Friday
December 17, 1993
•- Part II
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Parts 63 and 430
Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
Pretreatment Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Category; National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
for Source Category: Pulp and Paper
Production; Proposed Rule
-------
66078 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 63 and 430
[FRL-4802-4]
BIN 2060-AD03 and 2040-AB53
Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
Pretreatment Standards, and New
Source Performance Standards: Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Category;
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Category: Pulp and Paper Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rules.
SUMMARY: These proposed regulations
would limit the discharge of pollutants
into navigable waters of the United
States and the introduction of pollutants
into publicly owned treatment works by
existing and new facilities that produce
pulp, paper, and paperboard. These
proposed regulations would also limit
the emission of hazardous air pollutants
by existing and new facilities in the
pulp and paper production source
category.
The purpose of this action is to reduce
the discharge of water pollutants and
emissions of hazardous air pollutants
from the pulp, paper, and paperboard
industry, not just with end-of-pipe and
add-on controls, but also by eliminating
or reducing the formation of these
pollutants.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rules
must be received by March 17,1993 at
the following address. For information
on public hearings, see SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
ADDRESSES: Send comments in triplicate
on this proposal to Ms. Marion
Thompson, Engineering and Analysis
Division (4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street
SW., Washington, DC 20460. The public
record supporting the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards is
in the Water Docket located in the
basement of the EPA Headquarters
building, room L102,401M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, telephone
number (202) 260-3027. The public
record supporting the proposed national
emission standards is in the Air Docket
located in room M1500 of the EPA
Headquarters building at the address
listed above, telephone number (202)
260-7548. The Docket staff requests that
interested parties call for an
appointment before visiting the dockets.
The EPA regulations at 40 CFR part 2
provide that a reasonable fee may be
charged for copying. For further
information about the docket, see
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background documents supporting the
proposed regulations are described in
the "Background Documents" section
later in this action. Contact Ms. Marion
Thompson at the address listed above
for any questions concerning
availability of documents. Many of the
documents are also available from the
Office of Water Resource Center, RC-
4100. at the U.S. EPA, Washington, DC
address shown above; telephone (202)
260-7786 for the voice mail publication
request line. For additional technical
information on the water regulation,
contact Mr. Donald Anderson,
Engineering and Analysis Division
(4303), U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20460, or telephone
(202) 260-7137. For additional technical
information on the air regulation,
contact Ms. Penny Lassiter or Mr.
Stephen Shedd, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (MD-13), U.S.
EPA, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711; telephone Ms. Penny
Lassiter at (919) 541-5396 or Mr.
Stephen Shedd at (919) 541-5397. The
contacts for economic information on
the proposed regulations are Mr. Scott
Mathias at the address in Research
Triangle Park, NC listed above,
telephone (919) 541-5310, and Ms.
Debra Nicoll, at the Washington, DC
address listed above, telephone (202)
260-5386.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Public Hearings
EPA will conduct a public hearing on
the effluent pretreatment standards
included in the proposed rule. In
addition, if requested, a public hearing
will be held concerning the proposed
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants. One or more public meetings
on these integrated regulations as a
whole may also be held during the
comment period. The date and location
of any public hearings or meetings will
be announced in the Federal Register.
Docket
EPA notes that many documents in
the record supporting these proposed
rules have been claimed as confidential
business information and, therefore, are
not included in the record that is
available to the public in the Air and
Water Dockets. To support the
rulemaking, EPA is presenting certain
information in aggregated form or is
masking mill 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.
Some mill-specific data, which have
been claimed as confidential business
information, are available to the
• company that submitted the
information. To ensure that all CBI is
protected in accordance with EPA
regulations, any requests for company-
specific data should be submitted on
company letterhead and signed by a
responsible official authorized to
receive such data. The request must list
the specific data requested and include
the following statement, "I certify that
EPA is authorized to transfer
confidential business information
submitted by my company, and that I
am authorized to receive it."
Overview
The preamble describes the
definitions, acronyms, and
abbreviations used in this notice; the
background documents that support
these proposed regulations; the legal
authority of these rules; a summary of
the proposal; background information;
and the technical and economic
methodologies used by the Agency to
develop these regulations. This
preamble also solicits comment and
data on specific areas of interest. •
Organization of This Document
I. Definitions, Acronyms, and
Abbreviations
II. Background Documents
III. Legal Authority
IV. Summary of the Proposed
Regulations
A. Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards
B. National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants •
C. Scope of Today's Proposed Rules
V. Background
A. Clean Water Act
B. Clean Air Act
C. Sludge Regulatory Development
D. Pollution Prevention Act
E. Summary of Environmental Studies
F. Summary of Public Participation
VI. Integrated Regulatory Development
Under the Clean Water Act and the
Clean Air Act
A.Background
B. Goals
C. Technical Approach
D. Results
VTI, Description of the Industry
A. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing
Facilities
B. Manufacturing Processes
Vni. Summary of Data Gathering Efforts
A. Wastewater Sampling Program
B. 1990 National Census of Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard
-------
Federal .Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66079
Manufacturing Facilities
C. Data Gathering Activities for Air
Emission Standards
IX. Development of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
A., Industry Subcategorization
B. Characterization of Wastewaters
C. Selection of Pollutant Parameters
D. Available Technologies
E. Rationale for Selection of Proposed
Regulations
F. Determination of Long-Term
Averages, Variability Factors, and
Limitations ,
G. Costs
H. Pollutant Reductions
I. Regulatory Implementation
. X. Development of Air Emission
Standards >
A. Selection of Source Category and
Pollutants for Control
B. Selection of Emission Points
C. Definition of Source
D. Determination of MACT Floor
E. Selection of Basis of Proposed
Standards for Existing Sources ,
F. Selection of Basis for Proposed
Standards for New Sources
G. Selection of the Format for the
Proposed Standards
H. Selection of Numerical Values in
Emission Standards
I. Selection of Continuous Monitoring
Requirements
J. Selection of Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements
'. K. Selection of Test Methods and
Procedures
L. Modifications, Reconstruction and
New Additions
M. Emissions Averaging
N. Relationship to Operating Permit
Program
XI. Impacts of Integrated Regulatory
Alternative
A. Integrated Regulatory Alternative ,
B. Costs and Economic Impact
Considerations
C. Sludge, Energy, and Other
Environmentalimpacts
XII. Administrative Requirements
A. Changes in Format and Name
B. Docket and Public Record
C. Clean Water Act Procedural
Requirements
D. Clean Air Act Procedural
Requirements ,
E. Executive Order 12866
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
s XIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General
Solicitation ,
B. Specific Data and Comment
Solicitations •' •
C. Solicitation of Comment on an
Industry Proposal
D. Solicitation of Comment on an
-. Environmental Group Petition
I. Definitions, Acronyms, and >
Abbreviations
5-mill study—Cooperative U.S. EPA/
paper industry study conducted during
1985 and 1986 at five bleached kraft
pulp and paper mills for the purpose of
determining the process sources of
CDDs and CDFs. The study results were
published in 1988 (U.S. Cooperative/
Paper Industry Screening Study, EPA-
440/1-88-025, March 1988).
104-mill study—Study of 104
. chemical pulp mills with chlorine
bleaching operations conducted during
1988 and'1989 for the purpose of ,
detennining levels of 2,3,7,8-TCDD and
2,3,7,8^-TGDF in bleached pulps, treated
wastewater effluents and wastewater
treatment sludges. The study was
conducted by the paper industry under .
direction by NCASI in accordance with
EPA-approved protocols. ,
1990 Census—The 1990 National
Census of Pulp, Paper and Paperboard
Manufacturing Facilities. A
questionnaire submitted by EPA to all
facilities in the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry in October 1990 to
gather technical and financial -
information. • y
Acid filtrate—Process wastewater
from the acid bleach plant stages.
Administrator—The Administrator of
the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
AFP A—American Forest and Paper
Association (formerly the-American
Paper Institute).
-Agency—The U.S. Environmental
• Protection Agency.
Air dried pulp—For purposes of the ,
effluent guidelines, an unbleached pulp
sample with a moisture content of
approximately 10 percent by weight. For
purposes of the NESHAP, a pulp sample
with a mbisture content of less than or
equal to 10 percent by weight. For
purposes of the NESHAP, pulp samples
for the p'ulping component shall be
unbleached pulp and for the bleaching
component shall be bleached pulp.
Alkaline filtrate—Process wastewater
from the pulp washing operations
following alkaline bleach plant stages.
See also caustic filtrate.
Annual average—The mean
concentration, mass loading or
production-normalized mass loading of
a pollutant over a period of 365
consecutive days (or such other period
of time determined by the permitting
authority to be sufficiently long to
encompass expected variability of the
concentration, mass loading or
production-normalized mass loading at
the relevant point of measurement).
AOX—Adsorbable organic halides. A
bulk parameter which measures the
total chlorinated organic matter in - ' •
wastewater.
API—American Paper Institute (now
the American Forest and Paper
.Association).
Average monthly discharge
limitation—The highest allowable
average of "daily discharges" over a
calendar month, calculated as the sum
of all "daily discharges" measured
during the.calendar month divided by
the number of "daily discharges"
measured during the month., :
BAT—The best available technology
economically achievable, as described
in sec. 304(b)(2) of the.CWA.
. BCT—The best conventional pollutant
control technology, as described in sec.
304(b)(4).oftheCWA.
BID—Background Information
Document. Documentation of the
technical background information and
analyses supporting the proposed
national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants. . •; ;
Black liquor—Pulping[liquor from the
digester to the point of its incineration
in the recovery furnace of a sulfate
(kraft) recovery process. It contains
dissolved organic wdbd substances and
residual active alkali compounds from
the pulping process.
.Bleach plant—All process equipment;
beginning with the first application of
bleaching agents (e.g.,, chlorine, chlorine
dioxide, ozone, sodium or-calcium
hypochlorite, peroxide) ,,each
subsequent extraction stage, and each"
subsequent stage where bleaching
. agents are applied to the, pulp. A limited
number of mills produce specialty
grades of pulp using hydrolysis or
extraction stages prior to the-first
application of bleaching agents. The
1 bleach plant includes those pulp
pretreatment stages. Oxygen
' delignification prior to the application
of bleaching agents is not part of the
bleach plant.
Bleach plant effluent—For purposes
of the effluent guidelines, the total
discharge of process wastewaters from
the bleach plant from each physical
bleach line operated at the, mill,
, comprising separate acid and alkaline
filtrates or the combination thereof.
Bleach sequence—Sequence of
bleaching chemical additions in the
bleach plant.
Bleaching—The process of further
delignifying,and whitening pulp by
chemically treating it to alter the
coloring matter and to impart a higher
brightness.
Bleaching component—For purposes
of the NESHAP, all process equipment
beginning with the first application to
unbleached pulp of chlorine or
chlorine-containing compounds up to
-------
66080 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993. / Proposed Rules
and including the final bleaching stage.
Treatment of pulp with ozone, oxygen,
or peroxide may occur before or after
the addition of chlorine. If treatment of
pulp occurs after this chlorine addition,
then these stages are included in the
bleaching component.
BMP or BMPs—Best management
practices, as described in section 304(e)
oftheCWA.
BOD—Biochemical oxygen demand.
A measure of biochemical
decomposition of organic matter in a
water sample. It is determined by
measuring the dissolved oxygen
consumed by microorganisms to oxidize
the organic contaminants in a water
sample under standard laboratory
conditions of five days and 70°C. BOD
is not related to the oxygen
requirements in chemical combustion.
Boiler—Any enclosed combustion
device that extracts useful energy in the
form of steam and is not an incinerator.
BPT—The best practicable control .
technology currently available, as
described in sec. 304(b)(l) of the CWA.
Brightness—As commonly used in the
paper industry, the reflectivity of a sheet
of pulp, paper, or paperboard for
specified light measured under
standardized conditions.
Broke—Partly or completely
manufactured paper that does not leave
the machine room as salable paper or
paperboard; also, paper damaged in
finishing operations such as rewinding
rolls, cutting and trimming.
Brownstock—Pulp, usually kraft or
groundwood, not yet bleached or treated
. other than in the pulping process.
CAA—Clean Air Act. The Air
Pollution Prevention and Control Act
(42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), as amended,
inter aHa, by the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-549,
104 Slat. 2399).
Caustic filtrate—Process wastewater
from the caustic bleach plant stages. See
also alkaline filtrates.
Chemical recovery—The recovery of
chemicals from spent pulping liquor
after it is used to cook wood in the
digester.
Clarifier—A treatment unit designed
to remove suspended materials from
wastewater—typically by
sedimentation.
Closed vent system—A system that is
not open to the atmosphere and is
composed of piping, ductwork,
connections, and, if necessary, flow-
inducing devices that transport gas or
vapor from an emission point to a
control device.
COD—Chemical oxygen demand. A
bulk parameter that measures the
oxygen-consuming capacity of refractory
organic and inorganic matter present in
water or wastewater. COD is expressed
as the amount of oxygen consumed from
a chemical oxidant in a specific test.
Combustion device—An individual
unit of equipment, including but not
limited to, an incinerator, lime kiln,
recovery furnace, or boiler, used for the
thermal oxidation of organic hazardous
air pollutant vapors.
Condensate—Any material that has
condensed from a gaseous phase into a
liquid phase.
Construction—When used in
connection with CAA obligations,
construction is the fabrication (on-site),
erection, or installation of a stationary
source, group of stationary sources, or
portion of a stationary source that is or
may be subject to a standard, limitation,
prohibition, or other federally
enforceable requirement established by
the Administrator (or State with an
approved permit program) pursuant to
section 112 of the Clean Air Act.
Container—Any portable unit in
which wastewater or HAPs removed
from wastewater are stored, transported,
treated, or otherwise handled. Examples
of containers are drums, barrels, tank
trucks, barges, dunipsters, tank cars,
dump trucks, and ships.
Continuous discharge—Discharge that
occurs without interruption throughout
the operating hours of the facility.
Controlled-release discharge—A
discharge that occurs at a rate that is
intentionally varied to accommodate
fluctuations in receiving stream
assimilative capacity or for other
reasons.
Conventional pollutants—The
pollutants identified in sec. 304(a)(4) of
the CWA and the regulations thereunder
(biochemical oxygen demand (BODs),
total suspended solids (TSS), oil and
grease, fecal coliform and pH).
Converting mill—A facility that
purchases paper for converting into
marketplace products (e.g., boxes, paper
plates, etc.).
CWA—Clean Water Act. The Federal
Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et
seq.), as amended, inter alia, by the
Clean Water Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-
217) and the Water Quality Act of 1987
(Pub. L. 100-4).
Daily discharge—The discharge of a
pollutant measured during any calendar
day or any 24-hour period that
reasonably represents a calendar day.
For pollutants with limitations
expressed as mass, the daily discharge
is calculated as the total mass of the
pollutant discharged over the day. For
pollutants with limitations expressed in
other units of measurement, the daily
discharge is calculated as the average
measurement of the pollutant over the
day.
Decker—A piece of equipment used to
thicken or reduce the water content of
the pulp slurry after the pulp washer
system.
Delignification—The process of
degrading and dissolving away lignin
and/or hemicellulose.
Digester—A pressure vessel used to
chemically treat chips and other
cellulosic fibrous materials such as
straw, bagasse, rags, etc., under elevated
temperature and pressure in order to
separate fibers from each other.
Digesfer system—Each continuous
digester or each set of batch digesters
used for the chemical treatment of
wood, including associated flash
tank(s), blow tank(s), chip steamer(s),
condenser(s), and pre-hydrolysis unit(s).
Direct discharger—A facility that
discharges or may discharge treated or
untreated process wastewaters, non-
contact cooling waters, or non-process
wastewaters (including stormwater
runoff) into waters of the United States.
ECF—Elemental chlorine-free. Any
process for bleaching pulps in the
absence of elemental chlorine.
Effluent—Wastewater discharges.
Effluent limitation—Any restriction,
including schedules of compliance,
established by a State or the
Administrator on quantities, rates, and
concentrations of chemical, physical,
biological, and other constituents which
are discharged from point sources into
navigable waters, the waters of the
contiguous zone, or the ocean.
Emission—Passage of air pollutants
into the atmosphere via a gas stream or
other means.
Emission point—Any location within
a source from which air pollutants are
emitted, including an individual ,
process vent, opening within a
wastewater collection and treatment
system, or an open piece of process
equipment.
EOF effluent—Final mill effluent
discharged to waters of the United
States or to a POTW.
EOP—(End-of-pipe) treatment—
Treatment facilities or systems used to
treat process wastewaters, non-process
wastewaters and/or stormwaters after
the wastewaters have left the process
1 area of the facility and prior to
discharge. End-of-pipe treatment
generally does not include facilities or
systems where products or by-products
are separated from process wastewaters
and returned to the process or directed
to air emission control devices (e.g.,
pulping liquor spill prevention and
control systems, foul condensate .
stripping systems, paper machine save-
alls).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 /Proposed Rules 66081
EPA—The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Fines—Very small fibers and fiber
fragments that readily pass through a
filter wire cloth. ,
Flow indicator—A device that
indicates whether gas flow is present in
a closed vent system.
General Provisions—General
Provisions for national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
and other regulatory requirements
pursuant to section 112 of the Clean Air
Act as amended November 15,1990.
The General Provisions, to be located in
subpart A of part 63 of title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations, will codify
procedures and criteria to implement
emission standards for stationary
sources that emit (or have the potential
to emit) one or more of the 189
chemicals listed as hazardous air
pollutants in section 112(b) of the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990! EPA .
published the proposed NESHAP
General Provisions for comment in the
Federal Register on August 11,1993 (58
FR 42760). Also, the General Provisions
for the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards proposed today, to be
located at 40 CFR part 430.
Green Liquor—Liquor made by
dissolving the sodium and sulfur-
containing smelt from the kraft,recovery
process prior to causticizing.
Groundwood—Pulp and paper made
up of mechanically separated fibers
produced by the grinding of pulpwood:
HAP—Hazardous Air Pollutant. Any
of the 189 chemicals listed under
section 112(b) of the Clean Air Act.
Hardwood—Pulpwood from broad-
• leaved dicotyledonous deciduous trees.
Incinerator—An enclosed combustion
device that is used for destroying
organic compounds. Auxiliary fuel may
be used to heat waste gas to combustion
temperatures. Any energy recovery
section present is not physically formed
into one manufactured or assembled
unit with the combustion section;
rather, the energy recovery section is a
separate section following the
combustion section and the two are
joined by ducts or connections carrying
.flue gas. .'
Indirect discharger—A facility that
discharges or may discharge
wastewaters into a publicly owned
treatment works or a treatment works
not owned by the discharging facility.
Individual drain system—The system
used to convey process wastewater
streams from the pulping or bleaching
process equipment or tank, or process
wastewater collection and treatment
-system unit, to a receiving process
wastewater collection and treatment
system unit. The term includes all ;
process drains and junction; boxes,
together with their associated sewer
lines and other junction'boxes,
manholes, sumps and lift stations, down
to the receiving process wastewater
treatment system. The individual drain
system shall be designed to segregate
the vapors within the system from other
drain systems. A segregated stormwater
sewer system, which is a drain and
collection system designed and operated
for the sole purpose of collecting
rainfall-runoff at a facility, and which is
segregated from all other individual
drain systems, is excluded from this
definition.
Industrial POTW—Any POTW
receiving more than 50 percent of its
influent flow or more than 50 percent
BOB5 or TSS wastewater load from a
facility subject to these regulations.
Integrated mill—A mill that produces
Us own pulp and may use none, some,
or all of that pulp (often in combination
with purchased pulp) to produce paper
or paperboard products.
Integrated regulatory alternative—A
set of control options comprising the
technology bases for effluent limitations
guidelines and national emission
standards.
ISO—Unit of brightness of the
International Organization of
Standardization. ;
IU—Industrial User. Synonym for
"Indirect Discharger."
Junction box—A manhole access
point to a wastewater sewer system or
a lift station.
Knotter—A piece of equipment where
knots or pieces of uncooked wood are
removed after the digester system and
prior to the pulp washer system.
Equipment used to remove oversized
particles from pulp following the pulp .
washer are considered screens.
, Kraft process—See Sulfate process.
Lime kiln—An enclosed combustion
device used, to calcine lime mud, which
consists primarily of calcium carbonate,
into calcium oxide, which is known as
quicklime and is used again with green
liquor to form white liquor.
LTA—Long-term average. For
purposes of the effluent guidelines,
average pollutant, levels achieved over a
period of time by a mill, subcategory, or
technology option. These LTAs were
used in developing the limitations and
standards in today's proposed;
regulation. The annual average
limitations and standards were set equal
to the LTAs.
MACT—Maximum Achievable
Control Technology. Technology basis
for the national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants.
Major source—As defined in section
112(a) of the Clean Air Act, major
source is "any stationary source or
group of stationary sources located
within a contiguous area and under
common control that emits or has the
potential to emit, considering controls,
in the aggregate 10 tons per year or more
of any hazardous air pollutant of 25 tons
per year or more of any combination of
hazardous air pollutants."
Market pulp—Bleached or
unbleached pulp in the form of bales or
sheets for transfer or. sale off-site.
Maximum daily discharge
limitation—The highest allowable daily
discharge of a pollutant measured
during a calendar day or any 24 hour
period that reasonably represents a
calendar day. , j
Mechanical pulp—Pulp produced by
reducing pulpwood logs and chips into
their fiber components by the use of
mechanical energy (at some CMP or.
CTMP mills with the use of chemicals
or heat), via grinding stones, refiners,
' etc. ,
Mg—Megagram. One million (106)
grams, or one metric ton.
Metric ton^-One thousand (103)
kilograms (abbreviated as kkg), or one
megagram. A metric ton is equal to
2,204.5 pounds..
Minimum level—The level at which
an analytical system gives recognizable
signals and an acceptable calibration
point. ,
Modification—As defined in section
112(a) of the Clean Air Act;
.modification is "any physical change in,
or change in the method of operation of,
a major source which increases the
actual emission of any hazardous air
pollutant emitted by such source by
more than a de minimis amount or
which results in the emission of any
hazardous air pollutant not previously
emitted by more than a de minimis
amount."
Multiple effect evaporator system—A
series of evaporators; operated at
different pressures such that the vapor
from one evaporator body becomes the
steam supply for .the next evaporator, as
well as the associated condenser(s) and
•hotwell(s) used to concentrate the spent
cooking liquid that is separated from the
NCASI—National Council of the
Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement.
NESHAP—National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
Emission standards to be proposed and
promulgated under section 112(d) of the
Clean Air Act for hazardous air
pollutants listed in section 112(b) of the
Clean Air Act.
New Source^-When used in
connection with CAA obligations, a
"new source" is a stationary source the-
-------
66082 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
construction or reconstruction of which
is commenced after the Administrator
first proposes regulations under section
112 of the CAA establishing an emission
standard applicable to such source. See
CAA section 112(a). When used in
connection with CWA obligations, a
"new source" is any building, structure,
facility, or installation from which there
is or may be a discharge of pollutants,
the construction of which commences
after the promulgation of the standards
being proposed today for the pulp,
paper, and paperboard industry under
sea 306 of the CWA. See CWA section
306.
Non-continuous or intermittent
discharge—Discharge of wastewaters
stored for periods of at least 24 hours
and released on a batch basis.
Nonconventional pollutants—
Pollutants that are neither conventional
pollutants nor toxic pollutants listed at
40CFR401.
Non-detect value—A concentration-
based measurement reported below the
minimum level that can reliably be
measured by the analytical method for
thepollutant.
Non-integrated mill—A mill that
purchases or uses pulp produced at
another site to produce paper or
paperboard.
Non-water quality environmental
impact—An environmental impact of a
control or treatment technology, other
than to surface waters.
NPDES—-The National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
authorized under section 402 of the
CWA. NPDES requires permits for
discharge of pollutants from any point
source into waters of the United States.
NRDC—Natural Resources Defense
' Council.
NSPS—New Source Performance
Standards. This term refers to standards
for new sources under both section 306
of the CWA and section 111 of the CAA.
In today's regulation, EPA is proposing
new and revised NSPS under the CWA.
EPA is not proposing new or revised
NSPS under the CAA, however EPA is
proposing MACT standards for new
sources under the authority of section
112 of the CAA.
Outfall—The mouth of conduit drains
and other conduits from which a mill
effluent discharges into receiving
waters.
PM—Particulate Matter.
Point of Generation—The location
where the process wastewater stream
exits the pulping or bleaching process
equipment or tank prior to mixing with
other process wastewater streams or
prior to handling or treatment in a piece
of equipment that is not an integral part
of the pulping or bleaching process
equipment. A piece of equipment is an
integral part of the process if it is
essential to the operation of the process
(i.e., removal of the equipment would
result in the process unit being shut
down). For example, a stripping column
is part of the process unit if it produces
the principal product stream and a
process wastewater that is discharged to
the sewer. However, an identical
stripper that treats a process wastewater
stream and recovers residual product
would not be considered an integral part
of the process. When quantifying
parameters descriptive of the point of
generation (e.g., flow rate and
concentration) by measurement or
sampling, the end results should be
representative of the conditions at the
point where the process wastewater
stream exits the pulping or bleaching
process equipment before it is treated or
mixed with other process wastewater
strear.is, and prior to exposure to the
atmosphere.
Point source category—A category of
sources of water pollutants.
Pollutant (to water)—Dredged spoil,
solid waste, incinerator residue, filter
backwash, sewage, garbage, sewage
sludge, munitions, chemical wastes,
biological materials, certain radioactive
materials, heat, wrecked or discarded
equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and
industrial, municipal, and agricultural'
waste discharged into water.
POTW or POTWs—Publicly owned
treatment works, as defined at 40 CFR
403.3(0).
Pretreatment standard—A regulation
addressing industrial wastewater
effluent quality required for discharge to
a POTW.
Primary fuel—The fuel that provides
the principal heat input to the device.
To be considered primary, the fuel must
be able to sustain operation of the
combustion device without the addition
of other fuels.
Priority pollutants—The toxic
pollutants listed in 40 CFR part 423,
Appendix A.
Process changes—Alterations in
process operating conditions,
equipment, or chemical use that reduce
the formation of chemical compounds
that are pollutants and/or pollutant
precursors. . . •
Process emission point—A gas stream
that contains hazardous'air pollutants
discharged during operation of process
equipment. Process emission points
include gas streams that are discharged
directly to the atmosphere, discharged
to the atmosphere via vents or open
process equipment, or after diversion
through a product recovery device.
Process unit—A piece of equipment,
such as a pulp washer, decker, or filtrate
tank, associated with either the pulping
process or the bleaching process.
Process wastewater—When used in
connection with CWA obligations, any
water which, 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. Process wastewater
includes boiler blowdown; wastewaters
from water treatment and other utility
operations; blowdowns from high rate
(e.g., greater than 98 percent) recycled
non-contact cooling water systems to
the extent they are mixed and co-treated
•with other process wastewaters; and,
stormwaters from the immediate process
areas to the extent they are mixed and
co-treated with other process
wastewaters. Contaminated
groundwaters from on-site or off-site
groundwater remediation projects are
not process wastewaters. The discharge
of such groundwaters are regulated
separately, or in addition to, process
wastewaters.
Process wastewater collection
system—A piece of equipment,
structure, or transport mechanism used
in conveying or storing a process
wastewater stream. Examples of process
wastewater collection system equipment
include individual drain systems,
wastewater tanks, surface
impoundments, or containers. •
Process wastewater component—Air
emissions from all process wastewater
streams produced from the pulping and
bleaching processes.
Process wastewater stream—When
used in connection with CAA
obligations, any HAP-containing liquid
that results from either direct or indirect
contact of water with organic
compounds. Examples of a process
wastewater stream include, but are not
limited to digester condensates,
evaporator condensates, and non-
condensible gas system (NCG)
condensates.
Process wastewater treatment
system—When used in connection with
CAA obligations, a process or specific
technique that removes or destroys the
organics or any HAP in a process
wastewater stream. Examples include,
but are not limited to a steam stripping
unit, waste incinerator, or biological
treatment unit.
Process water—Water used to dilute,
wash, or carry raw materials, pulp, and
any other materials used in the
manufacturing process.
Production Rate—For application to
NPDES permits and pretreatment
standards, defined as the daily process-
specific production rate used to apply to
the effluent limitations guidelines and
-------
66083
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 241 / Friday. December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
standards in the proposed 40 CFR Part
430. Production shall be determined
based upon the highest annual
production in the five years divided by
the number of operating days that year.
See the General Provisions at 40 CFR
430.01 for production normalizing
parameters applied to the limitations
and standards (included in the
definition of "product").
PSES—Pretreatment standards for
existing sources of indirect discharges,
under section 3Q7(b) of the CWA.
PSNS—Pretreatment standards for
new sources of indirect discharges,
under section 307 (b) and (c) of the
CWA.
Pulping component—All process
equipment, beginning with the digester
system, upxto and including the last
piece of pulp conditioning equipment
prior to the bleaching component,
including treatment with ozone, oxygen,
or peroxide before the first application
of chlorine or chlorine-containing
compounds.
Purchased Pulp—Virgin pulp
purchased from an off-site facility or
obtained from an intra-company transfer
from another site.
RCRA—Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (PL 94-580) of 1976, as
amended. , ,
Reconstruction—When used in
connection with CAA obligations,
reconstruction is the replacement of
components of an affected source to
such an extent that (1) the fixed capital
cost of the new components exceeds 50
percent of the fixed capital cost that
would be required to construct a
comparable new source, and (2) it is
technologically arid economically
feasible for the reconstructed source to
meet the promulgated emission
standard(s) established by the
Administrator pursuant to section 112
of the Clean Air Act,
Recovery Furnace—Ah enclosed
combustion device where concentrated
spent pulping liquor is burned to
recover sodium and sulfur, produce
steam, and dispose of unwanted
dissolved wood components in the
liquor.
Red liquor—Spent pulping liquor
resulting from sulfite pulping.
Screen—A piece of process
equipment where pieces of oversized
particles are removed from the pulp
slurry after the pulp washer system and
prior to the papermaking equipment.
Equipment used to remove uncooked
wood prior to the pulp washer system
are considered knotters.
Secondary fiber—Furnish consisting
of recovered material. For the purposes
' of this preamble, secondary fiber does
not include broke but does include
recycled;paper or paperboard known
commonly as "post-consumer" recycled
material.,
Shives—Small bundles of fibers that
have not been separated completely in
the pulping operations.
SlC-^Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC). A numerical
categorization system used by the U.S.
Department of Commerce to denote
segments of industry. An SIC code refers
to the principal product, or group of
products, produced or distributed, or to
services rendered by an operating
establishment. SIC codes are used to .
group establishments by the primary
activity in which they are engaged.
Softwood—Pulpwood obtained from
evergreen, cone-bearing species of trees,
such as pines, spruces, hemlocks, etc.,
which are characterized by haying
needles. , ' .
Source Category—A category of major
or area sources of hazardous air
pollutants.
Source Reduction-rThe reduction or
elimination of waste generation at the
source, usually within a process. Any
practice that (1) reduces the amount of
any hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant entering any waste stream
or otherwise released into the
environment (including fugitive
emissions) prior to recycling, treatment,
or disposal; and (2) reduces the hazards
to public health and the environment
associated with the release of such
substances, pollutants, or contaminants.
Stationary source—Any building,
structure, facility, or installation that
emits or may emit any air pollutant. See
CAA section 111. .
Stripper system—A column, and
associated feed tanks, decanters,
reboilers, preheaters, condensers or heat
exchangers, used to strip compounds
from process wastewater, using air or
steam. . .
Subpart S—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Pulp and Paper Production
Source Category under Title 40, chapter
I, part 63 of the Code of Federal
Regulations. -
Sulfate process—An alkaline pulp
manufacturing process in which the
active chemicals of the liquor used in
cooking (digesting) wood chips to their
component parts in a pressurized vessel
(digester) are primarily, sodium sulfide
' (NA2S) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
with sodium sulfate (NA2SO4) and lime
(CaO) being used to replenish these
chemicals in recovery operations. Also
referred to as the kraft process.
Sulfite process—An acid pulp
manufacturing process in which chips
are reduced to their component parts by
cooking (digesting) in a pressurized
vessel using a liquor of calcium*
sodium, magnesium or ammonia salts 01
sulfurous acid. . % - n
Support Document(s)—see section U
for titles. , ...
TCDD—2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzorp-
dioxin. . '
TCDF—2,3,7,8-
tetrachiorodibenzofuran.
TCP—Totally chlorine-free. Any,
process for bleaching pulps in the
absence of both chlorine and chlorine-
containing compounds.
TEC^—Toxic Equivalent.
TOX—Total Organic Halides.
TRS—Total Reduced Sulfur. An air
-pollutant. - "
TSCA—Toxic Substances Control Act,
15 U.S.C. sections 2601-2671.
TSS—Total Suspended Solids.
• Toxic pollutants—the pollutants
designated by EPA as toxic in 40 CFR
401.15.
, Variability factor—The daily
variability factor is the ratio of the
estimated 99th percentile of the
distribution of daily values divided by
the expected value, or mean, of the
distribution of the daily data. The J
monthly variability factor is the
estimated 95th percentile of the
monthly averages of the data divided by
the expected value of the monthly
averages. ,
VOC—Volatile Organic Compounds—
Any organic compound which
participates in atmospheric
photochemical reactions; that is, any,
organic compound other'than those
which the Administrator designates as
having negligible photochemical
reactivity. The-Administrator has
designated the following organic '
compounds as negligibly reactive:
methane, ethane, methyl chloroform
(1,1,1-trichloroethane), CFC-113
(trichiorotrifluoroethane), methylene
chloride, CFC-11
(trichlorofiuromethane), CFC-12
(dichlorodifluoromethane), CFC-22
(chlorodifluoromethane), FC-23
(trifluoromethane), CFC-114 .
(dichlorotri fluoroethane), CFC-115
(chloropentafluoroethane), HCFC-123
(dichlorotrifluoroethane), HFC-134a
(tetrafluoroethane), HCFC-141b
(dichloroflubroethane), HCFC-142b
(chlorodifluoroethane).
Waters of the United States—the same
meaning set forth in 40 CFR 122.2.
White liquor—Pulping liquor made by
causticizing green liquor, produced in
the kraft recovery cycle, with slaked
- ,.
White water—Waters formed when
stock or other fiber-bearing suspensions
are dewatered.
Zero discharge (ZD)—tyo discharge of
wastewater to waters of the United ;
StatesortoaPOTW.
-------
66084 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
II. Background Documents
The regulations proposed today are
supported by several major documents.
(1) The technical information
supporting the air emissions regulations
is detailed in "Pulp, Paper, and
Papferboard Industry—Background
Information for Proposed Air Emission
Standards (October 1993)," hereafter
referred to as the background
information document (BID). The BID
may be obtained from the EPA Library
(MD-35), Research Triangle Park, NC,
telephone number (919) 541-2777.
Please refer to "Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Industry—Background
Information for Proposed Air Emission
Standards," October 1993, EPA-453-
R93-050a. (2) EPA's technical
conclusions concerning the wastewater
regulations are detailed in the
"Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Point Source Category,"
hereafter referred to as the technical
water development document (EPA
821-R93-019). (3) The Agency's
economic analysis is found in the
"Economic Impact and Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis of Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and NESHAP for the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry,"
hereafter called the economic impact
analysis (EPA 821-R93-021). (4) The
regulatory impact analysis (including
the Agency's assessment of
environmental benefits) is detailed in
the "Regulatory Impact Assessment of
Proposed Effluent Guidelines and
* NESHAP for the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Industry," hereafter called
the regulatory impact assessment (EPA
821-R93-020). (5) An analysis of the
incremental costs and pollutant
removals for the effluent regulations is
presented in "Cost-effectiveness
Analysis of Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines for the Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Industry," (EPA
821-R93-O18). (6) Analytical methods
used in the development of proposed
effluent guidelines are found in
"Analytical Methods for the
Determination of Pollutants in Pulp and
Paper Industry Wastewater," a
compendium of analytical methods
(EPA 821-R93-017).
in. Legal Authority
These regulations are being proposed
under the authority of sections 301, 304,
306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. sections 1311,
1314,1316,1317,1318, and 1361, and
sections 112,114, and 301'of the Clean
Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sections 7412, 7414,
arid 7601.
IV. Summary and Scope of the
Proposed Regulations
Today's proposed rules include
effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the control of wastewater
pollutants. Today's proposed rules also
include national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants. Sections IX
and X of this notice discuss the
rationale for the proposed water and air
regulations, respectively. This summary
section highlights the technology bases
and other key aspects of the proposed
rules. The technology descriptions in
this section are presented in abbreviated
form; more detailed descriptions are
included in the technical water
development document and the
background information document.
Today's proposal presents the
Agency's recommended regulatory
approach and several others that were
considered. The Agency's
recommendation is based on extensive
comments received from interested
parties during the development of these
proposed rules, and on detailed
evaluation of the available data. As
indicated below in the discussion of the
specifics of the proposal, the Agency
welcomes comment on all options and
issues and encourages commenters to
submit additional data during the
comment period. Also, the Agency will
have additional discussions with
interested parties during the comment
period to ensure that the Agency has the
views of all parties and the best possible
data upon which to base a decision for
the final regulation. EPA's final
regulation may be based upon any
technologies, rationale or approaches •
that are a logical outgrowth of this
proposal, including any options
considered but not selected for today's
proposed regulation.
A. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards
1. Subcategorization
EPA is proposing to replace the
subcategorization .scheme under the
existing effluent limitations guidelines
for this industry (in parts 430 and 431)
with a revised subcategorization
scheme. The rationale for changing the
existing subcategorization scheme and
the development of the proposed
subcategorization scheme are detailed in
section IX.A. below. Table IV.A-1 is a
summary of the new proposed
subcategories and the corresponding
subcategories under the existing
regulations.
TABLE IV.A-1 .—COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME WITH THE EXISTING
SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME
Pro-
posed
subpart
Proposed subcategorization scheme
Current subcategorization scheme (with existing 40 CFR part 430
subparts noted)
A
B ..........
C
D
E
F
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft....
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite.
Semi-Chemical ,
Dissolving Kraft (F).
Market Bleached Kraft (G), BCT Bleached Kraft (H), Fine
Bleached Kraft (I), Soda (P).
Unbleached Kraft (A).
—Unerboard.
—Bag and Other Products.
Unbleached Kraft and Semi-Chemical (D, V).
Dissolving Sulfite (K).
—Nitration.
—Viscose.-
—Cellophane.
—Acetate.
Papergrade Sulfite (J, U).
—Blow Pit Wash.
—Drum Wash.
Semi-Chemical (B).
—Ammonia.
—Sodium.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17. 1993 / Proposed Rules . 66085
TABLE IV.A-i.—COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME WITH THE EXISTING
SUBCATEGORIZATION SCHEME—Continued
Pro-
posed
subpart
Proposed subcategorization scheme
Current subcategorization scheme (with existing 40 CFR part 430
subparts noted)
G
H
Mechanical Pulp
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
K
Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
GW-Thermo-Mechanical (M), GW^Coarse, Molded, News (N),
GW-Fine Papers (O), GW-Chemi-Mechanical (L).
Miscellaneous mills not covered by a specific subpart.
Deink Secondary Fiber (Q). ,
—Fine Papers. ' ,
—Tissue Papers. ,- ; ,
—Newsprint.
Tissue from Wastepaper (T).
Paperboard from Wastepaper (E).
—Corrugating medium. ,
—Non-Corrugating Medium. ' .
Wastepaper-Molded Products (W).
Builders' Paper and Roofing Felt (40 CFR part 431 subpart A).
Non-Integrated Fine Papers (R).
—Wood. Fiber Furnish. ' •
—Cotton Fiber Furnish.
Lightweight Papers (X). '
—Lightweight Papers.
—Lightweight Electrical Papers. .''.'•'.
