinted after 40 CFR 423.17).
Recycling pulping area filtrates to the chemical recovery
552
-------
cycle prevents the discharge of weak black liquor, which
includes inorganic pulping chemicals and dissolved wood
substances. The dissolved wood substances include
polynuclear aromatic materials, degraded carbohydrates, low-
molecular weight organic acids, and wood extractives (resins
and fatty acids). The toxicity of the materials contained
in black liquor is well documented; see the BMP Technical
Support Document (DCN 14489). Limits for process wastewater
flow, in this case pertaining to total pulping area and
evaporator condensate and bleach plant wastewater, move
mills toward closed loop operations. Reductions in flow
will have the effect of dramatically reducing mass loadings-
-and discharges--of non-chlorinated organics such as lignin
and a variety of chlorinated organics in addition to dioxin,
furan and the chlorinated phenolic pollutants specifically
regulated today. Because those pollutants are far too
numerous to measure individually (and some have not been
specifically isolated and identified), EPA determined that
it was impracticable to set mass-based limits for all of
those pollutants. See DCN 14488. EPA judged that
establishing flow levels for Tiers II and III would be the
553
-------
best way to control the discharge of these pollutants.
For the foregoing reasons, all of these Advanced
Technology performance objectives qualify as effluent
limitations under CWA section 502(11). As noted above, the
filtrates recycle limitation is a narrative limitation.
Nothing in the definition of effluent limitation in CWA
section 502(11) or elsewhere in the CWA compels that
restrictions on the discharge of pollutants be expressed in
numeric form. See NRDC v. Costie, 568 F.2d 1369, 1380 (D.C.
Cir. 1977). In this instance, EPA determined that the
restriction on filtrates (and hence the prevention of
discharge of toxic materials) could not be expressed as a
numeric limitation and therefore expressed that restriction
in narrative form instead.
For further discussion of the effluent reductions and
environmental benefits associated with the Advanced
Technology BAT limitations and standards promulgated for
these parameters, see DCN 14488.
5. Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations and
NSPS
The Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations
554
-------
consist of three separate components, which together
comprise BAT for the particular Tier. See 40 CFR 430.24(b).
The first and third components consist of numeric effluent
limitations for the pollutants regulated by the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program. The second
component consists of enforceable interim milestones. Under
one set of milestones, existing dischargers enrolled in
Tiers II or III are required to meet interim BAT limitations
equivalent to the baseline BAT limitations by [insert date
six years from publication date]. Under the second set of
milestones, existing dischargers enrolled in any tier are
required to meet enforceable requirements that are developed
on a best professional judgment basis by the permitting
authority; these milestones are expressed in either
narrative or numeric form. Taken together, these three
components constitute reasonable further progress toward the
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants
and for this reason represent BAT.
The Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS consist of only
one stage--the ultimate performance objectives for the Tier
in question, with the addition of conventional limitations
555
-------
at the baseline NSPS level. See 40 CFR 430.25(c). This is
because new sources, unlike existing sources subject to BAT,
must design and construct their facilities to achieve NSPS
upon commencing operation; sequencing limitations to achieve
continuing progress would be inconsistent with this
statutory mandate.
a. "Stage 1" BAT Limitations
In the regulation, EPA has codified the first set of
numeric BAT effluent limitations as "stage 1" limitations to
be applied in the absence of more stringent WQBELs. See 40
CFR 430.24(b)(1). Although expressed in this regulation in
narrative form, EPA intends that the permitting authority
will express that limitation in numeric form for each
participating mill on a case-by-case basis. The "stage 1"
limitations thus will be numeric values on dioxin, furan,
chloroform, AOX, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants
that, for each pollutant, are equivalent to the more
stringent of either the technology-based limit on that
pollutant in the mill's last permit or the mill's current
effluent quality with respect to that pollutant. Id.
Existing effluent quality for AOX would be determined at the
556
-------
end of the pipe based on loadings attributable to that fiber
line; for all other pollutants covered by the Advanced
Technology BAT limitations, such as dioxin, existing
effluent quality would be determined at the point where the
wastewater containing those pollutants leaves the: bleach
plant. Id. These "stage 1" BAT limits represent the first
step in the Advanced Technology BAT continuum and are
enforceable against the participating mill as soon as they
are placed in the mill's NPDES permit.
The purpose of the "stage 1" BAT limits is to ensure
that, at a minimum, existing effluent quality is maintained
while the mill moves toward achieving the ultimate Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT performance requirements for the
Tier selected by the mill. As Advanced Technology permits
-.-of
are reissued for Tier II or Tiir III mills, in particular,
new "stage 1" limitations must be established to reflect the
improving effluent quality of that mill. Id. Allowing a
mill to degrade its effluent quality during development and
installation of Advanced Technologies would be inconsistent
with the statute's direction that BAT limitations achieve
reasonable further progress toward the Clean Water Act's
557
-------
national goals. EPA's "stage 1" limitations, thus, are
intended to capture continuously improving effluent quality.
EPA had considered, but rejected, attempting to codify
the "stage 1" limits in numeric form. First, EPA has no way
on this record to quantify and hence codify the existing
effluent quality of each mill that is potentially eligible
to participate in this program. Nor would such an attempt
be wise, because EPA expects that mills.considering
participating in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program will continue to improve their effluent
quality up to and beyond the promulgation date of this
regulation and, most likely, up to and beyond the dates that
their existing effluent quality is translated into
enforceable permit limits. Therefore, even if EPA could
codify such "stage 1" limitations today, doing so would
likely establish a less stringent technological floor than
the permitting authority would be able to establish each
time an Advanced Technology permit is issued prior to
achievement of the ultimate Advanced Technology performance
requirements.
Because the "stage 1" limitations reflect a level of
558
-------
technology that the mill is already employing or that was
previously determined to be BAT for that mill, EPA has
determined that the technology bases for the "stage 1"
limits are both technically available and economically
achievable. EPA has also determined that they would not
impose any adverse non-water quality environmental impacts.
EPA has determined that these "stage 1" limitations are the
"best" available technology economically achievable for
mills participating in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program because they allow those mills to focus'
their resources on the research, development, testing, and
installation of the technologies ultimately needed to
achieve the Advanced Technology performance levels. Thus,
"stage 1" limitations reflect "reasonable further progress
toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants," as called for by CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). EPA
also considered all of the other statutory factors specified
in CWA section 304(b)(2)(B) and concluded that nothing in
EPA's analysis of those factors justifies selecting a
different set of "stage 1" BAT limitations. For these
reasons, EPA determined that the "stage 1" BAT limitations
559
-------
promulgated today represent the appropriate first rung of
the Advanced Technology BAT ladder that participating mills
will have committed to ascend.
EPA did not set "stage 1" limits at the baseline BAT
level because baseline BAT limits are not a logical first
step to meeting the ultimate Advanced Technology BAT
limitations for the reasons set -forth below. See DCN 14488..
First, as a technical matter, mills subject to such interim
limits most likely would need to install more chlorine
dioxide generator capacity than they ultimately would use to
achieve the Advanced Technology performance requirements.
(EPA believes most Advanced Technology mills ultimately will
employ complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine, preceded by extended delignification
-,-ot
processes--a sequence that call's for approximately 30 to 75
percent less chlorine dioxide than a mill would use to
achieve the baseline BAT requirements depending on the
degree of extended delignification used.) Second, as an
economic matter, interim limitations driving a mill to over-
design its chlorine dioxide generator would cause the mill
to divert capital away from the processes needed to achieve
560
-------
the ultimate Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations.
That diversion of resources undercuts one of EPA's principal
assumptions regarding the economic achievability of the
ultimate Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations:
that mills would be able to focus their capital and other
resources entirely on those superior performance levels.
Thus, EPA was concerned that by compelling achievement of
baseline BAT limitations as "stage 1" limitations, EPA would
unnecessarily inflate the overall cost of achieving the
ultimate Advanced Technology limitations. This would likely
cause some mills to conclude that they cannot sustain the
overall costs of achieving the Voluntary Advanced Technology
BAT limitations in an economically achievable manner. Other
mills, in turn, might decide to absorb the additional costs
by diverting resources from other environmentally beneficial
projects that they might have voluntarily undertaken. The
Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to consider non-water quality
environmental impacts and other factors EPA deems
appropriate in setting BAT limitations. See CWA Section
304(b)(2)(B). For these reasons, EPA believes that
compelling achievement of the baseline BAT limits in the
561
-------
first instance would have had the contradictory and
unintended effect of discouraging participation in the
program, with the result that fewer mills ultimately would
be motivated to achieve superior environmental performance.
Finally, as discussed in more detail below, EPA is requiring
mills at the Tier II and Tier III levels to achieve interim
limitations equivalent to baseline BAT by [insert date 6
years from publication date] . See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3).
b. Interim Milestones
As the second component of the Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT for the three Incentives Tiers, EPA is
requiring the establishment of enforceable interim
milestones. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(2) and (3). EPA believes
that interim milestones would incrementally benefit the
environment during the period prior to achievement of the
ultimate Advanced Technology performance levels and will
ensure that participating mills make reasonable progress
toward achieving the superior performance represented by the
various Advanced Technology BAT Tiers.
EPA is promulgating two sets of enforceable interim
milestones. The first set requires mills enrolled at the
562
-------
Tier II or the Tier III level to achieve limitations
equivalent to baseline BAT limitations by [insert date 6
years from date of publication} . 40 CFR 430.24(b) (3) .
(Mills enrolled at the Tier I level are required to achieve
those limitations as well as the ultimate Advanced
Technology limitations by that date. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3)
and (4).) EPA believes that this is a reasonable
requirement not only because it ensures significant
environmental progress consistent with CWA section
301(b)(2), but it also reflects the technology performance
Tier II and Tier III mills are likely to be achieving by
that date. Mills enrolled in Tier II and Tier III are
expected to substantially modify pulping and bleaching
processes (e.g., install extended delignification, ECF, or
TCF bleaching) to complyh with the Advanced Technology
limitations. EPA expects that all Tier II or Tier III mills
will install extended delignification and complete
substitution (ECF) or TCF bleaching processes well in
advance of achieving their wastewater flow objectives in
order to allow sufficient time to design, install, test and
adjust their other flow-related processes. In EPA's
563
-------
judgment, process changes sufficient to achieve baseline BAT
limitations will occur by [insert date 6 years from date of
publication]. Once these processes are installed, the mill
will be achieving or exceeding the baseline BAT limitations
being required by that date. See DCN 14488.
EPA notes that mills required to achieve water quality-
based or other effluent limitations equivalent to one or
more of the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations
are still eligible to enroll in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program and to receive incentives for
' achieving the remaining Voluntary Advanced Technology
limitations. However, the time for complying with water
quality-based or other equivalent'effluent limitations would
be determined by applicable law, not by this Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program. Therefore, for
example, if a mill's NPDES permit compels immediate
compliance with a dioxin limitation equivalent to the
Voluntary Advanced (BAT) Technology limitation on dioxin
because of water quality concerns or other requirements of
state or federal law, this six-year milestone would not be
available for that dioxin limitation. See CWA section
564
-------
301(b) (1) (C) .
The second set of enforceable interim milestones
promulgated today applies to all mills enrolled in the
Advanced Technology Incentives Program. Although today's
rule leaves the type and frequency of these milestones to
the permit writer's best professional judgment, see 40 CFR
430.24(b)(2), milestones should include intermediate
pollutant load and wastewater flow reductions (for Tier II
and Tier III mills) in addition to research schedules,
construction schedules, mill trial schedules, or other
milestones appropriate to the advanced technology and the
participating mill. Interim milestones should be tailored
to circumstances and process technologies at individual
mills.
In order to facilitate the development of appropriate
interim milestones on a case-by-case basis, EPA proposes
elsewhere in today's Federal Register to require all mills
enrolling in the incentives program to submit plans
detailing the strategy the mill will follow to develop and
implement the technology required to achieve the chosen
incentive tier, as well as the interim numeric limitations
565
-------
for Tiers II and III. The plan should describe each
envisioned new technology component or process modification
the mill will need to achieve the Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT limits. A master schedule should be included
in the plan showing the sequence of implementing the new
technologies and process modifications and identifying
critical path relationships within the sequence. For each
individual technology or process modification, a schedule
should be provided that lists the anticipated date that
associated construction, installation, or process changes
will be initiated, the anticipated date that those steps .gfo
will be completed, and the anticipated date that the full
Advanced Technology process or individual component will be
fully operational. For those technologies or process
modifications that are not commercially available or
demonstrated on a full scale' basis at the time the plan is
developed, the plan should include a schedule for research
(if necessary), process development, and mill trials. The
schedule for research, process development, and mill trials
should show major milestone dates and the anticipated date
the technology or process change will be available for mill
566 .
-------
implementation. The plan also would need to include
contingency plans in the event that any of the technologies
or processes specified in the Milestones Plan need to be
adjusted or alternative approaches developed to ensure that
the ultimate tier limits are achieved by the dates in the
master schedule. EPA expects the permitting authority to
use the information contained in those plans, as well as its
own best professional judgment, to establish enforceable
interim milestones applying all statutory factors. EPA also
expects permit writers to include reopener clauses in the
permits to adjust these milestones including dates to
reflect the results of research (if necessary), process
development, and mill trials.