Non-Integrated. ; , ,
^-Tissue Papers (S). ' : •
—Filter and Non-Woven (Y).. , ',
—Paperboard (Z). , '. . ' ' '
2. Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPT)
EPA is proposing to revise the BPT
effluent limitations guidelines for
biochemical oxygen demand (BODS) and
total suspended solids (TSS) for all
subcategories of the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry. These proposed .
revisions are based on the application of
secondary wastewater treatment with
appropriate water use and reuse. In
most cases, the proposed effluent
limitations are defined by the
performance of the average of the best
50 percent of mills in that subcategory.
The development of proposed BPT
effluent limitations is discussed in
section IX.E.l of this notice and in
chapter 9.2 of the technical water
development document. ' ' ' ;
3. Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT)
EPA is proposing to revise the BCT
effluent limitations guidelines for BOD5
and TSS for all subcategories of the •
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry.
In most cases, the proposed BCT
effluent limitations are equal to the
proposed BPT effluent limitations. The
development of proposed BCT effluent
limitations is further explained in
section IX.E.2.
4. Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT)
The Agency is proposing to revise the
BAT effluent limitations guidelines for
six subcategories of the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry to control
pollutants in the bleach plant effluent
and in the end-of-pipe effluent. Table
IV.A-2 is a summary of the technology
basis for the proposed effluent
limitations for each subcategory.
TABLE IV.A-2.—TECHNOLOGY BASIS
FOR BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
TABLE IV.A-2.—TECHNOLOGY BASIS
FOR BAT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS—
Continued
Pro-
posed
subpart
A
Name of sub-
category
Dissolving Kraft.
Bleached
Papergrade
Kraft and
Soda.
Unbleached
Kraft. ;
Dissolving Sul-
fite.
Technology
' basis
Oxygen \
delignification
with 70% chlo-
rine dioxide
substitution for'
chlorine; COD
controls.
Oxygen
delignification
or extended
delignification
with 100%
chlorine diox-
ide substi-
tution for chlo-
rine; COD
controls; color
controls.
COD controls
Oxygen
delignification
with 100%
chlorine diox-
ide substi-
tution for chlo-
rine.
Pro-
posed
subpart
E
f
F .........
Name of sub-
category
Papergrade Sul-
fite.
Semi-chemical ..
technology
basis , ,
Totally chlorine-
, free bleaching;
COD controls.
COD controls.
In addition 1;o the effluent limitations
based on the technologies in Table
IV.A-2 for subcategories A, B, and D,
EPA is proposing alternative effluent
limitations applicable to mills that '
utilize totally chlorine-free processes in
these subcategories.
EPA is proposing to control toxic and
nonconventional pollutants in the
bleach plant effluent and in the end-of-
•pipe effluent. The pollutants controlled
and the points of application yary for
each subcategory and are described in
sections IX.C and IX.E.3. , ..
5. New Source Performance Standards'
(NSPS).
' a. Toxic and Nonconventional
Pollutants. EPA is proposing revised
NSPS for seven subcategories of the
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry..
In five of these subcategories, EPA is
proposing NSPS equivalent to the
proposed BAT effluent limitations. In
one subcategory (Bleached Papergrade
Kraft), EPA is proposing NSPS based on
prebleaching controls in addition to
-------
66086
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1995 /Proposed Rules
those that form the technology basis for
proposed BAT. In o'ne subcategory
where EPA is not today proposing BAT
limits (secondary fiber non-deink), EPA
is proposing NSPS based on zero
discharge of wastewater. A summary of
the pollutants and subcategories
controlled is presented in section IX.C,
and the development of proposed NSPS
for toxic and nonconventional
pollutants is discussed in section IX.E.4.
b. Conventional Pollutants. EPA is
proposing to revise the NSPS
controlling discharges of BOD5 and TSS
for all subcategories at a level equal to
the discharge characteristics of die best
performing mill. A summary of the
pollutants and subcategories controlled
is presented in section IX.C, and the
development of proposed NSPS for
conventional pollutants is discussed in
section IX.E.4.
6. Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES)
EPA is proposing to revise PSES for
the same toxic and nonconventional
pollutants to be controlled by the
proposed BAT limitations based on the
same technologies, as summarized in
Table IV.A-2. PSES are further
discussed in section IX.E.5.
7. Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS)
EPA is proposing to revise PSNS for
the same toxic and nonconventional
pollutants controlled by the proposed
NSPS based on the same technologies.
PSNS are further discussed in section
IX.E.6.
8. Best Management Practices (BMPs)
EPA is proposing BMPs today for the
following subparts: A (Dissolving Kraft),
B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda),
C (Unbleached Kraft), D (Dissolving
Sulfite), E (Papergrade Sulfite), F (Semi-
Chemical), and H (Non-Wood Chemical
Pulp). EPA is proposing to require that
each mill in the subparts listed above
develop a BMPs plan within 120 days
of promulgation of this rule. This plan
must be submitted to EPA for approval
and implemented within 24 months of
promulgation. The BMPs requirements
are discussed further in section IX.E.7.
B. National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants
Today's proposed standards would
amend title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the
Code of Federal Regulations by adding
a subpart S—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants.
from the Pulp and Paper Production
Source Category. The following is a
summary of the proposed standards.
1. Source Category Covered by
Standards
Hazardous air pollutant emissions
from the pulp and paper production
source category are being regulated
under section 112(d) of the CAA. The
standards proposed today would
regulate HAP emissions from mills that
chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft,
sulfite, soda, or semi-chemical methods.
Today's standards are limited to the
emission points in the pulping and
bleaching processes and in the
associated process wastewater
collection and treatment systems. Data.
were not available to evaluate potential
controls for other emission points
within the source category. Standards
for the remaining portion of the pulp
and paper production source category
. will be proposed separately.
For today's regulations, EPA is not
proposing to subcategorize the pulp and
papei- production source category.
2. Pollutants Regulated
Today's proposed standards would
regulate emissions of any and all of the
189 HAPs listed under section 112(b) of
the CAA. The regulations would require
control of aggregated HAP emissions.
3. Source
For today's regulations, EPA is
proposing to define a single source to
include the pulping processes, the
bleaching processes, and the associated
process wastewater streams.
4. Applicability
The requirements of the proposed
standards would apply to the owners or
operators of an existing or new major
source, as defined under the CAA at
section 112(a), comprising all pulping
process components, bleaching process
components, and process wastewater
components associated with the
production of chemical pulp from
wood, including kraft, soda, sulfite, or
semi-chemical processes.
5. Format of the Standards
As authorized under section 112(h) of
the CAA, the proposed standards
consist of a combination of emission
standards and equipment, design, and
work practice standards. Emission
standards are used whenever feasible;
however, such standards are not feasible
in all circumstances. In some
circumstances, alternative emission
standards are also proposed. Separate
standards for the pulping, bleaching,
and process wastewater components, as
well as for enclosures and closed vent
systems, are proposed.
6. Standards for Pulping
An emission standard to reduce HAP
emissions by at least 98 percent by
weight based upon the use of
combustion is proposed for the pulping
component of this source category.
Three equivalent ways to meet this
standard are proposed. Sources subject
to the proposed standard would comply
with the regulation by enclosing open
process equipment and routing all
emissions through a closed vent system
and either demonstrating 98 percent
reduction of HAP emissions through a
control device, or demonstrating
compliance in one of the three following
ways:
• Concentration limitation—Meet an
incinerator outlet concentration of 20
ppmv of total HAP;
• Equipment and design standard—
Route emissions to an incinerator
designed and operated at a minimum
temperature of 1600°F and a minimum
residence time of 0.75 seconds;
• Equipment and design standard—
Route emissions to a boiler, lime kiln,
or recovery furnace which introduces all
emission point gas streams with the
primary fuel or into the flame zone.
All emission points within the
pulping component, except those from
equipment that follow primary washing,
such as deckers and screens, are ,
required to be controlled by the
, proposed standards, unless the mill can
show one of the following conditions
exists:
• The emission point from an
enclosed process has a flow rate less
. than 0.0050 scmm;
• The emission point from an
enclosed process has an emission rate
less than 0.230 kg total HAP/hr;
• The emission point from an • • <
enclosed process has emissions less
than 0.0010 kg total HAP/Mg air dry
pulp (ADP) produced; or
• Process equipment has a total liquid
phase concentration from all entering
streams combined of less than 0.050 kg
of total HAP/Mg of ADP produced.
7. Standards for Bleaching
Sources subject to the proposed
standards would comply with the
regulations by enclosing open process
equipment and routing all emissions
through a closed vent system and
reducing total HAP mass in the vent
stream entering the treatment device by
99 percent, based upon use of a
scrubber.
All emission points within the
bleaching component are required to be
controlled by the proposed standards,
unless the mill can show one of the
following conditions exists:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66087
\"V}TYie emission point from an
enclosed process has a flow rate less
than 0.0050 scmm;
(2) The emission point from an
enclosed process has an emission rate
less than 0.230 kg total HAP/hr; or
• (3) The emission point from an
enclosed process has emissions less
than 0.0010 kg total HAP/Mg ADP
produced.
8. Standards for Process Wastewater
Under the proposed standards,
bleaching process Wastewater streams
are not required to be controlled.
Pulping process wastewater streams
with total HAP concentrations greater
than or equal to 500 ppmw and flow
rates greater than or equal to 1.0 /pm
are required to be controlled. The
proposed wastewater treatment standard
is.90 percent reduction of total HAP,
based upon steam stripping. Other
techniques such as biological treatment
that achieve a 90 percent reduction may
also be used. The requirements include
the following three equivalent ways to
meet the standard:
. (1) Recycle applicable wastewater
streams to a process unit that is .
controlled as per the standards for ,
pulping;
(2) Reduce the concentration of HAP
. in the wastewater outlet to less than 500
• ppmw; or , . ' .
(3) Use a design steam stripper.
Emissions of HAP from wastewater
treatment devices (except biological
treatment units') must be routed to a
control device meeting the pulping
component control requirements.
Wastewater collection and treatment
systems must be designed and operated
without leaks. All tanks, containers, and
surface impoundments storing
applicable wastewater streams must be
• enclosed, and all vented vapors must be
routed to a control device by means of
a closed vent system. A submerged fill
pipe must be used,to fill containers with
a wastewater stream or any stream
containing HAP removed from a
wastewater stream. All drain systems
that receive or manage applicable
wastewater streams must be enclosed
and any HAP emissions must be routed
to a control device.
9. Enclosures and Closed Vent System
Standards
Under the proposed standards, all
pulping and bleaching component
emissions requiring control must be
captured' and contained by enclosing
open process equipment and must be
transported in a closed vent system. In
addition, the closed vent system must
be designed and operated with no
detectable leaks. Open process
equipment, such as washers, must be
enclosed and emissions captured by
demonstrating arid maintaining a
negative pressure at all openings.
10. Test Methods ' ' •
Test methods and procedures are
required to ensure compliance with the
standards proposed for the pulping,
bleaching, and wastewater components.
The proposed standards, include
requirements for demonstrating that an
emission point or wastewater stream is
in compliance with control
requirements or not required to be
controlled. Also included are provisions
to test for no detectable leaks from
closed vent systems and process
wastewater collection and treatment
systems. Because the majority of all
HAP emissions from the pulping and
process wastewater components are
methanol, the owner or operator has the
option of measuring methanol
concentration or methanol emissions as
surrogates for total HAP emissions from
.these.areas. For the mass limit
requirements or percent reduction
requirements, the total HAP
concentration in the bleaching
component may be measured by
methanol and chlorine as surrogates for
total HAP.
11. Continuous Monitoring
Requirements
Some operating parameters associated
with control devices must be , ,
continuously monitored. All closed vent
systems and process wastewater
collection and treatment equipment
must be inspected monthly to ensure
there are no detectable leaks in the
system. Enclosures over previously
open process equipment must be
visually inspected every 30 days to
ensure that all openings in the enclosure
that were closed during the performance
test remain closed. ' •
12. Recordkeeping and Reporting
Requirements
.Sources subject to the proposed
standards are required to submit the
following five types of reports: (1) Initial
Notification, (2) Notification of
Performance Tests, (3) Exceedance
Reports, and (4) Quarterly Summary
Reports. Exceedance and Summary
Reports are not required for emissibn
points that are not required to be
controlled. Tjhe proposed rule also
requires sources to keep readily
accessible records of monitored
parameters. For those control devices
that must be monitored continuously,
records that include at least one
monitored value for every 15 minutes of
operation are considered'Sufficient.
These monitoring records must be
maintained for five years. :
C. Scope of Today's Proposed Rules
These proposed rules apply to mills
within the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Bureau of the Census
, Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC)
2611 (pulp mills), 2621 (paper mills
• except building paper mills), 2631'
(paperboard mills), and 2661 (building
paper and building board mills). Some
components of these proposed rules
apply to only some of the foregoing
mills. The mills covered by each '
component of these proposed rules are
shown on Table IV.C-1.
TABLE IV.C-1 .—APPLICATION OF PROPOSED RULES TO SUBPARTS
•"' ':• ••
i - - *' " *
Effluent guidelines subcategory
' ' - -
Dissolving Kraft .'. . ,. ......'
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda ... ...
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Paoerarade Sulfite „.
Effluent
guidelines
subpart
A
B
C
D
E
Clean Air
Act
NESHAP
X
X
X
X
X
Clean Water Act
Toxics &
noncony:
BAT,
NSPS,
PSES,
arid
PSNS
X
X
X
X
X
Conv:
BPT,
RCT
NSPS
X .
X
X
X
X
BMPs
X
X
X
X
X
-------
66088 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 /Proposed Rules
TABLE IV.C-i.—APPLICATION OF PROPOSED RULES TO SUBPARTS—Continued
Effluent guidelines subcategory
Semi-Chemical ~
Mechanical Pulp
Non-wood Chemical .
Secondary Fiber Deink
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Finn and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp
Tissijft. Filter Nnnwrnmn. and Panerboard from Purchased Pulo
Effluent
guidelines
subpart
F
G
H
1
J
K
L
Clean Air
Act
NESHAP
X
Clean Water Act
Toxics &
nonconv:
BAT,
NSPS,
PSES,
and
PSNS
X
X*
BPT,
BCT
NSPS
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
BMPs
X
X
•NSPS only.
V. Background
A. Clean Water Act
1. Statutory Requirements of
Regulations
The objective of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) is to "restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters". CWA
§ 101(a). To assist in achieving this
objective, EPA issues effluent
limitations guidelines, pretreatment
standards, and new source performance
standards for industrial dischargers.
These guidelines and standards are
summarized below:
a. Best Practicable Control
Technology Currently Available (BPT)—
sec. 304(b){l) of the CWA. BPT effluent
limitations guidelines apply to
discharges of conventional pollutants
from existing sources. BPT guidelines
are based on the average of the best
existing performance by plants in a
category or subcategory. In establishing
BPT, EPA considers the cost of
achieving effluent reductions in relation
to the effluent reduction benefits, the
ago of equipment and facilities, the
processes employed, process changes
required, engineering aspects of the
control technologies, non-water quality
environmental impacts (including
energy requirements), and other factors
as EPA Administrator deems
appropriate. CWA 304(b)(l)(B). Where
existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, BPT may be transferred
from a different subcategory or category.
Section 304(a)(4) designates the
following as conventional pollutants:
biochemical oxygen demanding
pollutants (measured as BODs), total
suspended solids (TSS), fecal coliform,
pH, and any additional pollutants
defined by the Administrator as
conventional. The Administrator,
designated oil and grease as an
additional conventional pollutant on
July 30,1979 (44 FR 44501).
b. Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT)—sec. 304(b)(4) of the
CWA. The 1977 amendments to the
CWA established BCT as an additional
level of control for discharges of
conventional pollutants from existing
industrial point sources. In addition to
other factors specified in section
304(b)(4)(B), the CWA requires that BCT
limitations be established in light of a
two part "cost-reasonableness" test.
EPA issued a methodology for the
development of BCT limitations in July
1986 (51 FR 24974).
c. Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT)—sec.
304(b)(2) of the CWA. In general, BAT
effluent limitations guidelines represent
theiest existing economically
achievable performance of plants in the
industrial subcategory or category. The
CWA establishes BAT as a principal
means of controlling the direct
discharge of toxic and nonconventional
pollutants to waters of the United
States. The factors considered in
assessing BAT include the age of
equipment and facilities involved, the
process employed, potential process
changes, and non-water quality
environmental impacts, including
energy requirements. The Agency
retains considerable discretion in
assigning the weight to be accorded
these factors. As with BPT, where
existing performance is uniformly
inadequate, BAT may be transferred
from a different subcategory or category.
BAT may be based upon process
changes or internal controls, even when
these technologies are not common
industry practice.
d. New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS)—section 306 of the
CWA. NSPS are based on the best
available demonstrated treatment
technology. New plants have the
opportunity to install the best and most
efficient production processes and
wastewater treatment technologies. As a
result, NSPS should represent the most
stringent controls attainable through the
application of the best available control
technology for all pollutants (i.e.,
conventional, nonconventional, and
toxic pollutants). In establishing NSPS,
EPA is directed to take into
consideration the cost of achieving the
effluent reduction and any non-water
quality environmental impacts and
energy requirements.
e. Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources (PSES)—sec. 307(b) of the
CWA. PSES are designed to prevent the
discharge of pollutants that pass
through, interfere with, or are otherwise
incompatible with the operation of
Sublicly owned treatment works
DOTW). The CWA authorizes EPA to
establish pretreatment standards for
pollutants that pass through POTWs or
interfere with treatment processes or
sludge disposal methods at POTWs.
Pretrea'tment standards are technology-
based and analogous to BAT effluent
limitations guidelines.
The General Pretreatment
Regulations, which set forth the
framework for the implementation of
categorical pretreatment. standards, are
found at 40 CFR part 403. Those
regulations contain a definition of pass-
through that addresses localized rather
than national instances of pass-through
and establish pretreatment standards
that apply to all nondomestic
dischargers. See 52 FR 1586, January 14,
1987.
- f. Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS)—sec. 307(b) of the
CWA. Like PSES, PSNS are designed to
prevent the discharges of pollutants that
pass through, interfere with, or are
otherwise incompatible with the
operation of POTW. PSNS are to be
issued at the same time as NSPS. New
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66089
indirect dischargers have the
' opportunity to incorporate into their
plants the best available demonstrated
technologies. The Agency considers the
same factors in promulgating PSNS as it
considers in promulgating NSPS.
g.Best Management Practices (BMPs).
Section 304(e) of the CWA gives the
Administrator the authority to publish
regulations, in addition.to the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards
listed above* to control plant site runoff,
spillage or leaks, sludge or waste •'
disposal, and drainage from raw .
material storage which the,
Administrator determines may
contribute significant amounts of
pollutants.
2. Prior Regulations
EPA promulgated BPT, BAT, NSPS,
and PSNS for the builders' paper and.
roofing felt subcategory of the builders'
paper and board mills.point source
category on May 9,1974 (39 FR 16578;
40 GFR part 431). EPA promulgated
BPT, BAT, NSPS, and PSNS for the
unbleached kraft, sodium-based neutral
sulfite semi-chemical, ammonia-based
neutral sulfite semi-chemical,
unbleached kraft neutral-sulfite semi-
chemical (cross recovery), and
paperboard from wastepaper
subcategories of the pulp, paper, and
paperboard point source category on
May 29,1974 (39 FR 18742; 40 CFR part
430). V
EPA promulgated BPT for the ..
dissolving kraft, market bleached kraft,
BCT (board, coarse, and tissue) bleached
kraft, fine bleached kraft, papergrade
sulfite (blow pit wash), dissolving
sulfite pulp, groundwood-thermo-
mechanical, groundwood-CMN papers,
groundwood-fine papers, soda, deink,
nonintegrated-fine papers,
nonintegrated-tissue papers, tissue from .
wastepaper, and papergrade sulfite
(drum wash) subcategories of the pulp,
paper, and paperboard point source
category on January 6,1977 (42 FR
1398; 40 CFR part 430). ,
Several industry members challenged
, the regulations promulgated in May
1974 and January 1977. These
challenges were heard in the District of
Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. The
promulgated regulations were,upheld in
their entirety with one exception. The
. Agency was ordered to reconsider the
BPT BOD5 limitation for acetate grade
pulp production in the dissolving sulfite
pulp subcategory. Weyerhaeuser
Company, et al. v. Costle, 590 F. 2nd
1011 (D.C. Circuit 1978). In response to
this remand, the Agency proppsed BPT
regulations for acetate grade pulp
production in the dissolving sulfite pulp
subcategory on March 12,1980 (45 FR
15952). These proposed regulations
were not promulgated. -
EPA published proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for
BAT, BCT, NSPS, PSES. and PSNS for
24 of the 25 subcategories of the pulp,
paper, and paperboard industry on
January 6,1981 (46 FR 1430). These
regulations were promulgated on
November 18,1982 (47 FR 52006) with
the exception of BCT, which was
preserved. On December 17,1986, EPA
promulgated BCT effluent limitations
for 24 of the 25 subcategories of the
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry
(51 FR 45232). These regulations are -
currently in effect.
3. Litigation History (Since the 1982'
Promulgation)
On March 25,1985, the
Environmental Defense Fund and the
National Wildlife Federation filed suit
against the Agency concerning the
regulation of dioxins and furans • •*•
(Environmental Defense Fund rind
National Wildlife Federation v. Thomas,
Civ. No. 85-0973 (D.D.C.)). In settlement
of this lawsuit, EPA entered into a
consent decree (the "Consent Decree")
on July 27,1988. The Consent Decree
imposed a number of obligations on
EPA. Among these was the obligation to
adopt a schedule to address discharges
of dioxins and furans from 104
bleaching pulp mills. As amended by
order dated April 2,1992, the Consent
Decree requires the Agency to propose
regulations addressing discharges of
dioxins and furans from these mills on
or before October 31,1993. Today's ,
proposed rulemaking satisfies {his
obligation. The Consent Decree requires
EPA to use its best efforts to promulgate
regulations addressing discharges of
dioxins and furans from these, mills
within 18 months of this proposal.
The Consent Decree also requires EPA
to conduct a multiple pathway risk
assessment considering sludges, water
effluent, and products made from pulp
produced at the mills studied in the
U.S. EPA/Industry Cooperative Dioxin
Study (hereafter referred to as the 104-
Mill Study and described in section V.E.
below). The risk assessment considering
sludges and products is discussed in
section V.C. below.
4. Section 304(m) Requirements
Section 304{m) of the Clean Water Act
(33 U;S.C. i314(m)), added by the Water
Quality Act of 1987, requires EPA to
establish schedules for (i) reviewing and
revising existing effluent limitations
guidelines and standards and (ii)
promulgating new effluent guidelines^
On January 2,1990, EPA published an
Effluent'Guidelines Plan (55 FR 80), in
which schedules were established for
developing new and revised effluent
guidelines for several industry'
categories. One of the industries for
which the Agency established a
schedule was the pulp, paper, and.
paperboard and the builders' paper and
board mills point source category.
Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc. (NRDC) and Public Citizen, Inc.
challenged the Effluent Guidelines Plan
in a suit filed in U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia (NRDC et al. v.
Beilly, Civ. No. 89-2980 (D.D.C.)). The
plaintiffs charged that EPA's plan did '
• not meet the requirements of sec. '. ' ',
304(m). On January 31,1992, EPA
entered into a consent decree (the,
. "304(m) Decree"), which establishes
schedules for, among other things, ;
EPA's proposal and promulgation of
approximately 20 effluent guidelines.
Paragraph 2(b) of the 304(m) Decree
provides that: ,
"Revision of the effluent guidelines for the
pulp, paper, and paperboard point source
category is the subject of litigation in EDFv.
Thomas, Civ. No. 85-0973 (D.D.C.). . . The
schedules for proposal and'final action for
those guidelines are the subject of those
proceedings, and are not the subject of this
decree."
B. Clean Air Act
1. Statutory Requirements
Title III of the 1990 Clean Air Act ,
Amendments was enacted to reduce the
amount of nationwide air toxic
emissions. It comprehensively amended
section 112 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
Section 112(b) lists the 189 chemicals,
compounds, or groups of chemicals
deemed by Congress to be hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs). These toxic air
pollutants are to be regulated by
national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP).
Section 112(c) requires the f
Administrator to use this list of HAPs to
develop and publish a list of source
categories for which NESHAP will be
developed. EPA must list all known
categories and subcategories of "major
sources."
The term "major source" is defined in
paragraph 112(a)(l) to mean "any
stationary source or group of stationary
sources located within a contiguous area
and'under common control that emits or
has the potential to emit, considering
controls, in the aggregate 10 tons per
year (tons/yr) or more of any HAP^ or 25
tons/yr or more of any combination of
HAPs." The term "stationary source,"
from section ill of the CAA, means ariy
building^ structure, facility, or
installation that emits or may emit any
air pollutant. The term "area source," as
defined in section 112(a)(2), means any
-------
66090
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
15,
stationary source of HAPs that is not a
major source.
Notice of the initial list of categories
of major and area sources of HAPs was
published on July 16.1992 (57 FR
31576), under authority of section
112(c). This notice listed pulp and
paper production as a category of major
sources of HAPs. Notice of the draft
schedule for the promulgation of
emission standards for the listed
categories, under authority of section
112(e), was given on September 24,
1992 (57 FR 44147). Under this notice,
emission standards for the pulp and
paper production industry would be
promulgated no later than November
1997.
Section 112(d) of the CAA directs the
Administrator to promulgate emission
standards for each category of HAP
sources listed under section ll2(c).
Such standards are applicable to both
new and existing sources and must
require that
the maximum degree of reduction in
emissions of the hazardous air pollutants
subject to this section (including a
prohibition on such emissions, where
achievable) that the Administrator, taking
into consideration the cost of achieving such
emission reduction, and any non-air quality
health and environmental impacts and
energy requirements, determines is
achievable for new and existing sources in
the category or subcategory to which such
emission standard applies
(42 U.S.C. 7412 (d)(2)).
Section 112(d)(3) provides that "the
maximum degree of reduction in
emissions that is deemed achievable"
for new sources shall not be any less
stringent than "the emission control that
is achieved in practice by the best
controlled similar source." For existing
sources, the standards may not be less
stringent than "the average emission
limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of existing
sources" in each category of 30 or more
sources.
Once this minimum control level
(referred to as the floor) has been
determined for new or existing sources
for a category, the Administrator must
set a standard based on maximum
achievable control technology (MACT)
that is no less stringent than the floor.
The Administrator may set MACT
standards that are more stringent than
the floor if such standards are
achievable considering the cost,
environmental, and other impacts listed
in section 112(d)(2). Such standards
must then be met by all sources within
the category.
2. Prior Regulations
On February 23,1978 (43 FR 7568),
EPA promulgated new source
performance standards (NSPS) to limit
emissions of particulate matter (PM) and
total reduced sulfur (TRS) from new,
modified, and reconstructed kraft pulp
mills under the authority of section 111
of the CAA. These standards also
applied in some circumstances to
existing sources, under authority of
CAA section lll(d). The standards
limited TRS and PM emissions from
recovery furnaces, smelt dissolving
tanks, lime kilns, digester systems,
multiple effect evaporator systems,
black liquor oxidation systems,
brownstock washer systems, and
condensate stripper systems that were
constructed, modified, or reconstructed
after September 24,1976. These
standards reflected the application of
the best technological system of
continuous emission reduction that
(taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and
any non-air quality health and
environmental impact and energy
requirements) the Administrator
determined had been adequately
demonstrated.
Minor revisions and corrections to
these standards were promulgated on^
May 20,1986 (51 FR 18538). The
revisions exempted black liquor
oxidation systems from the standards;
revised the existing TRS standard and
its units for smelt dissolving tanks;
deleted the requirement to monitor the
combustion temperature in lime kilns,
power boilers, or recovery furnaces;
changed the frequency of excess
emission reports from quarterly to
semiannual; and exempted diffusion
washers from the TRS standard for
brownstock washer systems. The
revisions also required that monitored
emissions be recorded, and corrected
the reference for reporting excess
emissions. Today's action does not
revise of change the requirements of this
NSPS.
C. Sludge Regulatory Development
1. Sludge Activities in'Response to the
Consent Decrees
a. Consent Decree Obligations. As
introduced in section V.A. above, the
Consent Decree requires EPA to perform
a number of activities under its various
statutes. The activity that led to various
regulatory programs addressing pulp
and paper sludge management was a
multi-media, multi-pathway risk
assessment for 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran(TCDF)
emissions from chlorine-bleaching pulp
and paper mills. EPA, the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA), and the
Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC) performed the risk assessment.
The multi-media risk assessment
consists of ten separate assessments
examining approximately 120 exposure
pathways, including sludge use and
disposal. The sludge assessment is
entitled "Assessment of Risks from
Exposure of Humans, Terrestrial, Avian,
and Aquatic Life to Dioxins and Furans
from Disposal and Use of Sludge from
Bleached Kraft and Sulfite Pulp and
Paper Mills" (EPA 560/5-90-013, July
1990) and hereafter referred to as the
integrated risk assessment.
By April 30,1990, the consent decree
required EPA to take at least one of four
possible actions with respect to the
matters considered in the integrated risk
assessment. The four options were:
(1) Commit to propose regulations in
the Federal Register by April 30,1991;
(2) Commit to refer under TSCA
section 9 some or all matters Under
consideration to another Federal agency
or agencies by October 30,1990;
(3) Determine that the regulations or
referrals are unnecessary;
(4) Determine that EPA does not have
sufficient information to make one of
the above determinations, establish a
schedule to obtain the required
information by April 30,1991, and then
within 180 days take at least one of the
options.
The findings of the integrated risk
assessment compelled EPA to make
determinations of the risks associated
with the management of sludge through
the practice of land application,
landfills, and surface impoundments.
On June 19,1991, EPA entered into
another consent decree, EDFv. Reilly(to
date this decree has not been signed by
the court). This decree sets out an
extensive series of deadlines for
promulgating Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) rules and for
completing certain studies and reports.
One component of the decree is a
contingency listing determination for
pulp and paper mill sludge. The decree
requires a listing determination to be
proposed 12 months and promulgated
24 months after the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards are
promulgated. EPA is not required to
make a listing determination "if the
final rule for the pending effluent
limitations guidelines and standards
rulemaking . .". 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66091
and peroxide enhanced extraction or
any other technology involving
substantially similar reductions in uses
of chlorine-containing compounds."
b. Regulation of Sludge Land
Application. On May 10,1991, electing
to exercise option (i), EPA published
proposed 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;
Efocket OPTS-62100). The proposed
regulations sought to establish a final
maximum TCDD and TCDF soil .
concentration of 10 ppt toxic
equivalents (TEQ) and site management
practices for the land application of
bleached kraft and sulfite mill sludge.
EPA was to make a good faith effort to
promulgate the rule by November 1992.
On December 11,1992, EPA informed
the plaintiffs of the Consent Decree (EDF
v. Thomas) that the decision on the
promulgation of the proposed sludge
land application rule was deferred
pending promulgation in 1995 of the
integrated rulemaking for effluent
guidelines and national emission ,
standards. The effluent limitations and
emission standards have the potential to
result in bleach plant process changes,
which should result in reduced dioxin
and furan contamination levels in
sludge. • , .
In light of the anticipated impact of
the effluent limitations guidelines and
air emissions 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 the
effluent guidelines 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. The Agency expects this
determination to be made in 1995—1997.
' Prior to that determination, however,
EPA is taking action to achieve risk
reduction. In the interim period before
the effluent limitations and emission
standards.are promulgated and the
sludge listing determinations are made,
EPA will promote the establishment of
an industry environmental stewardship
program for the'practice of sludge land
application. The centerpiece of this
program would be a voluntary
agreement establishing standards and
management practices for those
facilities currently practicing land
application. EPA and industry
representatives have begun negotiations
for such a voluntary agreement.
c. Regulation of Landfills and Surface
Impoundments. On November 8,1991,
EPA, exercising option (iii), informed
the plaintiffs of the Consent Decree of
EPA's decision not to promulgate
additional regulations under Subtitle D
of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) for landfills and
surface impoundmentsTeceiving sludge
from bleached kraft and sulfite mills.
EPA concluded that, under current
conditions, dioxin contained in pulp
and paper mill sludges does not impose
an unreasonable risk to human health
and the environment when disposed in
landfills and surface impoundments.
2. Land Disposal Restrictions Activities
a. Background. In addition to the land
disposal restrictions imposed by the
Consent Decree, as described in section
V.C.I, above, pulp and paper sludges
are subject to the provisions of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The Hazardous and Solid
Waste Amendments (HSWA) to RCRA,
enacted on November 8,1984, allow
hazardous wastes to be land disposed
only if they are treated, or otherwise .
satisfy the requirement of substantially
diminishing the toxicity of the waste or
substantially reducing the likelihood of
migration of hazardous constituents
from the waste so that short-term and
long-term threats to human health and
the environment are minimized (section
3004(rn) of RCRA), Congress required
EPA to promulgate land disposal
prohibitions and treatment standards by
May 8,1990, for all wastes that were
either listed or identified as hazardous
at the time of HSWA, to avoid a bah on
land disposal of those hazardous wastes.
On May 8,1990, EPA promulgated
regulations addressing the last of the
five prohibitions, the third one-third of
the schedule of restricted hazardous '
wastes (hereafter referred to as the Third
Third). Among other things in the Third
Third final rule, the Agency
promulgated treatment standards and
prohibitions for hazardous wastes that
exhibited one or more of the following
characteristics: ignitability, corrosivity, ;
reactivity, Or EP toxicity. The Agency
stated in that rule the important
principle that merely removing the
. characteristic of a hazardous waste did
not mean that treatment of that waste
must cease. So long as the waste
exhibits a characteristic at the point it
is generated, it can continue to be
treated until the short and long-term
threats to human health and the
environment are minimized.
The D.C. Circuit agreed with EPA on
this point, but extended EPA's
reasoning, stating thatEPA's discretion
to apply this point of generation .
principle for wastes was limited, and
that for wastes that exhibit a
characteristic at the point of generation,
all hazardous constituents must be
destroyed or removed before the waste
is land disposed. This potentially
disallows the common-practice of
aggregating wastewater for centralized
wastewater treatment in land disposal
units like surface impoundments,
because the aggregation step typically
does not destroy or remove hazardous ,
constituents; it merely 'dilutes them.
Because of the nexus with the CWA, the
court crafted a limited'exception that
allows such aggregated wastewater to be
placed in surface impoundments
without first being fully treated,
provided that the treatment the waste
receives in the surface impoundment is
equivalent to the treatment it would
have received in a surface treatment •
unit. 976 F.2d at 23, 24.
b. Applicability to the Pulp and Paper
Industry. ~RCRA land disposal
restrictions (LDRs) are applicable to the
pulp and paper industry, because the :,
industry has wastes that are'ignitable or
corrosive at the point of generation, and
at some facilities the waste is . >
subsequently .land disposed (discharged
to ,a surface impoundment).. These
ignitable or corrosive wastes typically
contain hazardous constituents; such as
chloroform, which under the court's
ruling must be destroyed or removed in
some manner.
c. Current Situation. On January 19,
1993, EPA published a Notice of Data
Availability to solicit as many
comments as possible on all issues in
the court opinion (58 FR 4972). The
'Federal Register notice and .
Supplemental Information Report
(reference number F93-TTCA-FFFFF)
,can be found in Section 2.5 of the public
record supporting this rule or may be
obtained by visiting the RCRA Docket,
located in room M2427 at EPA
; Headquarters, or calling (202) 260-9327.
On May 24,1993, EPA published an
Interim Final .Emergency Rule to .
address those issues that required
immediate attention (58 FR 29860). As
explained in the emergency rule, CWA,
systems are not immediately affected by
the court ruling—the applicable
treatment standards were remanded to
the Agency, and will remain in effect
•until the Agency modifies the RCRA
regulations. Current practices by the
industry of diluting ignitable or '
corrosive waste streams prior to -.
discharge into a surface impoundment .
that treats the waste are acceptable for
now. Modifications to the RCRA
deactivation standard for CWA systems
-------
66092 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
will be addressed in mlemakings
scheduled to be finalized in 1995 and
1996. As stated in the Notice of Data
Availability, the Agency will be
considering applying end-of-pipe
wastewater limitations and controls on
emissions and leaks from surface
impoundments. In addition, the Agency
will determine if controls established
under the CWA and CAA adequately
address the requirements of RCRA.
D. Pollution Prevention Act
/
In the Pollution Prevention Act of
1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq., Pub. L.
101-508, November 5,1990), Congress
declared pollution prevention the
national policy of the United States. The
Pollution Prevention Act declares that
pollution should be prevented or
reduced whenever feasible; pollution
that cannot be prevented or reduced
should be recycled or reused in an
environmentally safe manner wherever
feasible; pollution that cannot be
recycled should be treated; and disposal
or release into the environment should
be chosen only as a last resort.
Today's proposed rules are consistent
with this policy. As described in
sections IX and X, development of
today's rules focused on the pollution-
preventing technologies that some
segments of the industry have already
adopted. Thus, a critical component of
the technology basis for certain effluent
limitations is a process change that
eliminates the formation of certain toxic
chemicals. Process changes were also
considered as the technology basis for
the emission standards.
E. Summary of Environmental Studies
After the 1982 promulgation of
effluent guidelines and standards,
research and studies in the United
States and other countries showed that
pulp and paper mills were discharging
toxic pollutants that had not been
addressed in the earlier rulemaking.
Presented below is a summary of some
of the major studies.
1. Swedish Studies
In the mid-1980's, the Swedish
Environmental Protection Board's
Environment Cellulose project
documented biological effects of pulp
and paper mill wastes on several species
of aquatic life in the Baltic Sea
(Sodergren, A., B. E. Bengtsson, et al.,
"Summary of Results from the Swedish
Project Environment Cellulose," Water
Science Tech., Vol. 20, No. 1,1988).
2. National Dioxin Study
In 1983, EPA issued a Dioxin Strategy
to establish a framework for addressing
dioxin contamination. As part of the
Dioxin Strategy, the Agency conducted
a broad National Dioxin Study of dioxin
contamination in the environment and
its associated risks (U.S. EPA, "The
National Dioxin Study, Tiers 3, 5,6, and
7," EPA 440/4-87-003, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington,
D.C., February 1987). An unexpected
finding of the National Dioxin Study
was that the dioxin isomer 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (or TCDD)
was present in fish downstream from 57
percent of the pulp and paper mill sites
sampled. To further investigate these
results, EPA sampled wastewater
treatment sludge at pulp and paper
mills in late 1985, and dioxin was also
detected in the sludges. The data
revealed that, within the paper .industry,
bleached kraft pulp mills contained the
highest levels of dioxin. This suggested
that dioxin was probably being formed
as a by-product during the bleaching of
• wood pulp with chlorine or chlorine
derivatives.
3. Five-Mill Study
In early 1986, EPA made plans to
obtain detailed sampling data from one
bleached kraft pulp and paper mill to
determine the source of the dioxin.
Before sampling took place, industry
representatives urged EPA to expand the
study from one to five mills. The
industry agreed to fund a portion of the
project and to supply detailed process
information for each mill selected for
study. In June 1986, EPA and industry
representatives entered into an
agreement for a cooperative screening
study, often referred to as the Five-Mill
Study. Full-scale sampling started in
June 1986 an'd ended in January 1987.
Two compounds, TCDD and 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF), were
detected in the effluents of four of the
five mills, the pulps of all five mills,
and the wastewater treatment plant
sludges of all five mills (U.S. EPA, "U.S.
EPA/Paper Industry Cooperative Dioxin
Screening Study," Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington,
DC 20460, EPA 440/1-88-025, March
1988).
4.104-Mill Study
After reviewing the results from the
Five-Mill Study, EPA determined that
information was needed from all
chlorine-bleaching facilities to assess if
dioxin was being formed at all mills
using chlorine-containing compounds
and to determine how dioxin was being
generated. Again, industry
representatives expressed interest in
cooperating voluntarily to gather
additional data. An agreement was
drafted in late 1987. After the Office of
Management and Budget approved the
cooperative data collection activities,
the agreement was signed on April 25,
1988, and 104 mills agreed to
participate. This study provided EPA
with dioxin and furan analytical results
in effluents, sludges, and pulps along
with detailed bleach plant process
information and data on wastewater
treatment system operation and sludge
disposal practices. These types of
information had not been collected for
this industry since 1976 so the 104-Mill
Study provided EPA with valuable data
representative of pulp and paper mill
operations operating in 1988 (U.S. EPA,
"U.S. EPA/Paper Industry Cooperative
Dioxin Study—the 104-Mill Study-
Summary Report," Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington,
D.C. 20460, July 1990).
5. National Study of Chemical Residues
in Fish
After the Five-Mill Study, EPA
initiated a study to determine whether
fish tissue was contaminated by
pollutants of concern, including dioxins
and furans. Pulp and paper mills using
chlorine to bleach pulp appeared to be
the dominant source of TCDD and
TCDF. Statistical comparisons show that
fish near pulp and paper mills using
chlorine have significantly higher
concentrations of TCDD than all other
source categories (U.S. EPA, "National
Study of Chemical Residues in Fish,"
Office of Science and Technology,
Washington, DC 20460, EPA 823-R-92-
008a, September 1992).
6. Air Emission Findings
EPA has long known that pulp and
paper mills emit chlorine and
chloroform to the air. In the 1980's, the
Agency attempted to get chloroform
listed as a hazardous air pollutant
(HAP), due to its carcinogenicity, under
sec. 112 of the 1977 Amendments to the
CAA. After the 1990 Amendments to the
CAA, the pulp and paper industry was
listed as a category of major sources of
hazardous air pollutants because of the
known presence of chlorine;
chloroform, and other metallic HAPs in
pulp mill emissions. In addition, pulp
mills are known to be a source of odor
due to total reduced sulfur (TRS). TRS
would be controlled as a result of a
NESHAP. National baseline emissions
of HAP from the pulp and paper
industry are estimated to be 172,000 Mg
per year.
7. Dioxin Reassessment
In the Spring of 1991, EPA undertook
a reassessment of the risk of dioxin. As
part of this reassessment, EPA is
examining the mechanisms by which
dioxin apparently causes a variety of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66093
adverse effects in animals and humans,
including cancer, reproductive effects,
developmental effects, and effects on
the immune system. EPA's regulatory
programs are proceeding uninterrupted
during the preparation of the
reassessment. Findings of the
reassessment are scheduled to be,
published in mid-to-late 1994.
F. Summary of Public Participation
During the data gathering activities
that preceded development of the
proposed rules,-EPA met regularly with
representatives from the industry and •
environmental groups, and these
contacts are discussed in section VIII.
During the development of the proposed
regulations, EPA continued to meet with
interested parties on a regular basis.
Between September 1992 and June
1993, EPA sponsored five public
meetings, where the Agency shared
"information about the content'and the
status of the regulations. The public
meetings also gave interested parties an
opportunity to provide information, .
data, and ideas on key issues. EPA's
intent in conducting these public
meetings was ,to elicit input that would
improve the quality of the proposed
regulations.
The meetings were announced in the
Federal Register, and agendas and
meeting materials were mailed to
interested parties before the meetings or
: distributed at the meetings. An
extensive mailing list w.as developed
from meeting attendee lists and
'telephone calls to the Agency. The •,
information presented at each meeting
corresponded to the stage of regulatory
development and the status of the data
• analysis at the time of the meeting.
At the first public meeting, the
Agency clarified that the public
meetings would not replace the notice-
, and-comment process, nor would the
meetings become a mechanism for a
negotiated rulemaking. While EPA
accepted information and data at the,
meetings and made good faith efforts to
review all information and address all
issues discussed at the meetings, EPA
could not commit to fully assessing and
incorporating all comments into the
proposal. EPA will assess all comments
and data received at the public meetings
prior to promulgation.
In addition to the five public
meetings, EPA met with interested
parties and conducted telephone
conference call meetings to discuss
specific issues on many occasions
during regulatory development. As a
result of these public participation
activities, the Agency learned of several
technical issues that were not
completely resolved or documented
prior to this proposed rulemaking.
Hence, the Agency is requesting data
and comment on several issues that
were introduced during the public
participation activities (see section XIII).
Many materials concerning the public
meetings are included in section 15.0 of
the water docket.
VI. Integrated Regulatory Development
Under the Clean Water Act and the
Clean Air Act
This section describes the Agency's
approach for developing regulations
applicable to the pulp and paper
industry jointly under the CWA and
CAA. (As stated previously, the CWA
regulations proposed today are known
as effluent limitations guidelines and
standards; the CAA regulations are
known as national emissions standards
for hazardous air pollutants). The '
Administrator developed these
proposed regulations jointly to provide
greater protection of human health and
the environment, reduce the cost of
complying with both sets of rules,
promote and facilitate coordinated
compliance planning by industry,
promote and facilitate pollution
prevention, and emphasize the
multimedia nature of pollution control.
In developing these .regulations, EPA
first collected information about the
industry, next developed control
technology bases for the effluent
limitations and air emission standards
to meet the separate statutory
requirements of the CWA and the CAA,
and then analyzed the impacts of
various combinations of control
1 technologies as the bases for effluent
limitations and air emissions control. .
The total environmental and economic
impacts of basing limitations and
standards oh these control technologies •
were estimated.
A. Background
The pulp and paper industry releases
significant amounts of pollutants to
ambient air, surface waters, POTWs, and
wastewater treatment sludges. Section V
of this notice discusses in greater detail
the separate components of EPA's
regulatory efforts to address these
pollutant releases, including revised
effluent limitations guidelines and
standards under the CWA, NESHAP
under the CAA, and regulations on the
land application of pulp and paper mill
sludge under the TSCA and the RCRA.
In 1990, EPA established the Pulp and
Paper Regulatory Cluster, which is
composed of representatives from most
EPA offices. One role of the Pulp and
Paper Regulatory Cluster is to identify
optimal approaches to solving
environmental problems associated with
the pulp and paper industry, through "' ,
regulatory coordination. Pursuant to the
Cluster initiative, today's notice is a ,
joint proposal of CWA effluent
limitations guidelines and CAA
NESHAP for the pulp and paper
industry. A third effort under the
Cluster initiative—regulation of land
application of pulp and paper mill
sludge—was also included in the
Agency's coordinated regulatory
strategy, as explained in section V.C.I.
The air emission standards proposed
today would not regulate all HAP
emission points within the source
category. The air emission standards,
however, do address the emission
points that are 'affected by the use of
process changes—that is,
noncombustion points at mills that
chemically pulp wood fiber. Proposing
these standards jointly with the effluent
standards thus allows consideration of
process changes as a control strategy for
•reducing discharges of both water and *
air pollutants. CAA standards for the :•
remaining portion of the pulp and paper
source category will be proposed
separately. EPA plans to propose
standards for the combustion emission
points at chemical pulping processes ,
approximately one year after today's
proposal and promulgate them together
with the standards for the
noncombustion emission points and the
effluent guidelines limitations.
B. Goals
EPA has several technical and policy
goals for coordinating the development
of the effluent limitations guidelines
and the NESHAP. These goals include:
(1) Protecting the public health and the
environment by attaining significant
reductions in pulp and paper industry
pollutant releases to all media; (2)
reducing the cost of complying with
both sets of rules; (3) promoting and
facilitating coordinated compliance
planning by the industry; (4) promoting
and facilitating pollution prevention;
and (5) emphasizing the multimedia
nature of pollution control. The Agency
believes these goals were served by the
coordinated development of these rules.
C. Technical Approach .
\. Coordinated Information Collection
. The first step in developing the joint
regulations was to develop a mill-
specific database of all facilities subject
to both sets of standards. As described
in Section VIII of this notice, EPA
utilized information from a number of
sources, including its wastewater
sampling program, air emissions testing
program, 1990 census questionnaire,
and API/NCASI1992 voluntary
-------
66094
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
questionnaire, to develop the integrated
regulations. The information collected
includes the processes and control
technologies in use, current control
levels, and pollutant releases. The
Agency recognizes that the industry is
dynamic, and that processes and
equipment change over time. Therefore,
survey data were updated through
telephone calls and letters to ascertain
that the database reasonably reflects the
current status of the industry. EPA will
consider information and data
submitted in a timely manner by
interested parties in response to this
proposal for the purpose of updating the
database prior to promulgation. The
Administrator is aware that the industry
is currently conducting a sampling
program, and will consider the results of
this program in developing the final
regulations to the extent that they are
available in a timely manner.
Information collected about the
industry was placed into a mill-specific
database. EPA then developed an
integrated database system to analyze
the impacts of implementing the
combined effluent limitations
guidelines and NESHAP. The integrated
database system, which is described in
the BID, uses the mill-specific database
and other components to calculate
national baseline air emissions and
wastewater discharges, and national
pollutant reductions and costs of the
effluent limitations and air emission
control options. It contains information
on all mills in the industry and was
developed using information from
EPA's wastewater sampling program,
emissions testing program, 1990 census
questionnaire, API/NCASI survey, and
other sources. This comprehensive
information provides a strong basis for
ensuring that the proposed regulations
meet the statutory requirements, and
allows consideration of other factors
such as coordinated compliance
planning and multimedia pollutant
reduction.
2. Development of Effluent Limitations
and Air Emissions Control Technology
Options
After evaluation of control
technologies and their use in the
industry, EPA selected potential BAT,
PSES, BPT, BCT, NSPS, PSNS. and
MACT control technology options, as
well as BMP; this process is described
in Sections IX and X of this notice.
Process change options were selected as
the basis for proposed BAT and PSES
limitations in all cases because they are
the most effective and economically
achievable controls for toxic and
nonconventional pollutants.
Combustion, wet scrubbing, and steam
stripping were selected for the basis of
the proposed MACT standards because
"they are the best system of emission
limitation considering the costs, non-air
quality health and environmental
impacts, and energy requirements.
Proposed BPT limitations to reduce
conventional pollutant effluent loadings
are based on wastewater flow controls
and improvements to wastewater
treatment systems. The proposed BMP
are based on pulping and black liquor
spill prevention and control.
3. Analyses of Multiple Integrated Air
and Water Regulatory Alternatives
A series of analyses were conducted
to assess the impacts of various
combinations of BAT, PSES, BPT, BCT,
NSPS, PSNS, and MACT control
options, as well as BMP. EPA developed
regulatory alternatives based on
pollution-preventing process changes
alone, air emissions control alone, and
combinations of process changes and air
emission controls. Each regulatory
alternative also included a flow control
and wastewater treatment component
comprising the BPT technology basis,
and a BMP component based on pulping
and black liquOr spill prevention and
control. The projected effluent loadings
and air emissions resulting from these
integrated regulatory alternatives were
compared to baseline pollutant releases.
Control costs and other environmental
and economic impacts for each
alternative above the baseline level of
control were also estimated. These
analyses were used to determine the
combined effect of the process changes,
air controls, improvements to
wastewater treatment, and best
management practices. The alternatives
were designed to evaluate the most
efficient application of control
technologies and to minimize the cross-
media transfer of pollutants between
water and air.
EPA evaluated whether pollution-
preventing process changes, such as
those selected as the control basis for
BAT and PSES, reduce HAP emissions
sufficiently to satisfy the CAA
requirements. Based on available data,
the analyses showed that use of .process
change technologies reduces emissions
of some HAPs, but increases others.
Specifically, process change
technologies decrease emissions of
chlorinated HAPs, including
chloroform, chlorine,.and hydrochloric
acid. This decrease in air emissions of
chlorinated HAPs is believed to be
attributable to the elimination of
hypochlorite as a bleaching agent and to
increasing levels of chlorine dioxide
substitution in the process changes
considered. However, air emissions of
some nonchlorinated HAPs, including
methanol, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK),
and formaldehyde, show modest
increases as a result of those process
changes. These patterns in air emissions
were observed for the range of process
change control options evaluated as
possible technology bases for BAT and .
PSES. EPA concluded that process
change technologies alone do not
adequately control HAP emissions to
the air, and that air control technologies
in addition to the process changes are
needed to achieve HAP emission
limitations required by the CAA. EPA
requests comments and data on air
emission trends associated with
elimination of hypochlorite, chlorine
dioxide substitution, and oxygen
delignification.
EPA also considered the effect of
steam stripping process wastewater
streams on water and air pollutant
releases, as it is recognized as a control
device that reduces both conventional
effluent pollutant loadings and HAP
emissions. The analyses showed that
flow reduction and wastewater
treatment system improvements would
be needed for some mills to reduce BOD
and TSS discharges to comply with
proposed BPT limitations based on the
best performing 50 percent of mills with
advanced biological treatment.
.However, steam stripping also
contributes to BOD removal.
A third consideration was the effect of
the air controls on effluent loadings of
toxic and nonconventional pollutants. •
The analyses showed that air controls
did not significantly affect effluent
loadings of toxic and priority pollutants.
Combustion destroys most compounds
emitted from process vents, thus
reducing the amount of pollutants that
could enter surface waters due to
deposition. Chlorinated HAPs
remaining after the process changes
react with the caustic in the scrubber,
neutralizing the caustic effluent. Non-
chlorinated HAPs that absorb into the
caustic are biodegradable, and are not
estimated to significantly increase the
pollutant load to the wastewater
treatment system. Steam stripping
systems remove compounds from
wastewater streams, and the removed
compounds are destroyed in a
combustion device.
D. Results
i
The analyses of multiple integrated
regulatory alternatives showed that
there is no single control technology
currently available that reduces
pollutant discharges to the water and air
to the levels required by the respective
statutes. The demonstrated control
technologies that can serve as the bases
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 /Friday, December 17, 1993 /Proposed Rules
66095
for BAT, PSES, NSPS, PSNS, and BPT
limitations pose no significant adverse
impacts to and have some benefits for
air quality. Similarly, the air control
technologies that can serve as the basis
for the NESHAP standards pose no
significant adverse impacts on and have
some benefits for water quality.
Therefore, combining the best control
technology" options for effluent
limitations with the best control
technology options for the air emission
standards represents a reasonable
method for constructing the integrated
regulatory alternative.
EPA selected control options for the
BAT, PSES, and BPT limitations and the
NESHAP are based on evaluation of
pollutant reductions, costs, cost
effectiveness, and economic,
environmental, and energy impacts.
Prior to selection of the proposed rules,
an integrated regulatory alternative
comprising the sum of the proposed _
control options for the four standards
was constructed. Impacts of the
combined standards, including1
pollutant reductions, costs, cost
effectiveness, and economic,
environmental, and energy impacts,
were then assessed. This coordinated <
evaluation ensures that today's
•proposed regulations fully satisfy all the
relevant statutory requirements while
, minimizing cross-media pollutant
transfer, encouraging the use of
pollution-preventing process changes,
and ensuring the greatest environmental
benefit for the pollution control costs.
Specific results of the Agency's
evaluation and the selected integrated
regulatory alternative are presented in
Section XI of this notice.
VII. Description of the Industry
A. Pulp and Paper Manufacturing .
Facilities
Presented below is a brief summary
description of the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry. Other descriptive
characteristics of the industry are
detailed in sections IX.B., IX.C., IX.D.,
arid IX.E. of this notice; chapter 4.0 of
the technical water development
document; and in the NESHAP
Background Information Document
(BID). Based upon responses to EPA's
1990 National Census of Pulp, Paper,
and Faperboard Manufacturing
Facilities, the Agency estimates that
there are approximately 565
manufacturing facilities located in 42
States. The major pulp production areas
in the U.S. are the Southeast, Northwest,
Northeast, and Northern Central regions,
due to availability of fiber furnish and
processing facilities.
The 565 manufacturing facilities that
EPA has considered for regulation
comprise either integrated pulp and
paper mills, where pulp is
manufactured on-site from virgin wood
fiber, secondary fiber, or non-wood
fiber; or, non-integrated paper mills
where only paper or paperboard
products are manufactured from
purchased pulp or pulp produced
elsewhere. There are approximately 290
integrated pulp and paper mills and 275
non-integrated paper mills. .
B. Manufacturing Processes
1. Raw Materials . '
There are four major types of fiber
furnish used for papermaking: (a)
Hardwood; (b) softwood; (c) secondary
fibers (recycled fiber); and (d) non-wood
fibers. Pulps produced from hardwood
trees (oak, maple, birch, beech, and
others) contain relatively short fibers,
which produce pulps of higher density.
Pulps produced from softwood trees
(pine, spruce, hemlock, and others)
contain longer fibers, which produce
' pulps of greater strength. Many papers
are made from blends of hardwood and
softwood'pulps to take advantage.of
softwood pulp strength and hardwood
pulp density. About twice as much
softwood pulp is produced in the U.S.
compared to hardwood pulp.
Wood pulp is manufactured from
trees brought to the pulp mill in the
form of logs ("round wood"), or in the
form of wood chips. Sawdust from saw
mills is also used as a fiber furnish. At
most mills, the tree bark is removed
from round wood using mechanical
debarkers. The debarked logs are then
, mechanically chipped, sized and stored
in piles prior to pulping.
"Secondary fibers" is the term used to
apply to furnish obtained from the
recycle of waste papers and paperboard.
Depending upon waste paper
segregation and processing, secondary
fibers can be converted into most grades
of finished paper. Examples of non-
wood fibers include cotton, sugar cane
waste called bagasse, flax, and hemp;
NJon-wood fibers are most often used to
produce low volume, specialty grades of
paper. Certain plastics and .latexes are
also used for specialty papermaking.
2. Pulping Processes *
In 1992, as reported by the American
Forest and Paper Association, U.S. pulp
and paper industry produced 90.7
million tons of pulp by the following
processes: (a) Chemical Pulp (60.3
percent); (b) Secondary Fiber Pulp (28.0
percent); (c) Mechanical Pulp (7.2
percent); and (d) Semi-Chemical Pulp
(4.5 percent). The principal
distinguishing characteristics and the
major products associated with each
pulping process are briefly described
below and are reviewed in detail in the
technical water development document.
Chemical pulping processes are
carried out using concentrated chemical
solutions at high temperature and under
pressure. The processes are " •
characterized by chemical pulps with
relatively low yield and pure fibers that
impart particular properties that are
important to high grade products.
Examples of chemical pulping processes
• are kraft, soda, and sulfite. Extensive
chemical recovery cycles or byproducts
"production are necessary for economical
operation of chemical pulp mills.
Modifications of the kraft and sulfite
pulping and bleaching processes are
used to produce "dissolving" grades of
pulp for manufacture of selected
products where a high purity of alpha
cellulose and the virtual absence of
lignin is desired.
Secondary fiber pulping is carried out
mechanically where waste paper and
board products are solubilized in water.
Impurities (e.g., staples, clips, plastics,
adhesives) are removed by various
cleaning steps, depending upon the •
grade of wastep'ape'r processed and the
product's end use. If secondary fiber
pulps will be used for the manufacture
of printing grades of paper, the pulp
must also be deinked by chemical and
mechanical methods. The grades of
paper and paperboard produced from
recycled papers or wastepapers'are
highly dependent upon the quality of
the wastepaper. .
Often, pulps are produced at
integrated pulp and paper mills by more.
than one method. Pulps are blended to
take advantage of the various properties
of specific pulps. Because of the
increasing trend for use of recycled
paper products, secondary fiber is used
to augment the virgin wood fiber supply
at many chemical pulp mills. Market
pulp mills are those where pulp is
produced to customer specifications for
sale in this country or exported.
Usually, only one type of pulping
process is used at each market pulp
, mill. Market bleached kraft pulp is the
predominant grade of market pulp
produced in the United States.
Mechanical pulping is conducted by
mechanical energy, with little or no use
of chemicals and moderate or no use of
heat, The process has high yield and
results in short, impure fibers that
exhibit good print quality. It is generally
not feasible to produce highly bleached
mechanical pulp. Examples of
mechanical pulps are stone •
groundwood, refiner mechanical, and
chemi-thenrio-mechanical pulps.
-------
66096 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
Semi-Chemical pulping is conducted
with combinations of chemical and
mechanical treatments. The processes
have intermediate yields and result in
pulps with a wide range of properties
depending upon the degree of
mechanical and chemical methods used.
A common semi-chemical pulping
process is the Neutral Sulfite Semi-
Chemical process used to produce
corrugating medium. Some mills use
only chemical pulping.
3. Pulp Bleaching
Pulps may either be used to produce
unbleached final products from the
pulping process, or pulps may be
chemically bleached to desired levels of
brightness for the production of other
products. Bleached pulps are used for
products where high purity is required
and yellowing (or color reversion) is not.
desired (e.g.. printing and writing
papers, food contact papers, sanitary
paper products). Unbleached pulp is
typically used for production of
boxboard, linerboard, and grocery bags.
Bleaching is used to whiten pulp by
chemically altering the coloring matter
and to impart a higher brightness. The
selection of wood type for pulping, the
pulping process used, and the desired
qualities and end use of the paper
product greatly affect the type and
degree of pulp bleaching required.
There are two basic methods to increase
the brightness of pulps. The first is to
use selective bleaching agents that
destroy some of the colored compounds,
without significantly reacting with
lignin, which binds wood fibers
together. This method is used to
brighten pulps with high lignin content
such as groundwood and semi-chemical
pulps. High brightness values are
difficult to achieve without
delignification, and significant
damnification of these pulps is not
desirable due to the negative impact on
yield. The second method of bleaching
includes complete or near-complete
removal of the lignin remaining after
chemical pulping, followed by further
bleaching of the pulp to a desired degree
of brightness. The latter method is used
to bleach kraft, soda and sulfite pulps to
higher brightness levels.
In recent years there has been a major
trend in the industry toward reducing
both the types and amount of chlorine
and chlorine-containing chemicals used
for pulp bleaching. Most of these
changes have occurred as a result of
product quality considerations and
environmental concerns about the
presence of dioxins and other
chlorinated compounds in pulp and
paper products resulting from the
bleaching of pulps with chlorine and
chlorine-containing compounds. At
many mills, chlorine dioxide is being
used in first stage of bleaching in place
of some or all of the chlorine; use of
hypochlorite has diminished in
response to concerns about chloroform
emissions; and significant efforts have
been made by many mill operators to
improve delignification prior to
bleaching to minimize bleach chemical
usage and the attendant formation of
unwanted chlorinated by-products. At
this writing, commercial production of
market grades of high brightness
bleached softwood kraft pulp has not
been achieved without the use of any
chlorine or chlorine derivatives. Totally
chlorine free bleaching of selected
market grades of sulfite pulps has been
demonstrated in Europe.
4. Paper Making
Depending upon end use, unbleached
or bleached pulp is processed by beating
and refining prior to papermaking.
Chemicals are also added to impart
specific properties to the finished
product.
VIII. Summary of Data Gathering
Efforts
A. Wastewater Sampling Program
This section presents a brief overview ,
of EPA's wastewater sampling program.
Details of this data gathering effort are
presented in Chapter 3.2 of the technical
water development document. Also,
findings from EPA's sampling program
are discussed in section IX.B. of this
notice. Detailed support documentation
can be found in section 7.5 of the public
record for the effluent limitations.
During the development of the proposed
rules, the Agency conducted two
wastewater sampling programs
consisting of 13 short-term studies and
a long-term study.
1. Short-Term Studies
The Agency conducted 13 short-term
sampling episodes from 1988 through
mid-1993. The first three sampling
episodes, performed in 1988, served as
screening episodes and allowed the
Agency to narrow the list of pollutants
to be examined during future episodes.
During these first three episodes,
samples were analyzed for the following
groups of analytes: Chlorinated dioxins
and furans, chlorinated phenolics,
volatile organics, semi-volatile organics,
pesticides/herbicides, metals,
conventional pollutants (BOD5 and
TSS), and nonconventional pollutants
(COD and TOX). Subsequently, EPA
conducted ten short-term sampling
episodes between 1989 and 1993.
During these episodes, samples were
analyzed for a limited set of analytes:
Chlorinated dioxins and furans,
chlorinated phenolics, volatile organics,
BODS, COD, TSS, TOX, and AOX. Mills
were selected for participation in the
short-term sampling program because
they utilized particular pulping or
bleaching technologies, wastewater
treatment, or fiber furnishes.
At each mill sampled in the period
1988 through 1990, sampling points
were selected to characterize wastewater
discharges from various process areas
(brownstock wash water, bleach plant
filtrates, and paper machine white
water), mill exports (final effluent, pulp,
and sludge), the performance of the
wastewater treatment system (one or
more influents and effluents), and mill
process water and brownstock pulp. For
the sampling episodes that occurred in
1992 and 1993, the sampling points
were limited to bleach plant filtrates,
bleached pulp, and wastewater -
treatment system samples.
Data obtained from the short-term
sampling program provided EPA with
valuable information about mill
operations and pollutant discharges
during the period from 1988 to 1993.
One important finding was that, since
1988, many mills made process
technology and/or operating changes in
the bleach plant intended to reduce the
formation of dioxins, furans, and other
chlorinated pollutants. Some data from
the short-term study were used to
develop the effluent limitations and
standards proposed today.
2. Long-Term Study
The Agency's long-term study was
undertaken to generate the data
necessary for developing effluent
limitations and standards. The study
was a cooperative effort between EPA
and the industry. Representing the
paper industry, the American Paper.
Institute (now the American Forest and
Paper Association, or AFPA) and the
National Council of the Paper Industry '
for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc.
(NCASI) cooperated with EPA in
substantially expanding the .scope of the
Agency's study. Jn particular, AFPA and
NCASI coordinated and conducted the
expanded collection and analysis of
data from four mills selected by the
Agency to an additional four mills
selected by the industry, for a total of
eight pulp and paper mills. In addition,
the scope of the study was expanded to
cover two nine-week periods (summer
1991 and winter 1991-1992).
These eight mills were selected to
participate in the long-term study
sampling program because they utilized
particular pulping or bleaching
technologies, wastewater treatment, or
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993
-------
66098 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
(5) bleach plants. In addition,
information was requested related to
process waters and wastewaters
generated in the pulping area and
bleach plant. A discussion of specific
information obtained by this survey is
included in the BID.
2. State and Local Regulations
Information was gathered on existing
State and local regulations, permits, and
permitting requirements for pulp and
paper mills. This information was used
to supplement the voluntary survey
information for baseline control levels
for air emissions from kraft, soda,
sulfite. and semi-chemical mills. All ten
EPA regions were contacted to identify
the States with the most active pulp and
paper facilities. Seventeen States were
found to have regulations specific to the
pulp and paper industry.
Information obtained included data
on the pollutants and emission sources
covered, emissions limits and/or control
methods specified, and type of
compliance monitoring required.
3. Sampling and Analytical Program
The sampling and analytical program
included detailed testing of air and
liquid samples from pulp and paper
mills that chemically pulp wood fiber.
The program was conducted to gather
data to characterize HAP emission
points within the pulp and paper
industry and to develop emission
factors for these points. In addition, the
sampling program was conducted to
evaluate the effectiveness of various
controls under consideration for MACT.
Air emission samples were collected
from pulping and bleaching unit process
vents and liquid samples were collected
from process streams from five mills.
The five mills included three kraft mills,
one kraft and semi-chemical mill, and
one sulfite mill. The sampling and
analysis program and its results are
described in the BID.
EPA is aware that the NCASI is
presently conducting an industry
sampling program that they initiated in
the Fall of 1992. Vent gas samples,
process liquid samples, and process
wastewater samples are being collected
from a variety of pulping and bleaching
process units. Corresponding process
information to determine what
relationship might exist between
process parameters and air emissions is
also being gathered. The NCASI
sampling program consists of 13 kraft,
two sulfite, and at least one stand-alone
semi-chemical mill. As of August 1993,
NCASI had completed testing at
approximately nine of the selected
mills. NCASI has indicated that they
plan to provide the test data reports to
the Agency as they become available.
They anticipate that all of the test data
reports should be completed and made
available to the Agency by mid to late
1994. The Agency plans to consider this
data for the promulgation of the
NESHAP.
IX. Development of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
A. Industry Subcategorization
1. Introduction ,
In developing today's proposed
regulations, EPA considered whether
different effluent limitations and
standards were appropriate for different
groups of mills or subcategories within
the industry. Factors considered
included: processes employed, effluent
characteristics, costs, age of equipment
and facilities, size, location, engineering
aspects of the application of various
types of control techniques, process
changes, and non-water quality
environmental impacts. In determining
which subcategories were appropriate
for these proposed'regulations, EPA first
assessed subcategbrization under the
effluent guidelines currently applicable
to this industry using recently available
data.
2. Current Subcategorization
The current Subcategorization of this
industry dates to 1974, and was
developed using data from the early-
and mid-1970's. The current
subcategories are as follows:
40 CFR Part 430
Subpart A Unbleached kraft
Subpart B Semi-chemical
Subpart D Unbleached kraft-neutral sulfite
semi-chemical (cross recovery)
Subpart E Paperboard from wastepaper
Subpart F Dissolving kraft
Subpart G Market bleached kraft
Subpart H Board, coarse, and tissue (BCT)
bleached kraft
Subpart I Fine bleached kraft
Subpart J Papergrade sulfite (blow pit wash)
Subpart K Dissolving sulfite pulp
Subpart L Groundwood-chemi-mechanical
Subpart M Groundwood-thermo-
mechanical
Subpart N Groundwood-coarse, molded,
and news (CMN) papers
Subpart O Groundwood-fme papers'
Subpart P Soda
Subpart Q Deink
Subpart R Nonintegrated-fine products
Subpart S Nonintegrated-tissue papers
Subpart T Tissue from wastepapers,
Subpart U Papergrade sulfite (drum wash)
Subpart V Unbleached kraft and semi-
chemical
Subpart W Wastepaper-molded products
Subpart X Nonintegrated-lightweight
papers
Subpart Y Nonintegrated-filter and
nonwoven papers
Subpart Z Nonintegrated-paperboard
40CFR'Part431
Subpart A Builders' paper and roofirig felt
3. Rationale for Changing the Current
Subcategorization and Development of
the Proposed Subcategorization
During the 20 year period since the
current Subcategorization was
developed, there have been numerous
process and wastewater treatment
changes in the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry. In addition, EPA
and state permit writers have gained
much experience implementing the
current effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for the pulp and paper
industry since the regulations were first
promulgated. Frequently, those permit
writers have found that a single mill
will contain processes that fall within
two, three or more subcategories. This
situation greatly complicates the task of
permit writing, requiring considerable
additional information gathering, time,
and resources. As a result of the .
foregoing, the Agency analyzed the most
recent data from the pulp and paper
industry to determine if the revised
regulations might appropriately contain
fewer subcategories. The first step in the
Subcategorization analysis was to
determine long-term average (LTA)
effluent characteristics for the current
subcategories. For this analysis, EPA
used effluent BOD5 and TSS loadings
supplied in the questionnaire for 1989
by every direct-discharging mill.
During the development of the
proposed regulations, EPA received
comments concerning the use of effluent
characteristics in its Subcategorization
analysis. Some of these comments urged
EPA to use raw waste load, instead of
effluent, data for this purpose. In the
early-to-mid 1970's, the Agency
generally used raw waste load data in its
Subcategorization analysis because
many mills had not installed well-
operated wastewater treatment systems
and the overall level of wastewater
treatment provided by the industry was
not consistent among mills with similar
manufacturing processes. The raw waste
load data were used because end-of-pipe
data were not uniformly available. At "*•
that time, EPA found that untreated
wastewater loadings were highly
variable for different processes. As a
result, the Agency concluded that
untreated loadings provided a
reasonable basis to subcategorize the
industry because the costs for mills with
similar untreated wastewater loadings to
achieve uniform effluent levels would
be similar.
Since the early-to-mid 1970's, most
mills have installed secondary
wastewater treatment systems, and end-
of-pipe discharge data supplied in the
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday. December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66099
1990 Census for most mills show that
the degree of end-of-pipe wastewater
treatment provided by the industry is
much more uniform than it was during
the 1970's. EPA determined that the
subcategorization analysis and its
consideration of the factors in CWA
section 304(b), especially those
specifying processes employed a,nd
engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control techniques, are
more appropriately conducted for the
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry
using end-of-pipe data than raw waste
data because these data accurately
represent a mill's ability to comply with
effluent limitations and standards and
achieve pollutant reductions.,
The mills were arranged according to
the current subcategorization scheme
shown above. In order to assess the
effluent characteristics for a specific
subcategory, the ideal approach would
be to use only those mills with 100
percent of their production in that
subcategory. However, the 1990 Census
revealed that some subcategories did not
have an adequate number of mills with
100 percent production in the
subcategory to characterize the effluent
characteristics in that subcategory. As a
result, EPA determined that* for most
subcategories, for the purpose of
determining subcategory-specific LTAs,
subcategory effluent characteristics were
based on mills with 85 to 100 percent
production in that subcategory.
In performing its subcategorization .
analysis, EPA created a database
comprised of all mills with wastewater
treatment technologies representative of
secondary treatment. Examples of mills
• not included in the database include •
1 indirect dischargers, intermittent .
dischargers, mills with no treatment,
zero dischargers, mills with poor
performance due to the lack of primary
or secondary treatment, and mills that
did not operate during significant
portions of 1989. ,
The LTA for BOD5 and TSS loadings,
normalized by production, were then
determined for each mill. When EPA
reviewed the data for the mills arranged
in the current subcategories, there were
a number of subcategories with similar
production processes, such as market
bleached kraft and fine bleached kraft,
where the effluent quality was also
similar. EPA combined these similar
subcategories and evaluated the impact
of the other factors specified in CWA
section 304fb). None of these factors
provided led EPA to conclude that
further or different subcategorization
would be appropriate. Combinations
were not made where effluent quality
values were similar but production
processes were not similar.
EPA also considered removal of toxic
pollutants in its subcategorization
analysis. In general, the toxic pollutants
of concern are discharged by mills that
bleach pulp with chlorine-containing
compounds. In the proposed
subcategorization scheme, EPA
separates mills that bleach pulp from
mills that do not bleach pulp. The result
is that not all mills using similar
pulping processes are in the same
subcategory, because some bleach pulp
and some do not. .
EPA recognizes that the current
subcategorization scheme for the pulp
and paper effluent guidelines and
standards has been in effect for many
years and is familiar to many industry
representatives and others. During the
process of developing these proposed
regulations, EPA received several
specific comments concerning the
impacts of consolidating subcategories
in the manner proposed today. EPA
invites additionalcomment concerning
today.'s proposed subcategorization
scheme. In particular, EPA invites
comments on (1) whether any specific
subcategories proposed today should be
divided into, smaller subcategories, and
(2) whether any specific subcategories .
proposed today should be combined to
form larger subcategories. Without
limiting the foregoing, EPA specifically
invites comment on whether the
bleached papergrade kraft and soda
subcategory should be divided to
distinguish between bleached ,
papergrade kraft and soda mills, and
whether the dissolving sulfite. pulp
subcategory should be further |
subdivided to distinguish between
different grades of pulp produced.
4. Proposed Subcategorization and
Applicability of Regulations
EPA determined that, based upon
recent available data from the mills, the
current subcategories could
appropriately be combined and
reorganized into 12 proposed
subcategories. Each of the new proposed
subcategories is comprised of mills
using similar processes and attaining
similar effluent quality. The proposed
subcategorization scheme and a
comparison of this scheme to the
current subcategorization scheme is
presented in Table IV.A.1-1 (in the
summary discussion of today's rules).
EPA is also proposing to merge the
current 40 CFR part 431 subpart A-
(builders* paper and roofing felt) into
the proposed 40 CFR part 430 subpart
J, the secondary fiber non-deink
subcategory. Detailed information about
the subcategorization analysis is
presented in section five of the technical
water development document. Facilities
with production covered by more than
one subcategory are subject to the
effluent limitations in more than one
subcategory as well.
The subcategories of the pulp, paper,
and paperboard industry for which
regulations are proposed in this
rulemaking are defined as follows:
a. Dissolving Kraft Subcategory. '
(Subpart A). This subcategory includes ,
production of a highly bleached and
purified kraft wood pulp using ah
alkaline sodium hydroxide and sodium
sulfide cooking liquor with acid
prehydrolysis. The principal product is
a highly bleached and purified
dissolving kraft wood pulp used
primarily for the manufacture of rayon,
viscose, acetate, and other products
requiring a high percentage of alpha
cellulose and a low percentage of
hemicellulose. This subcategory
includes production at facilities that
manufacture' dissolving grade kraft
' pulps and papergrade kraft pulps at the
same site. ' '
b. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Subcategory (Subpart B). This
subcategory includes production of a
bleached kraft wood pulp using an
alkaline sodium-hydroxide and sodium
sulfide cooking liquor. Principal
products include papergrade kraft
market pulp, paperboard, coarse papers,
tissue papers, uncoated free sheet, and
fine papers, which include business, •
writing, and printing paper,s. , .
. This subcategory also includes
production of bleached soda wood pulp
using an alkaline sodium hydroxide
cooking liquor. Principal products are
•fine papers, which include printing,
writing, and business papers, arid
market pulp.
c. Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
(Subpart C), This subcategory includes
production of kraft wood pulp without
bleaching using an alkaline sodium
hydroxide and sodium sulfide cooking
liquor. Principal products include
unbleached! kraft market pulp, bag
papers, and liner board (the smooth
facing in corrugated boxes).
This subcategory also includes
production of both unbleached kraft and
semi-chemical wood pulps at mills with
cross-recovery processes. Principal
products are similar to those produced
at stand-alone unbleached kraft mills
and stand-alone semi-chemical mills.
d. Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
(Subpart D). This subcategory includes
production of a highly bleached and
purified sulfite wood pulp using acidic
cooking liquors of calcium, magnesium,
ammonium, or sodium sulfites. Pulps
produced by this process, are used
primarily for the manufacture of rayon,
cellophane, methyl cellulose, ethyl
-------
66100 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
cellulose, nitra-cellulose, cellulose
acetate, and other products that require
a high percentage of alpha cellulose and
a low percentage of hemicellulose. This
subcategory includes production at
facilities that manufacture dissolving
grade sulfite pulps and papergrade
sulflte pulps at the same site.
e. Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
(Subpart E). This subcategory includes
production of sulfite wood pulp, with or
without brightening or bleaching, using
an acidic cooking liquor of calcium,
magnesium, ammonium, or sodium
sulfites. Principal products include
tissue papers, fine papers, newsprint,
and market pulp.
f. Semi-Chemical Subcategory
(Subpart F). This subcategory includes
production of pulp from wood chips
under pressure using a variety of
cooking liquors, including but not
limited to neutral sulfite semi-chemical
(NSSC), sulfur free (sodium carbonate),
green liquor, and Permachem0*. The
cooked chips are usually mechanically
refined. Pulp is produced with or
without bleaching. Principal products
include corrugating medium, paper, and
paperboard. Production of both semi-
chemical wood pulp and unbleached
kraft wood pulp at the same site using
a cross-recovery system is included in
the unbleached kraft subcategory.
g. Mechanical Pulp Subcategory
(Subpart G). During the development of
the proposed regulations, EPA
frequently referred to Subpart G as the
"Groundwood, Chemi-Mechanical, and
Chemi-Thermo-Mechanical"
Subcategory. EPA then changed the
name of subpart G to "Mechanical
Pulp" because it characterizes the
subcategory more correctly. The same
mills that were included in the
Groundwood, Chemi-Mechanical, and
Chemi-Thermo-Mechanical Subcategory
ore included in the Mechanical Pulp
Subcategory.
This subcategory includes production
of stone ground wood, refiner
mechanical, thermo-mechanical, chemi-
mechanical, and chemi-thermo-
mechanical pulps. Mechanical pulps are
produced using mechanical defibration
by either stone grinders or steel refiners.
Thermo-mechanical pulp (TMP) is
produced using steam followed by
mechanical defibration in refiners.
Chemi-mechanical pulp (CMP) is
produced using a chemical cooking
liquor to partially cook the wood. The
softened wood fibers are further
processed by mechanical defibration
using refiners. Chemi-thermo-
mechanical pulp (CTMP) is produced
using steam followed by chemical
cooking and mechanical defibration in
refiners. Principal products include
market pulp, newsprint, coarse papers,
tissue, molded fiber products and fine
papers, which include business, writing,
and printing papers.
h. Non-Wood Chemical Pulp
Subcategory (Subpart H). This
subcategory includes production of non-
wood pulps from chemical pulping
processes such as kraft, sulfite, or soda.