Section 402(a) of the Clean Water Act authorizes permit
writers to establish permit conditions and limitations on
the basis of best professional judgment as necessary to
achieve the objectives of the Act. Although EPA is
promulgating BAT limitations under CWA sections 301 and 304,
EPA is not --- nor could it today -- codify the particular
process development, construction, and testing milestones
that will lead each participating mill to achieve the
567
-------
ultimate Voluntary Advanced Technology performance
requirements. Identifying those milestones is best left to
the judgment of the permit writer, who will have access to
far more mill-specific information than EPA has today.
c. "Stage 2" Limitations
The third component of the Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT limitations consists of the "stage 2"
limitations. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). These are the
only standards applicable to Voluntary Advanced Technology
NSPS and must be achieved upon commencing operation. See 40
CFR 430.25 (c) . Also included in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology NSPS are standards for dioxin, furan, chloroform,
12 chlorinated phenolic compounds, BOD5/ TSS, and pH at the
baseline NSPS level. See 40 CFR 430.25(c)(1). In addition,
standards for pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol, when
used as biocides, are part of the Voluntary Advanced
Technology NSPS. See 40 CFR 430.25(d).
These limitations and standards represent the ultimate
performance requirements for each Tier. The "stage 2"
limitations are as follows:
(1) Tier I Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
568
-------
Limitations ("stage 2")
For Tier I, the ultimate performance requirement for
AOX is a long term average (LTA) of 0.26 kg/kkg, measured at
the end of the pipe. 40 CFR 430.24.(b) (4) (i)'. Under this
Tier, Advanced Technology fiber lines at participating mills
must also achieve reduced' lignin content in unbleached pulps
as measured by a kappa number of 20 for softwoods and 13 for
hardwoods and reported as an annual average. Id. Finally,
Tier I Advanced Technology fiber lines must recycle to
recovery systems all filtrates up to the point at which the
unbleached pulp kappa numbers are measured (e.g., brownstock
into bleaching). Tier I also includes limitations for
dioxin, furan, chloroform and 12 chlorinated phenolic
pollutants, see 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3). Limitations on these
-*&*
parameters are established at fi-he baseline BAT levels
because application of Advanced Technologies does not appear
on this record to justify more stringent limitations.
(2) Tier II Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
Limitations ("stage 2") and NSPS
For Tier II, the ultimate performance requirement for
AOX is an LTA of less than 0.10 kg/kkg, measured at the end
569
-------
of the pipe. 40 CFR 430.24(b) (4) (i) and 430.25 (c) (2) . In
addition, Tier II Advanced Technology fiber lines must
recycle to chemical recovery systems all pulping-area
filtrates prior to bleaching. Id. Finally, Tier II
Advanced Technology fiber lines must also achieve total
pulping area condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach
plant wastewater flow of 10 m3/kkg or less reported as an
annual average. Id. Tier II mills must also meet (or, in'
the case of existing dischargers, must continue to meet)
limitations for dioxin, furan, chloroform, and the 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3) ^^
and 430.25(c)(1). Application of the Tier II Technologies
does not appear to justify more stringent limitations for
these parameters.
(3) Tier III Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
Limitations ("stage 2") and NSPS
For Tier III, the ultimate performance requirement for
AOX is an LTA of less than 0.05 kg/kkg, measured at the end
of the pipe. See 40 CFR 430.24(b) (4) (i) and 430.25(c) (2) .
In addition, Tier III Advanced Technology fiber lines must
recycle to,chemical recovery systems all pulping-area
570
-------
filtrates prior to bleaching. Id. Finally/ Tier III
Advanced Technology fiber lines must also achieve total
pulping area condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach
plant wastewater flow of 5 m3/kkg or less reported as an
annual average. Id. Tier III mills must also meet (or, in
the case of existing dischargers, must continue to meet)
limitations for dioxin, furan, chloroform, and the 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3)
and 430.25 (c) (1) . Application of the Tier III Technologies
does not appear to justify more stringent limitations for
these parameters.
d. Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations and
NSPS for Mills Employing TCP Processes
In order to encourage mills to employ Advanced
Technologies founded on TCP processes, EPA is opening
today's incentives program to fiber lines that employ or
commit to employ such processes. Existing dischargers that
choose to employ TCP processes are subject to the "stage 1"
limitations, interim milestones (including the baseline BAT
limitations), and the "stage 2" limitations applicable to
i"
the selected tier. 40 CFR 430'.24 (b) and 430 . 25 (c) . These
571
-------
limitations are discussed above. However, recently gathered
data from TCP mills indicate that all TCP mills will be able
to achieve the AOX performance requirements at any Tier
level because end-of-pipe AOX levels are being reported at
below minimum level. See DCN 14488. Consequently, the AOX
limitations for TCP fiber lines are expressed as "
-------
monitoring frequency on a best professional judgment basis.)
EPA has determined that limitations on dioxin, furan,
chloroform and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and
minimum monitoring requirements for AOX are unnecessary for
TCF processes because a mill that does not use or generate
compounds containing chlorine will not generate chlorine-
related pollutants as a result of its bleaching processes.
EPA hopes that such substantially reduced requirements for
TCF mills will encourage more mills to employ TCF bleaching
processes.
6. Selection of Voluntary Advanced Technologies as
Bases for BAT Limitations and NSPS
Achievement of these BAT limitations, in particular the
"stage 2" limitations for Tiers II and III, would represent
substantial progress toward the national goal of eliminating
the discharge of all pollutants. The "stage 2" limitations
include limitations on AOX that are significantly more
stringent than the baseline BAT limitations for AOX, as well
as Tier-specific restrictions on the lignin content of
unbleached pulps, the discharge of pulping area filtrates,
and the quantity of total pulping area condensate,
573
-------
evaporator condensate and bleach plant wastewater flow. The
latter restrictions, which are unique to the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program, call for
environmental performance far in excess' of the performance
compelled by the baseline BAT.
EPA chose the parameters and limitations unique to the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program because
they reflect the levels of performance EPA believes can be
achieved over time by mills willing and able to invest the
resources to develop and apply the corresponding Advanced
Technology processes and practices. The Tier I technology
is available today and does hot impose significant non-water
quality environmental impacts; it was not selected as the
baseline BAT technology because it is not economically
achievable for the subcategory as a whole or any segment as
is discernible from the record available today. See Section
VI.B.5.a(5). However, for mills willing and able to employ
that technology, EPA believes that limitations based on
extended delignification, complete substitution, and other
processes would be economically achievable by the year 2003.
EPA believes that the technology bases for Tier II, in turn,
574
-------
could be technically and economically achievable for mills
willing to participate by the year 2008, and would not
impose significant non-water quality environmental impacts.
EPA bases its view on the experience of at least three U.S.
mills that are moving in the direction of reduced bleach
plant flow. See DCN 14488. None of these mills, however,
is presently achieving the "stage 2" flow limits for Tier II
because those limits include pulping area and evaporator
condensate as well as bleach plant wastewater flow.
Finally, with respect to Tier III, EPA notes that one mill
in Finland today is achieving flow levels close to 5 m3/kkg
or less, although this mill's flow rates also exclude
condensates. This mill is able to achieve its current level
of performance without imposing significant non-water
quality environmental impacts. In addition, mills choosing
Tier III will have up to 16 years and considerable
flexibility to develop and implement appropriate flow
control strategies. (For a discussion of the timeframes
associated with achieving the Voluntary Advanced Technology
BAT Limitations, see Section IX.A.7.) While EPA recognizes
that achievement of the "stage 2" limits for Tier III may
575
-------
call for considerable creativity and innovation by industry
participants, EPA believes that such spurs to- innovation are
consistent with the Clean Water Act's ultimate goal of
eliminating the discharge of pollutants. Finally, EPA
emphasizes that participation in the Advanced Technology
Incentives Program is purely voluntary. No mill in the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory is required
to commit to achieve the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limitations at any level.
The voluntary nature of the Advanced Technology
Incentives Program also supports EPA's finding that the ^^
"stage 2" BAT limitations for the various Incentives Tiers
will be economically achievable by the dates specified in
the rule for the mills choosing to achieve them.- See 40 CFR
430.24(b)(4)(ii). The "stage 2" limitations apply only to
mills that designate themselves as Tier I, Tier II or Tier
III Advanced Technology performers and that voluntarily
accept the corresponding "stage 2" limits in their NPDES
permits. In other words, the "stage 2" limitations are BAT
for an Advanced Technology mill only because that mill
announces, by choosing to participate in the Program and by
-------
its choice of Tier, that by the date specified in the rule
for the applicable "stage 2" limits a technology will be
both available and economically achievable for the purpose
of achieving those limitations. Based on the experiences of
mills that have voluntarily pursued performance levels
comparable to the "stage 2" limitations of Tiers I and II,
EPA believes that a mill choosing to pursue those objectives
can do so within its economic capability. Therefore, EPA
believes it is reasonable to presume that a mill would not
subject itself to enforceable technology-based limits if
achievement of those limits would exceed the mill's economic
capability. Because the economic achievability of the
"stage 2" limitations ultimately is evaluated according to
the mill's own choices, EPA concludes that the "stage 2"
limitations are economically achievable. In addition,while
implementation of these Advanced Technologies today is
beyond the economic capabilities of many mills because of
the significant capital investments that can be incurred at
the outset, EPA believes that a mill able to plan for these
investments over time could reduce those investment costs to
some extent, if only by minimizing the amount of capital the
577
-------
mill would need to borrow. Moreover, with additional time
mills will inevitably find ways to implement these
technologies that reduce costs. More importantly, it could
make these environmental improvements in sequence with other
business decisions related to capital investment, thus
reducing the overall cost of installing the Advanced
Technologies. Although on this record EPA cannot state with
confidence what the cost of implementing these Advanced
Technologies would be if spread over time (and hence cannot
make an economic achievability finding for the subcategory
as a whole or any discernible segment relating to those
Advanced Technologies), EPA nevertheless believes that each
mill is capable of making that judgment and assuming the
corresponding economic risks. This Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program thus establishes a structure
by which mills willing to predict their economic fortunes
over the next several years and to commit to enforceable
permit limits based on that prediction can do so.
EPA has considerable discretion under CWA section
304(b)(2) to determine whether and when a particular
technology or process is BAT. EPA also has broad authority
,-
-------
to interpret CWA section 301. In E.I, du Pont de Nemours &
Co. v. Train. 430 U.S. 112 (1977), the Supreme Court
accorded great deference to EPA in promulgating effluent
limitations guidelines as regulations under section 301,
noting that "[CWA Section] 101(d) requires us to resolve any
ambiguity on this score in favor of the Administrator." Id.
at 128. The Supreme Court also found that section 501(a)
supports EPA's broad use of its regulatory authority to
implement section 301. Id. at 132. EPA believes that its
decision to promulgate Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limitations is authorized by sections 301 and 304. Section
301(b)(2) in particular directs EPA to promulgate BAT
limitations that, within the constraints of economic
achievability, "will result in reasonable further progress
toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants." Section 301(b)(2)(A). In addition, both case
law and the legislative history interpreting the BAT program
make it clear that the statute is to be used to force
technology, within the constraints imposed by sections
301(b)(2) and 304(b)(2). Promulgation of regulations to
promote the use of Advanced Technologies and, hence,
579
-------
progress toward the elimination of pollutant discharges,thus
is within the scope of the Administrator's 501(a)
authorities. See Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. v.
EEA., 603 F.2d 1, 6 (6th Cir. 1979) ("The ultimate
justification for every regulation and guideline pertaining
to discharges is.its effectiveness in promoting the
achievement of the goals of Congress in enacting the 1972
Amendments.")
As part of its BAT analysis, EPA performed a case-study
analysis to determine the potential effluent reduction
benefits derived from the incentives program. Effluent dflk
reductions were calculated for a hypothetical case-study
mill complying with Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
Limitations at each incentive Tier. This case study is
discussed in more detail at DCN 14488. The 1000 metric ton-
per-day case-study mill operates a softwood and a hardwood
bleach line of equal size, and uses a conventional three-
stage bleach sequence with chlorine on each line. Table IX-
1 presents effluent load reductions from that case-study
mill, calculated for the baseline BAT (BAT Option A) as well
as each incentive Tier.
580
-------
Table IX-1
Effluent Load Reductions for Case Study Mill
Pollutant
AOX
BOD5
COD
Color
Chloroform
TCDD&TCDF
12
Chlorinated
Phenolics
Units
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kkg/yr
kg/yr
g/yr
kkg/yr
Baseline
BAT
Technology
670
290
6,000
2,000
290
4.9
1,000
Tier I
770
440
11,000
15,000
290
4.9
1,100
Tier II
830
720
13,000
30,000
290
5.0
1,200
Tier III
840
870
18,000
34,000
290
5.0
1,200
Note that for all levels, TCDD, TCDF, chloroform and the 12 chlorinated
phenolics will not be detected in the final effluent. The differences
between the levels are the result of technologies employed to reduce
discharge flow rates under the incentive Tiers.