Fiber furnishes include textiles (rags),
cotton linters, flax, hemp, bagasse,
tobacco, and abaca. Principal products
include market pulp, cigarette plug
wrap paper, and other specialty paper
products.
i. Secondary Fiber Deink Subcategory
(Subpart I). This subcategory includes
production of deinked pulps from
wastepapers using a chemical or solvent
process to remove contaminants such as
inks, coatings, and pigments. Deinked
pulp is usually brightened or bleached.
Principal products include printing,
writing, and business papers, tissue
papers, newsprint, and deinked market
pulp. -
j. Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Subcategory (Subpart J). This
subcategory includes production of
pulps from wastepaper without
deinking. Pulp is produced with or
without brightening. Principal products
include tissue, paperboard, molded
products, and construction papers.
^Construction papers may be produced
'from cellulosic fibers derived from
wastepaper, wood flour and sawdust,
wood chips, and rags.
k. Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp Subcategory (Subpart
K). This subcategory includes
production of fine and lightweight
papers produced from purchased virgin
pulps or secondary fiber. Principal
products include clay coated printing
and converted paper, uncoated free
sheet, cotton fiber writing paper and
thin paper, and lightweight electrical
papers.
1. Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and
Paperboard From Purchased Pulp
Subcategory (Subpart L). This
subcategory includes production of
paperboard, tissue papers, filter papers,
and non-woven items from purchased
virgin pulps or secondary fiber.
B. Characterization of Wastewaters
This section describes current water
use and wastewater recycle practices,
and the general characteristics of
wastewater, at the 565. mills that
manufacture pulp, paper, and
paperboard in the U.S. A more detailed
presentation can be found in chapter 6.0
of the technical water development
document. All pulp and papermaking
processes require the use of water;
however, specifics for any mill will
depend on the mill's combination of
raw material, process and product.
1. Water Use
Approximately 1,551 billion gallons
of wastewater are generated annually by
pulp, paper, and paperboard
manufacturers. The pulp and paper
industry is the largest industrial process
water user in the U.S. Water use in the
industry has decreased approximately
30 percent since 1975, reflecting
significant effort by the industry to
reduce consumption and increase
wastewater reuse and recycle. Sources
of wastewater generation from each
major process area in the industry are
summarized in Table IX.B.1-1 and are
discussed below.
a. Wood Preparation. Pulp mills that
use logs as raw material may use water
for one or more of the following
purposes to prepare wood for pulping:
log conveyance, log washing, and wet
debarking. Approximately 31 billion
gallons of water per year are used in
wood preparation.
b. Mechanical Pulping. Mechanical
pulping processes use water as a
coolant, as a carrier to sluice pulp from
the body of the grinder, as a diluent for
subsequent pulp screening and cleaning
steps, and to wash or pretreat chips.
Approximately 16 billion gallons of
water per year are discharged from
pulping operations at mechanical
pulping mills (this does not include
wastewater discharged from mechanical
pulping operations at mills that also
have chemical pulping operations).
c. Chemical Pulping. In all types of
chemical pulping, wood chips are
cooked in a digester in an aqueous
chemical solution, at elevated
temperature and pressure. Water is used
as a solvent for cooking chemicals, as
the pulp cooking medium, as pulp wash
•water, and as a diluent for screening,
cleaning, and subsequent pulp
processing. Wastewater sources from
chemical pulping typically include
digester relief and blow condensates,
and discharges from open screen rooms,
cleaners, deckers, and spills from the
digester area in mills with inadequate
spill prevention and control systems.
Approximately 185 billion gallons of
water per year are discharged from
pulping operations at chemical pulping
mills.
d. Chemical Recovery. The recovery of
pulping chemicals and heat is an
essential component of an economical
kraft pulping process. Water enters the
recovery cycle with weak black liquor
(pulp wash water) from the pulp mill.
Most of this water is removed from the
black liquor in multi-stage evaporators
and then recondensed. The evaporator
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules : 66101
condensate is either discharged as
wastewater or it may.be recycled to the
pulp mill, typically to the pulp washers.
During the recovery of kraft pulping
chemicals, water is also used to wash
the solid precipitates formed in the
recovery cycle. Washing recovers
sodium-and sulfur-containing
compounds from green liquor dregs and
lime mud. This weak wash is reused in
the recovery cycle to dissolve recovery
furnace smelt. Excess weak wash is
discharged as wastewater.
Approximately 121 billion gallons of
water per year are discharged from
chemical recovery processes at kraft
mills. ,
Although recovery of pulping
chemicals is not as extensively
practiced at mills that use sulfite
pulping, sulfite pulp wash water (weak
red liquor) is evaporated, generating an
evaporator condensate wastewater.
Approximately 7.5 billion gallons of
water per year are discharged from
chemical recovery processes at sulfite
mills.
e. Wastepaper Processing. In
processing wastepaper, the paper is
mixed with water to form a dilute slush.
In this slush, pulp particles can be
separated from undesirable
contaminants by physical-chemical
"-means. When deinking is not necessary,
the contaminants are removed by
physical means (e.g., sedimentation,
flotation, and filtration). The wastewater
that contains contaminants is further
Created to remove or concentrate the
contaminants and the recovered process
water is reused. Deinking requires the
addition of surfactant chemicals such as
detergents, dispersants, and foaming
agents to facilitate the physical
separation of ink particles from fiber.
Approximately 31 billion gallons of
water per year are discharged from non-
, deinking wastepaper processing; 33
billion gallons of water per year are
discharged from deinking wastepaper
processing. .
f. Bleaching. Pulp bleaching is a
staged process that uses different
chemicals and conditions in each stage,
with washing performed between stages,
Washing removes bleaching chemicals
and any wood components extracted
during bleaching. Chlorine-containing
compounds are the most widely used
bleaching chemicals. Water is used as
pulp wash water and in the preparation
of bleaching chemicals. The high
chloride content of bleaching
wastewaters makes them incompatible
with pulping chemical recovery
processes so they are discharged as
wastewater. Approximately 326 billion
gallons of water per year are discharged
from bleaching operations.
g. Pulp handling and papermaking. In
preparation, for papermaking, pulp is
suspended in Water, mechanically
conditioned in beaters or continuous
refiners, and chemicals are added.
Water is added to further dilute the pulp
and transport it to the paper machine.
Water that drains from the wet end of
the paper machine is known as white
water, and it is normally captured and
reused in stock preparation or on the
machine, after some removal of " •
entrained solids. Excess white water is
reused in other parts of the paper mill.
Mills that make paper from purchased .
pulp have fewer operations in which to
reuse wastewater than mills that pulp
wood on-site. Approximately 62 billion
gallons of wastewater per year are
discharged from pulp handling
operations; 574'billiqn gallons per year
are discharged from papermaking
operations. . , • * •
2, Wastewater Discharge
The majority of wastewater discharge
(37 percent) is from paper/paperboard
making. Bleaching and pulping also
contribute major portions of the
wastewater flow discharged by the
industry (21 and ,16 percent,
respectively). Information obtained from
the 1990 Census showed that, of the
1,551 billion gallons of wastewater
generated in 1989 by the pulp and paper
industry,; 91 percent was discharged
directly, 9 percent was discharged
indirectly, and approximately 1.1
billion gallons of wastewater was . •
disposed of by on-site land application.
Of the 565 mills operating in December
1992 in the U.S., 319 are direct
dischargers, 203 are indirect
dischargers, six discharge both directly
and indirectly, and 37 discharge no
wastewater.
. Of the 37 mills that discharge no
wastewater, nine dispose of wastewater
by land application, while 28 achieve
zero discharge through 100 percent
recycle. Of the mills that achieve zero
discharge through 100 percent recycle,
one produces paperboard from
purchased virgin semi-chemical pulp.
The other mills that achieve 100%
recycle produce a variety of products
from nori-deinked secondary fiber: 21
produce paperboard, builders paper or
roofing felt, and six produce other
products. However, the Agency was
unable to confirm its data concerning
the discharge status of the six mills
making these other products. The mills
that achieve 100 percent recycle.do so
by segregated cleaning, screening, and
reuse of wastewater within the process
area where the wastewater is generated.
In addition, the mills recycle recovered
wastewater between process areas.
Pulp and, paper mill waste-waters
dominate the flow into certain POTWs
in the U.S. At these "industrial".
POTWs, either flow or BOD5 load or . '
TSS load from a pulp, paper, and
paperboard category source is equal to
or greater than 50 percent of the total
POTW now. The Agency has identified
32 industrial POTWs that treat pulp and
paper industry wastewaters to this
extent. Typically, the facility co-treats
municipal sewage. The mills
discharging wastewater to these POTWs
have manufacturing processes in nine
subcategories.
3. Wastewater Characterization
Mills in the pulp, paper, and
paperboard category discharge
conventional, nonconventional, and
toxic pollutants. As reported in the 1990
Census, approximately 182,000 metric
tons per year of BODs and 266,000
metric tons per year of TSS,are
discharged directly by the pulp and
paper industry. ' '
When the Agency conducted its
sampling program (as described in
section VIII.A), the early screening
studies confirmed that most priority
pollutants are not present in bleached
kraft mill wastewaters. The priority
pollutants that were present in bleached
kraft mill wastewaters included TCDD,
chloroform, methylene chloride, 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol, and
pentachlorophenol. Further sampling
work, conducted between 1989 and
1992, focused on volatile organic •
compounds and on two different classes
of toxic compounds that are generated
during bleaching of chemically pulped -"
wood with chlorine and chlorine-
containing compounds: chlorinated !
dioxins and furans and chlorinated
phenolic compounds. The-Agency
estimated the current discharge of
priority and nonconventional pollutants
froin pulp and paper mills using data
collected by the Agency's short- and
long-term sampling programs and data
supplied by the industry. Data believed
to be representative lof industry
operations as of January 1,1993 were
used. '
The Agency estimates that 410 g/yr of,
TCDD and TCDF were discharged to the
environment by the pulp and paper
industry in 1992. Approximately 1,530
kkg/yr of four volatile compounds and
1,550 kkg/yr of 20 chlorinated phenolic
compounds were discharged in 1992.
the Agency estimates that additional
chlorinated phenolic compounds and
other dioxin and furan compounds were
discharged to the environment although
they are not specifically incorporated
into the discharge estimates shown
above.
-------
66102
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
In addition to specific toxic
compounds, the Agency collected data
on the generation of three
nonconventional aggregate pollutant
parameters: adsorbable organic halides
lAOX), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
and color. Each of these pollutant
parameters is defined by the analytical
test method used to measure it (see
section IX-I.6 of this preamble).
Approximately 51,000 kkg/yr of AOX
were discharged directly in 1992. For
chemical wood pulping mills (Subparts
A, B, C, D, E, and F), approximately
3,180,000 kkg/yr of COD were
discharged in 1992. Standardized data
on industry-wide discharges of color
were not available, so the Agency has
not estimated the mass of color
discharged by paper mills nationwide.
Section 6 of the technical water
development document for today's
proposed rule provides additional data
on mass loadings and concentrations of
priority and nonconventional pollutants
found during the Agency's sampling of
pulp and paper wastewater and also
provides industry-supplied data on
pollutants found in wastewater. The
methodology used to estimate baseline
pollutant loadings is also described in
detail.
C. Selection of Pollutant Parameters
1. Pollutants Regulated
a. Introduction. This section
summarizes the effluent pollutants
controlled by today's proposed "
regulation, which are presented in Table
IX.C-1.
b. Dioxin andFuran. The pulp, paper,
and paperboard mills that chemically
pulp and bleach wood with chlorine
and chlorine-containing compounds
generate significant discharges of toxic
pollutants from the pulping and
bleaching processes. Such toxic
pollutants include chlorinated dioxins
and furans, particularly TCDD and
TCDF. None of the bleaching chemical
pulp mills in the 104-Mill Study were
found to be free of TCDD/TCDF. Data
gathered by the Agency indicate that
approximately 410 grams of TCDD and
TCDF combined are discharged
annually (as of 1992) to surface waters
from the mills using those bleaching
operations. Thus, effluent limitations for
TCDD and TCDF are included in the
proposed regulations in the dissolving
kraft subcategory (Subpart A), bleached
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory
(Subpart B), dissolving sulfite
subcategory (Subpart D), and papergrade
sulfite subcategory (Subpart E).
TABLE IX.C-1—POLLUTANTS CONTROLLED IN PROPOSED EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
Pollutants regulated
BODj
TSS .„
TCDD
TCDF „
Chtoroform
Acetone
MEK*
Methylene Chloride ,
Chlorinated Phenolicss
AOX
COD ...
Color*
BPT
X
X
BCT
X
X
Effluent regulation
BAT
BPi
xxxxxxx
EOPz
XXX
NSPS
BPi
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
EOPz
X
X
X
X
PSES
. BP>
xxxxxxx
EOP3
XXX
PSNS
BPi
X
X
X
X •
X
X
X
EOP^
X
X
* Cotor limits are proposed only for the bleached papergrade kraft subcategory.
2 EOP-end-of-pipe effluent;
! Se J"* r^S? d's^S'1^ mills- t"6 end-of-pipe effluent is the discharge to a POTW:
•»MEK-methyl ethyl ketone; ' •
't'^S1(Lrf>Cat^hol: 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol; 3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol; 3.4,6-trichloroguaiacol- 456-
2,4,6-tr.chlorophenol; tetrachlorocatechol; tetrachloiSguaiaco'l; 2,3.4,6-tetrachloTiphend;
by the Agency indicates that 282 metric
tons per year of higher substituted
chlorinated phenolic compounds are
discharged in final effluent by bleaching
chemical pulp mills. The 12 compounds
proposed for regulation are as follows:
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;
tetrachlorocatechol; tetrachloroguaiacol;
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol; and
pentachlorophenol. Two of these
pollutants are priority pollutants (2,4,6-
trichlorophenol and
pentachlorophenol); the remainder are
c. Volatile Compounds. Among the
volatile organic compounds for which
wastewater samples were analyzed (see
Appendix A), the four detected most
often were acetone, chloroform,
methylene chloride, and methyl ethyl
ketone (MEK). Under the CWA,
chloroform and methylene chloride are
priority pollutants, and MEK and
acetone are nonconventional pollutants.
Chloroform^ methylene chloride, and
MEK also are listed as hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs). Data gathered by the
Agency indicates that a total of
approximately 1,530 kkg/yr of these four
volatile organic compounds were
discharged in wastewaters in 1992.
These compounds are also emitted to
the atmosphere. The proposed
regulations will reduce both wastewater
discharges and atmospheric emissions
of these compounds. For these reasons,
these four compounds are proposed for
regulation in the dissolving kraft
subcategory (Subpart A), bleached
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory
(Subpart B), dissolving sulfite
subcategory (Subpart D), and papergrade
sulfite subcategory (Subpart E).
d. Chlorinated Phenolic Compounds,
.Among the chlorinated phenolic
compounds for which samples were
analyzed (see Appendix A), 12 of the
higher substituted tri-, tetra- and penta-
chlorinated compounds are associated
with the formation and presence of
TCDD and TCDF, and also have human
health or aquatic effects. Data gathered
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 /Friday, December 17. 1993 / Proposed Rules- 66103
nonconventiohal pollutants. In addition
to the importance of controlling these 12
higher substituted compounds, the r
Agency also believes that further
progress in reducing TGDD and TCDF
below currently measurable levels also
will be achieved. These 12 compounds
are proposed for regulation in the
dissolving kraft subcategory (Subpart
A), bleached papergrade kraft and soda
subcategory (Subpart B), dissolving
sulfite subcategory (Subpart D), and
papergrade sulfite subcategory (Subpart
E).
e. AOX. Adsorbable organic halides
(AOX) is, a measure of the total amount
of halogens (chlorine, bromine and
iodine) that are bound to dissolved or
suspended organic matter and are
quantified under specific analytical
conditions. In pulp, paper, and
paperboard effluents, essentially all of
the halogenated organic substances,
which are measured as AOX, are
chlorinated forms which result from the
bleaching of pulps with elemental
chlorine and chlorinated compounds
such as chlorine dioxide and
hypochlorites.
Implementation of process changes by
mills in the industry in many cases
results in concentrations of TCDD and
TCDF below the present limits of
detection. Complete elimination of '
dioxin, furan, chlorinated phenolics,
and other chlorinated orgarucs would
not be achieved unless all forms of
chlorine-based bleaching are eliminated.
Similarly, not all chlorinated organic
compounds are eliminated when TCDD ,
and TCDF are not detected. AOX is
1 reduced as a result of these process
changes, however, the total
concentration and mass of chlorinated
organic compounds, measured as AOX,
remaining after these process changes is •
significant and measurable.
While statistically valid relationships
among AOX and specific.chlorinated
organic compounds have not been
established, only a small portion of the
numerous chlorinated organic
compounds in bleached chemical pulps
have been individually identified.
Establishing effluent limitations for
AOX also'has an advantage over
establishing effluent limitations for the
majority of individual chlorinated x
compounds, because the AOX analytical
method is relatively inexpensive, quick,
and reliable. For these reasons, AOX has
been adopted by numerous jurisdictions
around the world for the measurement
and control of bleached chemical pulp
wastewater'discharges.
Therefore, the nonconventional
.pollutant AOX is being proposed for
control in the dissolving kraft
subcategory (subpart A), bleached
papergrade kraft and soda" subcategory
(subpart B), dissolving sulfite ' ...
subcategory (Subpart D), and papergrade
sulfite subcategory (Subpart E).
f. COD. The Agency is proposing to
regulate Chemical Oxygen Demand
(COD) in discharges from the chemical
pulping subcategories. COD is a
measure of chemical oxidation using an
analytical method that estimates the
total oxygen demand of wastewater,
including the refractory organic and
inorganic substances in Wastewater that
,are oxidized by potassium dichromate.
COD is an important noncbnventibnal
pollutant parameter to control because it
is indicative of the overall load of
organic and wood extractive ,
constituents in wastewater, and in .
particular, indicates the mass of organic
pollutants in biologically treated
effluents that are not readily
biodegraded. In addition, COD effluent
limitations based on the appropriate
technology, including improved
brownstock washing, closed screen
rooms, best management practices and
end-of-pipe biological treatment, will
control losses and discharges to streams
of pulping liquors and associated wood
extractives. These sources recently have
/been postulated as the source of toxicity
to aquatic systems. EPA believes that
COD is an appropriate pollutant
parameter for controlling these sources
of pollutants and aquatic toxicity.
Effluent limitations for COD are being
proposed today for the chemical
pulping subcategories, both bleached
and unbleached, including the
dissolving kraft subcategory (Subparf
A), bleached papergrade kraft and soda
subcategory (Subpart B), unbleached
kraft subcategory (Subpart C),
papergrade sulfite subcategory (Subpart
E), and semi-chemical subcategory
(Subpart F). The Agency will continue.
to consider proposing COD effluent
limitations for the dissolving sulfite
subcategory (Subpart D), however, there
are insufficient data available for such a
proposal at this time. See section, XIII of
this preamble.
g. Color. Color in treated effluents of
both bleached and unbleached chemical
pulp mills is an easily recognized
characteristic of these wastewaters. In
this effluent guideline, EPA is proposing
to regulate color, which is a
nonconventional pollutant as well as a
useful measure of the performance of
process technologies. However, as
discussed in sections IX.E and XIII, <
limited color data are available for most
subcategories. Only in the bleached
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory
(subpart B) are sufficient data available
to propose effluent limitations for color.
Further discussion of color is included
in the technical water development
document. . • '•
h. BQDs and TSS. Biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5) and total
suspended solids (TSS) are
conventional pollutants that have been
regulated in this industry by BPT and
BCT effluent limitations as important
measures of the biodegradable-organic
matter and suspended solids generated
by all mills in all subcategories of the
pulp and paper industry. EPA estimates
that 182,000 metric tons of BOD5 and
266,000 metric tons of TSS are
discharged from 325 direct dischargers
in the industry. Most mills have
secondary biological treatment, except .
for certain non-integrated mills in the
fine and lightweight papers from
purchased pulp subcategory (Subpart
K), and the tissue, filter, non-woven,
and purchased pulp subcategory
(Subpart L) for which primary treatment
was the basis for the existing effluent
limitations. See section IX.E.l, EPA is
proposing to revise the BPT and BCT
effluent limitations for these pollutants
in all subcategories.
2. Pollutants and Subcategories Not
Regulated ' . -.
a. Toxic pollutants not regulated. EPA.
is not proposing effluent limitations or
standards for all priority and toxic
pollutants in this proposed regulation. •
Among the reasons EPA may have
decided not to propose effluent
limitations for a pollutant are .the •
following:
(1) The pollutant is deemed not
present in pulp, paper, and paperboard
wastewaters, because it was not
detected in the effluent with the use of
analytical methods promulgated
pursuant to section 304(h) of the Clean
Water Act or with other state-of-the-art
methods.
(2) The pollutant is present only in
trace amounts and is neither causing nor
likely to cause toxic effects. • • .. , "•
(3) The pollutant was detected in the
effluent from only one or a small
number of samples and the pollutant's >
presence could hot.be confirmed. • '
(4) The pollutant was effectively
controlled by the technologies used as a
basis for limitations on other pollutants,
including those limitations proposed
today, or.
(5) Insufficient data are available.to
establish effluent limitations.
b. Nonconventional Pollutants Not
Regulated. In addition to TCDD and
TCDF, there are other dioxin and furan
congeners which were found hrpulp
and paper wastewaters but which EPA
is not proposing to regulate directly in
today's regulations. The primary
congeners found were the hepta- and
-------
66104 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / froposea
Kuies
octa-substituted dioxins and furans.
EPA believes that today's proposed
regulations would provide substantial
incidental control of these pollutants.
This is in part because, with a few
exceptions, when TCDD and TCDF were
not detected, the hepta-, and octa-
substituted congeners were either near
or below their detection limits. While
the detection limits of these compounds
are higher than for TCDD and TCDF,
they contribute less than 10 percent of
the total TEQ for all congeners found in
this industry.
In addition, EPA is not proposing
regulations for eight chlorinated
phenolics found in pulp and paper
wastewaters. These compounds, while
not chosen for regulation, appear to be
amenable to biological treatment and
have been noted to have relatively low
human health and aquatic toxicities.
c. Subcategories Not Regulated. EPA
is today proposing BAT limits in six
subcategories. As described in section
1X.E., revised BAT effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the
remaining subcategories (Subparts G, H,
I, J, K, and L) are not being proposed
today pending further study to
determine the quantities of priority and
nonconventional pollutants discharged,
and the availability, costs, and
economic impact of appropriate control
technologies.
The Agency is concerned about the
discharge of chlorinated compounds
from subcategories that utilize chlorine
bleaching but are not covered by today's
proposed BAT effluent guidelines. In
EPA's 1990 Census, a total of 41 mills
in these subcategories reported
bleaching with hypochlorite and/or
chlorine. (These 41 mills were found in
the secondary fiber deink, secondary
fiber non-deink, and non-wood pulp
subcategories). Many of these mills
monitored their effluent for toxic
chlorinated compounds between 1985
and 1990, and supplied results of this
monitoring with their questionnaires.
TCDD was detected at two secondary
fiber deink mills and TCDF was found
at four secondary fiber mills, two deink
and two non-deink. Chloroform was
detected by seven secondary fiber deink
mills, and one mill that uses kraft
pulping on non-wood furnish.
D. Available Technologies
1. Process Controls and Changes
Considered
Many approaches have been taken by
the pulp, paper, and paperboard
industry in implementing process
control and process changes to reduce
or eliminate pollutant discharges.
Technical development documents for
previous rulemakings have identified
production process control technologies
that are commonly employed within the
industry for the woodyard and
woodroom, pulp mill, pulp washer and
screen room, bleaching system,
evaporation and recovery, liquor
preparation area, papermill, and steam
plant and utility areas. Since the
previous rulemakings, there have been
numerous process innovations and
changes at pulp, paper, and paperboard
mills, the majority of which have
occurred in the pulping and bleaching
areas.
The process changes that were
considered in the development of these
proposed effluent limitations guidelines
include: (1) Chip quality control—Such
control through the use of chip
thickness screens or better control of the
chipping process has a significant
impact on the delignification process.
Chip uniformity is extremely important
for proper circulation and penetration of
the pulping chemicals. Cooking chips of
uniform thickness results in a
maximization of yield and a
minimization of the use of bleaching
chemicals; (2) elimination of dioxin
precursor defoamers—This elimination
is accomplished through the
substitution of precursor free defoamers
thus eliminating the possible creation of
dioxins from this source; (3) extended
cooking—Over the last decade, methods
have been developed that allow the
pulp cooking time to be extended,
enabling further delignification to occur
before the pulp moves on to the
bleaching stages. At the same time,
these techniques protect the pulp from
the detrimental effects (reduction in
quality and yield) that would normally
accompany increased cooking time.
Extended delignification reduces the
residual lignin by up to 38 percent
compared to conventional cooking,
thereby reducing the bleach plant
effluent constituents by a similar
amount; (4) closed screening and
deknotting—Through employment of
closed screening and deknotting
systems, all wastewater associated with
the pulping process up to the bleach
plant is reused and ultimately routed to
the recovery system thus eliminating the
wastewater discharges associated with
open screening and deknotting systems;
(5) improved pulp washing—Improved
washing involves the replacement of, or
the addition to, existing pulp washing
systems resulting in the increased
removal of dissolved lignin solids and
spent cooking liquor from the pulp.
Such reductions result in a concurrent
reduction in the use of bleaching
chemicals. Current state-of-the-art
washers include pressure washers, belt
washers, diffusion washers and pulp
presses; (6) oxygen delignification—
This process provides an additional way
to extend the pulp delignification
process, thereby lowering the bleaching
chemical demands and the amount of
pollution associated with subsequent
bleaching stages. Between 40 and 50
percent of the residual lignin left in the
pulp after cooking is removed in the
oxygen delignification stage. The
removed lignin is separated from the
pulp in post-oxygen delignification pulp
washing stages and routed to the
recovery process; (7) high shear mixing
of pulp—Such mixing results in a better
distribution of chemicals thereby ,
reducing the amount of bleach
chemicals needed and reducing or
eliminating the formation of unwanted
byproducts such as chlorinated dioxins
and furans which results from the over-
chlorination of the pulp; (8) high
chlorine dioxide substitution—Chlorine
dioxide, which bleaches pulp.by a
different chemical reaction pathway
than chlorine, produces much smaller
quantities of chlorinated organic
compounds than chlorine. Chlorine
dioxide can replace all of the chlorine
in the first bleaching stage; (9) enhanced
extraction with oxygen and peroxide—
Adding oxygen and/or peroxide to the
extraction stages of bleaching enhances
the removal of dissolved lignin products
from the pulp. This allows,for a
reduction in the total amount of active
chlorine in the overall bleach sequence
which results in a decrease in the
amount of chlorinated organics formed;
(10) peroxide bleaching—For some
types of pulps and products, peroxides
can be substituted for some or all of the
chlorine based bleaching chemicals
resulting in the reduction or elimination
of chlorinated organics discharged; (11)
elimination of hypochlorite bleaching—
Through the use of other bleaching
chemicals such as peroxides and
chlorine dioxide, in conjunction with
enhanced extraction, hypochlorite
bleaching can be eliminated resulting in
a substantial reduction in the amount of
chloroform formed and discharged to
the air and water; (12) high temperature/
high alkalinity hypochlorite bleaching^
For those cases where it has been
asserted by the industry that it may not
be possible to eliminate hypochlorite
bleaching, such as in the production of
some grades of dissolving pulp, the
Agency has received preliminary data
indicating that high temperature/high
alkalinity hypochlorite bleaching can be
employed to significantly reduce the
amount of chloroform discharged; (13)
ozone bleaching—Ozone, in
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66105
combination with other processes, such
as oxygen delignificalion and peroxide
bleaching, may be utilized to replace all
chlorine and chlorine-based bleach
chemicals resulting in the elimination of
all discharges of chlorinated organics. In
addition, the elimination of chlorine-
based bleach chemicals allows for
closure of the bleach plant and
eliminates the wastewater discharges
from this portion of the facility; and (14)
recovery boiler upgrades—Where
recovery capacity is not adequate to
accommodate the increases in liquor
solids and/or flow associated with
inplant changes such as extended
cooking, oxygen delignification,
improved pulp washing, and closed
screening and deknotting, recovery
boiler upgrades are required. Such .
upgrades may be accomplished through
numerous methods including but not
limited to use of anthraquinone and/or
polysulfides in pulping, air system
modifications, boiler modifications, and
installation of high liquor solids firing.
In addition, existing boilers can be
replaced and additional boiler capacity
can be installed.
2. End-of-Pipe Treatment Technologies
Considered
The end-of-pipe treatment
technologies presently employed by the
industry include: steam stripping and
reuse of omdensates, preliminary
treatment (neutralization, equalization,
, primary clarification, and/or various
flotation techniques), biological or
equivalent treatment (aerated
stabilization basins with and without
settling basins, oxidation ponds, and
activated sludge systems), and physical/
chemical treatment (filtration and
chemically-assisted clarification).
For the direct discharging mills
surveyed, 3 percent provide no primary
or secondary treatment, 14 percent
provide only primary treatment. At the
remaining 83 percent, secondary
biological or equivalent treatment is
provided, with aerated stabilization
basins the predominant type of
treatment system employed.
Biologically-treated effluents are further,
treated at approximately 2 percent of the
direct discharging mills.
For the indirect discharging mills
surveyed, 3 percent provide primary
treatment followed by secondary
treatment at a publicly owned treatment
works (POTW) while 91 percent provide
no treatment followed by primary and/
or secondary treatment at a POTW.
There are 37 pulp, paper, and
paperboard mills that the Agency
believes may not discharge wastewater
to navigable waters. Of these, nine
dispose of wastewater by land
application and the remaining 28
through 100 percent repycle. Of the
mills that may achieve zero discharge
through 100 percent recycle, one
produces paperboard from purchased
virgin semi-chemical pulp. The other 27
mills all make products from non-
deinked secondary fiber: 21' produce
paperboard, builders paper or roofing
felt, and six produce other products.
However, EPA was unable to confirm its
data concerning the discharge status of
the six mills making these other
products.
As noted above, nine mills may
achieve zero discharge of wastewaters
through land application. EPA believes
these mills are able to employ land
application due to specific
circumstances at these sites, such as the
availability of sufficient land amenable ;
to wastewater application, and
suitability of land to accommodate
wastewaters with no runoff. Therefore,
land disposal to achieve zero discharge
is not considered to be an available ;
technology for mills in the industry
generally.
E. Ea tionale for Selection of Proposed
Regulations
1. BPT
a. Introduction. EPA is today
proposing revised BPT effluent
limitations guidelines for all
subcategories in the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry.
b. Pollutants of Concern. EPA is
proposing BPT effluent limitations
controlling the discharge of BOD5 and
TSS.
c. Determination of Technology Basis
of BPT. To determine the technology
basis and performance level that is BPT,
EPA developed a database consisting of
1989 effluent data supplied in the 1990
Census. The Agency determined that
more than 80 percent of direct
discharging mills utilize secondary
wastewater treatment. Only 2 percent of
direct discharging mills had superior,
tertiary treatment technology in place
and, as a result, EPA decided that
secondary treatment would be the
technology basis for revised BPT
effluent guidelines. Accordingly, the
Agency created a database comprised of
all mills with wastewater treatment.
technologies representative of secondary
treatment. Examples of mills not
included in the database are: indirect
and zero discharge mills, mills with no
treatment, intermittent or
noncontinuous dischargers, mills with f
poor performance due to the lack of
primary or secondary treatment, mills
with primary treatment only, and mills
with tertiary treatment.
d. Determination of Performance
Level Defining BPT. To determine the
performance level defining proposed
BPT, EPA'used 1989 data supplied in
the 1990 Census for production, BODs
loadings, and TSS loadings to calculate
production-normalized long-term
averages (LTA) fprBOD5 and TSS.
The performance levelanalysis was
performed using the production-
normalized BODs effluent loadings
because secondary treatment systems
are designed with BOD5 control as a
primary objective. EPA arranged the
mills in each subcategory according to
effluent BODs loading and considered
two options: (1) The performance level
representing the average of the best 90
percent of mills in each subcategory,
calculated as the average of the LTA for
the best 90 percent of mills, and (2) the
performance level representing the
average of the best 50 percent of mills
in each subcategory, calculated as the
average pf the LTA for the best 50
percent of mills. •
The Agency calculated the TSS limits
proposed today by averaging the TSS
LTA loadings for the best 50 percent of
mills in each' subcategory, as • ^
determined by the BOD5 loadings..EPA
determined that a separate
subcategorization ranking of mills based
op TSS effluent quality and a separate
performance level analysis for TSS was
not appropriate since treatment systems
are-designed for optimal BODs removal
and may not be designed for optimized
TSS removal. -
After the performance, levels of the •
two options were determined, EPA ,
identified appropriate combinations of
in-process flow reductions and erid-of-
pipe secondary wastewater treatment
that could achieve these performance
levels. The two secondary treatment
. technologies commonly used in the •
pulp and paper industry are aerated
stabilization basin (ASB) systems and
activated sludge systems. The Agency
identified feasible upgrades for each
treatment type to achieve the option 1
and option 2 performance levels. The
combination of upgrades applicable to a
specific mill depends on the
characteristics of the mill's wastewater,
and on the treatment currently
employed (e.g., aeration capacity,
detention time, and nutrient addition).
In some cases, secondary biological
treatment upgrades alone cannot
achieve the removal of BODs and TSS
necessary to achieve the performance
levels of option 1 and option 2. In those
cases, mills will require in-process flow
reduction to meet tnevperformance
levels. '
For both options, incremental
compliance costs were estimated for the
-------
66106 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
mills in each subcategory not meeting
the performance levels. These costs, as
described in section IX.G. below, were
used for BPT cost comparisons and for
the economic impact analysis. Before
estimating costs for individual mills in
each subcategory whose BOD5 or TSS
loads exceeded the BPT LTA load, EPA
subtracted the load reductions that
would result from the implementation
of BAT, BMP, and the air emission
standards from the mill's current
discharge load. The Agency compared
the costs to effluent reduction benefits
and found that the costs of the
additional water pollution controls
likely to be incurred for option 1 are
$0.14 per pound of BOD and TSS
combined and for option 2 are $0.13 per
pound of BOD and TSS combined. The
Agency concludes that both results are
reasonable and justified and is
proposing BPT limits based on option 2,
because option 2 was as cost-effective as
option 1 and provided substantially
greater pollutant removals. For all mills
that are projected to incur costs to
comply with BPT option 2, the Agency
estimates capital investment costs of
S356 million and total annualized costs
of S67 million. These costs could result
in three to nine mill closures with a
potential approximate employment
effect of 1.009lost )°bs-
The analysis described above, which
resulted in the selection of the
performance level representing the
average of the best 50 percent of mills
in each subcategory, was not used to
• determine the performance level
defining BPT for the Dissolving Sulfite
Pulp subcategory, Subpart D. A different
approach was developed for the
following reasons: (1) Existing
production-normalized effluent loadings
for BODs and TSS in this subcategory
are significantly greater than the
loadings for other subcategories (for
example, the effluent loadings
associated with the Dissolving Sulfite
Pulp subcategory are four times greater
than the loadings for the Dissolving
Kraft subcategory, which utilizes similar
processes that produce high BOD5 raw
waste loads); (2) the performance level
analysis described above would result
in proposed BPT effluent limitations
less stringent than the current BPT
limitations; and (3) the CWA authorizes
EPA to require higher levels of
performance than the "average of the
best" in a subcategory where present
practices in controlling the discharge of
conventional pollutants are uniformly
inadequate.
Because available data show that the
existing performance'of conventional
pollutant control technologies in this
subcategory are uniformly inadequate,
the Agency developed an alternative
approach which accounted for raw
"waste load reductions resulting from in-
plant process changes that form the
technology bases for BMPs and BAT
COD controls. Also included were
further reductions based on treatment
performance from a well-designed and
operated primary and secondary
biological treatment system.
The first step in the analysis involved
the calculation of current average BODs
and TSS production-normalized raw
waste loads for the subcategory.
Adjusted raw waste loads were then
determined based on BODs and TSS
reductions achieved by BMPs and BAT
COD control technologies. The final
effluent performance level was
calculated by applying removal rates for
primary and secondary treatment
currently demonstrated in the
subcategory to the adjusted average raw
waste load. A detailed description of the
development of the performance level
defining BPT for the Dissolving Sulfite
Pulp subcategory is presented in section
9.0 of the technical water development
document.
Incremental compliance costs were
estimated for the mills in this
subcategory not meeting the
performance level, and these costs were
used for BPT cost comparisons and for
the economic impact analysis. The
Agency compared the costs to effluent
reduction benefits and found that the
costs of the additional water pollution
controls likely to be incurred are
reasonable and justified. As a result, the
Agency is proposing BPT for the
Dissolving Sulfite Pulp subcategory
based on the level of performance
achieved by raw waste load reductions
resulting from BMPs and BAT COD
controls and additional raw waste load
reductions resulting from the
application of well-operated primary
and secondary treatment.
Since the generation of the
conventional pollutants BODs and TSS
is related to pulping, bleaching and
papermaking processes, the production
normalizing parameter for BPT and BCT
limitations is the off-machine metric
tons (OMMT) of final production of
pulp, paper, and/or paperboard at the
site. This production is defined as the
annual OMMT (including coating where
applicable) divided by the number of
operating days during that year. The
final paper and paperboard production
shall be measured as the off-the-
machine moisture content. The final
production of market pulp shall be
measured in air-dry-metric tons (10
percent moisture).
The development of the variability
factors used to determine the effluent
limitations from the LTA is discussed in
section IX.F. A detailed explanation of
the development of BPT effluent
limitations is found in the technical
water development document, section
9.0.
e. Solicitation of Comments
Concerning BPT Revisions. EPA invites
comment on whether the Agency should
revise the current BPT effluent
limitations for this industry. During the
development of these proposed
regulations, industry representatives
argued that EPA lacks the authority to
revise promulgated BPT effluent
limitations guidelines and that the
current BPT effluent limitations, which
were promulgated in three phases in
1974,1977, and 1982, should remain
forever fixed. Representatives of
environmental groups offered a different
view—that EPA is required to revise
BPT and other guidelines where new
data indicate that existing limits are out
of date. EPA solicits comment on
whether the Agency is either legally
proscribed from, or legally required to,
revise BPT effluent limitations
guidelines. EPA further solicits
comment on the merits of the revisions
contained herein. See section XIII.
EPA is interested in comments on the
alternative option of addressing
conventional pollutant discharges
exclusively by revising BCT, as outlined
• in section 2.b below. EPA solicits data
on the costs, effluent reduction benefits,
water quality benefits, and any other
factors that may be related to the
proposed BPT revisions, BCT revisions,
and the alternative approach for revising
BCT outlined below. EPA will continue
to analyze these factors and will
consider all comments on the merits of
revising BPT and BCT. See section XIII.
2. BCT
a. Methodology for Determining
Revised BCT Limits. EPA is today
proposing revised BCT effluent
limitations guidelines for the pulp,
paper, and paperboard industry. In
eleven subcategories, these guidelines
are based on the average performance of
the best 50 percent of mills in the
subcategory. In one subcategory
(Mechanical Pulp), these guidelines are
based upon multimedia filtration as the
BCT technology.
In developing revised BCT limits,
EPA considered whether there are
technologies that achieve greater
removals of conventional pollutants
than proposed BPT, and whether those
technologies are cost-reasonable
according to the BCT cost test. In eleven
subcategories, EPA identified no
technologies that achieve greater
removals of conventional pollutants
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 /Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66107
than proposed BPT that are also cost-
reasonable under the BCT cost test, and
accordingly proposes BCT limits equal
to proposed BPT for those subcategories.
In one subcategqry (Mechanical Pulp),
EPA found that multimedia filtration
would achieve greater removals of
conventional pollutants and would also
be cost-reasonable under the BCT cost
test, and therefore proposes this
technology as BCT.
EPA's analysis had several steps. ,
First, EPA considered how best to
define the BPT "baseline" for these
purposes. In performing the BCT cost
tests,1 the BPT baseline serves as the
starting point against which more
stringent technologies are analyzed.
EPA considered three possible
baselines: (i) The revised BPT limits set
forth in todayls proposal, (ii) the actual
long-term average discharge of
conventional;pollutants from mills in
'this industry, based on EPA's survey
data, and (iii) a hypothetical level of
, control equal to the precise amount of
. discharge allowed under existing BPT
regulations. Of these, the first is the
most stringent and the third the least
v stringent level of control. EPA
determined that selecting the revised
BPT linfits proposed today as the BPT
baseline would best serve the purposes
of the BCT cost test. Such an approach
best reflects today's proposal to revise •
BPT limits, by starting with those limits
as the baseline from which more
stringent BCT candidate technologies
are analyzed.
Second, EPA identified candidate
BCT technologies. Two candidate
technologies were identified: first, the
technology in use by the best- ' ,
performing mill in each subcategory
and, second, multimedia filtration. (In
subcategories where the best performer
uses multimedia filtration, these two ,
candidate technologies were the same).
EPA was unable to 'evaluate the first
candidate technology fully. Specifically,
EPA was unable to evaluate the cost of '
retrofitting existing facilities to match
the best performance in each ,
subcategory. EPA solicits comment and
• further data on this candidate BCT
technology. EPA was able to evaluate
the second candidate technology,
multimedia filtration, by estimating
costs and pollutant removals on a mill-
by-mill basis for each subcategory. The
design parameters and other engineering
assumptions for these estimates are
explained in the technical water
development document. The Agency
solicits comment on other candidate
technologies that might be more cost'
effective than multimedia filtration.
, EPA found that multimedia filtration
failed the BCT cost test in eleven
subcategories. As a result;;EPA is today
proposing to set BCT equal to proposed
BPT in these eleven subcategories. ,
These revised BCT limits would be
based on the average performance of the
best 50 percent, of mills in each
subcategory. EPA found that multimedia
filtration passed the BCT cost test in one
subcategory (Mechanical Pulp). As a
.result, EPA is today proposing '
multimedia filtration as the BCT v
technology in the Mechanical Pulp ,
Subcategpry. However, EPA does not
have sufficient data at this time to .
propose limits for BODs and TSS
discharges from tHe Mechanical Pulp
Subcategory based upon the use of -
multimedia filtration. EPA solicits data
concerning the limits that,could be
achieved by mills within the
Mechanical Pulp Subcategory using
multimedia filtration. See the technical
water development document for a
complete discussion of the BCT
methodology as applied in each of the
subcategories. . . ' .'
b. Alternative Methodology for •
Developing BCT Limits. EPA performed
an alternative BCT analysis, in addition
to the foregoing. This alternative
analysis is based on the assumption
that, notwithstanding today's proposal,
BPT limits for this industry ultimately
are not revised. EPA concluded that,
even if BPT limits ultimately are not
revised, BCT limits more stringent than
those currently in place would
nevertheless be appropriate in six
subcategories,. These six subcategories
are: Dissolving kraft; bleached •.
papergrade kraft and soda; papergrade
sulfite; mechanical pulp; tissue, filter,
nonwoven arid.paperboard from
purchased pulp; and secondary fiber
deink. Revised BCT limits for the first
five subcategories would be based on
the average of the best 50 percent of
mills; revised BCT limits in the
secondary fiber deink subpategory
would be based on the average of the
best 90 percent of mills.
. The alternative analysis proceeded in
the same manner as the principal BCT
analysis set forth immediately above. As
with the principal BCT analysis, EPA
considered whether there are
technologies that achieve greater
removals of conventional pollutants
than existing BPT, and whether those
technologies are cost-reasonable ~
according to the BCT cost test. As with
the principal BCT analysis, EPA
considered first how best to define the
BPT "baseline" for these purposes.
However, because the alternative
analysis was based upon the assumption
that BPT limits were not being revised,
EPA did not select revised BPT limits as
the BPT "baseline." Instead, EPA
considered further the two other options
for setting the BPT baseline described
above-rthe actual long-term average
discharge of conventional pollutants
from mills in this industry (the "LTA"),
and a hypothetical level of control equal
to the precise amount of discharge ,
allowed under existing BPT limits.
EPA decided that the LTA was the
most appropriate choice for the BPT
baseline under this alternative analysis.
Selection of the LTA—which represents
actual discharges from the industry—
permitted EPA to perform the most
accurate and meaningful cost
calculations as part of the BCT test. EPA
decided not to use a hypothetical level
of control based on existing BPT limits, •
in part because actual performance of
the industry varies from these limits,
and the necessary cost calculations
(estimating the incremental cost to
upgrade a mill from the hypothetical
BPT level of control to the candidate
BCT technology) would have been far
more speculative than those based on
the actual discharges from the industry.
EPA's choice of the LTA as the baseline
under this alternative analysis is
consistent with EPA's 1986 BCT
methodology, which provides that in
situations with "a lack of comparable
industry data ... EPA [may] develop
• appropriate procedures to evaluate cost-
reasonableness on .art industry-specific
basis" (51 FR 24976).
EPA next identified candidate BCT
technologies. Four were identified.
These were: (i) The technology required
to perform at the level achieved by the
best 90 percent of mills in the
subcategory; (ii) the technology required
to perform at the level achieved by the
best 50 percent of mills in the
subcategory; (iii) the technology
required to perform at the level ,
achieved by the best performing mill in
. the subcategory; and (iv) multimedia
filtration.'However, for candidate
technologies (iii) and (iv), EPA had
inadequate time and resources to fully
evaluate the technology for purposes of
the alternative BCT cost test.
Specifically, EPA was unable to develop
adequate costing information
concerning the cost increments between
the current LTA, on the one-hand, and
either the technology required to
perform at the level achieved by the best
performing mill in the subcategory or
multimedia filtration, on the other. EPA
solicits data and comments concerning
the cost of upgrading wastewater
treatment facilities in this manner.
EPA did, however, evaluate candidate
technologies (i) and (ii) under this
alternative analysis. The first candidate
technology passed the BCT cost test in
six subcategories—Dissolving kraft;
-------
66108 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 /Proposed Rules
bleached papergrade kraft and soda;
papergrade sulflte; mechanical pulp;
tissue, filter, nonxvoven and paperboard
from purchased pulp; and secondary
fiber deink—and failed in the remaining
subcategories. The second candidate
technology passed the BCT cost test for
five of the six subcategories that passed
the first candidate technology. The
second candidate technology failed in
the secondary fiber deink subcategory
and all remaining subcategories.
Because the second technology
described above is more stringent than
the first, EPA considers that
technology—the level of control
achieved by the best 50 percent of mills
in each subcategory—to be the
appropriate basis for revised BCT limits
for five subcategories under this
alternative analysis. EPA considers the
level of control achieved by the best 90
percent of mills in the subcategory to be
the appropriate basis for revised BCT
limits for the secondary fiber deink
subcategory under this alternative
analysis.
In addition to the BCT cost test, the
Agency considered the age of equipment
and facilities involved, the process
employed, the engineering aspects of
the application of various types of
control techniques, process changes,
and non-water quality environmental
impacts. No basis was found for
identifying alternative BCT limits based
on these factors for any subcategories.
c. Costs and Effluent Reduction
Benefits. EPA is today proposing revised
BCT limits (based on using revised BPT
as the baseline) in all subcategories of
the pulp and paper industry. EPA
estimates that, under this proposal,
mills would incur annualized costs of
567 million and would reduce
conventional pollutant loadings by 427
million pounds per year. If EPA were to
revise BCT limits for only six
subcategories based on the alternative
BCT methodology described above
(using current loadings as the baseline),
annual compliance costs would be $39
million and conventional pollutant
loading reductions would be 270
million pounds annually.
d. Conclusion. EPA is today proposing
revised BCT limits in all subcategories
of the pulp and paper industry. In six
subcategories, these BCT revised limits
are based upon the assumption that BPT
limits for the industry are revised from
their current levels. In six other
subcategoriesr-dissolving kraft;
bleached papergrade kraft and soda;
papergrade sulfite; mechanical pulp;
tissue, filter, nonwoven and paperboard
from purchased pulp; and secondary
fiber deink—these revised BCT limits
are not based on any assumptions
concerning the revision of BPT, and
would be appropriate whether or hot
BPT is revised.
3. BAT
a. Introduction. EPA today is
proposing additional and revised BAT
effluent limitations for certain
subcategories of the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry. The BAT effluent
limitations proposed today would
control certain toxic and
nonconventional pollutants discharged
from mills in six subcategories,
including all mills that bleach chemical
pulps.
The Agency is concerned about
potential discharges of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants from the
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry
not addressed in today's proposal or in
existing regulations. EPA will further
evaluate these concerns in connection
with its effluent guidelines planning
process under sec. 304(m) of the CWA.
Section IX.C discusses the pollutants
and subcategories that the Agency is
continuing to study.
b. Establishing BAT Limits— (1)
Production Normalizing Parameters.
In order to establish mass-based BAT
effluent limitations, the mass of
pollutants being regulated (which is a
product of the pollutant concentration,
the waste water flow, and the necessary
conversion constants) is related to the
appropriate measure of production
(usually in metric tons). This
appropriate measure of production is
known as the "production-normalizing
parameter."
Many of the BAT pollutants (TCDD,
TCDF, chlorinated phenolic "
compounds, chloroform, methylene
chloride, acetone, MEK, and AOX) are
generated in the bleach plant of mills
that bleach chemically pulped wood
with chlorine-containing compounds.
Therefore, the production-normalizing
parameter for BAT limitations of these
pollutants is air-dry-metric tons (ADMT)
of brown stock pulp (10 percent
moisture) entering the bleach plant at
the stage during which chlorine or
chlorine-containing compounds are first
applied to the pulp. This production-
normalizing factor is different than that
for BPT (see section IX.E.l.).
Wastewater COD and color loadings
result primarily from pulp mill
wastewaters and bleach plant caustic
extraction stages. Therefore, the
production-normalizing parameter for
BAT limitations for these pollutants is
ADMT of total brown stock pulp (10
percent moisture) defined as the sum of
all brown stock pulp produced on-site
measured between the digester outlet
and pulp storage. This production
normalizing parameter is different than
the parameter for toxic pollutants
because it includes brown stock pulp
that is not bleached and brown stock
pulp entering the bleach plant.
(2) Point of Regulation—(i) BAT
Limitations for Bleach Plant Effluent.
EPA proposes today to set limits on
certain pollutants inside the
discharger's facility, at the point the
wastewater containing those pollutants
leaves the bleach plant. Such limits are
authorized by the Clean Water Act and
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR § 122.45(h).
As set forth in more detail below, EPA
proposes to establish limits on certain
internal wastewater streams because
limits for some pollutants at the point
of discharge ("end-of-pipe") are
impractical and infeasible as measures
of the performance of process
technologies. In the case of dioxins,
furans, and several other chlorinated
organic pollutants, such limits are
impractical and infeasible in light of the
detection capabilities of available
analytical methods. In the case of
chlorinated compounds, including
chloroform and methylene chloride, and
non-chlorinated compounds including
acetone and methyl ethyl ketone, limits
at the point of effluent discharge are
impractical and infeasible because these
. pollutants would be lost as air
emissions in wastewater conveyances
and treatment facilities (e.g.. Collection
boxes and aeration tanks) without
bleach plant limits.
EPA believes that these in-plant
limitations are critical in order to
measure the performance of the process
changes proposed as the basis for BAT
limits in today's regulations. These
process changes, in turn, are critical to
multimedia pollution prevention in the
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry,
BAT limitations for TCDD, TCDF, and
several other pollutants will be applied
at the effluent from the bleach plant.
Control at this point is necessary
because, with the chemical analytical
methods currently available, discharges
of TCDD, TCDF, and most chlorinated
phenolic compounds of concern from
the. bleach plant will be near or below
analytical method detection limits for
mills using the technologies that form
the basis of today's proposed BAT
effluent limitations. Thus, if the effluent
limitations were not applied at the
effluent from the bleach plant,
compliance could be achieved without
using the best available technology
economically achievable, but instead by
diluting bleach plant wastewaters with
the large wastewater flows from the rest
of the mill. TCDD and TCDF, present
but in concentrations below detection
limits, would then either be discharged
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66109
to receiving streams (where these
to receiving streams (where these
pollutants bioaccumulate), or partition
to the sludge generated by the mill's
secondary wastewater treatment system.
The BAT limitations that the Agency
is proposing today would be applied to
the total discharge from each physical
bleach line operated at the mill. At most
mills that chemically pulp and bleach
wood, acid and alkaline bleach stage
wastewaters are discharged to separate
sewers; however, at some mills, bleach
plant wastewaters are discharged to a
combined sewer containing both acid
and alkaline wastewaters. For
nonvolatile compounds (TCDD, TCDF,
and the chlorinated phenolic
compounds) compliance with the BAT
limitations 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 planteffluent for analysis. For-. ,
volatile compounds, however, separate
samples and analyses of all bleach plant
filtrates discharged separately will be
required. This is to prevent the loss of
volatile compounds through air
stripping as the samples are collected,
measured, and composited or through
•_ chemical reaction when the acid and
alkaline samples are combined. If
separate acid and alkaline sewers do not
'exist, compliance samples must be
collected from the point closest to the
bleach plant that is physically
accessible.
EPA solicits comments and data on its
proposal to set limits on certain
pollutants inside the discharger's
facility, at the point the wastewater
containing these pollutants leaves the
bleach plant. EPA solicits any
comments or data that might indicate
that limits for these pollutants at the
end-of-pipe could practically or feasibly
be used to evaluate compliance with the
BAT, PSES, NSPS and PSNS regulations
proposed today. - •
(ii) BAT Limitations for Final
Effluent. EPA today also proposes to set
certain BAT effluent limitations at the
final mill effluent discharged to the
receiving stream. This compliance point
is identical to the point used to
demonstrate compliance with BPT .
limitations. All pollutants not limited at
the bleach plant (i.e., AOX, COD and
color) will be limited at the end-of-pipe.
The Agency is concerned that
periodic discharges of dioxins, furans ,
and other chlorinated organic pollutants
may occur as a result of inventories of
those pollutants in sludge on the bottom
of aerated stabilization basins,
overloaded clarifiers and appurtenant
sludge management components of
activated sludge systems. The Agency
also is concerned that dioxms and
furans that partition to pulp may find
their way into paper machine white
water and may be discharged in the
effluent. In addition, miscellaneous
wastewater streams ancillary to the
, bleach plant (as defined for compliance
purposes in the regulation) may contain
dioxin and furan and may not otherwise
be controlled. These miscellaneous
streams include bleach plant floor
washings, bleach plant chemical
preparation areas, bleaching tower and
other bleach plant vent wet scrubber
wastewaters. The Agency believes it is
possible that control of chlorinated '
phenolic compounds not achieved
through process changes alone would be
achieved with end-of-pipe limits for
AOX. ,.•;'"
EPA solicits comments and data on
whether end-of-pipe limits for dioxins,
* furans and chlorinated phenolics, in
addition to the iri-plant limits proposed
today, would be appropriate to address
the concerns set forth in the foregoing
paragraph. The Agency also solicits
comments on whether end-of-pipe
limits for AOX are an effective means of
controlling any chlorinated phenolic
compounds that may not be consistently
reduced to non-detect values by bleach
plant process changes alone. ,
(3) Fundamentally Different Factors
Variances. The CWA authorizes EPA to
establish alternative limitations more or
less stringent than those contained in
the national effluent limitations
guidelines on a case-by-case basis.
These alternative limitations are
permissible when there are factors
present at a specific plant that are
fundamentally different from the factors
EPA considered during development of
the limitations. See Section IX.I.3.
,c. Rationale for BAT Limitations by
Subcategory. Section V.A summarizes
the factors to be considered in
establishing the BAT1 level of control. In
general, BAT represents the best
existing economically achievable
performance among plants with shared .
characteristics. Where existing pollution
control technologies are uniformly
inadequate, BAT may be transferred
from a different subcategory or
industrial category. BAT limitations
may be based upon process changes, as
well as measures that are not common
industry practice.
The Agency is today proposing BAT
effluent limitations under Subcategories
A, B, C, D, E, and F. The rationale for
the proposed effluent limitations in
, each subcategory is presented in the
following paragraphs.
(1) Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Subcategory, Subpart B. The ;
Agency considered many technologies
as regulatory options to reduce the
generation of toxic and noncoriventiona}'
pollutants from bleached papergrade
kraft and soda mills. Of these, six
options received the most serious
consideration.
First, the Agency considered a totally
chlorine-free (TCP) option for this
subcategory. Worldwide, more,than 15
mills produce TCP bleached kraft pulp.
Most of the TCP pulp production is of
a lower brightness (75-80 ISO),
bleached with combinations of oxygen,
ozone, enzymes, and peroxide. Only one
mill routinely produces commercial
quantities of high brightness (88-90
ISO) TCP kraft pulp from hardwood and
bleached with ozone. In January 1993,
this mill began to produce TCP
softwood kraft pulp of lower brightness
using ozone in short trials. Very little
information is available concerning this
process. One U.S. mill recently began
'producing lower brightness pulp ,
(approximately 82-83 ISO) from •
softwood using an ozone bleaching
process; however,'the mill uses a final
chlorine dioxide brightening stage and
thus does not use a TCP process.
EPA does not consider, TCP bleaching
to be an available pollution prevention
technology for the bleached papergrade
kraft and soda subcategory at this time.
This is because of the limited
worldwide experience with and data for
TCP bleaching of softwood in
papergrade kraft and soda mills, and the
fact that the majority of the kraft pulp ,
in the U.S. is produced from softwood.
(Softwood contains more lignin than
hardwood and is thus more difficult to •
bleach to high brightness). However,
EPA strongly encourages continuing
innovation in the development of
processes to reduce or eliminate the. '
discharge of pollutants from this and
.other subcategories. EPA is today
proposing alternative BAT effluent
limits for those mills in this subcategory
that adopt TCP process.
The remaining five regulatory options
for this subcategory all include these
elements:
: • Adequate wood chip size control,
achieved by close control of chipping
equipment tolerances or use of chip-
thickness screens. Chip size control is
assumed to pay for itself through
improved yield (fewer rejects) and more
consistent pulp quality.
• Elimination of defoamers
containing dioxin precursors, which the
Agency believes is uniformly practiced
by the U.S. pulp industry. . • - • ,
• Brown stock washing that achieves
a washing loss of 10 kg Na2SO4 per
' metric ton or less.
• The elimination of hypochlorite,
and replacing it with oxygen or
-------
66110
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
peroxide enhanced extraction, as
needed.
• Addition of high shear mixing for
uie addition of chlorine and/or chlorine
dioxide.
In addition to these elements, the five
technology options considered for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
BAT effluent limitations are as follows-
• Option 1—Split Addition of
Chlorine. For this option, the total
equivalent chlorine added to the first
stage of bleaching is applied in two
steps. The pH of the first bleaching stage
is controlled by the addition of sodium
hydroxide.
• Option 2—Substitution of Chlorine
Dioxide for Chlorine. This option
includes the use of some elemental
chlorine, and maintains the current
active chlorine multiple for the first
bleaching stage (ACM-equivalent
chlorine as percent on pulp, divided by
the prechlorination kappa number).
However, enough of the chlorine is
replaced by chlorine dioxide to reduce
the "active chlorine multiple ratio" for
the first stage to 0.90 or less. Active
chlorine multiple ratio, based on work
by Paprican is that combination of
active chlorine multiple and percent
chlorine dioxide substitution that
results in bleaching conditions in which
TCDD and TCDF are theoretically not
formed. The active chlorine multiple
ratio is {ACM(l50-% C1O2
substitution)]/24. This results in
limiting the elemental chlorine multiple
to 0.065 or less, and is approximately
equivalent to using chlorine dioxide to
provide 70 percent of the bleaching
power (measured as oxidizing potential)
applied in the first bleaching stage (i.e.,
70 percent substitution).
• Option 3— Oxygen Delignification
or Extended Delignification With
Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide for
Chlorine. This option includes the
reduction of the lignin content as
measured by kappa number of the pulp
entering the first stage of bleaching. For
softwood pulp, the pre-chlorination
kappa number is reduced from
approximately 30 to 18. For hardwood
pulp, kappa number is reduced from
approximately 20 to 12. The reduction
in kappa number may be achieved
either through the use of oxygen
delignification or use of extended
cooking. The first stage bleaching
conditions for Option 3 are the same as
those specified for Option 2 (active
chlorine multiple ratio 0.90 or less), but
because the kappa number of the pulp
is lower, a lower mass-based dose of
chlorine and chlorine dioxide is used.
• Option 4—Oxygen Delignification
or Extended Delignification With
Complete Substitution of Chlorine
Dioxide for Chlorine. This option
includes the same reduction of pulp
lignin content as specified for Option 3.
The use of elemental chlorine is
completely eliminated, and the current
active chlorine multiple is applied using
chlorine dioxide only.
• Option 5—Oxygen Delignification
and Extended Delignification With
Complete Substitution of Chlorine
Dioxide for Chlorine. This option
includes further reduction of the lignin
content of the pulp entering the first
stage of bleaching. For softwood pulp,
kappa is reduced from approximately 30
to 15. For hardwood pulp, kappa is
reduced from 20 to 10. The first stage
bleaching conditions for Option 5 are
the same as those specified for Option
4 (elimination of elemental chlorine,
with the current active chlorine
multiple applied as chlorine dioxide).
The performance of each option was
determined using data collected by the
Agency during the Long-Term and
Short-Term studies described in VHI.A.
The Agency finds that, moving from
Option 1 to Option 5, these options
generally show decreasing mass
discharges and progressively fewer
pollutants detected in bleach plant and
final effluents.
The Agency is today proposing
Option 4 for BAT effluent limitations
guidelines for Subpart B. In making this
decision, EPA considered factors
including: the effluent reduction
attainable, the economic achievability of
each option, the age of equipment and .
facilities involved, the process
employed, the engineering aspects of
various types of control techniques,
process changes, the cost of achieving
effluent reductions, and non-water
quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements).
EPA selected Option 4 as the
proposed technology basis for the
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory,
in part because no other option that was
both technically feasible and
economically achievable resulted in
greater effluent reductions. The Agency
found that Option 4 would achieve
reductions of approximately 317 grams
per year of TCDD and TCDF, 2,530
metric tons per year of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants, and
approximately 32,900 metric tons per
year of AOX, and approximately 1.1
million metric tons of COD. This
compares to reductions of:
approximately 317 grams per year of
TCDD and TCDF, 2,570 metric tons per
year of toxic and nonconventional
pollutants, and approximately 25,400
metric tons per year of AOX for Option
3; approximately 315 grams per year of
TCDD and TCDF, 2,330 metric tons per
year of toxic and nonconventional
pollutants, and approximately 8,550
metric tons per year of AOX for Option
2; and approximately 300 grams per
year of TCDD and TCDF, 2,410 metric
tons per year of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants, and
approximately 10,800 metric tons per
year of AOX for Option 1.
The Agency decided not to propose
Option 1 as the best available
technology for this subcategory because
that option will not ensure that
discharges of TCDD and TCDF in bleach
plant effluents are below the analytical
method detection limits. The
measurable levels of TCDD and TCDF
clearly will result in contamination of
wastewater treatment sludges. The
Agency decided not to propose Options
2 and 3 as the best available technology
for this subcategory because Option 4,
which is elemental chlorine-free, will
achieve significantly more reduction in
the discharge of highly chlorinated
phenolic compounds, to near or below
the limits of detection, and significantly
greater reductions in AOX, than these
options. The Agency believes this is
particularly important because
reductions of these highly chlorinated
phenolic compounds have been
associated with further reductions in
TCDD and TCDF below the current
minimum level of detection. In
addition, neither Option 1 nor Option 2
offers the opportunity for increased
pulping liquor recovery and
concomitant reductions in consumable
chemical costs, and improved
consistency of pulp quality that result
from oxygen delignification or extended
cooking. Further benefits of Option 4 are
the reductions achieved in
concentrations of dioxin (1.0 ppt) and
furan (1.9 ppt), and total organic
chlorine content of wastewater
treatment sludges (ten-fold reduction
below Option 1). This finding will be
particularly important in the Agency's
assessment of the need to regulate land
disposal practices for pulp and paper
mill wastewater treatment sludges. An
exception to this trend is that further
reductions in chloroform in wastewater
are not achieved beyond Option 2.
The Agency decided not to propose
Option 5 because the costs of retrofitting
Option 5 process technology (i.e., both
extended delignification and oxygen
delignification, as well as added
recovery boilef capacity to handle the
additional pulping liquor solids) may be
very high for an existing source. Upon
examining the economic impacts of
Option 5, EPA concluded that Option 5
was not economically achievable.
The Agency estimated that the 78
mills with direct discharge would incur
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 7 Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66111
total annualized cost of $260 million in
complying with Option 4. This
compared to the following total
annualized costs for other options: $97
million for Option 1, $113 million for
Option 2, $200 million for Option 3, and
$562 million for Option 5. The Agency
estimated that Option 4 would result in
a range of one to three plant closures
and an estimated employment effect in
the range of 500 to 4,400 lost jobs. The
comparable figures for other options
range from one to two plant closures
and up to 3,700 lost jobs for Option 1
to a maximum of eight plant closures
and up to 11,300 lost jobs at Option 5.
These impacts, and the methodology
behind them, are explained in greater
detail in the economic impact analysis.
Based upon these findings, the Agency
concludes that BAT effluent limitations
based on Option 4 for the papergrade
kraft and soda subcategory would be
economically achievable.
As stated above, the Agency
determined that the available data does
, not suggest that Option 5 is
economically achievable. In making this
determination, the Agency noted that
total job loss under Option 5 could be
as high as approximately 11,300 and
that a maximum of eight mills would
close; this is five mill closures more
than the corresponding maximum
impacts for Option 4.
Industry has expressed concern that
the cost of implementing oxygen
delignification is significantly higher
than estimated by EPA. The difference
may be attributable to industry's
inclusion of cost estimates for installing
a significant number of new recovery
boilers to handle the increase in pulping
liquor solids sent to recovery from
oxygen delignification. The Agency
believes that any modest upgrades of
existing recovery boiler capacity
necessary can be made to accommodate
the marginal increases in solids loadings
from oxygen delignification and other
technologies that are part of BAT. The
costs of these upgrades have been
included in EPA's cost estimates.
Decisions for installing additional
recovery boiler capacity beyond these
upgrades are production-based, and
those costs are therefore unnecessary to
comply with the proposed regulations.
See section XIII for solicitation of
comments and data.
The Agency found that the
incremental increase in annual
electrical power consumption for all
mills to achieve Option 4 was 114
megawatts (MW). This is equivalent to
an increase of approximately 4 percent. .
for a typical 500 ton per day market
kraft pulp mill. The incremental
increases in electrical power
consumption for the remaining options
were: for Option 1, an increase of 41
MW; for Option 2, an increase of 22
MW; for Option 3, an increase of 114
MW; and for Option 5, an increase of
234 MW. The Agency did not find that
the age of equipment and facilities
involved provided any basis for
'choosing among the options. The
Agency considered the different
processes and *ngineering aspects of
Options 1, 2, 3,4, and 5 in evaluating
each option.
In addition to the-optibns described
above, EPA considered, but did not have
adequate data to evaluate, an option
based on the complete substitution of
chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine
in the first stage of bleaching. The
Agency has received some data
demonstrating the effectiveness of this
option for reducing some of the
pollutants selected for regulation. The
Agency received additional data
concerning the impact of this option on
AOX discharges on October 21,1993.
Several industry representatives
indicated that more complete
information will be provided during the
comment period. EPA solicits further
data and comments on this option. If
these data demonstrate technical
feasibility, economic achievability and
other statutory factors, EPA may revise
the technology basis and corresponding
effluent limitations for promulgation of
the rules for this subcategory
accordingly.
EPA today also is proposing COD
effluent limitatipns-for the bleached
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory.
These COD, limitations were developed
for this subcategory based on
engineering ^valuation of the best
methods to control COD discharges. The
COD effluent data used to develop the
proposed effluent limitations were .
collected by EPA during the short-term
studies and supplied by mills with their
questionnaire responses.
The technology basis for the proposed
COD effluent limitations consists of
effective brownstock washing, closed
brownstock pulp screen room operation,
application of pulping liquor spill
prevention arid control (BMPs), and BPT
level secondary treatment performance.
The first three technologies described
above focus on preventing or capturing
losses of pulping liquors and associated
wood extractives and returning them to,
a heat or chemical recovery process.
Closing screen rooms at older mills with
open screen rooms is generally,
accomplished by reusing decker screen
filtrates as pulp dilution water ahead of
the screens, oras wash liquor on a
preceding stage of washing. BPT level
secondary treatment reduces the
biodegradable portion of COD that
remains after process changes. The
Agency was not able to identify other
technologies for controlling COD, and
therefore concluded that this ',
combination of technologies represents
the best available technology for the
control of COD.
The Agency considered the age, size,
processes, other engineering factors, and
non-water quality environmental
impacts pertinent to mills in this
subcategory. No basis could be found for
identifying different COD effluent
limitations within this subcategory
based on age, size, processes, or other
engineering factors. EPA has no data to
suggest that the combination of
technologies upon .which COD effluent
limitations are based significantly
increase non-water quality t
environmental impacts.
In addition, the Agency concluded
that the COD effluent limitations-would
be achievable based on the control
technologies identified above. All costs
for complying With the proposed COD
effluent limitations, including the cost
of closing screen room operations, were
incorporated in the option-by-option
economic impact analysis presented
above and in section XI.B.
The Agency is also proposing today to
include an alternative set of effluent
limitations applicable to any
waste waters from TCP bleaching
processes at mills in this subcategory.
EPA is proposing these alternative .
limitations to provide mills with an
incentive to eliminate or nearly
eliminate the generation and discharge
of chlorinated organic pollutants by
using totally chlorine-free processes.'
These mills would initially be required
to certify to the permitting authority that
their processes are totally chlorine-free.
The alternative limitations applicable to
• the wastewaters from TCP bleaching
processes would not include any,
limitations on chlorinated organic
pollutants (i.e., TCDD, TCDF,
chlorofonri, methylene chlqride,
chlorinated phenolic compounds) at the
• bleach plant or end-of-pipe, except for
AOX. Mills employing TCP processes
would have effluent limitations only for
AOX, and would have initial monitoring
requirements for specific toxic organic
pollutants (i.e., TCDD, TCDF,
chloroform, methylene chloride,
chlorinated phenolic compounds)
which could be terminated if all
analytical results in a specified series of
sampling events are non-detect.
(2J Dissolving Kraft Subcategory,
Subpart A. The Agency studied the
existing pollution control technologies
used by the three mills in the Dissolving
Kraft Subcategory and conducted
-------
66112 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
sampling programs at two of the three
mills. The process technologies studied
included the use of high application
rates of hypochlorite in the bleaching
sequences.
The Agency found existing process
technologies to be uniformly inadequate
to control the generation of TCDD,
TCDF, chloroform, and other toxic and
nonconventional pollutants generated
during the bleaching of dissolving grade
pulp. Data available indicate that all
three mills within the subcategory
discharged chloroform in final effluent
(indicating very high loadings from the
bleach plants) as well as a relatively
high frequency of detected TCDD and
TCDF (indicating the same).
For this reason, the Agency
considered in detail three regulatory
options transferred from the bleached
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory.
All of these options include reduction
in the amount of chlorine and chlorine-
containing compounds applied to the
pulp. The Agency also considered a TCP
option for this subcategory. However,
the Agency determined that TCP
technologies could not be practicably
applied in this subcategory at this time.
The three options considered in the
most detail for the dissolving kraft
subcategory included all of the common
elements of the bleached papergrade
kraft options (adequate chip size
control, elimination of defoamers
containing dioxin precursors, brown
stock washing to a loss of 10 kg Na2SO4
per metric ton or less, elimination of
• hypochlorite, oxygen or peroxide
reinforced extraction, and high shear
mixing for the addition of chlorine and/
or chlorine dioxide). In addition to these
elements, the three technology options
are:
• Option 1—Substitution of Chlorine
Dioxide for Chlorine, at the addition
rates described for bleached papergrade
kraft and soda (approximately 70
percent substitution).
• Option 2—Oxygen Damnification
With Substitution of Chlorine Dioxide
for Chlorine. This option differs from
the bleached papergrade kraft option. It
does not allow for the use of extended
delignification, because the Agency has
received information indicating that, for
technical reasons, extended
delignification cannot be applied in the
dissolving kraft subcategory. The
Agency also has recently received data
indicating that oxygen delignification is
feasible and will reduce the amounts of
toxic and nonconventional pollutants
generated during bleaching. The
chlorine dioxide substitution rate is.
defined as for bleached papergrade kraft
Option 2, approximately 70 percent.
• Option 3—Oxygen Delignification
With Complete Substitution of Chlorine
Dioxide for Chlorine. As in Option 2,
this option does not include extended
delignification which the Agency does
not believe is technically applicable to
dissolving kraft.
The Agency determined that the
performance of dissolving kraft Options
1,2, and 3 would be equivalent to
bleached papergrade kraft Options 2, 3,
and 4, respectively. This judgment is
based upon the similarities of
components of the process technologies
and best engineering judgment. The
performance of each option is
summarized in the technical
development document for each
pollutant. Performance of an option is
characterized primarily by the long-term
average production-normalized mass
discharge in bleach plant effluent.
The Agency is today proposing
Option 2 for BAT effluent limitations
guidelines for Subcategory A. In making
this decision, EPA considered factors
including: the effluent reduction
attainable, the economic achievability of
each option, the age of equipment and
facilities involved, the process
employed, the engineering aspects of
various types of control techniques,
process changes, the cost of achieving
effluent reductions, and non-water
quality environmental impacts
(including energy requirements).
EPA selected Option 2 as the
proposed technology basis for the,
dissolving kraft subcategory, in part
because no other option that was
technically feasible achieved greater
effluent reductions. The Agency found
, that available information did not
support a conclusion that Option 3 was
technically feasible. More specifically,
the Agency recently received data
demonstrating that 100 percent
substitution of chlorine dioxide for
chlorine is not technically feasible in
the dissolving kraft subcategory. The,
Agency also found that Option 2 would
achieve significantly greater reductions
in the discharges of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants than would
Option 1. For example, the long-term
average in bleach plant effluent of TCDD
for Option 1 is 512 ng/ADMT, compared
to the data representing Option 2 where
the long-term average was 153 ng/
ADMT. The estimated reductions of
volatile and chlorinated phenolic toxic
pollutants (16 metric.tons per year) and
AOX (1,670 metric tons per year) are the
highest for this option. In addition,
Option 2 removes approximately 8,560
metric tons per year of COD. These
compare to estimated reductions for
Option 1 for toxic pollutants of 4.7
metric tons per year and for AOX of 232
metric tons per year.
The Agency estimated that the mills
would incur total annualized cost of
$1.7 million in complying with Option
1. The Agency estimated that mills
would incur total annualized cost of
$11.9 million in complying with Option
2. The Agency estimated that neither
Option 1 nor Option 2 would result in
any lost jobs or mill closures. These
impacts, and the methodology behind
them, are presented in greater detail in
section IX.G. Based upon these findings,
the Agency concludes that BAT effluent
limitations based on Option 2 for the
dissolving kraft subcategory would be
economically achievable.
The Agency found that Option 2
would result in an incremental increase
in electrical power consumption of 7.8
MW over Option 1. The Agency did not
find that the age of equipment and
facilities involved, processes, or
engineering aspects provided any basis
for choosing Option 1 over Option 2.
The Agency did not find any significant
differences in non-water quality impacts
between Options 1 and 2.
The Agency is also proposing today to
include an alternative set of effluent
. limitations applicable to any
wastewaters from TCF bleaching
processes at mills .in this subcategory.
EPA is proposing these alternative
limitations to provide mills with an
incentive to eliminate or nearly
eliminate the generation and discharge
of chlorinated organic pollutants by
using totally chlorine-free processes.
These mills would be required initially
to certify to the permitting authority that
their process is totally chlorine-free. The
alternative limitations applicable to the
wastewaters from TCF bleaching
processes would not include any
limitations on chlorinated organic
pollutants (i.e., TCDD, TCDF,
chloroform, methylene chloride,
chlorinated phenolic compounds) at the
bleach plant or end-of-pipe, except for
AOX. These mills would have BAT
effluent limitations only for AOX, and
also would have initial monitoring
requirements for specific toxic organic
pollutants (i.e., TCDD, TCDF,
chloroform, methylene chloride,
chlorinated phenolic compounds)
which could be terminated if all
analytical results in a specified series of
sampling events are non-detect.
The Agency has recently received
data indicating that mills may not be
able to produce certain high grade
dissolving kraft pulps without the use of
hypochlorite to maintain product
quality. Specifically, preliminary data
received indicate that intrinsic
viscosity, a measure of the degree of
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules . 66113
polymerization, of the dissolving pulp ^ is
not maintained within acceptable
specifications without the use of
hypochlbrite. See section XIII of this
preamble for solicitation of comments
and data to enable EPA to further define
this concern. The Agency also solicits
information on alternative process and
control technologies more
environmentally protective than .
existing processes that may be
achievable for these products. Based on
these preliminary data, the Agency
specifically solicits comment on
whether BAT effluent limitations for the
dissolving kraft subcategory should be
based upon reduced use of
hypochlorite, compared to current
practice, under specific conditions that
achieve a substantial reduction in the
amount of chloroform generated and
emitted to air and discharged to bleach
plant effluents. The Agency requests
data on the specific process operating
conditions and chloroform generation
rates resulting from these conditions
(see Section XIII for specific data
requests). -
EPA today also is proposing COD
effluent limitations for the dissolving
kraft subcategory. These COD
limitations were developed based on
engineering evaluation of the best
methods to control COD discharges. The"
COD effluent data used to develop the
proposed effluent limitations were
collected by EPA during the short-term
studies.
The technology basis for the proposed
COD effluent limitations for the
dissolving kraft subcategory consists of
effective brownstock washing, closed
brownstock pulp screen room operation,
application of pulping liquor spill
prevention and control (BMPs), and BPT
level secondary treatment performance.
The first three technologies described
above focus on preventing or capturing
; losses of pulping liquors and associated
wood extractives and returning them to
a heat or chemical recovery process.
Closing screen rooms at older mills with
open screen rooms is generally
accomplished by reusing decker screen
•• filtrates as pulp dilution water ahead of
the screens, or as wash liquor on a
preceding stage of washing. BPT level
secondary treatment reduces the
biodegradable portion of COD that
remains after process changes. The ,
Agency was not able to identify other
technologies for controlling COD, and
therefore concluded that this
'. combination of technologies represents
the best available technology for the
control of COD.
The Agency considered the age, size,
processes, other engineering factors, and
non-water quality environmental
impacts pertinent to mills in developing
the COD limitations for this
subcategory. No basis could be found for
identifying different COD effluent
limitations within this subcategory
based on age, size, processes, or other
engineering factors. EPA has no data to
suggest that the combination of
technologies upon which COD effluent •
limitations are based significantly
increase non-water quality
environmental impacts.
'In addition, the Agency concluded
that the COD effluent limitations would
be achievable based on the control
technologies identified above. All costs'
for complying with the proposed COD
effluent limitations, including the cost
of closing screen room operatipns, were
incorporated in the option-by-option
economic impact analysis presented
above and in section XI.B.
(3) Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory,
Subpart D. The Agency considered three
regulatory options to reduce the
generation of toxic and nonconventional
pollutants during bleaching of
dissolving sulfite wood pulps. One of
these options (20 percent chlorine
dioxide substitution for elemental
chlorine) was rejected for reasons
including lack of adequate performance
data and minimal improvement in
control of pollutants beyond existing
practices. '
The first remaining option is based on
oxygen delignification followed by
bleaching with complete substitution of
chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine.'
The second remaining option is a totally
chlorine-free (TCP) bleaching process.