In selecting the technology basis for each of the
"*'''
Incentives Tiers, EPA also evaluated the associated non-
water quality environmental impacts, changes in energy
requirements, the age of facilities and equipment involved,
the process used, and the engineering aspects of various
types of control techniques and process changes. See DCN
14488. Nothing in EPA's analysis of these factors justified
581
-------
selecting different BAT technologies than those identified
in section IX.a.3. EPA found that the technologies that
form the basis of the Incentives Tiers provide a significant
degree of water conservation, particularly at Voluntary
Advanced Technology Tiers II and III. EPA also expects
lower secondary sludge generation rates at Incentives Tier
mills with activated sludge treatment because of reduction
in BOD5 loads associated with the Advanced Technologies.
The technology basis of each of the Incentives Tiers will
lead to overall decreases in energy consumption, primarily
because of replacement of chlorine dioxide with oxygen-based
delignification and bleaching chemicals. EPA expects a
slight increase in air emissions (<2 percent) due to
increased recovery of black liquor that will occur under the
Incentives Tiers. However, these are offset by reductions
in air pollution that derive from the reductions in overall
energy consumption.
EPA considered the potential for cross-media transfer
of pollutants through implementation of the Advanced
Technologies that form the basis of the Incentives Tiers.
EPA found no basis to conclude that cross-media transfer of
582
-------
pollutants would occur. . See DCN 14488 and DCN 14492.
However, much of the Tier II and Tier III technology bases
focus on closing mill process cycles, which has not yet been
fully demonstrated. As these technologies are fully
developed and implemented, sufficient engineering analyses
and testing should be performed to assess whether
unacceptable cross media transfer of pollutants are
occurring, and whether modifications need to be made to
avoid any unacceptable transfers identified.
For NSPS, EPA has determined that Tier II and Tier III
technologies constitute the best demonstrated control
technologies for mills enrolling in those tiers. Although
EPA cannot say today that either of these technology
sequences is the best demonstrated control technology for
new sources in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory as a whole, EPA does believe that new sources
emerging within the next 16 years may characterize them as
such based on their own sense of their economic and
technical capabilities. Therefore, as with existing
sources, EPA is promulgating this additional array of NSPS
in order to provide such mills the opportunity to pursue
583
-------
584
voluntarily pollution prevention technologies--and to accept
correspondingly more stringent effluent limitations--if
business circumstances warrant. EPA notes that a mill
subjecting itself to the Advanced Technology NSPS will be
shielded from more stringent technology-based effluent
limitations for ten years beginning on the date that
construction is completed. See CWA section 306(d). Because
these standards are entirely voluntary, their promulgation
today presents no barrier to entry. In addition, EPA has
determined that' achievement of these standards will not
result in any significant non-water quality environmental .
impacts or significant additional energy requirements. See
DCN 14488. Nothing in EPA's analysis of the other statutory
factors applicable to NSPS justified selecting different
.*£>
NSPS technologies. '^
EPA also believes it is appropriate to promulgate
limitations for all three Tiers at the same time it
promulgates the baseline BAT limitations. (The same
rationale applies for today's Voluntary Advanced Technology
NSPS.) By promulgating all three Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT Tiers today, rather than in five-year
-------
increments, EPA hopes to encourage as many mills as possible
to develop and install Advanced Technologies. On this
record, EPA has determined that its customary practice of
promulgating a single BAT for similarly situated mills--
represented here by the baseline BAT limitations--would have
the unintended effect of impeding some mills' progress
toward even greater environmental objectives than EPA can
compel at this time. Thus, if EPA were to promulgate only
baseline BAT limitations today and not establish a parallel
track for mills converting to Advanced Technologies, EPA is
concerned that mills might abandon their voluntary long-term
strategies of superior environmental performance in favor of
compulsory short-term compliance strategies focused on the
baseline BAT. Instead, by promulgating Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT limitations at the same time as baseline BAT
limitations, EPA allows interested mills to consider all
technology options at the outset before they make their
investment decisions and to design and install precisely the
technologies and processes they will need to meet their
long-term Advanced Technology objectives. Therefore, EPA
has decided to promulgate all of the Voluntary Advanced
585
-------
Technology BAT limitations today in order to provide mills
with an opportunity to push their environmental performance
beyond the minimum prescribed by the baseline BAT and on
toward the statutory goal of zero discharge. Promulgating
the various Voluntary Advanced Technology Tiers today rather
than in five-year increments also provides some
predictability regarding the progress expected of Advanced
Technology mills over time. EPA hopes that this
predictability will encourage greater participation in the
program and thus lead to superior effluent quality.
Finally, promulgating all three Tiers of Advanced Technology
BAT Limitations today makes sense because it reflects EPA's
regulatory approach for promoting successively greater
environmental achievements for this industry, and because
companies willing to commit to achieve the increased
environmental controls will be able to avoid the
uncertainties inherent in a succession of later rulemakings.
EPA has the authority to promulgate the three Tiers of
Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations today even
though their ultimate performance requirements will not be
attained until a future date. EPA has the authority under
586
-------
CWA section 304(b)(2) and 304(m) to revise the baseline BAT
limitations for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory whenever the Administrator deems it is
appropriate. Thus, EPA would be free in 5, 10 or 15 years
to codify the Voluntary Advanced Technology limitations as
BAT. However, by then, mills potentially interested in
pursuing Advanced Technologies would already have been
required to meet baseline BAT limitations, perhaps using
technologies not fully compatible with more advanced
processes. The costs of retrofitting, or in some cases
replacing, newly installed process technologies to achieve
more stringent limits might prevent EPA from finding that
these technologies are economically achievable. In
addition, participating mills would lose a long-term
planning horizon, which is very important because of the
significant capital outlays involved. As a'result, EPA was
concerned that failure to promulgate these Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT limitations today might compromise
future pollution prevention opportunities. EPA is
authorized to consider those opportunities when promulgating
BAT limitations. EPA therefore believes it is appropriate
587
-------
to consider these barriers to pollution prevention as
factors relevant to the definition of BAT limitations and
the timing of their promulgation, see CWA section
304(b)(2)(B); especially since failure to promulgate a
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program at this
time might impede reasonable further progress toward the
national goal of eliminating discharges of all pollutants.
See CWA section 301(b)(2).
An important component of this incentives program is
the element of choice. Direct discharging mills subject to
Subpart B may choose whether to enroll in the program and,
once enrolled, may choose the Tier, or performance level,
that they will achieve. In order to codify this structure,
EPA has promulgated three sets of Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT limitations for bleached papergrade kraft and
soda mills and two sets of NSPS in addition to the baseline
BAT and NSPS. In effect, EPA has divided Subpart B into
segments based on the types of bleach plant processes mills
choose to employ. EPA has considerable authority to
establish segments within an industrial subcategory for the
purpose of promulgating BAT limitations unique to those
__.
-------
mills. Much like mill-specific variances based on
fundamentally different factors, segments reflect EPA's
authority to take into account the diversity within each
industry. See Chemical Mrfs. Ass'n v. NRDC, 470 U.S. 116,
130, 105 S.Ct 1102, 1110 (1985). Thus, segmentation, like
variances, is not an exception to the standard-setting
process, but rather a more fine-tuned application of it.
Id. '
For BAT, EPA has essentially established four segments
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory (and,
similarly, three segments for NSPS). One segment codifies
the baseline BAT limitations; the other three segments
codify Tiers I, II and III of the Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT Incentives Program. EPA defined the Advanced
Technology segments to reflect the various types of process
changes and control techniques that mills might employ to
achieve environmental performance beyond the baseline BAT
level. The Advanced Technology segments also reflect the
cost of achieving progressively greater environmental
effluent reductions. Any one of those factors is sufficient
under CWA section 304(b)(2) to justify a segment for
589
-------
affected mills. Each mill in Subpart B must comply with the
baseline BAT limitations unless it designates itself as an
Advanced Technology mill, in which case it must meet the BAT
limitations corresponding to the Tier--and segment--it
chooses.
Although EPA has identified an array of process changes
that, if employed, could distinguish one Subpart B mill from
another and has based its Advanced Technology limitations on
those potential changes, EPA has made the Advanced
Technology segments voluntary. This is because the decision
whether Advanced Technology process changes are technically ^^
w
feasible and economically achievable for a particular mill
depends on many factors unique to that mill that EPA, on the
record available today, cannot readily discern or forecast-.
Among the more significant factors appear to be the mill's
current bleaching sequence, the physical configuration of
equipment, the age of equipment (and, thus, end-of-life
issues), the available capacity in chlorine dioxide
generation and in the recovery boiler, and whether the mill
uses hardwood or softwood. See DCN 14488. See also Paper
Task Force, Technical Supplement White Papers, Record
590
-------
section 20.2.8, DCN 14794, DCN 14795, and DCN 14796.
EPA also has important policy reasons for making the
Advanced Technology BAT limitations voluntary, both in terms
of the decision to participate and in terms of the level of
environmental performance to be achieved. As discussed in
greater detail above, EPA believes that mills willing and
able to employ technologies and processes superior to the
"baseline" promulgated as BAT--and willing to guarantee that
effort in the form of enforceable technology-based permit. '
limitations--should have the opportunity to do so. By
giving mills a choice to exceed baseline compliance levels,
EPA implements CWA section 301(b) (2)'s direction that BAT
limitations "result in reasonable further progress toward
the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants," to the extent consistent with EPA's findings of
economic achievability, among other factors. By allowing
mills- to choose between baseline BAT limitations and
Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations at the outset,
EPA also wants to encourage mills to consider all possible
process configurations before investing in the baseline BAT
technology. Thus, by codifying multiple expressions of BAT,
591
-------
EPA has established a regulatory mechanism that allows mills
to choose greater environmental performance than EPAcould
require on this record and also authorizes permit writers to
memorialize that choice in the form of enforceable permit
limits.
Although applied here for the first time to codify a
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, the notion
of using segmentation to determine applicable technology-
based limitations is not new. Indeed, effluent limitations
guidelines and standards routinely base applicability of
technology-based limitations on a discharger's particular
process or treatment technologies. For example, elsewhere
in today's rule EPA is segmenting the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory to reflect, among other things, the type of
product the mill produces. Thus, a papergrade sulfite mill
choosing to produce specialty products subjects itself to a
different set of limitations than other mills in its
subcategory simply by making that business decision. EPA
also used segmentation to account for different treatment
configurations when it promulgated BAT for the organic
chemicals, plastics and synthetic fibers category. See 40
592 W
-------
CFR 414.91, 414.101; 58 FR 36872, 36881-85 (July 9, 1993).
In that rule, EPA established two sets of BAT limitations
for a subcategory of plants, one set applicable to plants
using end-of-pipe biological treatment and the other set
applicable to plants using some other treatment technology,
including in-plant waste management practices. In this
rule, the Advanced Technology segments are intended to
anticipate a mill's business decision to change its cooking,
washing, bleaching, wastewater recycle, and recovery
processes to achieve greater pollutant reductions than EPA
can require as baseline BAT. Indeed, by establishing these
segments, EPA hopes to 'encourage many mills to choose
Advanced Technologies, especially those mills that would
need to change their bleaching and washing processes in any
event to comply with the baseline BAT.
EPA also notes that it could have accomplished the same
result for existing sources oil a case-by-case basis through
the Clean Water Act's variance processes. See Chemical
Mrfs..Ass'n v. NRDC. 470 U.S. at 130, 105 S.Ct at 1110.
Advanced Technology mills could have sought fundamentally
different factors variances under CWA section 301(n); for
593
-------
non-conventional pollutants, these mills could have pursued
a variance under section 301 (c). Under either section,
mills could have obtained BAT effluent limitations that are
more or less stringent than the baseline BAT. See Chemical
Mrfs. Ass/n v. NRDC. 470 U.S. at 116, 105 S.Ct at 1105-06
(PDF variances) ; EPA v. National Crushed Stone, As_sin, 449
U.S. 64, 79 n.18 (1980) (§ 301(c) variances). However, EPA
rejected implementing the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program through variances for several reasons.
First, the Clean Water Act and its legislative history
indicate a clear Congressional preference for the use of
subcategories, rather than variances,, to address discernible
differences among regulated entities. By requiring
applications for FDF variances to be based on information
submitted during the rulemaking process (unless the
applicant lacked a reasonable opportunity to make such
submission), see section 301(n)(1)(B), Congress stressed the
need for companies to participate fully in the guideline
development process to assure that adequate information is
available to EPA to develop appropriate subcategories. See
131 Cong. Rec. S 8013 (June 12, 1985) (Sen. Bentsen); see
594
-------
also 133 Cong. Rec. H 131, 136-37 (Jan. 7, 1987) (Rep.
Howard) (provision assures that effluent guidelines "are as
comprehensive as possible"); 133 Cong. Rec. S 733, 739 (Jan.
14, 1987) (Sen. Mitchell) (EPA should accommodate
fundamental differences among facilities through the
establishment of subcategories). In this rulemaking, many
commenters supplied vast amounts of information concerning
the special circumstances of facilities aspiring to become
minimum impact mills. As Congress intended, EPA established
the three Voluntary Advanced Technology segments in response
to that information rather than deferring consideration of
the issue to the post-rulemaking variance process.