At present, there is one mill in the U.S.
that bleaches dissolving sulfite pulp
using oxygen delignification and
.complete substitution of chlorine
dioxide for elemental chlorine.
Pollutant loadings at this mill were used
to develop Option 1. At present there.
are no mills in the U.S. that use a TCP
process to bleach dissolving sulfite
pulp. However, there is a mill in Austria
(and there may be Others) that uses TCP
processes to bleach dissolving sulfite •
pulp. Information primarily 'from the
Austrian mill was used to analyze and
develop Option 2.
Both regulatory options for this
subcategory include these elements:
« Adequate wood chip size control,
achieved by-close control of chipping
equipment tolerances or use of chip-
thickness screens. Chip size control is
assumed to pay for itself through
improved yield j[fewer rejects) and more
consistent quality pulp; and
• Elimination ot defoamers.
containing dioxin precursors, which the
Agency believes is uniformly practiced
by the U.S. pulp industry.
In addition to these .elements, the two
regulatory options considered for the
dissolving sulfite subcategory are as ,
follows: .
• Option 1—Oxygen Delignification
With Complete Substitution of Chlorine
Dioxide for Chlorine
As indicated above, this option is
based on using oxygen delignification
followed by bleaching with complete
substitution of chlorine dioxide for
chlorine. Under this option, >
hypochlprite could be used in the
bleach sequence.
• Option 2—Totally Chlorine Free
Bleaching
As indicated above, this option is
based on totally chlorine free (TCP)
bleaching processes used by mills in
other countries. Although the bleach
sequence at each mill varies, all are
.based on oxygen delignification and use
of ozone and/or peroxide in subsequent
bleaching stages. .
The performance of each option was
determined using data collected by'the
Agency during the Long-Term Study
and additional data'gathering described
in VIII. A. The Agency was not able to ,
collect the same type of performance
data from TCP mills in other countries
as for the U.S. mill. Effluent limitations >
for mills in other countries typically
consist of only BOD, COD, and AOX,
and therefore these are the only data ,,
available. The Agency has requested but
not been able to obtain data for
individual toxic pollutants from any
TCP mill. However, because chjorine
and chlorine-containing compounds are
' not used at TCP mills, and because
available data for bleach plant and final
effluent AOX concentrations at TCP
.mills are very low, the Agency believes „•
that concentrations of individual
chlorinated compounds in wastewaters
from TCP mills are not detectable.
The Agency is proposing Option 1 as
the technology basis, for BAT effluent
limitations guidelines for Subpart D.
EPA selected this option as the
proposed technology basis for the
dissolving sulfite subcategory, in part
because no other option that was both
technically feasible-and economically
achievable resulted in greater effluent
reductions. The Agency found that
Option .1 would achieve reductions of
approximately 2.4 grams per year of
TCDD and TCDF, 56 metric tons per
year of toxic and nonconventional*.
pollutants, and approximately 1,010
metric tons per year of AQX.
The Agency decided not to propose
Option 2 as the best available
technology for this subcategory because
information recently supplied by
dissolving sulfite producers indicates
that their mills cannot currently meet all
-------
66114
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17. 1993 / Proposed Rules
product specifications for high quality,
nigh purity dissolving sulfite pulp using
TCP bleaching processes. The
preliminary data that EPA has received
suggest that critical product
specifications relating to brightness,
color, haze, and filterability, cannot
currently be met for certain products
without the use of some chlorine-
containing compounds. Furthermore,
the Agency does not have sufficient
information on effluent reduction
benefits that can be achieved by non-
chlorine based bleaching for all grades
of dissolving sulfite pulps. Notably, the
Agency lacks this information for high
purity acetate grades. Based on this
data, the Agency does not consider TCP
bleaching to be an available technology
for some products within the dissolving
sulfite subcategory at this time. EPA
does, however, consider TCP bleaching
to be an available technology for many
products made within this subcategory
at this time.
In addition, after examining the
economic impacts of Option 2, EPA was
concerned about the economic
achievability of Option 2. The Agency
estimated that the total annualized cost
of complying with Option 1 would be
$5 million and that the cost of
complying with Option 2 would be $15
million. The Agency estimated that
Option 1 would result in one plant
closure and that Option 2 would result
in two plant closures. The projected
employment loss associated with these
plant closures is not reported here
because the level of data aggregation is
inadequate to protect confidential
business information. Based on the
foregoing information, the Agency
concluded that Option 1 is
economically achievable.
The Agency found that Option 2
would result in an incremental increase
in annual electrical power consumption
of 3.2 MW over Option 1. The Agency
did not find that the age of equipment
and facilities involved, processes, or
engineering aspects provided any basis
for choosing Option 2 over Option l.
The Agency did not find any significant
differences in non-water quality
environmental impacts between Options
2 and 1.
EPA strongly encourages continuing
innovation in the development of
processes to reduce or eliminate the
discharge of pollutants from this
subcategory. During development of
these proposed regulations, industry
representatives expressed their view
that some products currently being
made at dissolving sulfite mills could
not be made with either Option 1 or
Option 2. The Agency solicits comments
on whether this subcategory should be
further divided, based on product
specifications or other factors, so that
chlorine and chlorine compounds can
be minimized to a greater degree.
The Agency is also proposing today to
include an alternative set of effluent
limitations applicable to any
wastewaters from TCP bleaching
processes at mills in this subcategory.
EPA is proposing these alternative
limitations to provide mills with an
incentive to eliminate or nearly .
eliminate the generation and discharge
of chlorinated organic pollutants by
using totally chlorine-free processes.
These mills would initially be required
to certify to the permitting authority that
their processes are totally chlorine-free.
The alternative limitations applicable to
the wastewaters from TCP bleaching
processes would not include any
limitations on chlorinated organic
pollutants (i.e., TCDD, TCDF,
chloroform, methylene chloride,
chlorinated phenolic compounds) at the
bleach plant or end-of-pipe, except for
AOX. Mills employing TCP processes
would have effluent limitations only for
AOX, and would have initial monitoring
requirements for specific toxic organic
pollutants (i.e., TCDD, TCDF,
chloroform, methylene chloride,
chlorinated phenolic compounds)
which could be terminated if all
analytical results in a specified series of
sam
ipling events are non-detect.
The Agency is not proposing effluent
thi:
CJ J — —- f~ v£«ww.»*^ VAA&UI^All
limitations for COD for this subcategory
COD data that reflect available
technologies to control refractory
pollutants that originate in the pulping
and recovery areas of mills (e.g., closed
screen rooms, BMPs, etc.) are not
available at this time for this
subcategory. The methodology for
deriving COD limitations is described in
the preceding sections for the bleached
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory,
and the dissolving kraft subcategory.
See also section XIII of this preamble for
solicitation of comments and data. The
Agency may develop COD effluent
limitations for this subcategory when
data become available.
(4) Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory,
Subpart E. The Agency considered three
options to reduce the generation of toxic
and nonconventional pollutants during
bleaching of papergrade sulfite wood
pulps. One of these options (based on
oxygen and peroxide enhanced
extraction) was rejected for reasons
including insufficient performance data
to characterize the option and minimal
improvement in control of pollutants
beyond existing practices. Two options
were analyzed in detail.
One option is based on oxygen
delignification followed by bleaching
with complete substitution of chlorine
dioxide for elemental chlorine. The
second option is a totally chlorine free
(TCP) bleaching process. At present,
there is one mill in the U.S. that
bleaches papergrade sulfite pulp (the
mill also bleaches dissolving sulfite
pulp) using oxygen delignification and
complete substitution of chlorine
dioxide for chlorine. Pollutant loadings
from production of papergrade sulfite
pulp at this mill were used to develop
Option 1. At present there are no mills
in the U.S. that use a TCP process to
bleach papergrade sulfite pulp.
However, there are approximately ten
mills in other countries (Austria,
Canada, France, Germany, Sweden,
Switzerland) that use TCP processes to
bleach papergrade sulfite pulp.
Information from those mills was used'
to analyze and develop Option 2.
Both regulatory options for this
subcategory include these elements:
• Adequate wood chip size control,
achieved by close control of chipping
equipment tolerances or use of chip-
thickness screens. Chip size control is
assumed to pay for itself through
improved yield (fewer rejects) and more
consistent quality pulp;
• Elimination of defoamers
containing dioxin precursors, which the
Agency believes is uniformly practiced
by the U.S. pulp industry; and
• Elimination of hypochlorite in the
bleaching sequence.
In addition to these elements, the two
regulatory options considered for the
papergrade sulfite subcategory are as
follows:
• Option 1—Oxygen Delignification
With Complete Substitution of Chlorine
Dioxide for Chlorine
As indicated above, this option is
based on using oxygen delignification
followed by bleaching with complete
substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine.
• Option 2—Totally Chlorine Free
Bleaching
As indicated above, this option is
based on totally chlorine free (TCP)
bleaching processes used by mills in'
other countries. Although the bleach
sequence at each mill varies, all are
based on oxygen delignification or an
extraction stage using oxygen and/or
peroxide, followed by one or more
peroxide bleaching stages. Some mills
use other chemicals such as chelating
agents or nitrilamine before, between, or
in the peroxide bleaching stages.
The performance of each option was
determined using data collected by the
Agency during the Long-Term Study
and additional data gathering described
in section VIII.A. The Agency was not
able to collect the same type or
-------
Federal Register /, Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1.993 /Proposed Rules' 66115
performance data from TCP mills in ,
other countries as for the U.S. mill.
Effluent limitations for mills in other
countries typically consist of only BOD,
COD, and AOX, and therefore these are
the only data available. The Agency has
not been able to obtain data for
individual toxic pollutants from any
TCP mill. However, because chlorine
and chlorine-containing compounds are
not used at TCP mills, and because
effluent AOX concentrations at TCP
mills are very low, the Agency believes
that concentrations of individual -
chlorinated compounds in wastewaters
from TCP mills should not be
detectable.'
The Agency is proposing Option 2 for
BAT effluent limitations guidelines for
Subcategory E. Option 2 will achieve
the maximum reduction in the
discharge of pollutants to the , •
environment compared to Option 1,
primarily because no chlorine or '
chlorine-containing bleaching chemicals
are used, and therefore, chlorinated
pollutants are not formed: EPA
estimates that Option 2 removes 5,250
metric tons per year of AOX, and 40
metric tons per year of toxic pollutants,
compared to Option 1 which removes
4,460 metric tons per year'of AOX, and
26 metric tons per year of toxic
pollutants.
Under EPA's proposal, mills in the
papergrade sulfite subcategory would
have effluent limitations only for AOX
but would have initial monitoring
requirements for toxics (i.e., TCDD,
TCDF, chloroform, methylene chloride,-
chlorinated phenolic compounds)
which could be stopped if all results are
non-detect. "
At this time, the Agency does not
have sufficient data for Option 2 to
develop limitations for the non-
chlorinated pollutants, acetone and
methyl ethyl ketone, for mills in this
subcategory. These pollutants are
generated at mills in this subcategory
and the Agency may develop limitations
for these pollutants in the future when
sufficient data are available.
The Agency has received preliminary
information from some papergrade
sulfite producers indicating that, for
ammonium-base sulfite manufacturing
of tissue and towel products, strength
requirements may not be achievable '
with TCP processes. Also, for some •
other specialty grade pulps (for
example, photographic and plastic
molding pulps), the comments state that
to be suitable for use, the pulp must be
not only high in brightness, but have
purity, uniform resin absorption rates,
no electrical conductivity, no color
reversion at high temperature, and high
alpha cellulose content. Some of these
producers have provided data for EPA '•
to consider during the comment .period.
See section XIII of this preamble for
solicitation of comments and data
regarding these pollutants and product
quality concerns raised in recent data
submissions, and the data EPA is
soliciting to define these concerns arid
alternative technologies beyond existing
process technologies.
The Agency estimated that the total
annualized.cost of complying with
Option 1 would be $42 million and that
the cost of complying with Option 2
would be $25 million. The Agency
estimated that Option 1 would result in
four plant closures. Option 2 would
result in two plant closures. The
estimated employment loss associated
with these plant closures is not reported
here because the level of data .
aggregation-is inadequate to protect
confidential business information.
Additional information on economic
impacts, including summaries of
employment effects, is presented in the
economic impact analysis. Based on the
foregoing information, the Agency
concludes that Option 2 is economically
achievable. , * ,
The Agency found that Option 2
would result in an incremental decrease
in annual electrical power consumption
of 0.89 MW over Option 1. The Agency
did not find that the age of equipment
and facilities involved, processes, or
engineering aspects provided any basis
for choosing Option 1 over Option 2.
The Agency did not find any significant
differences in non-water quality
environmental impacts between Options
land 2.
EPA today also is proposing COD
effluent limitations for the papergrade
sulfite subcategory. These COD .
limitations were developed based on
engineering evaluation of the best
methods to control COD discharges. The
COD effluent data used to develop the
proposed effluent limitations were
supplied by mills with their
questionnaire responses.
The technology basis for the proposed
COD effluent limitations consists of
effective brownstock washing, closed.
brdwnstock pulp screen room operation,
application of pulping liquor spill
prevention and control (BMPs), and BPT
level secondary treatment performance.
The first three technologies described
above focus on preventing or capturing
losses of pulping liquors and associated
\vood extractives and returning ithem to
a heat or chemical recovery process.
Closing screen rooms at older mills with
open screen rooms is generally
accomplished by reusing screen room
decker filtrates as pulp dilution water
ahead of the screens, or as wash liquor
on a preceding stage of washing. BPT ,
level secondary treatment reduces the
biodegradable portion of COD that
remains after process changes. The .
Agency was not able to identify other
technologies for controlling COD, and.
therefore concluded that this
combination of technologies represents
the best available technology for the
control of COD. The Agency estimates
that Option 2 will remove
approximately 200,000 metric tons per
year of COD.
The Agency considered the age, size,
processes, other engineering factors, and
non-water quality environmental
impacts pertinent to mills in this
subcategory. No basis could be found for
identifying different COD effluent
limitations within this subcategory
based on age, size, processes, or other
, engineering factors. EPA has no data to
suggest that the combination of
technologies upon which. COD effluent
limitations are based significantly -
increase non-water quality, .
environmental impacts. '
In addition, the Agency concluded
that the COD effluent limitations would
be achievable based on the control
technologies identified above. All costs.
for complying with the proposed COD
effluent limitations, including the cost
of closing screen room operations, were
incorporated in the option-by-option
economic impact analysis presented
above and in section XI.B. '
(5) Unbleached Kraft; Subcategory C.
EPA today is proposing COD effluent
limitations for the unbleached kraft
subcategory. These COD limitations
were developed based on engineering
evaluation of the best methods to
control COD discharges. The COD "
effluent data us>cd to develop the
proposed effluent limitations were
supplied by mills with their
questionnaire responses. . .
The technology basis for the proposed ,
COD effluent limitations consists of
effective brownstock washing, closed
brownstock pulp screen room operation,
application of pulping liquor spill
prevention and control (BMPs), and BPT
level secondary treatment performance.
The first three technologies described ,
above focus on preventing orcapturing'
losses of pulping liquors and /associated
wood extractives and returning them to
a heat or chemical recovery process.
Closing screen rooms at older mills with
. open screen rooms is generally
accomplished by reusing screen room
decker filtrates as pulp dilution water
ahead of the-screens, or as wash liquor
on a preceding stage of washing. BPT
level secondary treatment reduces the
biodegradable portion of COD that •;
remains after process changes. The
-------
','!' •' " '! ' '•' ', , • • '
66116 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
Agency was not able to identify other
technologies for controlling COD, and
therefore concluded that this
combination of technologies represents
the best available technology for the
control of COD.
The Agency considered the age, size,
processes, other engineering factors, and
non-water quality environmental
impacts pertinent to mills in this
subcategory. No basis could be found for
identifying different COD effluent
limitations within this subcategory
based on age, size, processes, or other
engineering factors. EPA has no data to
suggest that the combination of
technologies upon which COD effluent
limitations are based significantly
increase non-water quality
environmental impacts.
In addition, the Agency concluded
that the COD effluent limitations would
be achievable based on the control
technologies identified above. All costs
for complying with the proposed COD
effluent limitations, including the cost
of closing screen room operations, were
incorporated in the economic impact
analysis presented below and in section
XI.B. Compliance with the proposed
limitations is estimated to result in
removal of approximately 326,000
metric tons per year of COD.
The Agency estimated that the total
annualized cost of BMP and COD
control in the unbleached kraft
subcategory would be $5 million. The
Agency projects no incremental plant
closures or employment loss associated
with these costs. Therefore, the Agency
concluded that the COD effluent
limitations for the unbleached kraft
subcategory would be economically
achievable. See also section XIII of this
preamble for solicitation of comments
and data.
(6) Semi-chemical Subcategory,
Subpart F. The Agency today is
proposing BAT effluent limitations to
control COD. These COD limitations
were developed based on engineering
evaluation of the best methods to
control COD discharges. COD data are
not available for technologies that
control losses of pulping liquors and
wood extractives (e.g., BMPs, etc.) in
this subcategory that contribute to the
effluent toxicity discussed in section
IX.C. However, the Agency is
transferring data from the unbleached
kraft subcategory as the basis for the
proposed effluent limitations. The
pulping processes in the unbleached
kraft subcategory are similar to those
used in the semi-chemical subcategory,
and therefore the Agency has concluded
that the data transfer is appropriate. The
COD effluent data used to develop the
proposed effluent limitations, as
transferred from the unbleached kraft
subcategory, were supplied by mills
with their questionnaire responses.
The technology basis for the proposed
COD effluent limitations consists of
effective brownstock washing,
application of pulping liquor spill
prevention and control (BMPs), and BPT
level secondary treatment performance.
The first two technologies described
above focus on preventing or capturing
losses of pulping liquors and associated
wood extractives and returning them to
a heat or chemical recovery process.
Screening is usually omitted from semi-
chemical pulp mills. Therefore, closed
screen room operation is not included
as part of the technology basis for the
COD control at semi-chemical mills.
BPT level secondary treatment reduces
the biodegradable portion .of COD that
remains after process changes. The
Agency was not able to identify other
technologies for controlling COD, and
therefore concluded that this •
combination of technologies represent
the best available technology for the
control of COD.
The Agency considered the age, size,
processes, other engineering factors, and
non-water quality environmental
impacts pertinent to mills in this .
subcategory. No basis could be found for
identifying different COD effluent
limitations within .this subcategory
based on age, size, processes, or other
engineering factors. EPA has no data to
suggest that the combination of
technologies upon which COD effluent
limitations are based significantly
increase non-water quality
environmental impacts.
In addition, the Agency concluded
that the COD effluent limitations would
be achievable based on the control
technologies identified above. All costs
for complying with the proposed COD
effluent limitations, including the cost
of improved brownstock washing and
BMPs, were incorporated in the
economic impact analysis presented
below and in section XI.B. Compliance
with the proposed limitations is
estimated to result in removal of 60,700
metric tons per year of COD.
The Agency estimated that the total
annualized cost of BMP and COD
control would be approximately $7
million. The Agency projects no
incremental mill closures or
employment losses associated with
these costs. Therefore, the Agency
concluded that the COD effluent
limitations for the semi-chemical
subcategory would be economically
achievable.
4. New Source Performance Standards
a. Introduction. The Agency today is
proposing revised NSPS for the
following subcategories:
A. Dissolving Kraft
B. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
C. Unbleached Kraft
D. Dissolving Sulfite
E. Papergrade Sulfite
F. Semi-Chemical
G. Mechanical Pulp
H. Non-Wood Chemical Pulp
I. Secondary Fiber Deink
J. Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
K. Fine0and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp
L. Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
New mills have the opportunity to
incorporate the best available
demonstrated technologies, including
process changes, in-plant controls, and
end-of-pipe treatment technologies.
b. Definitions of New Source. EPA's
NPDES regulations define the term /
"new source" at 40 CFR 122.2 and
122.29. Pursuant to those regulations, to
be a "new source" a source must:
• Be constructed at a site at which no
other source is located,
• Totally replace the process or
production equipment that causes the
discharge of pollutants at an existing
source, or
• Be a process substantially
independent of an existing source at the
same site, considering the extent of
integration with the existing source and
the extent to which the new facility is
engaged in the same general type of
activity as the existing source. 40 CFR
122.29(b).
The application of these definitions to
particular permitting situations has
sometimes caused controversy. In the
pulp and paper industry, for example,
dischargers, permitting authorities and
others have sometimes disagreed
concerning a particular facility's status
as a "new source" under the foregoing
definitions. The determination can be
important, because new. sources are
generally subject to more stringent
limits than existing sources.
EPA today is proposing-supplemental
definitions of the term "new source,"
applicable to the effluent limitations
guidelines for the pulp and paper
industry only. These definitions would
supplement, rather than replace, EPA's
existing regulations defining the term
"new source" under the CWA. See 40
CFR 122.2 and 122.29. These definitions
are intended to be consistent with EPA's
existing regulations defining the term
"new source" under the CWA, and are
proposed in order to provide NPDES
permit writers and other interested
parties with more specific rules to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66117
follow in determining new source status
at SacViities in the pulp, paper and
paperboard industry. These proposed
definitions would not affect the
definition of "new source" for purposes
of the NESHAP portion of these
integrated rules.
The supplemental definitions EPA is
proposing today are as follows:
(1) The following are examples of
"new sources" within the pulp, paper
and paperboard industry:
(i) At chemical pulp mills with
bleaching operations (Subcategories A,
B, D and E): The construction, within
any five year period, of a new pulping
digester or pulping digester that
completely replaces an existing digester,
in combination with a new bleaching
facility or bleaching facility that
completely replaces an existing !
bleaching facility.
(ii) At existing chemical pulp mills
. without bleaching operations
(Subcategories C, F, and H) a new
pulping digester(s), or a new pulping
digester(s) that totally replaces existing
pulping digester(s).
(iii) At mechanical, secondary fiber,
and nonintegrated mills (Subcategories
G, I, J, K, and L): a new paper or
paperboard machine, or a paper or
paperboard machine that totally
replaces an existing paper or paperboard
machine.
(2) The following are examples of
changes that alone do not cause an
existing mill to become a "new source":
(i) Upgrades of existing pulping
operations; . .
(ii) Upgrades or replacement of pulp .
screening and washing operations;
(iii) Installation of oxygen
delignification systems or other post-
' digester, prebleaching delignification
systems; and,
(iv) Bleach plant modifications
including changes in method 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.
c. NSPS Options and Selection. (1)
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory, Subpart B.
EPA today is proposing New Source •
Performance Standards (NSPS) for 21 ,
toxic, nonconvehtional and.
conventional pollutants for the
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory.
These standards are based on the best.
available demonstrated control
technology, process, operating method,
or other alternative. In developing these
proposed standards, the Administrator
considered factors including the cost of
achieving effluent reductions, non-water
quality environmental impacts, and
energy requirements.
(i) Toxic and Nonconventional
Pollutants. EPA today is proposing New
Source Performance Standards for 19
toxic and nonconventibnal pollutants
for the papergrade kraft and soda
subcategory. In developing NSPS for the
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory,
EPA evaluated four technologies
described in section IX.E.3.C.l/The four
technologies are: (i) the option
described as "Option 4" (which is the
option selected as EPA's proposed
technology basis for BAT for this
subcategory); (ii) the option described as
"Option 5;" (iii) an ozone-based
bleaching technology currently being
implemented at a U.S. mill, and (iv) a
TCP technology currently being
Implemented at a U.S. mill. EPA is
today proposing the technology labeled
"Option 5" as the NSPS technology
basis for this subcategory.
EPA selected Option 5 as the
technology basis for NSPS in the
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory
because EPA believes that no available
technology achieves better control of
toxic and nonconventional pollutants.
The Agency's conclusions concerning
the pollution control capabilities of
Option 5 are based upon engineering
/judgment and the fact that Option 5
combines different pollution control
technologies not combined in any other
option. Specifically, Option 5 combines
both oxygen delignification and
extended cooking (followed by 100 i-
percent substitution of chlorine dioxide
for elemental chlorine). These are two
proven delignification technologies that
contribute to the control of toxics and
nonconventionals. Option 5 has been
implemented by at least two papergrade
kraft mills in the U.S. producing high
brightness market pulps (88-90 percent"
ISO) from softwoods. One of these mills
has supplied analytical data fpr.bleach
plant and end-of-pipe sampling points
largely identical in Scope (but shorter in
duration) and methods to the Agency's
longrterm study. The Agency is not
aware of any reason, based on principles
of science or technology, that the
combination of oxygen delignification
and extended cooking (followed by 100
percent substitution by chlorine dioxide
lor elemental chlorine) would produce
inferior pollution control than either
oxygen delignification or extended ,
cooking alone. The Agency notes that
the data described above do not confirm
the foregoing conclusion; indeed the •
data received show a few pollutants
(chloroform, MEK, 4,5;6^
trichloroguaiacol, AOX, COD, color)
present in slightly greater quantities at
a mill using Option 5 than at a mill
using Option 4. The Agency believes
that these results are attributable to site-
specific characteristics of the mills in
question and not attributable to any .
inherent differences between Option 4
and Option 5. The Agency is not •
proposing NSPS for some pollutants
where reliable data is not available in
this'subcategory, at this time
(chloroform, MEK, 4,5,6-
trichloroguaiacbl, AOX, COD, color),
and is soliciting additional data for this
technology as described in section XIII,
of this preamble. The data being used as
a basis for the proposed NSPS are
presented in the water technical
development document along with the
methodology for establishing numerical
limitations. • ,
In addition to the option selected,
EPA considered the same option
'described as "Option 4" in the s ,
discussion of the basis for the proposed ,
BAT limitations. EPA rejected this
option (extended cooking or oxygen "
•delignification1 with complete
substitution by chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine) because it does not
provide, based upon available data and
engineering judgment as discussed
above, the most stringent pollutant
reductions. The Agency believes this is
true because Option 4 neither provides
for as high a degree of lignin removal (as
measured by kappa numbers) or pulping
chemical recovery, nor provides for the
greatest reduction in bleaching chemical
usage as the selected option. • •
EPA also considered an ozone-based
process technology as a possible
technology basis for NSPS. This
- technology is currently being used in
the integrated mill segment of this
subcategory to produce pulps of
somewhat lower brightness (80-86
. percent ISO) than market pulps. The
process technology being considered is
based on oxygen delignification
followed by ozone bleaching, oxygen
and peroxide enhanced extraction,
followed by final chlorine dioxide
brightening as applied at a U.S. mill.
EPA did not select this option because
this process has only recently been
implemented and adequate data are not
available. However, the Agency recently
has cooperatively sampled this process
with assistance from the mill. Analytical
data from this mill not claimed-as
confidential business information now
are available and those-data, that have
been preliminarily analyzed for
acceptable performance of the-analytical.
methods, have been included in the
record of this proposed rulemaking.
Further thorough engineering and
statistical analysis of these data and any
• preliminary limitations that may be
appropriate will be made available at a
-------
66118
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
later date for review and comment. The
Agency further anticipates that
additional sampling and analysis of
wastewaters at this mill will be
undertaken at a later date to be
determined in concert with the mill.
Analysis of the cost and effluent
reductions achieved by this technology,
and the energy and non-water quality
environmental impacts will be
completed when appropriate.
Finally, the Agency considered a TCP
process technology that one U.S. mill is
currently in the process of
implementing for pulps of lower
brightness. This U.S. mill has
committed to installing a totally
chlorine-free (TCP) process. While the
details of this process are not yet
completed, the mill has committed to
producing and marketing a pulp with
brightness of 75-80 percent ISO by
1995. EPA did not select this option
because this process is still being
implemented and adequate data are not
available. The Agency has solicited trial
data from this mill in order to
characterize the wastewaters and
potential air emissions from this
process.
EPA considered the cost of the
proposed NSPS technology for new
mills. EPA concluded that such costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry, as demonstrated by the fact
that two currently operating mills are
using this technology. The Agency also •
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts for the selected NSPS option. In
light of the increased chemical recovery
and reduced operating costs for this
option, EPA concluded that the energy
and non-water quality impacts were no
greater and probably less than for the
selected BAT technology option.
The Agency is also proposing today to
include an alternative set of effluent
limitations applicable to any
wastewaters from TCP bleaching
processes at new source mills in this
subcalegory, EPA is proposing these
alternative limitations to provide mills
with an incentive to eliminate or nearly
eliminate the generation and discharge
of chlorinated organic pollutants by
using totally chlorine-free processes.
These mills would be required initially
to certify to the permitting authority that
their process is totally chlorine-free. The
alternative limitations applicable to the
wastewaters from TCP bleaching
processes would not include any
limitations on chlorinated organic
pollutants (i.e., TCDD, TCDF,
chloroform, methylene chloride,
chlorinated phenolic compounds) at the
bleach plant or end-of-pipe, except for
AOX. These mills would have
limitations only for AOX, and also
would have initial monitoring
requirements for specific toxic organic
pollutants (i.e., TCDD, TCDF,
chloroform, methylene chloride,
chlorinated phenolic compounds)
which could be terminated if all
analytical results in a specified series of
sampling events are non-detect.
(ii) Conventional Pollutants—EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for BODs and
TSS for the papeigrade kraft and soda
subcategory. Based upon data available
for this subcategory, the technology
basis for these standards represents the
most stringent demonstrated level of
performance for the control of BOD5 and
TSS in this subcategory.
EPA considered the cost of the
proposed NSPS technology for new
mills. EPA concluded that such costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry, as demonstrated by the fact
that oae currently operating mill is
using this technology. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts and found no basis for any
different standards than the selected
NSPS for conventional pollutants.
(2) Dissolving Kraft Subcategory,
Subpart A. EPA today is proposing New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for 22 toxic, nonconventional, and
conventional pollutants for the
dissolving kraft subcategory. These
standards are based on die best available
demonstrated control technology,
process, operating method, or other
alternative. In developing these
proposed standards, the Administrator
considered factors including the cost of
achieving effluent reductions, non-water
quality environmental impacts, and
energy requirements.
(i) Toxic and Nonconventional
Pollutants—EPA today is proposing
New Source Performance Standards for
20 toxic and nonconventional pollutants
for the dissolving kraft subcategory. The
technology basis for these performance
standards is the same technology
described as "Option 2" in the
discussion of proposed BAT limitations
for this subcategory (see discussion in
section IX.E.3.C.5). That option,consists
of the most stringent demonstrated
technology option for this subcategory.
The Agency is proposing control of
toxic or nonconventional pollutants
equal to BAT as NSPS for this
subcategory. The technology basis for
the proposed BAT effluent limitations
for the dissolving kraft subcategory
(oxygen delignification and 70 percent
substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine,, and elimination of
hypochlorite) was transferred from the
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory.
EPA believes, as described in the
development of BAT limitations, that
the transfer of technology from the
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory
to the dissolving kraft subcategory is
appropriate and applicable. Based on
the cost information available to EPA,
the Agency has no reason to believe that
the costs of this technology would be a
barrier to entry in the dissolving kraft
subcategory. The Agency considered
energy requirements and other non-
water quality environmental impacts for
the selected NSPS option. The energy
and non-water quality impacts were no
greater than for the selected BAT
technology option.
As noted in the discussion of the basis
for BAT for this subcategory, the Agency
received comments regarding the ability
of mills to maintain acceptable product
quality without the use of hypochlorite
to maintain intrinsic viscosity and other
product quality parameters. The Agency-
,is soliciting additional detailed data
from individual mills in order to
address this concern (see section XIII).
The Agency is also proposing today to
include an alternative set of effluent
limitations applicable to any
wastewaters from TCP bleaching
processes at new source mills in this
subcategory. EPA is proposing these
alternative limitations to provide mills
with an incentive to eliminate or nearly
eliminate the generation and discharge
of chlorinated organic pollutants by
using totally chlorine-free processes.
These mills would be required initially
to certify to the permitting authority that
their process is totally chlorine-free. The
alternative limitations applicable to the
wastewaters from TCP bleaching
processes would not include any
limitations on chlorinated organic
pollutants (i.e., TCDD, TCDF,
chloroform, methylene chloride,
chlorinated phenolic compounds) at the
bleach plant or end-of-pipe, except for
AOX. These mills would have
limitations only for AOX, and also
would have initial monitoring
requirements for specific toxic organic
. pollutants (i.e., TCDD, TCDF,
chloroform, methylene chloride,
chlorinated phenolic compounds)
which could be terminated if all
analytical results in a specified series of
sampling events are non-detect.
(ii) Conventional Pollutants—EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for BOD5 and
TSS for the dissolving kraft subcategory.
Based upon data available for this
subcategory, the technology basis for
these standards represents the most
stringent demonstrated level of
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December. 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66119
performance for the control of BOD5 and
TSS in this subcategory.
EPA concluded,that, because one
currently operating mill in this
subcategory has,demonstrated the
performance of the conventional
pollutant control technology, the costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry of a new mill. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts and found no basis for any
different standards than the selected
NSPS for conventional pollutants.
(3) Unbleached Kraft Subcategory,
Subpart C. EPA today is proposing New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for three nonconventional and
conventional pollutants for the
unbleached kraft subcategory. These
standards are based on the best available
demonstrated control technology,
process, operating method, or other,
alternative. In developing these "
proposed standards, the Administrator
considered factors including the cost of
achieving effluent reductions, non-water
quality environmental impacts, and
energy requirements..
(i) Nonconventional Pollutant—EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for the
nonconventional pollutant COD for the
unbleached kraft subcategory. The
technology basis for these performance
standards is the same technology
described in the discussion of proposed
BAT limitations for this subcategory
(see discussion in section IX.E.3.C.5).
That option consists of the most
stringent demonstrated COD control
technology option for this subcategory.
The technology basis for the proposed
COD effluent limitations consists of
effective brownstock washing, closed
brownstock pulp screen room operation,
application of pulping liquor spill
prevention and control (BMPs), and BPT,
level secondary treatment performance.
These technologies have been widely
demonstrated across chemical pulp
mills in this industry and are readily
incorporated in new mills in this
subcategory. The Agency was not able to
identify other technologies for
controlling COD, and therefore
concluded that this combination of
. technologies represent the best available
demonstrated technology for the control
of COD.
The Agency considered the age, size,
processes, other engineering factors, and
non-water quality impacts pertinent to
mills in this subcategory. The Agency
did not identify different COD effluent
limitations within this subcategory
based on age, size, processes, or other
engineering factors. The combination of
technologies upon which COD effluent
limitations are based do nq|,
significantly Increase non-water quality
environmental impacts.
EPA considered the cost of the ..
proposed NSPS technology for new
mills. EPA concluded that such costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry, as demonstrated by the fact
that currently operating mills are using
this technology. The Agency considered
energy requirements and other non-
water quality environmental impacts
and found no basis for any different'
standards than the selected NSPS.
(ii) Conventional Pollutants—-EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards7 for BODs and
TSS for the Unbleached Kraft
Subcategory. Based upon data available
for this subcategory, the technology
basis for these standards represents the
most stringent demonstrated level of
performance for the control of BODs and
TSS in this subcategory.
EPA concluded that, because one
currently operating mill in this ;
subcategory has demonstrated the
performance of the conventional
pollutant control technology, the costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry of a new mill. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts and found no basis for any
different standards than the selected
NSPS for conventional pollutants.
(4) Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory,
Subpart D. EPA today is proposing New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for 21 toxic, nonconventional and
conventional pollutants for the
dissolving sulfite subcategory; These •
standards are based on the best available
demonstrated control technology,
process, operating method, or other , :
alternative. In developing these
proposed standards, the Administrator
considered factors including the cost of
achieving effluent reductions, non-water
quality environmental impacts, and
energy requirements.
(i) Nonconventional Pollutant—EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for 19 toxic and
nonconventional pollutants for the
dissolving sulfite subcategory. In
developing NSPS for the dissolving
sulfite subcategory, EPA evaluated the
two technologies described in section.
IX.E.3.C.3. These two technologies are
oxygen delignification followed by
complete substitution of elemental
chlorine with chlorine dioxide ("Option
J.") and totally chlorine-free'bleaching
("Option 2").
1 EPA selected Option 1 as the -
technology basis for NSPS in the
dissolving sulfite subcategory because
EPA believes that no available
technology achieves better control of ;
toxic and nonconventional pollutants.
As set forth in Section IX.E.3.C.3,
information recently supplied by
dissolving sulfite producers raises.
questions concerning the ability of.
dissolving sulfite mills to meet, all
product specifications using Option 2
(TCP technologies). EPA does, however,
consider TCP to be an available
technology for many products within
this subcategory at this time. EPA
solicits comments and data on whether
this subcategory should be further
divided, based on product specifications
or otherwise^ for purposes of
establishing NSPS.
EPA considered the cost of the
proposed NSPS technology for new
mills. EPA concluded-that such costs
, are" not so great as to present a barrier
to entry, as demonstrated by the fact
that at least one currently operating U.S.
mill is using this technology.,The
Agency considered energy requirements
and other non-water quality
environmental impacts and'found no
basis for any different standards than
the selected NSPS.
The Agency is not proposing NSPS
limits for COD for this subcategory. COD
data that reflects available technologies
to control refractory pollutants that
originate'in the pulping and recovery
areas of mills (e.g., closed screen rooms,
BMPs, etc.) are not available at this time
for this subcategory. The methodology
for deriving COD limitations is
described in the preceding sections that
present the basis for BAT limitations for
the bleached, pap'ergrade kraft and soda .
subcategory, and the dissolving kraft
subcategory. See also Section XIII of this
preamble for solicitation of comments
and data. The Agency may develop COD
NSPS limits for this subcategory when
data become available. • ' - ,
(ii) Conventional Pollutants—EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for BOD5 and .
TSS for the dissolving sulfite
subcategory equal to the proposed BPT
effluent limitations. The basis for the
BPT effluent limitations developed by
EPA is described in section IX.E.l. '
EPA concluded for the dissolving
sulfite subcategory that the cost of
upgrading conventional pollutant
control technology would be
economically achievable, and that the
new conventional pollutant limitations
would be achievable at existing mills in
this subcategory. therefore, the Agency
concluded that the incremental cost for
installing this technology would be no
barrier to entry of a new mill in this
subcategory. The Agency considered
energy requirements and other non-
water quality environmental impacts
-------
66120
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
and found no basis for any different
standards than the selected NSPS for
conventional pollutants.
(5) Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory,
Subpart E. EPA today is proposing New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for four nonconventional and
conventional pollutants for the
papergrade sulfite subcategory. These
standards are based on the best available
demonstrated control technology,
process, operating method, or other
alternative. In developing these
proposed standards, the Administrator
considered factors including the cost of
achieving effluent reductions, non-water
quality environmental impacts, and
energy requirements.
(i) Nonconventional Pollutants—EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for two
nonconventional pollutants for the
papergrade sulfite subcategory. First, the
Agency is proposing control of the
nonconventional pollutant AOX equal
to BAT as NSPS for this subcategory.
The technology basis for the AOX
standard is totally chlorine-free process
technology, which is the same
technology described as "Option 2" in
the discussion of proposed BAT
limitations for this subcategory (see
discussion in section IX.E.3.C.4). That
option consists of the most stringent
demonstrated technology option for this
subcategory. New mills would have
initial monitoring requirements for
specific toxic organic pollutants (i.e.,
TCDD, TCDF, chloroform, methylene
chloride, chlorinated phenolic
compounds) which could be terminated
' if all analytical results in a specified
series of sampling events are non-detect.
EPA considered the cost of the
proposed NSPS technology for new
mills. EPA concluded that such costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry, as demonstrated by the fact
that currently operating mills in Europe
are using this technology. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts and found no basis for any
different standards than the selected
NSPS for conventional pollutants.
Mill-specific data received recently by
the Agency indicates.that certain of the
higher grade papergrade products may
not be made with acceptable quality by
TCP process technology. Papergrade
sulfite mills in the U.S. currently are not
using this technology for certain of the
products being made. However,
approximately ten mills in European
countries are utilizing TCP process
technologies. The Agency is soliciting
additional detailed data from individual
mills in order to address this concern.
See section XIII of this preamble.
EPA today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for the
nonconventional pollutant COD for the
papergrade sulfite subcategory. The
technology basis for this standard is the
same technology described in the
discussion of proposed BAT limitations
for this subcategory (see discussion in
section IX.E.3.C.4). That option consists
of the most stringent demonstrated COD
control technology option for this
subcategory. The Agency is proposing
control of the nonconventional
pollutant COD equal to BAT as NSPS for
this subcategory. The technology basis
for the proposed NSPS limitations
consists of effective brownstock
washing, closed brownstock pulp screen
room operation, application of pulping
liquor spill prevention and .control
(BMPs), and BPT level secondary
treatment performance. These
technologies have been widely
demonstrated across chemical pulp
mills in this industry and are readily
incorporated in new mills in this
subcategory. The Agency was not able to
identify other technologies for
controlling COD, and therefore
concluded that this combination of
technologies represent the best available
demonstrated technology for the control
of COD.
The Agency considered the age, size, -
processes, other engineering factors, and
non-water quality environmental
impacts pertinent to mills in this
subcategory. The Agency did not
identify different COD effluent
limitations within this subcategory
based on age, size, processes, or other
engineering factors. The combination of
technologies upon which COD effluent
limitations are based do not
significantly increase non-water quality
environmental impacts.
EPA considered the cost of the
proposed NSPS technology for new
mills. EPA concluded that such costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry, as demonstrated by the fact
that currently operating mills are using
these technologies. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts and found no basis for any
different standards than the selected
NSPS for conventional pollutants.
(ii) Conventional Pollutants—EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for BOD5 and
TSS for the papergrade sulfite
subcategory. Based upon data available
for this subcategory, the technology
basis for these standards represents the
most stringent demonstrated level of
performance for the control pf BOD5 and
TSS in this subcategory.
EPA concluded that, because one
currently operating mill in this
subcategory has demonstrated the
performance of the conventional
pollutant control technology, the costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry of a new mill. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts and found no basis for any
different standards than the selected
NSPS for conventional pollutants.
(6) Semi-Chemical Subcategory,
Subpart F. EPA today is proposing New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for three nonconventional and
conventional pollutants for the semi-
chemical subcategory. These standards
are based on the best available
demonstrated control technology,
process, operating method, or other
alternative. In developing these
proposed standards, the Administrator
considered factors including the cost of
achieving effluent reductions, non-water
quality environmental impacts, and
energy requirements.
(i) Nonconventional Pollutant—EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for the
nonconventional pollutant COD for the
semi-chemical subcategory. The
technology basis for these performance
standards is the same technology
described in the discussion of proposed
BAT limitations for this subcategory_
(see discussion in section IX.E.3.C.6).
That option consists of the most
stringent demonstrated COD control
technology option for this subcategory.
The technology basis for the proposed
COD effluent limitations consists of
effective brownstock washing,
application of pulping liquor spill
prevention and control (BMPs), and BPT
level secondary treatment performance.
These technologies have been widely
demonstrated across chemical pulp
mills in this industry and are readily
incorporated in new mills in this
subcategory. The Agency was not able to
identify other technologies for
controlling COD, and therefore
concluded that this combination of
technologies represent the best available
demonstrated technology for the control
of COD.
The Agency considered the age, size,
processes, other engineering factors, and
non-water quality impacts pertinent to
mills in this subcategory. The Agency
did not identify different COD effluent
limitations within this subcategory
based on age, size, processes, or other
engineering factors. The combination of
technologies upon which COD effluent
limitations are based do not
significantly increase non-water quality
environmental impacts.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 /, Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66121
EPA considered the cost of the
proposed NSPS technology for new
mills. EPA concluded that such costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry, as demonstrated by the fact
that currently operating mills are using
these technologies. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts and found no basis for any
different standards than the selected'
NSPS. . ':•
(ii) Conventional Pollutants—EPA
to.day is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for BODs and
TSS for the semi-chemical subcategory.
Based upon data available for this
subcategory, the technology basis for
these standards represents the most
stringent demonstrated level of
performance for the control of BODs and
TSS in this subcategory.
EPA concluded that, because one
currently operating mill in this
subcategory has demonstrated the
performance of the conventional
pollutant control technology, the costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry of a new mill. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts and found no basis for any
different standards than the selected
NSPS for conventional pollutants.
, (7) Mechanical Pulp Subcategory,
Subpart G. EPA today is proposing New
Source Performance Standards (NSPS)
for conventional pollutants for the
mechanical pulp subcategory. These
standards are based on the best available
demonstrated control technology,
process, operating method, or other
alternative. In developing these
proposed standards, the Administrator
considered factors including the'cost of
achieving effluent reductions, non-
water quality environmental impacts,
and energy requirements.
(i) Toxic ana Nonconventional' ;
Pollutants—NSPS for toxic and
nonconventional pollutants are not
being proposed pending further study.
See the solicitation of comments in
section XIII.
(ii) Conventional Pollutants—EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for BODs and
TSS for the mechanical pulp
subcategory. Based upon data available
for this subcategory, the technology
basis for these standards represents the
most stringent demonstrated level of
performance for the control of BODs and
TSS in this subcategory.
. EPA concluded that, because one
currently operating mill in this
, subcategory has demonstrated the-
performance of the conventional
pollutant control technology, the costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry of a new mill. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental,
impacts and found no basis for any
different standards than the selected .
NSPS for conventional pollutants.
(8) Non-Wood Chemical Pulp
Subcategory, Subpart H. EPA today is
proposing New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for conventional
pollutants for the non-wood chemical
pulp subcategory. These standards are
based on the best available
demonstrated control technology, .••
process, operating method, or other
alternative. In developing these
proposed standards, the Administrator
considered factors including the cost of
achieving effluent reductions, non-
water quality environmental impacts,
and energy requirements.
(i) Toxic and Nonconventional
Pollutants—As noted in section '
IX.C.2.C., EPA has received data
indicating the presence of certain toxic
chlorinated organic compounds due to
the use of limited bleaching processes at
mills in this subcategory. However, the
data are not sufficient to propose NSPS
for toxic and nonconventional >
pollutants at this time. See the,
solicitation of comments.in section Xni.
(ii) Conventional Pollutants—EPA
today is proposing.New Source
Performance Standards for BODs and
TSS for the non-wood chemical pulp
subcategory. Based upon data available
for this subcategory, the technology
basis for these standards represents the
most stringent demonstrated level of
performance for the control of BODs and
TSS,in this subcategory.
EPA concluded that, because one
currently operating mill in this
subcategory has demonstrated the
performance of the conventional
pollutant control technology, the costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry of a new mill. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts arid found no basis for any
different standards than the selected
NSPS for conventional pollutants..
(9) Secondary Fiber Deink
• Subcategory, Subpart I. EPA today is
proposing New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for conventional
pollutants for the secondary fiber deink
subcategory. These standards are based
on the best available demonstrated
control technology, process, operating -
method, or other alternative. In
developing these proposed standards,
the Administrator considered factors
including the cost of achieving effluent
reductions, non-water quality
environmental impacts, and energy • '
requirements.'
(i) Toxic and Nonconventfonal
Pollutants—As noted in section IX.G..
EPA has received data indicating the
presence of certain toxic chlorinated
organic compounds due to the use of
limited bleaching processes at mill? in
this subcategory. However, the data are
not sufficient to propose NSPS for toxic
and nonconventional pollutants at this
time. See the solicitation of comments
in section XIII. ...--. , ,
(ii) Conventional Pollutants—EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for BOD5 and .
TSS for the secondary fiber deink
subcategory. Based upon data available
for this subcategory, the technology
basis for these standards represents the
most stringent demonstrated level of .
performance for the control of BODs and
TSS in this subcategory.
EPA concluded that,'because one
currently operating mill in this
subcategory has demonstrated the
performance of the conventional
pollutant control technology, the costs
, are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry of a new mill. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts and found no basis for any
different standards than the selected
NSPS for conventional pollutants. , ' •. .
(10) Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Subcategory, Subpart J. EPA today is
proposing New .Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for conventional
pollutants for the secondary fiber non-
deink subcategory. EPA is also
proposing NSPS for toxic and
nonconventional pollutants for a
portion of this subcategory. These
standards are based on the best available
demonstrated control technology,
process, operating method, or other
alternative. In developing these
proposed standards, the Administrator
considered factors including the cost of
achieving effluent reductions, non-
water quality environmental impacts,
and energy requirements.. .. ,
For purpose's of these proposed NSPS,'
EPA divided this subcategory into two
segments. Segment A is comprised of
, those mills that produce paperbpard, ,
builder's paper or roofing felt. Segment
B is comprised of those mills that
produce other products. The decision to
segment this subcategory was based
upon EPA's finding that many mills
making paperboard, builder's paper or
roofing felt operate with zero discharge
of wastewater. EPA lacked reliable data
to indicate that mills producing other
products operated with zero discharge,
or that zero discharge of wastewaters
-------
66122
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
was a demonstrated technology for
producers of these other products.
According to the 1990 Census and
other information. EPA concluded that
21 mills in this subcategory operate
with zero discharge of process
wastewater. Of these 21 mills, 15 mills
manufacture paperboard from
wastepaper, and six mills manufacture
builders' paper and roofing felt. Zero
discharge is defined as a system where
the sum of fresh water and water
entering the system in raw materials is
equal to the sum of water exiting the
system via evaporation/vaporization,
water in the final product, and water
included in any rejects streams from
screening, including sludges.
Paperboard, Builders' Paper and
Roofing Felt Segment. This segment
includes production of paperboard and
builders' paper and roofing felt from
wastepaper that has not undergone
deinking processes. The Agency
developed and analyzed two regulatory
options for NSPS for this segment of the
Secondary Fiber Non-deink Subcategory
as follows:
Option 1: Secondary Treatment Performance
at the Level of the Best Mill in the Segment
Option 2: Zero Discharge of Wastewater
Achieved by 100 Percent Recycle of
Wastewater
The Agency is proposing Option 2,
zero discharge of wastewater achieved
by 100 percent recycle of wastewater,
for the Paperboard, Builders' Paper and
Roofing Felt Segment. The Agency
selected this option because (1) the
technology is demonstrated by a
significant number of mills as discussed
above, (2) the environmental benefit is
the greatest as a result of zero discharge
of TSS and BODs, and (3) the barrier to
entry costs are minimal because
increased costs to achieve 100 percent
recycle of wastewater are significantly
offset by reduced costs for raw water,
energy, and elimination of wastewater
treatment costs, when the recycle
equipment required is included in the
design and construction of a new mill.
Because 21 mills in this segment operate
with zero discharge of process
wastewater, the Agency concludes that
these costs do not present a barrier to
entry for a new mill. The Agency ,
rejected Option 1 because any discharge
of conventional pollutants is not as
stringent as a standard based on 100
percent recycle and no discharge of
process wastewater. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts and found no basis for any
different standards than the selected
NSPS for conventional pollutants.
Producers of Other Products from
Non-Deink Secondary Fiber Segment.
This segment includes production of
secondary fiber products that have not
undergone deinking processes, except
for production of paperboard, builders'
paper and roofing felt from wastepaper
that has not undergone deinking
processes. Data from EPA's 1990 Census
indicate that some mills in this segment
may achieve zero discharge through 100
percent recycle of wastewaters.
However, EPA was unable to confirm
this information or determine which
products are made by some mills in this
segment that may be achieving zero
discharge. EPA solicits comments and
data on the extent to which secondary
fiber nondeink mills other than those
making paperboard, builders' paper or
roofing felt are achieving zero discharge
through 100 percent recycle of
wastewater, and whether this
technology should serve as the
technology basis for NSPS for the entire
secondary fiber nondeink subcategory.
(i) Toxic and Nonconventional
Pollutants—EPA has received data
indicating the presence of certain toxic
chlorinated organic compounds due to
the use of limited bleaching processes at
mills in this segment of this
subcategory. However, the data are not
sufficient to propose NSPS for toxic and
nonconventipnal pollutants at this time.
See the solicitation of comments in
section XIII.
(ii) Conventional Pollutants—EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for BOD5 and
TSS for thi's segment of the secondary
fiber non-deink subcategory. Based
upon data available for this segment, the
technology basis for these standards
represents the most stringent
demonstrated level of performance for
the control of BODS and TSS in this
subcategory.
EPA concluded that, because one
currently operating mill in this
subcategory has demonstrated the
performance of the conventional
pollutant control technology, the costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry of a new mill. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non- water quality environmental
impacts and found no basis for any
different standards than the selected
NSPS for conventional pollutants.
EPA considered not segmenting this
subcategory, and proposing NSPS for
the entire Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Subcategory as zero discharge of
wastewater. This alternative was
rejected because the Agency does not
believe that this technology basis for
NSPS is adequately demonstrated for
producers of final products other than
paperboard, builder's paper or roofing
felt. EPA also considered not
segmenting this subcategory, and
proposing NSPS for the entire
Secondary Fiber Non-Deink Subcategory
as the most stringent demonstrated level
of performance for the control of BODs
and TSS at mills not achieving zero
discharge of wastewater in this
subcategory. This alternative was
rejected because the Agency believes
that zero discharge is a demonstrated
technology in a discrete segment of this
subcategory and that segmenting the
subcategory was feasible, from a
technical and administrative standpoint,
and would provide superior pollution
control.
(11) Fine and Lightweight Papers from
Purchased Pulp Subcategory, Subpart K.
EPA today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for
conventional pollutants for the fine and
lightweight papers from purchased pulp
subcategory. These standards are based
on the best available demonstrated
control technology, process, operating
method, or other alternative. In
developing these proposed standards,
the Administrator considered factors
including the cost of achieving effluent
reductions, non-water quality
environmental impacts, and energy
requirements. ,
(i) Toxic and Nonconventional
Pollutants—EPA is not proposing NSPS
for this subcategory for toxic and
nonconventional pollutants, pending
further study.
(ii) Conventional Pollutants—EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for BODj and
TSS for the. fine and lightweight papers
from purchased pulp subcategory. Based
upon data available for this subcategory,
the technology basis for these standards
represents the most stringent
demonstrated level of performance for
the control of BOD5 and TSS in this
subcategory.
, EPA concluded that, because one
currently operating mill in this
subcategory has demonstrated the
performance of the conventional
pollutant control technology, the costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry of a new mill. The Agency -
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts and found no basis for any
different.standards than the sejected
NSPS for conventional pollutants.
(12) Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Subcategory, Subpart L. EPA today is
proposing New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for conventional
pollutants for the tissue, filter, non-
woven, and paperboard from purchased
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday. December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66123
pulp subcategory. These standards are
based on the best available
demonstrated control technology,
process, operating method, or other
alternative. In developing these
proposed standards, the Administrator
considered factors including the cost of
achieving effluent reductions, non-water
quality environmental impacts, and
energy requirements.
(i) Toxic and Nonconventional
Pollutants—EPA is not proposing today
NSPS for toxic and nonconventional
pollutants pending further study.
(ii) Conventional Pollutants—EPA
today is proposing New Source
Performance Standards for BOD5 and
TSS for the tissue, filter, non-woven,
and paperboard from purchased pulp
subcategory. Based upon data available
"for this subcategory, the technology
basis for these standards represents the ,
most stringent demonstrated level of
performance for the control of BOD5 and
TSS in this subcategory.
EPA concluded that, because one
currently operating mill in this
subcategory has demonstrated the
performance of the conventional
pollutant control technology, the costs
are not so great as to present a barrier
to entry of a new mill. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts and found no basis for any
different standards than the selected
NSPS for conventional pollutants.
5. Pretreatment Standards for Existing
Sources
The Agency today is proposing to
establish pretreatment standards for
• existing sources (PSES) in the pulp,
paper and paperboard industry. These
standards would apply to all existing
mills in the bleached papergrade kraft
and soda, unbleached kraft, papergrade
, sulfite, and semi-chemical subcategories
that indirectly discharge wastewater to
publicly owned treatment works
(POTWs). There are a total of 13 indirect
discharging mills and associated
POTWs in these four subcategories, as
follows: nine mills in the bleached
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory;
one mill in the papergrade sulfite
subcategory; two mills in the
unbleached kraft subcategory; and one
mill in the semi-chemical subcategory.
The Agency is individually identifying
the 13 associated POTWs to facilitate
comment on these proposed PSES. The
13 POTWs are Gulf Coast Waste
Disposal Authority, Pasadena, Texas; _
- Muskegon County Wastewater
Management System, Muskegon,
Michigan; Upper Potomac River -,
Commission, Westernport, Maryland;
City of St. Helens, St. Helens', Oregon;
Jackson County Port Authority,
Pascagoula, Mississippi; Western Lake
Superior Sanitary District, Duluth,
Minnesota; Bay County Waste
Treatment Plant No. 1, Panama City,
Florida; Erie City Wastewater Treatment
Facility, Erie, Pennsylvania; City of Port
St. Joe Wastewater Treatment Plant, Port
St. Joe, Florida; Peshtigo Joint
Wastewater Treatment Facility,
Peshtigo, Wisconsin; Hopewell Regional-
Wastewater Treatment Facility,
Hopewell, Virginia; Macon-Bibb County
Water and Sewerage Authority, Macon,
Georgia; and Water Pollution Control
Plant, Pittsburgh, New York.
Pretreatment standards are
established to prevent pass-through of
pollutants from POTWs to waters of the
U.S., or to prevent pollutants from
interfering with the operation of
POTWs. CWA § 307(b). EPA is
establishing PSES for this industry to
prevent pass-through of the same
pollutants controlled by BAT from
POTWs to waters of the U.S.
a. Pass-Through Analysis. To
determine whether pollutants indirectly
discharged by mills in this industry
pass-through POTWs, EPA reviewed
sampling data for direct dischargers,
performance data for POTWs, and
technical literature. Based on .
preliminary review of circumstances, at
some of the POTWs receiving pulp and
paper mill effluent, and EPA's best
Engineering judgment, EPA concludes
that biological treatment systems at
these POTWs, while designed to
accommodate pulp and paper
wastewaters, are not designed to the
same standards as those installed and
operated at direct discharging mills.
Activated sludge systems and aerated
stabilization basin systems, as designed
and operated at direct discharging mills,
typically include substantially longer
detention times and other features that
in combination achieve greater removals
of BODS and TSS than are achieved at
POTWs receiving effluent from these
mills. This is evidenced by the fact that
the BPT and BCT effluent limitations
EPA is proposing for certain
subcategories are substantially more
stringent than the secondary treatment
effluent limitations applied to most
POTWs (30 mg/1 each of BOD5 and
TSS). Therefore, the Agency concludes
that BOD5 and TSS pass-through these
POTWs. Although the Agency is hot
, proposing pretreatment standards for
BODS and TSS today, EPA solicits
comments and data on whether
discharges of these conventional
pollutants should be addressed with
PSES and PSNS regulations.
In addition, the Agency concluded
that other pollutants, including AOX,
COD, and (for the bleached papergrade
kraft and soda subcategory only) color,
also pass-through POTWs. In part, this
is because these toxic and ,
nonconventional pollutants typically
are less biodegradable than the
conventional pollutant parameters
(BOD5 and TSS). For example,
biological treatment systems at direct
discharging pulp and paper mills (for
which EPA has data) remove
approximately 40 percent of the influent
AOX, which is representative of
chlorinated organic compounds. The" '
: literature indicates that the
biodegradability of certain chlorinated
. organic compounds varies in
comparison to AOX, but generally these
compounds are less biodegradable than
nonchlorinated biodegradable organic
matter measured as BOD5. The Agency
does not have detailed analytical data
from POTWs for these and other
pollutants of concern in this industry to
serve as the basis for a detailed,
quantitative pass-through analysis. -
However, in view of the lower removal
of conventional pollutants achieved at
POTWs in comparison to the removals
being proposed for direct dischargers in
this industry, the Agency concludes that
AOX, COD, and color (for the bleached
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory)
also pass-through these POTWs.
Because EPA believes that dioxin and
furan, and certain other pollutants,
cannot practicably or feasibly be
controlled with limits at the point of
discharge to the POTW, EPA is today
proposing PSES and PSNS limits for
those pollutants at the end of the bleach
plant. The Agency'^ sampling data show
that dioxins and furans can only be
effectively removed by process changes.
Dioxins and furans are known to
become associated with suspended ,
solids in process wastewaters. Internal
stream pretreatment technologies (e.g., •
ultrafiltration) and end-of-pipe
treatment technologies (e.g., chemical
precipitation and "clarification, and
filtration) are not capable of removing
sufficient quantities of total suspended
solids (TSS) to achieve the same bleach
plant or end-of-pipe dioxin and furan
concentrations (i.e., below detection
limits) as achieved through process
changes. Therefore, without process
changes and bleach" plant limits, dioxins
and furans would pass-through POTWs.
Moreover, removal of dioxin and furan -
from wastewaters using only end-of-
pipe treatment would substantially
increase, rather than decrease, the
dioxin and furan concentrations in
wastewater treatment system sludges,
thereby further limiting POTWs sludge .
disposal alternatives. Similarly, volatile
-------
66124
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
organic compounds, such as chloroform
(which is a hazardous air pollutant),
will be liberated from process
wastewaters to the atmosphere in
collection, conveyance, and aeration
systems, and thus are best removed in
bleach plants through process changes.
These circumstances lead to pass-
through and unacceptable non-water
quality environmental impacts on
sludges and air emissions. Moreover,
certain of the volatile organics are
hazardous air pollutants subject to
control under the Clean Air Act in this
integrated rulemaking. Because it is
neither practical nor feasible to set
limits for some pollutants at the point
of discharge to the POTW sewer, EPA is
proposing to set PSES limits for those
pollutants inside the mill, at the bleach
plant, in a similar fashion as proposed
today in revising BAT limits for the
direct discharging mills.
b. Options Considered. The first
option, which EPA is proposing today
as PSES, would set effluent limitations
on the same pollutants controlled with
BAT limits for direct dischargers, at the
point of discharge from the indirect
discharging mill to the industrial POTW
as well as at certain internal bleach
plant wastewater streams. These
limitations were developed based on the
same technologies as proposed today for
BPT and for BAT, as applicable to each
of the affected subcategories. PSES set at
these points would prevent pass-
through of pollutants, help control
sludge contamination and reduce air
emissions.
EPA estimated the cost of complete
secondary treatment facilities at the
indirect discharging mills, and where
necessary, the cost of primary treatment.
These costs were found to be
economically achievable. EPA did not
consider the availability of land for
installation of the secondary biological
treatment systems on a site-by-site basis
in developing these proposed PSES
regulations. EPA solicits comments and
data concerning the availability of
sufficient land for such treatment
systems at mills subject to these PSES
limits.
The Agency estimated the compliance
costs and economic impacts of process
changes, COD control, and BMP for each
of the mills subject to bleach plant and
final effluent pretreatment standards.
The summary of results presented here
is summed across indirect dischargers
in all subcategories. The estimated total
annualized cost for the selected options
is approximately $33 million. The
Agency estimated that these costs would
result in one plant closure. Additional
details are not reported in this section
because the level of data aggregation is
inadequate to protect confidential
business information. Additional
information is provided in the economic
impact analysis.
The Agency considered the age, size,
processes, other engineering factors, and
non-water quality environmental
impacts pertinent to mills in developing
PSES. The Agency did not identify any
basis for establishing different PSES
limitations based on age, size, processes,
or other engineering factors. EPA has no
data to suggest that the combination of
technologies upon which PSES
limitations are based significantly
increase non-water quality
environmental impacts.
EPA considered a second option in '
establishing PSES limits for today's rule.
This option may provide a more cost-
effective way of obtaining the effluent
reductions obtained under Option 1.
Under this second option, EPA would
establish PSES limits identical to those
established under the first option.
However, EPA would also provide that,
in the event the POTW receiving a mill's
discharge voluntarily accepted certain
limits in a legally enforceable NPDES
permit, that mill would no longer be
subject to those PSES limits that apply
at the mill's discharge to the POTW's
sewer. (The bleach plant limits would
still apply). The additional limits in the
POTW's permit would cover all
pollutants for which the mill would
otherwise have had PSES limits at the
point of discharge to the sewer, "and
would in each case need to be at least
as stringent as the BAT limits for the
pollutants in question applicable to
direct dischargers in the subcategory."
EPA's interest in this second
alternative is based in part on the fact
that, in the four subcategories for which
EPA is proposing PSES limits, all of the
affected POTWs receive a majority of
either flow, BODs loadings or TSS
loadings from pulp and paper mills. The
Agency refers to such POTWs as
"industrial POTWs." The Agency
believes that, in some cases, upgrading
of these "industrial" POTWs' secondary
biological treatment system would be
more cost-effective than installing a
complete biological treatment system on
the mill site. EPA also notes that, even
beyond these four subcategories, a very
large percentage of indirect-discharging
mills in this industry dominate the
POTWs into which they discharge (i.e.,
those mills contribute more than half of
the flow or BODS and TSS loadings of
the treatment works). In calculating'the
POTW's limits, the percentage of the
POTW's flow from domestic sources
and from industrial sources other than
pulp, paper and paperboard mills would
also be considered.
EPA notes that its secondary
treatment regulations provide, at 40 CFR
133.103, for adjustment of POTW BODs
and TSS effluent limitations in cases
where industrial effluent guidelines
include less stringent BOD5 and TSS .
effluent limitations than required by
secondary treatment. EPA solicits
comment on whether the regulations
should be amended to explicitly allow
for more stringent BODs and TSS
effluent limitations for industrial
POTWs in industries with effluent
limitations guidelines that include
BODs and TSS limits more stringent
than secondary treatment.
The Agency has developed costs for
upgrading the biological treatment
systems at each of the affected POTWs.
These costs are set forth in section IX.G.
The Agency also considered a third
option under which EPA would not
promulgate PSES limits for these mills.
Under this option, pretreatment
authorities would use best engineering
judgment to develop local limits for the
mills, and end-of-pipe limits for these
industrial POTWs. The Agency is
concerned that this would impose
difficult or unrealistic administrative
burdens on POTWs. This option also
may riot achieve the same levels of
discharge by the industrial POTWs as
for direct dischargers.
EPA solicits comments and data on all
three options described above. In
particular, EPA solicits comment.s and
data on any legal or practical issues
presented by the second option
described above, as well as any cost
savings that the second option might
provide.
c. Solicitation of Comments and Data
on Additional Subcategories. Beyond
the foregoing three options, EPA solicits
comments on whether the Agency
should develop PSES limits for
conventional pollutants in subcategories
other than the four in which the Agency
is today proposing PSES limits. The
conventional pollutant limitations for
direct dischargers proposed today in all
subcategories of the pulp and paper
industry are more stringent than EPA's
secondary treatment requirements for
POTWs. Therefore, the conventional
pollutants discharged from pulp and
paper mills would pass through POTWs.
The Agency has identified 19 additional
industrial POTWs in the pulp and paper
industry, in the following subcategories:
mechanical pulp; deink secondary
fibers; non-deink secondary fibers; fine
and lightweight papers from purchased
pulp; tissue, filter, non- woven, and
paperboard from purchased pulp. EPA .
further solicits comments on whether
any PSES limits should cease to apply
at mills discharging to those POTWs if
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66125
the POTW voluntarily accepted
sufficiently stringent limits on the
discharge of conventional pollutants in
its NPDES permit. The Agency believes
that upgrading of an industrial POTW's
secondary biological treatment system
might be more cost-effective than
installing a complete biological
treatment system at some mills.
See section XIII of this preamble for
solicitation ,of comments and data for
the proposed PSES.
6. Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources , s •
Section 307(c) of the Act requires EPA
to.promulgate pretreatment standards
for new sources (PSNS) at the same time
it promulgates new source performance
standards (NSPS). New indirect
discharging mills, like new direct
discharging mills, have the opportunity
to incorporate the best available
demonstrated technologies,- including
process changes, in-plant controls, and
end-of-pipe treatment technologies.
As set forth in section IX.E.5(a) of this
preamble, EPA determined that a broad
. range of pollutants discharged by pulp
and paper mills (including dioxins,
furans, AQX; BOD and TSS) pass-
through POTWs. The same technologies
discussed previously for BAT, NSPS,
and PSES are available as the basis for
PSNS.
EPA is proposing that pretreatment
standards for newssources be set equal
to NSPS for toxic and nonconventional
pollutants for the following
subcategories: papergrade kraft and
soda, dissolving kraft, papergrade
sulfite, dissolving sulfite, unbleached
kraft, and semi-chemical. The Agency is
proposing to establish PSNS for the
same pollutants and the same points of
application as are being proposed for
NSPS.
EPA considered the cost of the
proposed PSNS technology for new
mills. EPA concluded that such costs
are not so great as to present a barrier •
to entry, as demonstrated by the fact
that currently operating mills are using
these technologies. The Agency
considered energy requirements and
other non-water quality environmental
impacts'and found no basis for any •
different standards"than the selected
PSNS.
7. Best Management Practices
The Agency is proposing to require
mills to follow best management
practices (BMPs) to prevent, contain and
control spills of pulping liquors. These
BMPs would apply to mills in the
following effluent guideline.
subcategories: Dissolving Kraft;
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda;
Unbleached Kraft; Dissolving Sulfite;
Papergrade Sulfite; Semi-Gnemical, and
Non-Wood Chemical Pulp.
The practices proposed today as
BMPs are known to reduce the amount
of pulping liquor (e.g., "black liquor,"
"red liquor") discharged to wastewater
treatment systems, and to reduce the
cost of process operation through
increased chemical recovery. BMPs
would include:
• Employee training;
• Engineering analyses of problem
areas and appropriate prevention and
.control strategies;
. • Preventative maintenance;
• Engineered controls and
containment;
• Work practices; •
• Surveillance and repair programs;
• Dedicated monitoring and alarm
systems; and
• Record keeping to document
implementation'of these practices.
BMPs.would also include other
practices chosen from a "menu" of
practices that are applicablejo
individual mills or groups of mills, such
as: .
• Secondary containment diking
around pulping liquor and storage
tanks;
•'. Covered storage tank capacity for
collected spills and planned liquor
diversions;
• Automated spill detection systems,
such as high level, flow and .
conductivity monitors and alarms; and
• Backup equipment capacity to
handle process upset conditions. •
Losses of pulping liquors contribute
significant loads of BOD, COD, non-
chlorinated organic compounds, and
color. Pulping liquors have been
identified as a likely source of non- •
chlorinated organic compounds in
effluents that exhibit aquatic toxicity.
These liquors may contain specific toxic
pollutants among those listed under
sections 307(a) and 31i(e) of the CWA.
Naturally occurring phenolic
compounds are known from literature
sources to be present in these liquors,
including phenol (a 307(a)(l) toxic -
pollutant). EPA solicits data on the
specific compounds present in pulping
liquors.
Measures similar to the BMPs
proposed today have sometimes been
included as special conditions in
NPDES permits for pulp and paper •
mills. The BMPs proposed today are
similar to spill prevention, containment
and control (SPCC) plans for oil and
hazardous materials under Section 311
of the Clean Water Act. In view of the
rapidly changing processes and the
nature of the toxic and nonconventional
pollutants discharged by this industry,
EPA is proposing that BMPs be included
as special conditions in NPDES pertnits.
The Agency is proposing that mills be
required to submit a BMP plan within
120 days of promulgation of this rule to
EPA (or the state permit authority) for
approval. The Agency also is proposing
that each mill be required to implement
the BMP plan within 24 months of
promulgation of these rules, and to
review and update the plan every three
years thereafter. •
,F. Determination of Long-Term
Averages, Variability Factors, and
Limitations . : •'
The effluent limitations in today's
notice are based on statistical
procedures that estimate long-term
averages, variability factors, and effluent
limitations and standards. Effluent
• limitations and standards are provided
as daily maximums and monthly
averages for continuous direct
.- dischargers and as annual averages or
daily maximums for the non-continuous
direct dischargers. The following
sections describe the statistical
methodology used to develop long-term
averages, variability factors, and ,
limitations for BPT, BCT| BAT, PSES,
and standards for new sources.
, 1. Long-Term Averages, Variability
Factors, and Limitations for BPT
The long-term averages, variability
factors, and limitations were based upon
biochemical oxygen demand (BODS) and
total suspended solids (TSS) '
concentrations, flow rates, and total
annual production reported in the 1990 -
Census.
The EPA used the total annual
production for 1989 as a normalizing^
parameter for the monthly average mass
loadings provided by each mill in the
1990 Census. The long-term averages for
the BOD5 and TSS production
normalized mass loadings were
calculated for each mill by'
arithmetically averaging its monthly
average loadings. For all subcategories
except the dissolving sulfite •
subcategory, the long-term averages that
were used in developing the limitations
were the averages of the long-term
averages from the best 50 percent of the
mills in each subcategory. The
methodology used to develop the BOD5
and TSS long-term averages for the
dissolving sulfite subcategory is
described in the technical water
development document. •• .••
The daily variability factor is the ratio
of the estimated 99th percentile of the
distribution of daily values divided by
the expected value, or mean, of'the
distribution of the daily data. The •
monthly variability factor is the
-------
. I • , ,• r • , ^
66126 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
estimated 95th percentile of the
distribution of monthly averages of the
data divided by the expected value of
the monthly averages. The number of
measurements used to calculate the
monthly averages corresponds to the
number of days that the pollutant is
expected to be monitored during the
month. BODs and TSS are expected to
be monitored daily; therefore, the
monthly variability factor was based
upon the distribution of 30-day
averages.
The daily and monthly variability
factors were calculated using daily
measurements of BODs and TSS
concentrations, daily flow
measurements, and total annual
production from selected mills in each
subcategory with the BPT technology
basis. In general, the data were from the
best 50 percent of the direct discharge
mills in each subcategory as determined
by BODS loadings, where those mills
had a minimum of 85 percent of their
production in one subcategory.
Additional selection criteria were that
daily data were available, and that all of
the current subcategories within the
proposed subcategories were
represented whenever possible.
The daily BODS and TSS
concentrations, the daily flow, and total
annual production were used to
calculate the daily production
normalized mass loadings for BODs and
TSS. The statistical analysis of the daily
mass* loadings indicated that positive
autocorrelations exist between values
measured on consecutive days for both
BODs and TSS. When data are said to
be autocorrelated, it means that
measurements taken at different time
periods are similar. For example,
measurements taken on a daily basis of
treated final effluent are often correlated
from one day to the next. When the data
are positively autocorrelated, the
average has greater variance than an
average of independent measurements.
The average of positively autocorrelated
measurements is not affected by the
autocorrelation; therefore, long-term
averages do not require adjustment for
any autocorrelation in the data. The
autocorrelation was incorporated into
the development of the variability
factors by using a time series analysis,
as described in the statistical support
document.
The variability factor for each
subcategory was the average of the
variability factors for the selected mills
in the subcategory. The statistical
support document lists these variability
factors and provides a detailed
description of the methodology used to
develop the limitations and variability
factors.
The BODs and TSS limitations for
each subcategory, as presented in
today's notice, were developed using
the long-term average and the variability
factor for the subcategory. The daily
maximum limitation for continuous
dischargers for each subcategory is the
product of the long-term average and the
daily variability factor for that
•subcategory. The monthly average
limitation for continuous dischargers for
each subcategory is the product of the
long-term average and the monthly
variability factor for the subcategory.
The annual average limitation for non-
continuous dischargers has been set
equal to the long-term average.
2. Long-Term Averages, Variability
Factors, and Limitations for BAT
The long-term averages, variability
factors, and limitations were developed
using pollutant concentration data, flow
rates, and brownstock pulp production
rates.
When concentrations for a pollutant
were all reported as being below the
sample-specific detection limit in data
representing a technology option, EPA
set the daily maximum limitation for
continuous and non-continuous
dischargers to be equal to the minimum
level in concentration units for the
analytical method that is specified in
the proposed regulation ("ND
limitation"). For one case where the
dataset had only one detected value (all
other measurements were below
detection), the EPA set the daily
maximum limitation to be an ND
limitation. This one detected value was
reported with a concentration value less
than the minimum level for the
analytical method for the pollutant.
When the daily maximum limitation is
an ND limitation (i.e., equal to the
lowest measurable value for the
pollutant), the monthly average
limitation for continuous dischargers
' and the annual average limitation for
non-continuous dischargers are nof
necessary.
The estimation of the AOX daily
maximum limitation for totally
chlorine-free processes is described in
Section 1X.E.3. In all other cases, the
limitations were developed as described
below and are provided in production
normalized mass unit's in the proposed
regulation. The production normalized
pollutant mass loadings were calculated
using the concentration values, the flow
rate at each sampling point, and the
brownstock pulp production.
The EPA proposes to regulate some
pollutants in the effluent from the
bleach plant and some pollutants in the
final effluent (as described in section
IX.E.3). For the mills representing the
recommended options, the acid and
alkaline streams were discharged
separately from the bleach plant.
Limitations were estimated for the acid
and alkaline streams separately and
then summed to provide one limitation
for each pollutant for the bleach plant
effluent.
The long-term averages and the
variability factors for the pollutants
were determined by Titling a modified
delta-lognormal distribution to the data
from the mills representing the options.
The modified delta-lognormal
distribution and the reasons for its
selection are explained in more detail in
the statistical support document.
The long-term average of a pollutant
for the data from each mill representing
an option was estimated by the me^n of
the modified delta-lognormal ,
distribution when the data met the
criteria of a minimum of four
observations with a minimum of two
measured ("non-censored") values. .
When a dataset had less than four
observations, the long-term average was
the arithmetic average of the pollutant
mass loadings. The statistical support
document describes the derivation of
long-term averages for the remaining
cases where the dataset had more than
four observations and less than two non-
censored values. • j
The long-term average for a pollutant
in an option was based upon a weighted
• average of the long-term averages from
the mills that represented the option.
The weighted average was calculated
using weights equal to the square root •
of the sample size of the data from each
mill.
As described in section 1X.F.1, the
daily variability factor is the ratio of the
estimated 99th percentile of the
distribution of daily values.divided by
the expected value, or mean, of the
distribution. The monthly variability
factor is the estimated 95th percentile of
the distribution of the monthly averages
of the data divided by the expected
value of the monthly averages. The
number of measurements used to ,
calculate the monthly averages
corresponds to the number of days that
the pollutant is expected to be
monitored during the month. For
example, the toxic volatile compounds
are expected to be monitored once a
week (which is approximately four
times a month); therefore, the monthly
variability factor was based upon the
distribution of four-day averages. Color,
COD, and AOX are expected to be
monitored daily; therefore, the monthly
variability factor was based upon the
distribution of 30-day averages. The
chlorinated phenolic compounds,
TCDD, and TCDF are expected to be
-------
Federal Register 7 Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules. 66127
monitored monthly; therefore, only the
daily maximum limitation applies for
continuous dischargers.
The percentiles used to develop the
variability factors for the data from each
mill representing an option were based
upon the modified delta-lognormal
distribution when the data met the
criteria of a minimum of four"
s observations with a minimum of two
non-censored values. In most cases, this
criteria was met by only one mill in
each option, and the data from the one
mill determined .the variability factor for,
.the option. The variability factors are
provided in the statistical support
document. ,
The daily maximum' limitation for
continuous dischargers of a pollutant in
each option was estimated by the
product of the long-term average and the
daily variability factor. The monthly
average limitation for continuous
dischargers of a pollutant in each option
was estimated by the product of the
long-term average and the monthly
variability factor for those pollutants
that are expected to be monitored more
than once a month. The daily maximum
limitation for non-continuous
dischargers applies only when the .
limitation has been set equal to the
minimum level in concentration units
for the analytical method. In all other
cases, the annual average limitation for
non-continuous dischargers applies.'
The annual average limitation has been
set equal to the long-term average.
The EPA believes that there are likely
to be positive autocorrelations between
values measured on consecutive days
for AOX, COD and color. As explained
in section IX.F.l, when data are
positively autocorrelated, the average
has greater variance than an average of -
independent measurements. Because
these measurements are expected to be
monitored on a daily basis, the EPA
believes that the variability factors
should account for the autocorrelation
in the data. The EPA has incorporated
the autocorrelation into the variability
factors for COD. However, the EPA did
not have enough AOX arid color data to
estimate the autocorrelation in daily
measurements of AOX and color for the
proposal. Section XIII, Solicitation of
Comments, requests daily
measurements for AOX, COD, and color.