Second, as a matter of policy, EPA believes it is
reasonable to employ its subcategorization, rather than its
-<;&>
variance, authority to implement the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program. By establishing the
Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations by rulemaking
at the same time it codifies the baseline BAT limitations,
EPA intends to provide all direct discharging mills within
Subpart B the immediate opportunity to push beyond base
level environmental performance and also to provide with
595
-------
certainty regarding the stringency and timing of the limits
they would be expected to meet. In this way, EPA hopes to
encourage many mills to participate in the program. Use of
case-by-case variance procedures, in contrast, would
introduce delay and uncertainty into the process, which EPA
believes would discourage industry participation.
In summary, EPA has discretion in determining whether
to account for industry characteristics through
subcategorization or through the variance process. Like
variances, the Voluntary Advanced Technology segments apply
only to mills that on their own initiative seek different jtth
BAT limitations. Unlike variances, however, the
subcategorization scheme promulgated by EPA assures
consistent and timely implementation of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program, which EPA believes
is critical to its success. Therefore, for the reasons
explained, EPA's .decision to subcategorize Subpart B was
rational and within its discretion.
7. Time Frames for Achieving Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT Limitations
In order to promote the pollution prevention objectives
596
-------
of the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, EPA
has determined that existing mills choosing to participate
in that program should receive a reasonable amount of time
to achieve the.Advanced Tier performance levels they select.
See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(ii). (These performance levels are
codified in this rule as "stage 2" BAT limitations.) The
extended timeframes discussed below are not available for
new sources enrolled in the Advanced Technology Incentives
Program because the Clean Water Act requires new sources to
comply with applicable NSPS upon commencing operation. CWA
Section 306(e). However, new sources interested in
participating in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program after commencing operation may
nevertheless do so, for example, by achieving the baseline
NSPS requirements at the time discharges commence and later
installing additional technologies necessary to achieve the
more stringent AOX and flow requirements of Tiers II or III.
Once limitations equivalent to the selected advanced Tier
performance levels are placed in the mill's permit and the
mill achieves those limits, it is eligible to receive the
regulatory and enforcement relief described as incentives in
597
-------
Section IX.B. below.
EPA has determined that reasonable dates by which
existing sources can achieve Advanced Technology performance
requirements are [insert date six years from publication
date] for Tier I, [insert date eleven years from publication
date] for Tier II, and [insert date sixteen years from
publication date] for Tier III. See 40 CFR
430.24(b)(4)(ii). As discussed in more detail below, these
dates assume an initial start-up year during which mills
subject to Subpart B would decide whether to enroll in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program and develop
a plan for.complying with the ultimate incentives BAT
limitations. The remaining additional time, calculated as 5
years for Tier I, 10 years for Tier II, and 15 years for
Tier III, corresponds to the time EPA believes a mill would
need in order to arrange its financing and to develop,
install, test, and implement the chosen Advanced
Technologiesat full scale to comply with the ultimate tier
limits.
EPA regards five years as a reasonable time frame to
achieve the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations
598
-------
corresponding to Tier I (including the bleach plant BAT
effluent limitations). .When spread over five years, the
capital costs of those technologies become more manageable
(although they are -still significantly higher than the
capital costs associated with the baseline BAT). In
addition, the five year period gives mills increased
flexibility to schedule the significant capital investment
within the mill's normal capital investment cycle, i.e., to
purchase and install the necessary equipment when capital is
available. Therefore, EPA believes the five year period
will enable mills to participate in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program that otherwise might not have
the financial resources to make the necessary capital
investment.
EPA regards ten years as a reasonable timeframe to
achieve the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations
corresponding to Tier II because the development and
implementation of technologies to reduce bleach plant flow
to 10 m3/kkg pose technical and economic difficulties that
EPA believes would take mills up to ten years to resolve.
(Once flow levels are reduced, EPA expects that mills also
599
-------
will be able to achieve the Tier II AOX limitations.)
Recycling a substantial portion of pulping and evaporator
condensates and bleach plant filtrates, with the attendant
complexities of total mill water, chemical, and energy
balances, requires considerable time before it can be
implemented successfully at mill-scale. For example, when
bleach plant filtrates are recycled, problems with scale and
corrosion can take many months to over a year to develop and
be observed. Once identified, fully correcting such
problems can take significant additional time because of the
time lag between action and observed effect in nearly closed ^^
w
systems. In addition to problems with scale and corrosion,
mills pursuing Tier II performance levels may have to solve
challenges associated with reusing condensates, such as for
bleached pulp washing. There are a few mills currently
doing this, but not broad operating experience.
Consequently, EPA expects that Tier II mills will need to
invest considerable time and effort to research and develop
solutions to those technical problems. In addition to these
technical challenges, significant capital costs may be
involved in achieving Tier II limits, -notably as a result of
600
-------
upgrading full pulping and bleaching lines and associated
evaporator equipment. Providing an extended timeframe that
allows a mill to make such capital expenditures on a
schedule consistent with its planned investment cycle can
make such large investments economically achievable. For
example, one U.S. mill currently approaching the Tier II
flow and AOX levels installed many of the relevant
technologies in stages over what probably will be a ten-year
period, with the last three years used for testing and fine-
tuning its reduced flow processes. Yeteven this mill still
needs to address the technical challenges of further
reducing condensate discharge flow before it is fully able
to achieve the Tier II BAT limits. That mill needed ten
years to plan its multi-hundred million dollar renovation
and pollution prevention investment, to arrange appropriate
financing, to install supporting technologies at appropriate
intervals and to research, develop, test, and refine its
innovative flow-reducing processes. EPA believes that this
mill's experience is representative of what other Tier II
mills may encounter as they work to achieve the Tier II
limitations. See the Voluntary Advanced Technology
601
-------
Incentives Program Technical Support Document (DCN 14488)
for additional examples of why the ten-year timeframe is
appropriate. Based on these experiences, EPA believes that
the package of technologies underlying the Tier II Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT limitations will not be technically
and economically achievable for mills aspiring to those
performance levels until [insert date eleven years after
publication of rule]. However, EPA believes that mills will
be able to achieve the baseline BAT limitations by [insert
date six years from date of publication'] , and enforceable
interim milestones reflecting intermediate levels of flow ^^
reduction (determined on a case-by-case basis) in a period
shorter than eleven years.
EPA regards, 15 years as a reasonable timeframe to
achieve the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations
corresponding to Tier III. As for Tier II, flow reduction
again is the most difficult and time-consuming task.
However, because reducing flow for pulping and evaporator
condensates and bleach plant filtrates to 5 m3/kkg or even
lower approaches a closed mill configuration, even more
technically difficult and time-consuming tasks must be
602
-------
successfully completed, necessitating five additional years
beyond the Tier II timeframe. For example, mills would
probably need to install "kidney" technologies to remove
metals and chlorides in order to control system scaling and
corrosion problems while maintaining product quality and
minimizing cross-media impacts. Successful completion of
these tasks at individual mills may involve research,
extensive process development, and mill trials. The types
of.corrosion and scaling problems EPA anticipates could take
over a year of nearly closed-loop operation to identify and
several more years of experimental modifications to mill
operations to solve. Extensive time is required for such
modifications because of the time lag in nearly closed-mill
systems from changing process conditions and observing the
steady state impact on hydraulic systems, liquor systems,
and associated mill equipment. Mills may also need to
embark on process development and mill trials to achieve
treated condensate quality that is sufficient to extensively
reuse condensates, as well as to reestablish complex mill
water and energy balances. For these reasons, EPA believes
that 15 years is a reasonable amount of time for a Tier III
603
-------
mill to perfect existing technologies or invent or develop
new ones as necessary to achieve the Tier III performance
levels. However, EPA believes that all mills will be able
to achieve the baseline BAT limitations by [insert date six
years from date of publication], and enforceable interim
milestones reflecting intermediate levels of flow reduction
(determined on a case-by-case basis) in a period shorter
than 15 years.
In short, EPA believes that the additional 5, 10 and 15
year periods provided by the rule are necessary to foster
investment, research, development, and mill trials of
Advanced Technologies envisioned by the specified
performance levels. EPA further believes that, by the dates
specified in the rule, technologies necessary to achieve
those performance levels will indeed be available. See DCN
14488.
EPA has concluded that it is reasonable to measure the
extended time periods from the publication date of the
Cluster Rules rather than from the date a participating
mill's NPDES permit is issued, with the addition of one year
at the beginning to afford mills a meaningful opportunity to
604
-------
consider participating in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program. EPA recognizes that the decision
whether to commit to the Advanced Technology goals cannot be
undertaken lightly. This is especially so in view of the .
significant capital costs involved and in view of possible
uncertainties regarding the availability of appropriate .
cost-effective technologies and a mill's ability to maintain
product quality. Accordingly, EPA expects the decision
would need to be made at the corporate rather than the
facility level, which would probably require corporate-wide
consideration of the firm's financial health, its
environmental objectives and future marketing strategies,
and its overall long-term plans. Because EPA believes that
many firms in Subpart B have been pondering these strategic
questions since publication of the proposed rule in December
1993 and the notice regarding a possible incentives program
in July 1996, EPA has concluded that one year is sufficient
to allow firms to make a decision whether to participate in
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. If a
mill's permit expires and is reissued before [insert date
one year from publication], the permitting authority should
605
-------
incorporate Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations
into that permit at the mill's request. If the mill has not
yet decided whether to participate in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program, the permit writer should
incorporate BAT limitations based on the BAT baseline and
should include a reopener clause so that the permit can be
modified as necessary to reflect the mill's decision to
participate in the incentives program. In order to afford
that mill a full year to decide whether to enroll in the
incentives program, EPA believes it would be appropriate for
the permitting authority to issue a compliance order
expiring [insert date one year from the date of publication]
so that the mill would not be required to comply with the
baseline BAT limitations until after the election date has
passed.
Some commenters suggested that EPA measure the Advanced
Technology time periods from the date the first permit
reflecting Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations is
issued. EPA rejected that approach and instead _is measuring
the time periods from the publication date of this rule
(plus one year) for the following reasons. First, these
606
-------
timeframes reflect EPA's conclusions regarding the amount of
time that mills would need in order to achieve the various
Voluntary Advanced Technology Tier performance levels, once
they have committed to those goals. As discussed in more
detail above, EPA based these conclusions on record
information concerning the availability of technologies and
capital, among other factors. These factors have nothing to
do with the permitting cycle. Second, as a matter of
policy, EPA wants to promote implementation of advanced
technologies as soon as possible; if EPA were to measure the
Advanced Technology time periods from the date of permit re-
issuance, achievement of the ultimate Tier I performance
requirements and the interim baseline BAT limitations for
Tiers II and III, for example, could be deferred at some
,->.'&
mills by as much as ten years 'from the date of promulgation.
Third, EPA was concerned that tying the Advanced Technology
time periods to highly variable permit issuance dates would
mean that mills with later permits would realize a
competitive advantage over similarly situated mills that,
merely because of their particular permit cycle, would need
to achieve the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations
607
-------
sooner. Such inequities--whether perceived or real--could
discourage some mills from participating in the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program. Finally, mills in
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory have been
on notice since at least 1993 that EPA was considering
basing some portion of its Cluster Rules on extended
delignification technologies. (In its 1993 proposal, EPA
proposed to base BAT limitations on a process that included
oxygen delignification and 100 percent substitution of
chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine.) In some cases,
that proposal has already influenced investment decisions at
some mills.
EPA acknowledges that a mill choosing not to
participate in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program could seek a compliance schedule in an enforcement
order that, depending on the date its permit was reissued,
could allow that mill to achieve BAT limits (including a
less stringent AOX limit) at a later date than Tier I
Advanced Technology mills would be required to achieve a
more stringent AOX limit and reduced kappa numbers and
pulping area filtrate recycling. While EPA agrees with
608
-------
comments characterizing this as unfair to those facilities
making the significant commitment to install Advanced
Technologies, EPA believes that the likelihood of such
inequities is small for the following reasons. First, EPA
has 'determined that this is likely to happen in
comparatively few cases. More than 80 percent of the
permits issued to mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory will expire before 2000. See Record
section 21.8.1, DCN 14652. Consequently, EPA believes that
most Advanced Technology mills will receive more time to
achieve Tier I limits than other mills would receive to
achieve baseline BAT limits, even with an enforcement
compliance schedule. Second, when EPA is the permitting
authority, EPA,will exercise its enforcement discretion to
refrain from issuing enforcement compliance schedules after
[insert date one year from publication date] to mills not
participating in the.Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program. This means that a mill not
participating in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program would be expected to comply with its
baseline BAT limits by the date its permit containing those
609
-------
limits is issued, or by [insert date one year from
publication date], whichever is later. EPA will also
publish guidance urging State enforcement authorities to do
the same. By limiting the discretionary enforcement-related
compliance schedules available to baseline BAT mills, EPA
hopes that the additional time periods specified for
Advanced Technology mills will become a more meaningful
incentive and perhaps may persuade some mills to participate
in the incentives program rather than comply immediately
with the baseline BAT limitations.
8. Legal Authority to Promulgate a Package of
Progressively More Stringent Voluntary Advanced Technology
BAT Limitations
As described in more detail above, the Advanced
,-,-sit
Technology BAT guidelines for e?ach Tier consists of a range
of successively more stringent limitations and permit
conditions that represent a mill's progress toward the
Tier's ultimate Advanced Technology performance
requirements. Based on its analysis of today's advanced
and, in some cases, innovative technologies and its judgment
regarding the historically rapid advance of pollution
610
-------
prevention processes in this industry, EPA has determined
that those performance requirements are achievable, as a
technical matter, by the dates specified in each Tier, and
that none of the other statutory factors in CWA Section
304(b)(2)(B) justify selecting different technology bases
for Advanced Technology BAT. EPA has also determined that.
those Advanced Technology performance requirements are
within the economic capability of mills choosing today to
meet them and hence are economically achievable for those
mills. EPA bases that determination primarily on two
factors. First, no mill is compelled to enroll in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program;
accordingly, EPA assumes that mills that choose to enroll--
and voluntarily subject themselves to a progression of
successively more stringent, enforceable permit limits--do
so with the knowledge that they have the economic as well as
technical ability to meet those limits. Second, the
experience of other mills that voluntarily undertook major
pollution prevention projects informs EPA that the ambitious
performance requirements are indeed achievable for
?'
participating mills if the incremental improvements are
611
-------
staggered over time.
This incremental approach is authorized by CWA section
301(b) (2) (A), which expressly requires BAT to result in
reasonable further progress toward the national goal of
eliminating pollutant discharges. EPA believes that each of
the steps comprising the three tiers of Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT Limitations moves participating mills toward
that national goal. Once a mill enrolls in the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program, it accepts and must
begin immediately to implement a BAT package consisting of
successively more stringent permit limits and conditions.
Although environmental improvements are realized only
incrementally, the mill is subject to the total set of
limits--including the ultimate performance requirements--as
soon as its Advanced Technology permit is written based on
the first increment of that BAT package. Thus, the mill is
continuously subject to and must comply immediately with the
Advanced Technology BAT package as it progressively unfolds,
including each interim BAT limitation or permit condition
representing that progress.
EPA's promulgation of BAT as a package of progressively
612
-------
more stringent limitations and conditions is also consistent
with the use of BAT as a "beacon to show what is possible."
Kennecott v. EPA. 780 F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985). Thus,
while the compulsory BAT in this rule functions as the "base
level" for the subcategory as a whole, see-E.I, du Pont de
Nemours & Co. v. Train. 430 U.S. 112, 129 (1977), EPA
expects the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations to
drive technologies and mills beyond that base level toward
achievement of the goals of the Clean Water Act. By holding
out the Advanced Technologies as beacons of progress, EPA
believes that today's rule will encourage more mills to
strive toward EPA's pollution prevention and reduced flow
objectives than might otherwise do so if EPA promulgated
nothing more than a "base level" BAT. Moreover, by
codifying progressively more stringent limitations in
today's Advanced Technology BAT package, EPA promotes a form
of technological progress that is consistent with
Congressional intent that BAT should aspire to "increasingly
higher levels of control." See, e.g.. Statement of Sen.
Muskie (Oct. .4, 1972), reprinted in A Legislative History of
the Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 ("1972
613
-------
Leg. Hist."), at 170. It is also consistent with the
overall goals of the Act. -See CWA Section 101(a). Agencies
have considerable discretion to interpret their statutes to
promote Congressional objectives. "l[T]he breadth of agency
discretion is, if anything, at zenith when the action . . .
relates primarily to . . the fashioning of policies,
remedies and sanctions, including enforcement and voluntary
compliance programs[,] in order to arrive at maximum
effectuation of Congressional objectives.'" U.....S_._
Steelworkers of America v. Marshall. 647 F.2d 1189, 1230-31
n.64 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (upholding OSHA rule staggering lead
requirements over 10 years) (quoting Niagara Mohawk Power
Corp. v. FPC. 379 F.2d 153, 159 (D.C. Cir. 1967)), cert.
denied. 453 U.S. 9113 (1981). In this case, the
codification of progressively more stringent BAT limitations
advances not only the general goal of the Clean Water Act,
but also the explicit goal of the BAT program. See Chevron,,
U.S.A. . Inc. v. NRDC. 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984) .
Moving toward the elimination of pollutant discharges
in stages is also consistent with overarching structure of
the effluent limitations guidelines program. Congress
614
-------
originally envisioned that the sequence of attaining BPT
limits in 1977 and BAT limits in 1983 would result in
"levels of control which approach and achieve the
elimination of the discharge of pollutants." Statement of
Sen. Muskie (Oct. 4, 1972), reprinted in 1972 Legislative
History, at 170. This two-step approach produced- dramatic
improvements in water quality, but did not achieve the
elimination of pollutant discharges. Therefore, EPA
periodically revisits and revises its effluent limitations
guidelines with the intention each time of making further
progress toward the national goal. (This is the sixth
effluent limitations guideline promulgated for the pulp and
paper industry, and the fourth applicable to bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills.) Achieving these
incremental improvements through successive rulemakings
carries a substantial cost, however. The effluent guideline
rulemaking process is highly complex, in large part because
of the massive record compiled to inform the Agency's
decisions and because of the substantial costs associated
with achieving each additional increment of environmental
improvement. By promulgating these Voluntary Advanced
615
-------
Technology BAT limitations today as a package of incremental
environmental improvements, EPA hopes to achieve the goals
that Congress envisioned for the BAT program at considerably
less cost: one rulemaking that looks both at the present and
well into the future. Mills willing to surpass today's
compulsory BAT requirements have a framework to anticipate
what could be tomorrow's subcategory-wide BAT and to make
today's environmental, financial and engineering judgments
accordingly. Thus, the three-tiered incentives program
itself represents reasonable further progress toward the
goal of eliminating pollutant discharges. At the same time,
within each Tier, mills must make incremental improvements
that also represent reasonable further progress toward that
national goal. In short, each BAT increment, whether in the
form of the Tiers themselves or the progressively more
stringent limitations comprising them, gives contemporary
meaning to the staging process originally envisioned by
Congress as the means to achieve the goal of eliminating
discharge of pollutants to the Nation's waters.
Finally, like other agencies, EPA has inherent
authority to phase in regulatory requirements in appropriate
616
-------
cases. EPA has employed this authority in other contexts.
For example, EPA recently phased in, over two years, TSCA
rules pertaining to lead-based paint activities. See 40 CFR
746.239 and 61 FR 45788, 45803 (Aug. 29, 1996). Similarly,
the Occupational Safety and Health Administration phased,in,
over 10 years, a series of progressively more stringent
lead-related controls. See 29 CFR 1910.1025 (1979 ed.).
Indeed, in upholding that rule, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit noted that "the extremely remote
deadline at which the [sources] are to meet the final
[permissible exposure limits] is perhaps the single most
important factor supporting the feasibility of the
standard." United Steelworkers of America v. Marshall. 647
F.2d at 1278.
EPA is aware that CWA sections 301(b)(2)(C) & (D)
require BAT limits to be achieved "in no case later than
three years after the date such limits are promulgated under
section 304(b), and in no case later than March 31, 1989."
(Section 301(b)(2)(F), which refers to BAT limitations for
nonconventional pollutants, also contains the March 31, 1989
date, but uses as its starting point the date the
617
-------
limitations are "established.") This language does not
speak to the precise question EPA confronts here: whether
EPA can promulgate Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limitations that are phased in over time, so that a direct
discharger at all times is subject to and must comply
immediately with the particular BAT limitations applicable
to them at any given point in time. Section 301(b)(2)
provides no clear direction. EPA therefore is charged with
making a reasonable interpretation of the statute to fill
the gap. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. at
843-44. EPA believes that subjecting mills who voluntarily jflfe
enroll in the Voluntary Advance Technology Incentives
Program to progressively more stringent BAT limitations over
time best serves Congress' intent of pushing mills to
achieve reasonable further progress toward eliminating all
pollutant discharges. It also ensures that mills achieve
these superior performance requirements at a pace that makes
technical and economic sense. Finally, by phasing in these
highly stringent--but elected--controls, EPA hopes to
encourage more mills to surpass the BAT baseline, with the
result that the environment realizes a far greater
*
618
-------
improvement than EPA could expect to see without this phased
approach. For these reasons, EPA believes it is entitled to
deference in its decision to promulgate Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT limits in this manner.
Several commenters supported the idea of phasing in
compliance with BAT limitations for the purpose of
minimizing short-term economic impacts on mills, but urged
EPA to adopt this approach to set baseline BAT limits based
on the model Tier I Advanced Technology (i.e., BAT Option
B). In other words, these commenters argued that more
stringent baseline BAT limits based on the Tier I technology
would be economically achievable for the entire subcategory
because affected mills would have five years to achieve full
compliance. As noted above, EPA agrees that The Advanced
Technologies that are not economically achievable at present
can become economically achievable for individual mills that
voluntarily participate as time passes. Indeed, Congress
recognized as much in requiring EPA to review its effluent
guidelines and to revise them as appropriate. See CWA
section 304(b). However, EPA disagrees that it currently
has sufficient basis on the record available today to compel
619
-------
all mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory to meet the more stringent limits five years
from now. In this rulemaking, the economic achievability of
those more stringent (Tier I) limits is determined by the
voluntary investment decisions of the affected mills;
because of the voluntary nature of the Advanced Technology
Incentives Program, it is the mills, not EPA, that determine
that particular Advanced Technologies are available and
economically achievable for them within the time frames
provided in this program. In order for EPA to impose
Advanced Technology limits on the entire subcategory as the
commenter suggests, EPA would need to find adequate support
in the rulemaking record today that compulsory BAT limits
will be economically achievable for their entire subcategory
five years from now. EPA cannot make that determination
based on the information available today. At best, EPA
could only speculate whether some or all of the mills
projected to sustain the most severe economic impacts if BAT
Option B is selected would be able to avoid those impacts if
compliance with that BAT is deferred. EPA does not believe
that this type of speculation is a sufficient basis for
620
-------
compelling compliance with BAT limits that are not
economically achievable today for the subcategory as a
whole. Moreover, when EPA estimated the effects of
deferring compliance, subcategory-wide, for five years in
response to these comments, EPA concluded that the projected
impacts were such that, even then, BAT Option B would not be
economically achievable for the subcategory as a whole. See
Section VI.B.5.a(5). For these reasons, EPA concludes that
it does not have a sufficient record basis today to make
Tier I (or-BAT Option B) limitations the compulsory baseline
BAT even if such limits would not be effective until 2002.
See DCN 14392, and CBI documents DCN 14390 and DCN 14391.
EPA could have accomplished the same results in this
rulemaking simply by deferring the effective dates of the
ultimate Advanced Technology performance objectives until
the dates specified in the rule for achievement of the
"stage 2" limitations. EPA has the legal authority to defer
the effective dates of the "stage 2" portion of the Advanced
Technology BAT limitations in this manner. Subject to the
minimum delays imposed by the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 553 (,d) , and
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act
621
-------
(SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. § 801, EPA has inherent authority to
determine the effective' date of a rule and to defer the
effective date in appropriate cases. See ASG Industries,
Inc. v. Consumer Products Safety Comm'n. 593 F.2d 1323, 1335
(D.C. Cir. 1979). Nothing in the Clean Water Act limits
this authority with respect to BAT effluent limitations
guidelines. In contrast to section 306(b)(1)(B), where
Congress explicitly stated that new source performance
standards, "or revisions thereof, shall become effective
upon promulgation," the CWA is silent regarding the
effective date of BAT effluent limitations guidelines.
Having failed to prescribe when BAT guidelines become
effective, Congress therefore has delegated to the Agency
the authority to choose the appropriate effective date of
.<£*
the BAT effluent guideline limitations it promulgates, so
long as the Agency's choice is consistent with the goals and
purposes of the Act. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC. 467
U.S. at 843-44, 861. Under this approach, the "stage 1"
limitations would be effective immediately, and the "stage
2" limitations would become effective by the dates specified
in the regulation.
622
-------
B. Incentives Available After Achievement of Advanced
Technology BAT Limitations and NSPS
1. Greater Certainty Regarding Permit Limits and
Requirements
Industry stakeholders have suggested to EPA that mills
could be encouraged to implement advanced technologies if
they had a reasonable assurance that all limitations and
conditions in their permits would remain constant over a
specified period of time,-once compliance with the Advanced
Technology limits and standards is achieved.
Under this incentive, EPA will issue guidance to states
regarding the reissuance of NPDES permits held by mills that
achieve all of their Advanced Technology BAT limitations or
NSPS. (EPA notes that new sources that accept permit
limitations based on, and commence operation in compliance
with, Tier II or Tier III NSPS automatically possess a
shield against more stringent standards of performance for
ten years from the completion of construction.)
In its forthcoming guidance, EPA will address the
timing of reissuing Advanced Technology NPDES permits and
the limitations those reissued permits should contain.
623
-------
Regarding the reissuance of Advanced Technology NPDES
permits, EPA believes that permitting authorities could
reasonably conclude that an Advanced Technology NPDES permit
held by a mill meeting all of its Tier limits is a low
priority for permit reissuance, if there is no new water
quality- or facility-related data or information that would
justify new or different limits. Under these circumstances,
EPA believes it would be reasonable for a permitting
authority to conclude that that permit is a lower priority
for reissuance because the mill is voluntarily achieving
reductions greater than otherwise required by the baseline
BAT and hence presents a lower risk to water quality than
other mills.
In its guidance, however, EPA will emphasize that an
Advanced Technology NPDES permit should be administratively
extended only if the permitting authority had provided the
public with notice (the last time the permit was reissued)
that it might choose to extend the permit administratively
when it expires. Thus, EPA expects the permitting authority
to notify the public as part of the preceding permitting
process of the circumstances under which it would regard the
624
-------
Advanced Technology NPDES permit as a low priority for
reissuance in the next permitting cycle. For example, EPA
expects the permitting authority to inform the public that
the permit probably would be administratively extended if
the permittee has achieved all of its Advanced Technology
limitations, if it has filed a timely permit application,
and if the permitting authority possesses no new water
quality or facility-related data that would justify new or
different permit conditions and limits. In addition, EPA
expects that the permit eligible for an administrative
extension would contain 'BMPs and any water quality-based
effluent limits necessary to achieve applicable water
quality standards. Thus, EPA would not expect any adverse
effect on the environment during the period the permit is
administratively extended, in the absence of specific
information indicating that more stringent water quality
effluent limits need to be imposed.
The forthcoming guidance will also address the types of
limitations an Advanced Technology NPDES permit should
contain when .it is reissued after achievement of the Tier
limitations. As a threshold matter, the permitting
625
-------
authority will need to determine if there is a need for new
or revised water quality-based effluent limitations. If
there is none, EPA encourages permitting authorities to
promptly reissue the NPDES permit with the existing water
quality-based effluent limitations, if any, and the
appropriate limitations found in 40 CFR Part 430. In some
cases, the permitting authority may receive new facility- or
watershed-specific information indicating that load
reductions and, consequently, more stringent effluent limits
on a pollutant in the mill's wastewater are necessary to
achieve applicable water quality standards for that
pollutant. Under these circumstances, EPA would urge states
to develop priorities for allocating the necessary load
reductions in a way that gives preference to Advanced
Technology mills over all other Subpart B mills,
particularly where Advanced Technology mills contribute a
small portion of the total pollutant loads to the stream.
Moreover, where more than one Advanced Technology mill
discharges in a watershed, these priorities would further
give preference first to Tier III mills, then to Tier II,
and finally to Tier I mills.
626
-------
2. Reduced Effluent Monitoring
EPA believes that reduced monitoring provisions are
appropriate for ECF and TCP mills participating in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program and is
including them in the today's regulation for mills that
achieve Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations or
NSPS, as appropriate. See 40 CFR 430.02 (c), (d) and (e) .
In EPA's view, consistent and successful implementation of
the Advanced Technologies through ECF or TCF processes will
make it increasingly less likely that the pollutants
controlled by the baseline BAT will be present in the
wastewater from Advanced Technology fiber lines in levels of
concern. Because of these reductions and because monitoring
for .these pollutants tends to be costly, EPA believes it is
reasonable to allow mills achieving the Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT limitations or NSPS through ECF or TCF
processes to monitor less frequently for those pollutant
parameters over time after establishing a reliable baseline
of consistent achievement of those Advanced Technology BAT
limitations or NSPS. See 40 CFR 430 . 02 (c)-(e) . To qualify
for a monitoring incentive, the mill must certify that the
627
-------
fiber line is TCF or Advanced ECF either as part of their
permit application or as part of a report of progress on
compliance with milestones established to achieve their
ultimate Tier limits. 40 CFR 430.02(c).
No monitoring incentive is available for kappa number
or flow because no minimum monitoring frequencies are being
established by this regulation. EPA encourages permitting
authorities to consider factors such as the reliability of
the Advanced Technology to consistently achieve or exceed
the applicable limitations and performance variability in
establishing monitoring frequencies for kappa number and
flow on a best professional judgment basis.
The monitoring incentive for AOX applies only when the
entire mill is ECF or TCF. See 40 CFR 430.02(c) and (d) .
Since compliance with AOX most likely will be determined at
the end of the pipe, the monitoring requirement would be
governed by the fiber line for which most frequent
monitoring is required.
EPA retains the authority to request or obtain specific
information that may be needed to determine compliance with
the requirements of this rule. Because monitoring relief is
628
-------
specified to be available by the date compliance is
required, even if the limits have not been achieved, EPA
anticipates that permitting authorities will exercise their
Section 308 authority to extend more frequent monitoring for
mills that do not achieve compliance with their limitations.
EPA relies on section 308 (a) of the Clean Water Act for
authority to promulgate this incentive. The reduced
monitoring for this effluent limitations guideline incentive
program is.being incorporated in the Code of Federal
Regulations, and is summarised as follows:
a. For TCF fiber lines under Tiers .1, II, and III, no
monitoring incentive is available because no existing TCF
fiber line is subject to minimum monitoring frequencies
established by this rule. See 40 CFR 430.02(a). EPA
anticipates that permitting authorities will consider the
monitoring for AOX being imposed on mills in comparable
Tiers, and the additional assurance of compliance that TCF
process technologies afford relative to AOX, in establishing
monitoring frequencies on a best professional judgment
basis. For mills that use TCF processes part of the time
and ECF.processes for the remainder, EPA would apply the
629
-------
reduced monitoring incentive applicable to an ECF process.
See 40 CFR 430.02 (c),- (d) and (e) .
b. For any fiber line enrolled under Tier I, II, or
III for which the mill certifies in its NPDES permit
application or other communication to the permitting
authority that it employs exclusively Advanced ECF
technologies (i.e., extended delignification or other
technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance
levels specified in Section 430.24(b) (4) (i) ) , the minimum
monitoring requirements for dioxin, furan, chloroform and
the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants will be suspended
after one year of monitoring following achievement of those
limitations and standards. See 40 CFR 430.02 (c). (These
limitations and standards must be achieved no later than
[insert date six years from publication] . See 40 CFR
430.24(b)(3).) For AOX, a certifying Advanced ECF mill also
would be permitted to perform weekly instead of daily
monitoring for one year after achievement of the ultimate
Tier BAT limit or NSPS for that pollutant. See 40 CFR
430.02(d). Monitoring for AOX once per month would be
permitted for Tier I ECF mills for four years beyond the
630
-------
completion of that one year period. See 40 CFR 430.02(e).
Tier II ECF mills would be permitted to monitor for AOX once
per quarter for four years beyond the completion of that one
year period, and Tier III ECF mills would be permitted to
monitor for AOX once per year for four years beyond the
completion of that one year period. Id.
3. Reduced Inspections
EPA will issue guidance to EPA Regional Offices
indicating that fiber lines enrolled in the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program and achieving
Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations or NSPS should
be a lower priority than other NPDES facilities for routine
inspections under the CWA. Under this incentive, the
guidance would recommend that fiber lines achieving Tier I
limits receive routine EPA inspections not more than once
every two years; fiber lines achieving Tier II limits
receive routine EPA inspections not more than twice every
five years; and fiber lines achieving Tier III limits
receive routine EPA inspections not more than once every
five years. This incentive reflects EPA's view that mills
installing and operating Advanced Technologies at levels to
631
-------
meet the appropriate tier effluent limitations and standards
are likely to be complying with the other permit
requirements applicable to that fiber line. Furthermore,
the substantial reductions in pollutants and wastewater
volumes discharged, particularly by mills achieving Tier- II
and Tier III limitations and standards, will have
commensurately reduced environmental impacts. EPA already
has redirected Federal NPDES inspections away from annual
inspections of all major dischargers to focus on high risk
facilities in priority watersheds. Targeted efforts in
these priority watersheds focus on such factors as facility
compliance status and rates, location and affected
population, citizen complaints, etc. Nonetheless, under
this incentive, EPA reserves the authority to conduct multi-
media inspections without prior notice, and to inspect
Advanced Technology fiber lines for cause, whether or not
there is an ongoing violation. EPA also reserves its right
to inspect an Advanced Technology mill in connection with
specific watershed or airshed concerns.
4. Public Recognition Programs
EPA is pleased to have the opportunity to implement a
632
-------
program in which it can recognize facilities for voluntary
activities that achieve further environmental improvements
beyond those required by the baseline BAT limitations and
NSPS promulgated today. EPA's intention is to provide for
easily administered and meaningful public recognition for
mills that participate in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program. EPA will accord public recognition,to
mills when they formally enroll in the Program, when they
achieve major interim milestones, and when they achieve the
ultimate Tier performance requirements. The applicable
state permitting authority also may choose to separately
recognize a pulp and paper mill for its commitments and
achievements toward further environmental improvements. The
following paragraphs describe the steps for public
recognition. EPA will issue additional guidance to
facilitate implementation of this incentive.
a. Enrolling in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program
Once a mill has enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program, EPA will issue a letter to
each facility acknowledging its participation and
633
-------
identifying the tier limits (and fiber line(s) as
appropriate) to which the mill has committed. Each year EPA
will publish a Federal Register notice identifying mills
that have committed to the program within the previous year.
The self-selected Tier will be clearly identified, as will
any other pertinent information. The Federal Register
notice will be made available on the EPA Internet web site.
b. Achievement of Milestones
Each time a mill achieves a major milestone
(particularly those which achieve reduction in effluent
pollutant loadings), EPA will recognize that mill in its
annual Federal Register notice. In order to qualify for
this recognition, each mill must notify its permitting
authority and provide supporting monitoring data or other
-ffcJt
relevant documentation. The permitting authority may choose
to visit the site for verification. EPA, in concert with
the relevant state NPDES programs, also will then ascertain
the status of Clean Water Act compliance and any other
enforcement actions prior to public recognition activities.
Any criminal enforcement activities, particularly
convictions, also will be ascertained. This information on
634
-------
compliance and enforcement status will be available for
consideration by EPA senior management prior to initiation
of public recognition activities. Relevant information on
enforcement and compliance status also may be shared as
appropriate with senior management of state permitting
agencies that initiate separate public recognition
activities. 'Public recognition for achieving milestones
will continue until the date participating mills are
required to achieve the ultimate Tier performance
requirements.
c. Achievement of Voluntary Advanced Technologies BAT
Limitations or NSPS.
Mills that achieve their Advanced Technology BAT
Limitations or NSPS will notify the permitting authority and
submit supporting monitoring data and other relevant
documentation. The permitting authority will verify that
the Advanced Technology BAT Limitations or NSPS have been
achieved. The annual Federal Register notice will- identify
these facilities as reaching their goal. EPA also will
participate in an award ceremony at an appropriate venue
(e.g., TAPPI Environmental Conference).
635
-------
5. Reduced Penalties
In recognition of the considerable capital expenditures
that mills participating in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program will make to,implement
Advanced Technologies and to achieve pollutant reductions
superior to those achievable through the baseline BAT or
NSPS, EPA will encourage enforcement authorities to take
into account those investments as appropriate when assessing
penalties against these mills for violations relating to
those Advanced Technologies. Existing EPA settlement
policies provide consideration of Advanced Technology ^^
investments in this manner. In EPA's view, if a facility
has installed and is operating the Advanced Technology in
good faith, reports violations in a prompt manner to EPA or
the State, and either corrects the violations in a timely
manner or agrees to and complies with reasonable remedial
measures concurred on by the primary enforcement authority,
then the enforcement authority would be justified in taking
the Advanced Technology investment into account in
determining economic benefit and in reducing the gravity
portion of the penalty by up to 100 percent. Where the
636
-------
installation and operation of any Advanced Technology was
more expensive than the installation and operation of the
technology underlying the baseline BAT, the Advanced
Technology facilities would derive no economic benefit
(i.e., zero BEN) from the violation associated with the
Advanced Technology. This would be the case even when the
Advanced Technology fails, as long as the design, operation
and installation are within applicable engineering standards
and operational procedures are within industry norms. The
decision whether to take such Advanced Technology
investments into account in determining economic benefit
would be left to the State's discretion when the State is
the enforcing authority. EPA will issue guidance to clarify
application of this incentive.
Mills also can take advantage of the recently issued .
audit policy providing they meet the criteria specified in
that policy. See 60 FR 66706 (Dec. 22, 1995).
X. Administrative Requirements and Related Government Acts
or Initiatives
A. Dockets
The docket is an organized and complete file of all the
637
-------
information submitted to or otherwise considered by EPA in
the development of the final regulations. The principal
purposes of the docket are: (1) to allow interested parties
to readily identify and locate documents so that they can
intelligently and effectively participate in the rulemaking
process; and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial
review, except for intra-agency review materials as provided
for in section 307(d)(7)(A).
1. Air Dockets
Air Docket No. A-92-40 contains information considered
by EPA in development of the NESHAP for the chemical wood jjtoi
pulping mills. Air Docket No. A-95-31 contains information
considered in developing the NESHAP for mechanical pulping
processes, secondary fiber pulping processes, and nonwood
fiber pulping processes. The Air Dockets are available for
public inspection between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday except for Federal holidays, at the following
address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and
Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M
Street SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 260-7548.
The dockets are located at the above address in Room M-1500,
638
-------
Waterside Mall (grouiid floor) . All comments received during
the public comment period on the 1993 proposed NESHAP are
contained in the Pulp and Paper Water Docket (see following
paragraph for location). Comments received on the March 8,
1996, supplemental NESHAP notice at 61 FR 9383 are contained
in Air Dockets A-92-40 and A-95-31.
2. Water Docket.
The complete public record for the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards rulemaking, including EPA's
responses to comments received during the rulemaking, is
available for review at EPA's Water Docket, Room M2616, 401
M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. For access to Docket
materials, call (202) 260-3027. The Docket staff requests
that interested parties call between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm for
an appointment before visiting the docket.
The EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2 provide that a
reasonable fee may be charged for copying materials from the
Air and Water Dockets.
EPA notes that many documents in the record supporting
these final rules have been claimed as confidential business
information (CBI) and, therefore, are not included in the
639
-------
record that is available to the public in the Air and Water
Dockets. To support the rulemaking, EPA is presenting
certain information in aggregated form or is masking
facility identities to preserve confidentiality claims.
Further, the Agency has withheld from disclosure some data
not claimed as confidential business information because
release of this information could indirectly reveal
information claimed to be confidential.
B. Executive Order 12866 and OMB Review
Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993) , the Agency must determine whether the regulatory ^^
9
action is "significant" and therefore subject to OMB review
and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order
defines "significant regulatory action" as one that "is
likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely
affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment,
public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal
governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or
640
-------
planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising
out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the
principles set forth in the Executive Order."
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has
been determined that the Cluster Rules are a "significant
regulatory action" because they will have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more. As such, this
action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are
documented in the public record.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
Under, the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) , 5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.. as amended by SBREFA, EPA generally is required
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis describing the
impact of the rule on small entities. However, under
section 605(b) of the RFA, EPA is not required to prepare
the regulatory flexibility analysis if EPA certifies that
641
-------
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Agency
certifies that today's final CWA rule will not have a
significant economic- impact on a substantial number of small
entities. In addition, EPA also finds that the final CAA
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities, as
defined, include small businesses, small governments, and
small organizations. This rulemaking does not affect small
organizations. For small governments, these rules could
directly affect administration or ,operating costs, but are.
not expected to result in significant impacts (see Section
X.E.). Small businesses are the remaining class of small
entity affected by this rulemaking. For small businesses,
EPA examined the economic impacts of these rules in detail
and the results of its analysis are found in the "Economic
Analysis" (see DCN 14649). The following is a brief summary
of the analysis.
Today's CWA final rule will not have a significant -
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
642
-------
because of those companies affected by the CWA rule, only
four are "a small business concern" as defined by SBA
regulations. (The RFA, in general, requires use of SBA
definitions of small businesses; for this regulation, small
businesses are defined as firms employing no more than 750
workers.) EPA does not believe this is a substantial number
of small entities as that term is used in the RFA.
Moreover, while all four small business concerns would
experience increased costs of operation as a result of
today's rule, the costs of complying with the rule are also
not significant. As a measure of the economic impact of
today's requirements on a small entity, EPA evaluated the
costs of the rule relative to the company's annual revenues.
The cost of the rule only exceeded one percent of revenues
for one of the facilities and in no case did it exceed three
percent.
When the costs of the CWA rule are considered in
combination with the costs of the final CAA MACT I and MACT
III rules, EPA's conclusion does not change. EPA's analysis
showed that the combined costs of achieving compliance with
the final air and water rules will not have a significant
.643
-------
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As noted above, the CWA rule affects only four small
entities. Further, the combined costs of the riiles only
exceeded one percent of revenues for one of the four small
entities covered by both the final air and water rules, and
for no small entity did it exceed three percent. Even
though this is a small cost, because of the poor pre-
existing economic conditions at one facility, EPA projects
that one facility owned by one of the small firms may close
as a result of the combined final CWA and CAA rules. EPA
has determined that one closure is not a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small business
concerns.
Though not required by the RFA, EPA also examined the
costs of the final CWA rule in combination with the costs of
the final MACT I and MACT III and proposed MACT II rules.
EPA's analysis showed that the combined costs of achieving
compliance with the final air and water rules and the
proposed MACT II rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. As stated
before, only four small entities would be affected. The
644
-------
combined cost of the rules would only exceed one percent of
revenues for two small entities and for no small entity
covered by both the final air and water rules and the
proposed air rule would it exceed three percent. Even
though this is a small cost, because of the poor pre-
existing economic conditions at one facility, EPA projects
that one facility owned by one of the small firms may close
as a result of the final CWA and final and proposed CAA
rules.
EPA's assessment of the impacts on small businesses
subject to the final CAA rules yields similar results. EPA
evaluated the impacts of the costs of the final MACT I and
MACT III rules on small businesses. Of the companies
affected by the two CAA rules, only 11 meet the SBA
definition of wa small business concern." EPA does not
believe this is a substantial number of small entities as
that term is used in the RFA. EPA has also examined the
extent of the impact on those 11 companies and finds that
the costs of complying with the final MACT I rule and the
final MACT III rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In
645
-------
evaluating the costs of the rules relative to the company's
annual revenues, EPA's analysis shows that no company is
estimated to incur costs in excess of one percent of its
revenues as a result of implementing the final MACT I and
MACT III rules. As a consequence, EPA finds that the CAA
rule does not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
When the costs of the final MACT I and MACT III rules
are considered in combination with the costs of the final
CWA rule, EPA's analysis shows that the combined costs of
achieving compliance with the final air and water rules is
still not a significant impact on a substantial number of
small entities. As discussed, only 11 small business
concerns must comply with the CAA rule. Of these, only four
...a*
will experience additional cos%s due to the CWA rule. The
combined costs of the rules only exceeded one percent of
revenues for one small entity covered by both the air and
water rules, and for no small entity did it exceed three
percent. Even though this is a small cost, because of the
poor pre-existing economic conditions at one facility, EPA
projects that one facility owned by one of the small firms
_._
-------
may close as a result of the co'mbined final CWA and CAA
rules. '
Though not required by the RFA, EPA also assessed the
cumulative economic effect on small entities if the proposed
MACT rule is adopted. EPA's conclusion that costs to small
entities are not great does not change when the costs of the
final and proposed MACT rules are combined with the costs of
the final CWA rule. The combined cost of the rules would
only exceed one percent of revenues for two small entities
covered by both the final air and water rules and the
proposed air rule, and for no small entity would it exceed
three percent. Even though this is a small cost, because
of the poor pre-existing economic conditions at one
facility, EPA projects that one facility owned by one of the
small firms may close as a result of the combined final CWA
and CAA rules.
D. Paperwork Reduction-Act
The information collection requirements in the air
emissions rules have been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
C
Reduction Act. 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An Information
647
-------
Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1657.02), and'a copy may be obtained from Sandy
Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division;
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St.,
S.W.; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740.
The information requirements are not effective until OMB
approves them.
The information required to be collected by the air
emission rules is needed as part of the overall compliance
and enforcement program. It is necessary to identify the
regulated entities who are subject to the rule and ensure
their compliance with the rule. The recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are mandatory and are being
established under Section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
There are approximately 490 respondents that are
potentially affected by the air emission rules. All 490
respondents must submit an initial applicability
notification. Of the 490 affected respondents, there would
be an estimated 155 respondents required to perform
additional information collection. For the 155 respondents,
this collection of information has an estimated total annual
648
-------
recordkeeping and reporting burden averaging 320 hours per
respondent during the first three years after promulgation.
For the 155 respondents, the average annualized cost of-the
reporting and recordkeeping burden per respondent is $29,600
for the first three years following promulgation.
The recordkeeping and reporting burden means the total
time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide
information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the
time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes
of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply
with any previously applicable instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a
collection of information; search data sources; complete and
review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information.
Specifically, the estimated 155 respondents must submit
performance test notifications, statements of compliance,
649
-------
and semi-annual reports of monitored parameters. The 155
respondents must also conduct performance tests. If
compliance exceedances occur, respondents must submit
quarterly excess emissions reports. This information will
be used to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP.
Send comments on the Agency's need for this
information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates,
and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden,
including through the use of automated collection techniques
to the Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.; ^^
Washington, D.C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725
17th St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20503, marked "Attention: -
Desk Officer for EPA." Include the ICR number in any
correspondence.
The effluent limitation guidelines and standards
promulgated today contain two distinct information
collection activities, i.e., specified monitoring
requirements, see 40 CFR 430.02, and development of BMP
plans and related monitoring, see 40 CFR 430.03(c) (4),
650
-------
(c) (5) , (c)(10), (d) , (e) , (f) , (g), (h) and (i) (4) . EPA
will seek approval of these information collection
requirements from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
as follows. EPA will seek to amend the NPDES Discharge
Monitoring Report ICR No. 229, OMB approval number 2040-
0004, expiration May 31, 1998, to add specified monitoring
requirements for direct dischargers. EPA will seek to add
the specified monitoring requirements for indirect
dischargers by amending the National Pretreatment Program
ICR No. 2, OMB approval number 2040-0009, prior to its
expiration on October 31, 1999. EPA will seek approval of
the Best Management Practices ICR No. 1829.0,1 for the
requirements pertaining to BMP plans and associated
monitoring. EPA's burden estimates for the BMP ICR are
presented for comment in a document published elsewhere in
today's Federal Register.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is
not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in
651
-------
40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
In addition, direct discharging mills continue to be
required, under 40 CFR 122.21, to submit certain information
as part of their application for an NPDES permit. Indirect
discharging mills, in turn, must submit industrial user
reports and periodic reports regarding compliance with
categorical pretreatment standards under 40 CFR 403.12(b),
(d), and (e). The effluent limitations guidelines and
standards being promulgated today do not change those
requirements. EPA notes that mills that describe their
process as TCF or ECF under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) or 40 CFR
403.12(b), (d), or (e) as applicable, supply corroborating
data if requested by the permitting authority under 40 CFR
122.21(g) (13), and comply with the signatory and
certification requirements in 40 CFR 122.22 or 40 CFR
403.12(1) as applicable will be deemed to have certified
their process as TCF or ECF. In addition, direct
discharging mills that indicate under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3)
and (g)(13) their desire to participate in the Advanced
Technology Incentives Program and comply with the signatory
and certification requirements in 40 CFR 122.22 or 40 CFR
652
-------
122.23, whichever is applicable,? will be deemed to have
enrolled in the Advanced Technology Incentives Program. In
both cases, this information will determine the types of
technology-based effluent limitations and standards and the
types of monitoring requirements, if any, they will receive.
OMB has approved the existing information collection
requirements associated with NPDES discharge permit
applications and industrial user reports under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. OMB has assigned OMB
control number 2040-0086 to the NPDES permit application
activity and OMB control numbers 2040-0009 and 2040-0150 to
the reporting and certification requirements for industrial
users. Nothing in today's rule changes the burden estimates
for these ICRs.
All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim
of confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to
the EPA policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2,
Subpart B-Confidentiality of Information (see 40 CFR part 2;
41 FR 36902, September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999,
September 8, 1978; 43 FR 42241, September 28, 1978; 44 FR
17674, March 23, 1979).
653
-------
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), P.L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal
agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions
on State, local, and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA generally must '
prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with "Federal
mandates" that may result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private
sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is
needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply
when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome
alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final
654
-------
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted.
Before EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may
significantly or uniquely affect small governments,
including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The
plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small
governments, enabling officials of affected small
governments to have meaningful and timely input in the
development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing,
educating, and advising small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements.
EPA has determined that today's final rules contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100
million or more for the private sector in any one year.
Accordingly, EPA has prepared the written statement required
by section 202 of the UMRA. This statement is contained in
the Economic Analysis for the rule (DCN 14649) and other
support documents and is summarized below. In addition, EPA
has determined that the rules contain no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
655
-------
small governments and therefore are not subject to the
requirement of section 203 of the UMRA. The reasons for
this finding are set forth below.
EPA prepared several supporting analyses for the final
rules. Throughout this preamble and in those supporting
analyses, EPA has responded to the UMRA section 202
requirements. Considerations with respect to costs,
benefits, and regulatory alternatives are addressed in the
Economic Analysis (DCN 14649), which is summarized in
section VIII of this preamble. A very brief summary
follows. jflfck.
9
The statutory authorities for these rules are found in
section 112 of the CAA and multiple sections of the CWA (see
Section I for a list). In part, these sections of the
statutes authorize and direct EPA to issue regulations and
standards to address air emissions and effluent discharges.
EPA prepared a qualitative and quantitative cost-
benefit assessment of the federal requirements imposed by
today's final rules. In large part, the private sector, not
other governments, will incur the costs. Specifically, the
costs of this federal mandate are compliance costs to be
656
-------
borne by the regulated pulp and paper mills. In addition,
although some States and local governments will incur costs
to implement the standards, these costs to governments will
not exceed the thresholds established by UMRA. The final
rules are not expected to result in significant or unique
impacts to small governments; the requirements are
consistent with established and already-operating
implementation programs.
EPA estimates that the total annualized costs for the
private sector to comply with the federal mandate are $351
million (pre-tax)/$229 million (post-tax). The mandate's
benefits are primarily in the areas of reduced health risks
and improved air and water quality. The Economic Analysis
(DCN 14649) describes, qualitatively, many such benefits.
,_.
-------
particular areas of the country, particular types of
communities, or particular industry segments. EPA's basis
for this finding is its analysis of economic impacts, which
is summarized in Section VIII of the preamble and in the
Economic Analysis (DCN 14649). A key feature of that
analysis is the estimation of financial impacts for each
facility incurring compliance costs. EPA considered the
costs, impacts, and other effects for specific regions and
individual communities, and found no disproportionate
budgetary effects. Although these final rules apply only to
one industry segment, EPA found no disproportionate
budgetary effect. (The term segment as used in this context
refers to the industrial category of pulp, paper, and
paperboard, and not to individual subcategories within that
category; it is used differently in other sections of this
preamble.) The Economic Analysis (DCN 14649) also describes
the rules' effect on the national economy in terms of
effects on productivity, economic growth, and international
competitiveness; EPA found such effects to be minimal.
Although EPA has determined that these rules do not contain
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect any
658
-------
State, local, or tribal governments (see chapter 7), EPA
consulted with State and local air and water pollution
control officials. These consultations primarily
pertained to implementation issues for States and local
governments. EPA's evaluation of their comments is
reflected in the final rules.
For each regulatory decision in today's rules, EPA has
selected the "least costly, most cost effective,or least
burdensome alternative" that was consistent with the
requirements of the CAA and CWA. This satisfies section 205
of the UMRA. As part of this rulemaking, EPA had identified
and considered a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives. Primarily, the regulatory alternatives are
manufacturing processes, air emission controls, wastewater
discharge controls, and other technologies. Many of the
alternatives are described above in Section VI; others, are
described in supporting documents. The Agency's
consideration of alternatives also included ail incentives
program to encourage bleached papergrade kraft and soda
mills to commit to pollution prevention advances beyond the
requirements of the federal mandate. See Section IX. The
659
-------
Agency's selection from among these alternatives is
consistent with the requirements of UMRA, in terms of cost,
cost-effectiveness, and burden. Several sections of the
preamble are devoted to describing the Agency's rationale
for each regulatory decision (e.g., sections VLB. 5. a (5) and
VI.B.6.b(2)) .
Finally, EPA has considered the purpose and intent of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and has determined that
these rules are needed, not only because of the significant
pollutant reductions these rules will achieve, see Section
VII, but also to satisfy EPA's obligations under the consent
decree in Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Wildlife
Federation v. Thomas, see Section 11. C.I. a, and EPA's C.AA
obligations.
F. Pollution Prevention Act "
In the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
13101 et seq., Public Law 101-508, November 5, 1990),
Congress declared pollution prevention the national policy
of the United States. The Pollution Prevention Act declares
that pollution should be prevented or reduced whenever
feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or reduced
660
-------
should be recycled or r§used in an environmentally safe
manner wherever feasible; pollution that cannot be recycled
should be treated; and disposal or release into the
environment should be chosen only as a last resort.
Today's rules are consistent with this policy. As
described in section VI, development of today's rules
x
focused on the pollution-preventing technologies that some,
segments of the industry have already adopted. Thus, a
critical component of the technology bases for today's
effluent limitations guidelines and standards are process
changes that eliminate or substantially reduce the formation
of certain toxic chemicals. EPA also employs process
changes as the technology basis for the emission standards.
G. Common Sense Initiative
On August 19, 1994, .the Administrator established the
Common Sense Initiative (CSI) Council in accordance with the
Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, Section
9 (c)) requirements. A principal goal of the CSI includes
developing recommendations for optimal approaches to
multimedia controls for industrial sectors including
Petroleum Refining, Metal Plating and Finishing, Printing,
661
-------
Electronics and Computers, Auto Manufacturing, and Iron and
Steel Manufacturing.
The Pulp and Paper regulations were not among the
rulemaking efforts included in the Common Sense Initiative.
However, many of the CSI objectives have been incorporated
into these final rules, and the Agency intends to continue
to pursue these objectives.
H. Executive Order 12875
To reduce the burden of federal regulations on States
and small governments, the President issued Executive
Order 12875 on October 28, 1993, entitled Enhancing the dfe
V
Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR 58093) . In particular,
this executive order requires EPA to consult with
representatives of affected State, local, or tribal
governments. While these rules do not create mandates upon
State, local, or tribal governments, EPA involved State and
local governments in their development. Because this
regulation imposes costs to the private sector in excess of
$100 million, the EPA pursued the preparation of an unfunded
mandates statement and the other requirements of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The requirements are met as
662
-------
presented in the unfunded mandates section above.
I. Executive Order 12898
Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to
"determine whether their programs, policies, and activities
have disproportionally high adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority populations and low-income
populations." (Sec.3-301 and Sec. 3-302). In developing the
Cluster Rules, EPA analyzed the environmental justice
questions raised by these rules. EPA conducted two analyses
in 1996 to comply with Executive Order 12898 and to
determine human health effects on minority and low-income
populations.
First, in a comparison of demographic characteristics,
EPA found that there is no significant difference in ethnic
makeup or income level of counties where bleached papergrade
kraft and soda mills are located when compared to the States
in which they are located. In fact, of the twenty six
States with bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills,
fifteen States actually have lower minority populations (as
a percentage of overall population) in mill counties than in
the State as a whole, and sixteen States have a lower
663
-------
percent African-American population in mill counties than in
their respective states. Fifteen States have a slightly
larger portion of the population living below the poverty
line in mill counties (15 percent average) when compared to
the State as a whole (14.1 percent average); however, when
EPA examined the results statistically, differences examined
between mill counties and total State populations were riot
significant. Therefore, EPA has concluded that the
regulatory decisions reflected in today's rules will not
have a disproportionately high adverse human health or
environmental effect on minority populations or low-income jg^
9
populations.
Second, EPA investigated the fish consumption
characteristics of Native American populations downstream
from pulp and paper mills. Of the 48 Native American tribes
downstream from pulp mills, eight have special subsistence
fishing rights. One finding from EPA's analysis is that
members of five of these tribes have elevated risks of
contracting cancer from consuming fish contaminated by
dioxin, when compared to the general population and
recreational anglers, because they consume fish at higher
664
-------
levels. EPA expects the. final rule to reduce substantially
the cancer risks to these tribal populations, as discussed
in Chapter 8 of the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649).
J. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a) (1) (A) as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
(SBREFA), EPA submitted a report containing this rule and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives and the Comptroller General.of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule
»
in today's Federal Register. This rule is a "major rule" as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act, the Agency is required to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory and procurement
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g.., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business
practices, etc.) which are developed or adopted by
665
-------
voluntary consensus standards bodies. Where available and
potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards are not
used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, an
explanation of the reasons for not using such standards.
This section summarizes EPA's response to the requirements
of the NTTAA for the analytical test methods promulgated as
part of today's effluent limitations guidelines and
standards.
EPA's analytical test method development is consistent
«
with the requirements of the NTTAA. Although the Agency jttk
initiated data collection for these effluent guidelines many
years prior to enactment of the NTTAA, traditionally,
analytical test method development has been analogous to the
Act's requirements for consideration and use of voluntary
consensus standards. EPA performed extensive literature
searches to identify any analytical methods from industry,
academia, voluntary consensus standards bodies and other
parties that could be used to measure the analytes in
today's rulemaking. The results of this search formed the.
basis for EPA's analytical method development and validation
666
-------
in support of this rulemaking. Two new analytical test
methods are being promulgated in today's final rule (see
Section VLB.4) .
The first method is EPA Method 1650 for determination
of adsorbable organic halides (AOX). Development of Method
1650 began in 1989 to support data gathering for regulation
of pulp and paper industry discharges. This method was
developed by combining various procedures contained in
methods from voluntary consensus standards bodies and other
standards developing organizations such as German DIN
standard 38 409, International Standard Organization (ISO)
Method 9562, Scandinavian Method SCAN-W 9:89, Standard
Method 5320 (published jointly by the American Public Health
Association, the American Water Works Association and the
Water Environment Federation), a method published by
Environment Canada, EPA's Method 9020 and EPA's interim
Method 4.50.1. The foreign and international methods all
employed the batch adsorption technique for determination of
AOX; the U.S. methods all employed the column technique.
Nearly all data collected by the paper industry and others
prior to development of Method 1650 were gathered using the
667
-------
column technique. Method 1650 allows use of both the batch
and column techniques but contains restrictions on the batch
technique specific to paper industry wastewaters, as
detailed in the Method and as described above in Section
VLB.4 and in EPA's responses to public comments (DCN 14497,
Vol. VII). In addition to the differences between
adsorption techniques, none of the existing methods,
including those in voluntary consensus standards, contained
the standardized quality control (QC) and QC acceptance
criteria that EPA requires for data verification and
validation in its water programs. EPA is therefore
promulgating the new EPA Method 1650.
EPA is also promulgating EPA Method 1653 for
determination of chlorinated phenolics. Development of
Method 1653 also began in 1989 to support data gathering for
regulation of pulp and paper industry discharges. This
method was developed using National Council of the Paper
Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) Methods
CP85.01 and CP86.01 as a starting point and adding the
necessary standardized QC and QC acceptance criteria. EPA
Method 1653 and the NCASI methods employ in-situ
668
-------
derivatization to assure that only chlorophenolics are
derivatized and measured. The in-situ derivatization
technique allows only chlorophenolics to be derivatized in
the effluent and leaves behind interfering analytes. This
condition is necessary for accurate measurement of the
relevant analytes. Voluntary consensus standards methods
were not available for chlorophenolics by in-situ
derivatization. EPA is therefore promulgating the new EPA
Method 1653.
Dischargers are also required to monitor for 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (dioxin; TCDD; 2,3,7,8-TCDD),
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF; 2,3,7,8-TCDF),
chloroform, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and total
suspended solids (TSS). Methods for monitoring these
.-f-fci:
pollutants are specified in tafiles at 40 CFR part 136. When
available, methods published by voluntary consensus
standards bodies are included in the list of approved
methods in these tables. Specifically, voluntary consensus
standards are approved for the determination of chloroform,
BOD, and TSS (from the 18th edition of Standard Methods).
In addition, USGS methods are approved for BOD and TSS.
669
-------
For TCDD and TCDF, EPA is specifying the use of EPA
Method 1613, promulgated at 62 FR 48394 (September 15,
1997). This method was developed to support data gathering
for regulation of pulp and paper industry discharges and
incorporates procedures from EPA, academia, industry (NCASI
and the Dow Chemical Co.) and a commercial laboratory.
There were no voluntary consensus standards methods
available for these pollutants by high resolution gas
chromatography (HRGC) coupled with high resolution mass
spectrometry (HRMS) at the time EPA Method 1613 was
developed. Both HRGC and HRMS are required to separately
detect and measure dioxin and furan isomers at low
concentrations (i.e., low parts per quadrillion (ppq)).
High resolution techniques are necessary to conduct the
assay in the presence of interfering analytes. EPA is
unaware of the existence of an HRGC/HRMS method from a
voluntary consensus standards body for determination of TCDD
and TCDF in the low ppq range in pulp and paper industry
discharges.
XI. Background Documents
The summary of public comments and agency responses and
670
-------
the environmental impacts statement for the NESHAP are
contained in the final Background Information Document
(BID). A paper copy of the final Background Information
Document for the NESHAP may be obtained from the U.S. EPA
Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711, telephone (919) 541-2777; or from the National
Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road,
Springfield, Virginia 22151, telephone (703) 487-4650. To
obtain the final Background Information Document,- please
refer to "Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry - Background
Information for Promulgated Air Emission Standards,
Manufacturing Processes at Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, Semi-
Chemical, Mechanical, and Secondary and Non-wood Fiber
Mills, Final EIS" (EPA-453/R-93-050b). An electronic copy
of the final Background Information Document - is available
from the Technology Transfer Network described in the
"SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION" section of this document.
Documents supporting the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards may be obtained by contacting the
National Technical Information Services, 5285 Port Royal
Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151, telephone (703) 487-4650.
671
-------
EPA's technical conclusions concerning the wastewater
regulations are detailed in the "Supplemental Technical
Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Point Source
Category" (EPA-821-R-97-011, DCN 14487). The Agency's
economic analysis is found in the "Economic Analysis for the
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Industry--Phase I," referred to as the Economic ^^
w
Analysis (EPA-821-R-97-012, DCN 14S49). This document also
includes an analysis of the incremental costs and pollutant
removals for the effluent regulations. Analytical methods
,-«.&*
used in the development of theveffluent guidelines are found
672
-------
in "Analytical Methods for the Determination of Pollutants
in Pulp and Paper Industry Wastewater," a compendium of
analytical methods (EPA 821-B-97-00). The environmental
assessment is presented in the "Water Quality Assessment of
Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Papergrade
Sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategories
of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry" (EPA-823-R-97-
009, DCN 14650) . The statistical analyses used in this
rulemaking are detailed in the "Statistical Support Document
for the Pulp and Paper Industry: Subpart B" (DCN 14496).
The best management practices program is presented in
"Technical Support Document for Best Management Practices
for Spent Pulping Liquor Management, Spill Prevention, and
Control (DCN 14489), also referred to as the BMP Technical
673
-------
Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Page 674 of
1149
Support Document. The Advanced Technology Incentives
Program is presented in the "Technical Support Document for
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program," (EPA-
821-R-97-014, DCN 14488).
Dated:
Carol M. Browner
Administrator
674
-------
Final Rules for the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category Page 675 of
1149
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
675
-------
------- |