These data will be used to evaluate the
autocorrelation.
3. Long-Term Averages, Variability
Factors, and Standards for New Sources
For all subcategories except the
dissolving sulfite subcategory,
performance standards for new sources
for BODS and TSS are based on the data
from the best mill in each subcategory.
In general, the best mill was selected by
considering the BOD5 treatment
performance. The methodology used to
develop the BOD5 and TSS long-term
averages for the dissolving sulfite
'subcategory is described in the technical
water development document. For all
other subcategories, the long-term
averages were estimated using the
average of the monthly average loadings
reported in the 1990 Census by the best
mill in the subcategory. The variability
factors were developed using the daily
concentration and flow data from the •-
best, mill when these data were provided
to,the EPA- The estimation of these
variability factors used the same
methodology as described in section .
IX.F.l'for BPT limitations. When the
best mill had not provided daily data,
the EPA used the variability factors
developed for the BPT limitations to
estimate the performance standards for
new sources. The daily maximum and
monthly average standard for ,
continuous direct dischargers in each
subcategory was the product of the long-
term average and the appropriate daily
or monthly variability factor: The
annual average limitation for non-
continuous dischargers was set equal to
the long-term average.
Performance standards for new
sources for toxic and nonconventional
pollutants for the bleached papergrade
kraft and soda subcategory were
estimated using the same methodology
described in section IX.F.2 for BAT
limitations.
G. Costs
The Agency estimated the cost for the
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry to
achieve each of the effluent regulations
proposed today. These estiinated costs
^ are summarized in this section and
discussed in more detail in the technical
water development document. All cost
estimates in this section are expressed
in 1991 dollars. The cost components
reported in this section are engineering
estimates of the investment cost ofL
purchasing and installing equipment
and the annual operating and
maintenance costs associated with that
equipment. In sections IX.E and XI.B, a
different cost component, total
anoualized cost, is reported. The total
, annualized cost, which is used to
estimate economic impacts, better
describes the actual compliance cost
that a company will incur, allowing for-
interest, depreciation, and taxes. A
summary of the economic impact
analysis for the proposed regulation is
contained in Section XI.B of today's
notice. See also the economic impact
analysis.
l.BPTCosts , '
The Agency estimated the costs of
implementing BPT with a mill-specific
engineering cost assessment. If a mill's
1989 discharges of both BOD5 and TSS,
as reported in the questionnaire, were
less than the long-term average loads
achievable by the technology basis for
today's proposed BPT, the mill was
estimated to have ho compliance costs.
If a mill's BODs or TSS load exceeded
the BPT long-term average load, load
reductions that would result from the
implementation of BAT, MACT
standards, and BMP were subtracted
from the current discharge load. If the
resulting BOD5 or TSS load still , :••
exceeded the BPT long-term average
load, costs for in-plant flow reduction
and/or treatment system upgrades were
estimated/The capital expenditures,for
BPT are estimated to be $337 million, ^
with annual operating and maintenance
(O&M) costs of $29 million. The
estimated cost for implementing BPT is
summarized, by subcategory, in Table
IX.G.1-1. ,
2. BAT and BMP Costs '
The Agencytestimated the costs of
implementing BAT, which has two cost
components—process changes and COD
control—and the additional cost for best
management practices (BMP). The.
engineering cost assessment for BAT
process changes began with a null?
specific review of pulping and
bleaching technologies. If, as of January
1,1993,'the Agency determined that a
mill was using the technology^ basis for ,
today's proposed BAT, the Agency :
assumed the mill would incur no costs
to achieve BAT. If a mill did not have
BAT operations in place, costs to
modify the mill's operations to achieve
BAT were estimated. The Agency
believes that.this approach
overestimates the costs to achieve BAT
because many mills can achieve BAT •
level discharges without using all of the
components.of the technology basis
described in section IX.E. The Agency
solicits comment on these costing
assumptions. The capital expenditures
for the process change component of
BAT are estimated to be $2.16 billion
with annual O&M costs of $18 million.
-------
66128 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday. December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IX.G.1-1.—COST OF IMPLEMENTING BPT" REGULATIONS
[In millions of 1991 dollars]
Subcategory 2
Dissolving Kraft ...
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite
Papergrade Sulfite
Semi-Chemical .'.
Mechanical Pulp .
Nonwood Chemical Pulp
Secondary Fiber Deink .
Secondary Fiber Non-deink .... • , •
Fine and Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-woven, and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Industry Total
Number
of mills 3
on
7'
OA
ICQ
QC
11°
325
Capital
costs
3.2
120
35
22
19
5.9
20
3.5
337
Annual
O&M
costs
0.08
10
3.7
2.7
0.7
0.6
1.8
0.04
1.4
2.5
2.1
2.8
29
sX '"wwimi ana ena-oi-pipe ireaimem system cosis.
=Costs for mills with operations in more than one subcategory have been apportioned based on annual production (OMT1
a Number of mills with any production to which BPT would apply.
The costs of most of the technologies
that form the basis for COD control were
estimated as part of BAT, BPT, or BMPs.
The Agency estimated the costs of COD
control for the technologies that were
not already included in previous cost
estimates: screen room closure for mills
in the dissolving kraft, bleached
papergrade kraft and soda, unbleached
kraft, and papergrade sulfite
subcategories, and good brownstock
washing for mills in the semi-chemical
subcategory. The Agency determined
the status of screen rooms at mills from
the questionnaire. If a mill already had
a closed screen room, the Agency
assumed the mill would incur no costs
for COD control above the costs for
BAT, BPT, and BMP. If a mill had an
open screen room, the capital costs to
close the screen room were estimated.
The Agency assumed that the net
annual O&M costs for screen room
closure were zero, because the new
equipment would replace existing
equipment and would require equal or
lower O&M expenses. For semi-
chemical mills, the Agency determined
which mills had inadequate brownstock
washing from information in the
questionnaire, and the capital and O&M
costs of a brownstock washing upgrade
were estimated for those mills. The
capital expenditures for the COD
controls are estimated to be $237
million with annual O&M costs of $1.2
million.
The Agency estimated the cost of
implementing BMP based on a mill-
specific assessment of the current status
of management practices. For the kraft
segment of the industry./the Agency
estimated that one-third of the mills
have systems equivalent to the proposed
BMPs in place; one-third require
moderate upgrades; and one-third
require major upgrades. Based upon
examples of recent installations of
pulping liquor spill prevention and
control systems, the Agency estimated
that kraft mills that require major
upgrades would incur an average capital
expenditure of $1.5 million, with
annual O&M savings of $500,000, while
kraft mills that require moderate
upgrades would incur an average capital
expenditure of $750,000, with annual
O&M savings of $250,000. Mills with
complete implementation of BMPs were
assumed to have no additional capital
costs; annual O&M savings were also
assumed to be zero. The cost savings are
expected due to savings in chemicals,
energy, and wastewater treatment. A
similar approach was,used to estimate
the cost of implementing BMP at other
subcategories, except that annual O&M
was not estimated to result in a net cost
savings. The capital expenditures for
BMP are estimated to be $76 million,
with annual Q&M savings of $19
million.
Table IX.G.2-1 summarizes, by '
subcategory, the capital expenditures
and annual O&M costs for implementing
BAT process changes, COD controls,
and BMP.
-------
«~H«»Rr , Vol. 58. No: 241 / Friday. December. 1993 / Proposed Ku.es
TABUE .X G 2-1 -COST OF
» MDUC1 l/x.v««*- ••
IMPLEMENTING BAT i AND BMPs FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS
Subcategory:
Dissolving Kraft ""
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Unbleached Kraft
Dissolving Sulfite -; •
Papergrade Sulfite • "
Semi-Chemical •
Nonwood Chemical Pulp
Industry Total ^-...:.;;.:;;;::::^^irrrrr^r_, —
>
• —" ••
—— • — '
- • "
Number
of mills 3
3
78
56
5
10
20
7
178
..
Capital
costs
139
*1 948 "
125
110
104
42
1.8
2,473
Annual O&M costs
(savings)
(10)
12
(8.0)
(13)
17
2.1
0
- (0.2)
production
3. PSES Costs
The Agency considered three factors
in estimating costs for PSES: process
changes, COD control, and BMP. The
Aeency estimated the cost for
implementing PSES with the same
assumptions and methodology used to
estimate BAT process changes, COD
control, and BMP costs for direct
dischargers. The capital expenditures
for the process change component ol
PSES are estimated to be $235 million
with annual O&M costs of $2.2 million.
The capital expenditures for the COD
controls are estimated to be $29.4
million with annual O&M costs of
$50,000i The capital expenditures for
BMP for indirect dischargers are
estimated to be $11 million, with annual
O&M savings of $2.7 million.
These costs were estimated for the 18
mills that would be regulated by PSES
and BMPs for indirect dischargers.
These costs are not reported by
subcategory because the level of data
aggregation is insufficient to protect
confidential business information.
As discussed in section IX.E., the
Agency is proposing end-of-pipe PSES
equivalent to end-of-pipe BAT for
several pollutants. The technology basis
for end-of-pipe PSES for these
pollutants is secondary wastewater
treatment. These costs were estimated
using the same methodology used to
estimate BPT costs.
Section IX.E explains why the Agency
believes this is not a likely treatment
decision for an indirect discharger but
for purposes of achievability analysis,
the Agency includes these secondary
treatment costs. The capital ^
expenditures for all indirect dischargers
to achieve end-of-pipe PSES are
estimated to be $66 million with annual
O&M costs of $5.7 million. The total
capital expenditures for all components
(process changes, COD controls, BMP,
and end-of-pipe treatment) of PSES are
estimated to be $342 million with
annual O&M costs of $5.2 million.
As discussed in section IX.E., the
Agency is soliciting comment on an
alternative approach to establishing
end-of-pipe PSES on-site at the facility.
Under this alternative approach, certain
mills would not be subject to the PSES
limits if the POTWs into which they are
discharging voluntarily accept certain
limits in their NPDES permits. The
Agency estimated the cost for these
POTWs to achieve limits comparable to
these PSES limits, based on the costs the
Agency estimated for similarly-sized
mill treatment systems to be upgraded
to today's proposed BPT. The capital
expenditures for industrial POTWs to
achieve limits comparable to these PSES
limits is estimated to be $6.1 million
with annual O&M costs of $0.6 million.
reduced by recycle and reuse, pollutants
are typically concentrated in the
remaining waste streams. This is
advantageous, from a treatment -
standpoint, because more concentrated
pollutants can be removed more '
efficiently in wastewater treatment.
Additional information on the
methodology used to estimate the
pollutant reductions resulting from the
implementation of effluent limitations is •
included in Section 9 of the technical
water development document and in the
public record for this proposal.
1. Conventional Pollutant Reductions
For each subcategory, the Agency
developed an estimate of the long-term
average production normalized mass
loading (LTA) of BODs and TSS that
would be discharged after the
H. Pollutant Reductions
The Agency estimated the reduction
in the mass of pollutants that would be
discharged from pulp and paper mills
after the implementation of the
regulations being proposed today. The
reduction in pollutant mass is
attributable both to process changes and
improved end-of-pipe treatment.
Process changes that form the
technology basis of BAT and PSES
reduce the formation of certain
pollutants; that is, these process changes
prevent pollution. Other process
changes, including wastewater recycle
practices that are. part of the BPT -
technology basis and BMP, reduce
pollutant discharges by diverting certain
waste streams from wastewater
treatment. The pollutants contained in
these diverted waste streams may be
captured in the product, recovered for
reuse, routed to on-site combustion
where they are destroyed while their
heating value is recovered, or eventually
discharged to wastewater treatment in
other wastewater streams. When
wastewater discharge volumes are
implementation of BAT, BMP, MACT,
and BPT. The reduction in the mass of
BODs and TSS achieved was estimated
on a mill-specific basis. The BPT LTA
was multiplied by each mill's 1989
production for all subcategories present
at the mill. The total mill BPT mass was
subtracted from the 1989 discharge of
BODs and TSS (as reported in the
questionnaire), to estimate the mill's
pollutant reduction. To calculate a total
subcategory pollutant reduction, the
pollutant reduction achieved by each
multi-subcategory mill was apportioned
to each subcategory, present at the mill
on the basis of production. The Agency
estimates that the proposed regulations
will reduce BOD5 discharges by
approximately 94,500 metric tons per
year. Of the total BODs pollutant
reduction, approximately 12,300 metric
tons per year (13 percent) results from
implementation of BAT; approximately'
12,500 metric tons per year (13 percent)
results from implementation of
NESHAP; approximately 5,090 metric
tons per year (5 percent) results from
implementation of BMP; and
approximately 64,700 metric tons per
-------
66130 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday. December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
year (69 percent) results from
implementation of BPT. TSS discharges
will be reduced by approximately
128,000 metric tons per year. All TSS
pollutant reductions result from
implementation of BPT. Table IX.H.l-l
is a summary of the estimated
conventional pollutant reductions that
will result from implementation of BAT,
BMP, NESHAP, and BPT.
2. Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutant
Reductions
a. Methodology. The proposed BAT
and PSES limitations will control the
discharge of toxic and nonconventional
pollutants. These limitations and
standards will be applied at two control
points: The combined discharge from
the bleach plant and the treated final
effluent discharge. The Agency
developed an estimate of the long-term
average production normalized mass
loading (LTA) of several pollutants that
would be discharged from each of these
control points after the implementation
of BAT and PSES. These pollutants
consisted of three groups of chlorinated
compounds (chlorinated phenolic
compounds, chlorinated dioxins and
furans, and the chlorinated volatile
organic compounds chloroform and
methylene chloride), two
nonchlorinated volatile compounds
(acetone and methyl ethyl ketone), and ,
two aggregate pollutant parameters
(AOX and COD). The specific pollutant
, compounds are listed in section IX.C.
Using a methodology similar to that
used to estimate BPT pollutant
reductions, the BAT pollutant
reductions were estimated on a mill-
specific basis. The BAT or PSES LTA,
multiplied by each mill's 1989
production or more recent production, if
available, was subtracted from an
estimate of the mill's baseline pollutant
loading. Baseline pollutant loadings
were estimated for both the bleach plant
effluent and final effluent control points
using data collected by the Agency in
the snprt- and long-term sampling
programs and data supplied by the
industry. Only data believed to be
representative of the mill's operations as
of January 1,1993 were used. For many
mills, data were not available for all
pollutants of concern. For those mills,
baseline discharge loads were estimated
from mills with similar pulping and
bleaching operations. Very few data
were available to represent baseline
bleach plant discharge loads of
chlorinated phenolic compounds. For
these pollutants, the Agency has not
estimated bleach plant pollutant
reductions achievable by BAT or PSES.
Also, standardized data were not
available to represent baseline color
loadings, and the Agency has not
estimated the reduction in color
discharges that would result from BAT
or PSES.
TABLE IX.H.1-1.—REDUCTION IN AN-
NUAL DIRECT DISCHARGE OF CON-
VENTIONAL POLLUTANTS AFTER IM-
PLEMENTATION OF BAT, BMP,
NESHAP, AND BPT REGULATIONS
[In metric tons per year]
Subcategory '
Dissolving Kraft
Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda . ..
Unbleached Kraft . ..
Dissolving Sulflte
Papergrade Sulfite ..
Semi-Chemical
Mechanical Pulp
Nonwood Chemical
Pulp
Secondary Fiber
Deink
Secondary Fiber
Non-deink .. ..
Fine and Lightweight
Papers from Pur-
chased Pulp
Tissue, Filter, Non-
woven, and Paper-
board from Pur-
chased Pulp
Industry Total ....
BOD5
2,240
43,700
12,300
12,900
5.540
2,330
3,750
217
2240
3310
2,770
3,300
94,500
TSS
3,640
56,500
13,600
23,000
7,210
2,700
6,860
208
3570
4590
3,880
2400
128,000
1 Reductions for mills with operations in
more than one subcategory have been appor-
tioned based on annual production (OMT) in
the subcategories to which each regulation ap-
plies.
b. Bleach Plant Discharge. All
reductions in bleach plant pollutant
loadings result from tie process changes
that are the technology bases for both
BAT and PSES. As noted above, the
process changes reduce the generation
of pollutants of concern. Export vectors
for pollutants generated in the bleach
plant are the pulp itself, air emissions
and wastewater streams discharged to
treatment. In the treatment system, some
pollutants are biodegraded, while others
(particularly TCDD and TCDF) partition
between the treated wastewater and
biological sludges. The Agency
estimated the reduction in the annual
bleach plant discharge of regulated
pollutants to account for the reduction
in pollutants generated (other than those
that may be exported in pulp). For the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory, bleach plant discharge of
TCDD and TCDF was estimated to be
reduced by 517 g/yr, and the discharge
of AOX was estimated to be reduced by
43,800 kkg/yr. Reduced generation of
volatile compounds will lower both
bleach plant discharges and air
emissions. For example, for the
bleached papergrade kraft and soda
subcategory, the bleach plant effluent
discharges of chloroform, methylene
chloride, acetone, and methyl ethyl
ketone decrease by 2,160 kkg/yr. The
Agency does not have sufficient bleach
plant baseline data to accurately
quantitate the reductions in the other
three subcategories but has determined
that the reductions will follow similar
trends. The reductions discussed in c
and d, below, and shown in Table
IX.H.2-1 only account for the
reductions in the pollutant loads
discharged in treated wastewater, only a
portion of the total reduction in
pollutants generated.
c. Direct Mill Discharges (BAT). The
Agency estimates that proposed BAT
regulations will reduce direct mill
discharge of the combined mass of two
dioxin compounds, TCDD plus TCDF,
by 354 grams per year. Discharge of
AOX is estimated to be reduced by
40,800 metric tons per year. The
estimated reductions in pollutants
directly discharged in treated final
effluent resulting from implementation
of BAT are listed in Table IX.H.2-1.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 /Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66131
TABLE IX H 2-1 —REDUCTION IN MILL DIRECT DISCHARGE OF PRIORITY AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS AFTER
IMPLEMENTATION OF BAT REGULATIONS
Subcategoryi
(Units)
Dissolving Kraft ' •*• * •
1 Inhloarhorl Kraft ' '. .'. ••
Semi-Chemical - '•—
Total Industry r • •
TCDD and
TCDF .
(gW
26.3
317
0
2.41
8.16
0
354
Volatile com-
pounds 2
(kkg/yr).
12.6
1,060
0
53.8
21.7
•' o
1,150
Chlorinated
phenolic
compounds a
(kkg/yr)
3.52
1,470
0
2.41
18.7
0
1,490
AOX
(kkg/yr)
1,670
32,900
0
1,010
5,250
0
40,800
COD .
(kkg/yr)
8,560
1,110,000
326,000
0
200,000
60,700
, 1,700,000
2 Total mass of chloroform, methylene chloride, acetone, and MEK.
s Total mass of compounds listed in IX.C. ,
d. POTW Effluent Discharge (PSES).
In section IX.E., the Agency identifies
and solicits comment on an alternative
procedure for establishing PSES. The
alternative suggests that PSES be
transferred to POTWs at which 50
percent or more of the total flow or
BOD5 load or TSS load is derived from
sources in the pulp, paper, and
paperboard category. The Agency
estimated the reduction in pollutants
discharged from such POTWs resulting
from the potential transfer of PSES, as
follows. The Agency first estimated the
mass of each pollutant of concern that
is currently discharged from the
industry source to the POTW.For ....
conventional pollutants, the 1989 mass
discharges reported to the Agency in the
questionnaire were used. For toxic and
nonconventional pollutants, each mill's.
baseline discharges were estimated by
the methodology described above. Final
effluent loadings for the upgraded
POTWs were estimated assuming the
performance of the POTW secondary
treatment systems was equivalent to
'those at direct-discharging pulp mills
meeting the proposed BPT level of
control. The result was an estimate of
the current POTW discharge of the
pollutants of concern. Next, the Agency •
estimated the POTW discharge of
pollutants of concern after transfer of
PSES limitations. The Agency estimates
that discharges of AOX from POTWs
will be reduced by 4,250 metric tons per
year. The combined mass of two dioxin
compounds, TCDD and TCDF,
discharged from POTWs will be reduced
by 49 grams per year. Discharge of
chlorinated phenolic compounds will
be reduced by 26 metric tons per year.
Discharge of volatile compounds will be
reduced by 132 metric tons per year.
Discharge of COD will be reduced by
106 metric tons per year. Discharge of
BOD5 and TSS will be reduced by 3,320
and 1,190 metric tons per year,
respectively.
/. Regulatory Implementation
1. Applicability
The regulations proposed today are
just that—proposed regulations. As
such, though they represent EPA's best
judgment at this time, they are not
intended to be relied upon by permit
writers in establishing effluent
limitations. The technology basis
described in today's notice and the
proposed effluent limitations included
in today's action are provided for public
comment.
2. Upset and Bypass Provisions
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 of the permittee.
EPA's regulations concerning bypasses
and upsets are set forth at 40.CFR
122.41.
3. Variances and Modifications
,a. Introduction. In addition to
specifying national goals for water
pollution control, the CWA provides a
mechanism for modifying some
requirements of the CWA in exceptional
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 /Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed'Rules
Section 306 of the Water Quality Act
of 1987 amended Sec. 301 of the CWA
oy adding a new subsection (n) for PDF
variances. Section 306 provides a
statutory basis for PDF variances from
BAT, BCT, and PSES. The provisions of
section 301 (n) include four criteria for
approval of BAT, BCT, and PSES PDF
variances. In addition to the provisions
of 301(n), the EPA regulations at 40 CFR
Part 403.13 provide that an FDF
variance may be granted when there are
factors present at a specific Industrial
user (IU) that are fundamentally
different from the factors the EPA
considered during the development of
the Standards. These regulations detail
the substantive factors used to evaluate
FDF variance requests for indirect
dischargers.
40 CFR 403.13(d) establishes six
factors which are used to determine if
an IU is fundamentally different. The
Agency must determine whether, on the
basis of one or more of these factors, the
facility in question is fundamentally
different from the facilities and factors
considered by EPA in developing the
applicable Pretreatment Standards. In
addition to the six factors that may be
considered in granting variances, 40
CFR § 403.13(e) lists four factors that
may not be the basis for an FDF
variance. Other provisions relating to
application deadlines and procedures
for processing variances are also
contained in the regulations in 40 CFR
part 403.
The legislative history of Section
301(n) states that the FDF variance
applicant has the burden of proving
eligibility for an FDF variance.
Similarly, 40 CFR § 125.32(b)(l)
specifically imposes the burden upon
the applicant to show that the factors
relating to the discharge controlled by
the applicant's permit which are
claimed to be fundamentally different,
are, in fact, fundamentally different
from those factors considered by the
EPA in establishing the applicable
guidelines. Similarly, 40 CFR
§403.13(h)(9) specifically imposes upon
the applicant the burden of
demonstrating that the factors relating to
the HJ's pollutant limitations in the
Pretreatment Standard which are
claimed to be fundamentally different
are, in fact, fundamentally different
from those factors considered by EPA in '
establishing the applicable Standard.
c. Economic Variances. Section 301(c)
of the CWA provides for a variance for
nonconventional pollutants for BAT
effluent guidelines due to economic
factors. The request for the variance
from effluent limitations developed
from BAT guidelines is normally filed
by the discharger during the public
notice period for the draft permit. Other
filing time periods may apply, as
specified in 40 CFR 122.21(1)(2).
Specific guidance for this type of
variance is available from EPA's Office
of Wastewater Enforcement and
Compliance.
d. Water Quality Variances. Section
301(g) of the CWA provides for a
variance for certain nonconventional.
pollutants from BAT effluent guidelines
due to localized environmental factors.
These pollutants include ammonia,
chlorine, color, iron, and total phenols.
e. Permit Modifications. After the
final permit is issued, the permit may
still need to be modified. In a permit
modification, only the conditions
subject to change are reconsidered while
all other permit conditions remain in
effect. 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. 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.
4. Relationship of Effluent Limitations
to NPDES Permits and Monitoring
Requirements
Effluent limitations act as a primary
mechanism to control the discharges of
pollutants to waters of the United
States. These limitations are applied to
individual mills through NPDES
permits issued by the EPA or authorized
States under section 402 of the Act.
The Agency has developed the
limitations and standards for this
proposed rule to cover the discharge of
pollutants for this industrial category. In
specific cases, the NPDES permitting
authority may elect to establish
technology-based permit limits for
pollutants not covered by this proposed
regulation. In addition, if State water
quality standards or other provisions of
State or Federal Law require limits on
pollutants not covered by this regulation
(or require more stringent limits on
covered pollutants), the permitting
authority must apply those limitations.
For determination of effluent limits
where there are multiple products or
multiple categories and subcategories,
the effluent guidelines are applied using
a production-weighted combination of
the appropriate guideline for each
category or subcategory. Where a facility
has added a new bleach line in
conjunction with existing bleach lines,
the effluent guidelines would also be
applied by using a production-weighted
combination of the NSPS limit for the
new line and the BAT and BCT
standards to the existing lines to derive
the limitations. However, as stated
above, if State water quality standards
or other provisions of State or Federal
Law require limits on pollutants not
covered by this regulation (or require
more stringent limits on covered
pollutants), the permitting authority
must apply those limitations regardless
of the limitation derived using the
production-weighted combinations.
For non-continuous discharging
plants, EPA is today proposing that
NPDES permit authorities and
pretreatment authorities apply the mass-
based annual average end-of-pipe •
effluent limitations or standards. A non-
continuous discharger is a mill that does
not discharge wastewater during
specific periods of time for reasons
other than treatment plant upset, such
periods being at least 24 hours in
duration. An example of a non-
continuous discharger is a plant where
wastewaters are routinely stored for
periods in excess of 24 hours to be
treated on a batch basis.
EPA has learned of specific situations
during scheduled maintenance
shutdowns or during activities
associated with the closure of.a mill,
when mills may sewer a variety of
materials as a means of disposal. Some
mills have recently acknowledged that
they regularly sewer white, green, and
black liquors, sodium hydroxide, acids,
bleaching solutions, other feedstock
chemicals, sludges, and dregs.
The effluent guidelines for the pulp
and paper industry that are being
proposed today are for the discharge of
process wastewaters directly associated
with the day-to-day manufacturing of
pulp or paper. The Agency recognizes
that scheduled maintenance and
shutdowns are necessary for the safe
and efficient operation of a mill.
However, the Agency does not consider
the discharges described above to be of
process wastewaters. Any pulp or paper
mill wishing NPDES authorization to
discharge any non-process wastestream
such as those referred to above must
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66133
speciSicany d\sc\ose this in Us permit
application. If the permitting authority
wishes to authorize this discharge, the
permit must specifically authorize the.
discharge of the specified non-process
wastestream. The effluent limitations in
the permit must also reflect a separate
analysis, done by the permitting
authority on a best professional
judgment basis, of the levels of
pollutants in such non-process
wastestreams that are commensurate
with the application of BPT, BCT, and
BAT. Caution should be exercised in
permitting such discharges. Facility
treatment systems may not be designed
to accommodate these types of materials
and their discharge could adversely
impact the treatment system and
receiving waters.
Working in conjunction with the
effluent limitations are the monitoring
conditions set out in a NPDES permit.
An integral part of the monitoring
conditions are the monitoring points.
The point at which a sample is collected
can have a dramatic effect on the
monitoring results for that facility.
Therefore, it may be necessary to require
internal monitoring points in order to
assure compliance. Authority to address
internal waste streams is provided in 40
CFR 122.44(i)(l)(iii) and 122.45(h).
Today's proposed integrated rule
establishes several internal monitoring
points to ensure compliance with both ,
the MACT .standards and the effluent
guideline limitations. Permit writers
may establish additional internal
monitoring points to the extent
consistent with EPA's regulatipns.
5. Best Management Practices
In addition to pollutant-specific
effluent limitations guidelines and
standards, the EPA is proposing best
management practices (BMP) pursuant
to Section 304(e) of the Clean Water Act.
BMPs are different from effluent limits
principally because BMPs are specific
requirements for conduct, not
performance standards. When the EPA
sets effluent limits, those limits may be
achieved by any technology a discharger
may choose. However, when the EPA
establishes BMPs under Section 304(e)
of the CWA, and those BMPs are
incorporated into a discharger's permit,
the discharger must perform those
specific BMPs. The fact that a discharger
met all its effluent limits would not be
a defense, if the discharger were charged
with a permit violation for failing to
perform its BMPs.
The proposed BMPs are applicable to
all chemical-pulp mills in the following
subcategories: dissolving kraft (Subpart
A), bleached papergrade kraft and soda
(Subpart B), unbleached kraft (Subpart
C) dissolving sulfite (Subpart D),
papergrade sulfite (Subpart E), semi-
chemical (Subpart F), and nonwood
chemical pulp mills (Subpart G). The
principal focus of the BMPs are
.prevention and control of losses of
pulping liquors from spills, equipment
leaks, and intentional liquor diversions
from the pulping and chemical recovery
processes. More information related to
the BMPs is outlined in Section IX.E.7
and in the technical water development
document.
The EPA believes these BMPs are
important because: (1) Losses of pulping
liquor are not recognized process
wastewaters and contribute significant
portions of untreated wastewater
loadings and discharge loadings of
color, oxygen demanding substances,
and non-chlorinated toxic compounds
from chemical pulp mills; (2) pulping
liquor spills and intentional liquor
diversions are a principal cause of
upsets and loss of efficiency of .
biological wastewater treatment systems
that are nearly universally used for
treatment of chemical pulp mill
wastewaters; (3) prevention and control
of pulping liquor losses is a form of
pollution prevention that will result in
less demand for pulping liquor make-up
chemicals; energy efficiency through
recovery of liquor solids; more effective
and less costly wastewater treatment
system operations; and reduced
formation Of wastewater treatment
sludges; and (4) control of pulping
liquor losses will result in reduced
atmospheric emissions of total reduced
sulfur (TRS) from kraft mills and
hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) from all
chemical pulp mills.
6. Analytical Methods
Sec. 304(h) of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) directs the EPA to promulgate
guidelines establishing test procedures
(methods) for the analysis of pollutants.
These methods are used to determine
the presence and concentration of''
pollutants in wastewater, and for
compliance monitoring. They are also
used for filing applications for the
National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program
under 40 CFR 122.41(j)(4) and
122.21(g)(7), and under 40 CFR 403~.7(d)
for the pretreatment program.
The EPA has promulgated analytical
methods for monitoring discharges to
surface water at 40 CFR part 136, and .
has promulgated methods for
parameters specific to a given industrial
category and for other purposes at parts
400-480 of 40 CFR. In today's proposed
• rule, EPA is providing notice of
methods that have not been
promulgated at 40 CFR part 136. Those
methods are presented in "Analytical
Methods for the Determination of
Pollutants in Pulp and Paper Industry
Wastewater," a compendium of
analytical methods. These methods
would be promulgated at 40 CFR part
430 to support regulation 6f discharges
in the pulp, paper, and paperboard
industrial category.
Method 1613 is applicable to the
determination of tetra through octa
chlorinated dioxins and furaris in water,
soil, sludge and other matrices. It
employs high resolution capillary
column gas chromatography (HRGC)
combined with high resolution mass "
spectrometry (HRMS) to separate and
quantify dioxins and furans. Detected
dioxins and furans are quantified by the
isotope dilution technique. Although
Method 613 has been promulgated at 40
CFR part 136 for the analysis of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzp-p-dioxin, Method
' 16i3 is the basis for measurement for
the proposed effluent guidelines.
Method 1613 has the advantage of much
lower detection limits than Method 613.
Further, Method 1613 provides the
ability to determine all 2,3,7,8-
substituted chlorinated dioxins and
furans, while Method 613 is specific to
the determination of 2,3,7,8-TCDD.
Aqueous samples are prepared by
passage through a 0.45 micron filter that
is extracted with toluene in a Soxhlet/
Dean-Stark (SDS) extractor. The filtrate .'
is extracted with methylene chloride in
a separatory funnel. Extracts from the
SDS extractor and separatory funnel are •
combined and concentrated. Extracts,are
then subjected to a variety of cleanup
procedures to remove interfering
contaminants prior to injection of the
sample extract into the HRGC/HRMS.
Method 1650 is applicable to the
determination of adsorbable organic
halides in water and wastewater.
Results are reported as organic chloride.
The concentration of organic halides is
determined by adsorption onto granular
activated carbon, removal of inorganic
halides by washing, and combustion of
the organic halides to form hydrogen
halide. Subsequent titration with a
micro-coulometer quantifies the organic
halides, which are not speciated by this
procedure. . j
Method 1624 is applicable to the
determination of volatile pollutants in
water and wastewater for the proposed
effluent guidelines. It employs gas
chromatography 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 compounds by a stream
of inert gas into the gaseous phase
-------
66134
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
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. The sensitivity of
tms method is sufficient to detect and
quantify volatile organics at parts per
billion (ppb) levels in environmental
samples. This method is the only
method promulgated in 40 CFR part 136
that provides analysis for all four of the
regulated volatile pollutants.
Method 1653 is designed to determine
chlorinated phenolics (chlorinated
phenols, guaiacols, catechols, vanillins,
syringaldehydes) and other compounds
that are amenable to in-situ acetylation,
extraction, and analysis by high
resolution GC combined with low
resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/
LRMS). This method .is applicable to
water and wastewater samples.
Although methods other than method
1653 have been promulgated at 40 CFR
part 136 for some of the regulated
analytes (e.g., pentachlorophenol), only
method 1653 may be used for
monitoring because of the sensitivity of
this method. Chlorophenolics are
converted in-situ to acetate derivatives
which are extracted with hexane,
concentrated, and injected into the
HRGC/LRMS where separation and
detection occur. Detected chlorophenols
are quantified by isotope dilution if a
labeled analog is available. Where
labeled analogs are not available,
detected chlorophenols are quantified
by the internal standard technique.
Methods 410.1 and 410.2 are two of
several methods allowed for
determination of chemical oxygen
demand (COD) in water and wastewater.
Other methods allowed for the
determination of COD in this industry
are those in 40 CFR part 136 that use
analytical technologies equivalent to the
technologies used in EPA methods
410.1 and 410.2, specifically oxidation
by potassium dichromate and titration
with ferrous ammonium sulfate, as
described below. Other methods for
COD that are intended for brines (e.g.,
EPA method 410.3) that are interfered
with by color (e.g., EPA method 410.4)
and the methods in 40 CFR part 136
equivalent to these methods are
specifically not allowed for monitoring
pulp and paper wastewaters. Method
410.2 is specific for levels of COD less
than 50 mg/L, and Method 410.1 for
levels greater than 50 mg/L.
NCASI Method 253 is applicable to
the measurement of water and
wastewater color. It is designed
specifically for measurement of color in
pulping and bleaching effluents. Color
is determined by spectrophotometric
comparison of the sample with known
concentrations of colored solutions after
the sample is first filtered and pH
adjusted to 7.6. EPA has supplemented
NCASI method 253 with quality control
procedures and specifications similar to
those in other highly developed
wastewater methods, and requires the
use of these procedures and the meeting
of the added specifications in
monitoring color in wastewaters in this
industry.
X. Development of Air Emission
Standards
A. Selection of Source Category and
Pollutants for Control
1. Source Category Covered by Standard
Section 112 of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requires that national emission
standards for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) be promulgated for categories
of major sources of hazardous air
pollutants (HAPs). Major sources are
defined as those that emit or have the
potential to emit at least 10 tons per
year of any single HAP or 25 tons per
year of any combination of HAPs.
On July 16,1992, EPA promulgated
•the initial list of categories of stationary
sources that emit one or more of the 189
HAPs (57 FR 31576). The category of
pulp and paper production was
included in that list of categories of
major sources of HAP emissions. The
pulp and paper source category was
described to include integrated mills,
non-integrated mills, and secondary
fiber mills. As indicated in the July 1992
Federal Register notice, the final
description of each source category is
developed as part of the regulatory
development process for establishing
the NESHAP.
The draft schedule (57 FR 44147,
September 24,1992) for the
development of NESHAP published
under the authority of Section 112(e)
would require promulgation of '
standards for the pulp and paper source
category no later than November 15,
1997. EPA expects to promulgate this
NESHAP in 1995, consistent with the
requirement of CAA § 112(e)(l) that the
Agency "promulgate
regulations ... as expeditiously as
practicable."
The standards proposed today would
regulate HAP emissions from mills that
chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft,
sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical
methods. Approximately 161 mills
would be affected by today's proposed
NESHAP. Today's standards are limited
to the non-combustion emission points
in the pulping and bleaching processes
and in the process wastewater collection
and treatment systems associated with
these processes. Specific emission
points are discussed in Section X.B.
Based upon available information, EPA
believes all sources that chemically
pulp wood fiber within the category of
pulp and paper production are major
sources and, therefore, would be subject
to the standards.
The standards proposed today do not
include HAP emission points within all
areas of the source category. For
example, HAP emissions from
combustion sources, from wood yards, '
and from papermaking areas of mills are
not addressed in today's proposal. The
standards do address those areas of the
source category that offer the best
opportunity for integration with the
effluent guidelines also being proposed
today.
Adequate data were not available to
evaluate potential controls for emission
points within the pulp and paper source
category not addressed in today's
proposal. Standards for the remaining
portion of the source category will be
proposed separately. EPA plans to
propose standards for the combustion
emission points at chemical pulping
processes approximately one year after
today's proposal and promulgate these
standards together with the standards
for the noncombustion points.
2. Subcategorization
A subcategory is a distinct group of
sources within a source category.
Section 112 of the CAA provides for, but
does not require, the development of
standards for distinct subcategories
within the source category. EPA has the
discretion to determine whether to
subcategorize. For today's proposed
NESHAP, EPA is not proposing to
. subcategorize the pulp and paper •
production source category. The reasons
for not subcategorizing are discussed in
section X.D.2.
3. Pollutants Covered
Section 112(b) of the GAA lists 189
chemicals, compounds, or groups of
chemicals identified as HAPs, and
provides EPA with authority to modify
that list. Emissions from pulping,
bleaching, and wastewater processes
typically include a mixture of HAPs.
The major HAPs (in terms of mass)
emitted from these processes that would
be controlled by the standards proposed
today include methanol, hexane,
toluene, methyl ethyl ketone,
chloroform, chlorine, formaldehyde,
acrolein, and acetaldehyde. Emission
estimates for these and.other individual .
HAPs, as well as additional pollutants
that are not HAPs, are presented in the
background information document
(BID).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66135
The control technologies being
considered for today's proposed
standards remove multiple HAPs.
Today's proposed regulations limit total
HAP emissions because they are
technology-based standards that do not
distinguish among individual HAPs
according to.particular characteristics,
such as toxicity. In addition, analytical
methods are not available for each
individual HAP, but are available for
those compounds believed to represent
the majority of total HAP emissions.
Therefore, today's proposed regulations
limit total HAP emissions. This
approach will achieve the maximum
reduction in hazardous air pollutant
emissions. " '
EPA considered, but rejected,
proposing regulations to limit emissions
of a few individual HAPs of concern
(e.g., chloroform and chlorine) in
'addition to aggregate HAPs. This
consideration is further discussed in
Section X.D.4, which presents the
maximum achievable control
technology (MACT) floor level control
technology. Because, the control -
technologies differ in the amount of
specific HAPs they reduce, EPA solicits
comment on setting regulations to limit
emissions of both total HAP and one or
more individual HAPs.
Many of the HAPs emitted from the
pulp and paper source category are also
volatile organic compounds (VOC).
Although the air emission standards
being proposed today do not require
control of VOC emissions, the control
technologies upon which these
standards are based also significantly
reduce VOC emissions. Emissions of
' VOC are of concern because, among
other reasons, they contribute to ozone
formation. Air emissions of total -
reduced sulfur (TRS) compounds from
pulping processes and process
wastewater streams are also controlled
with the HAP and VOC. Emissions of
TRS produce foul odors.
B. Selection of Emission Points
The air emission points selected for
today's proposed regulations include all
significant points in the pulping and
bleaching processes and in the process,
wastewater collection and treatment
systems. The pulping process, emission
points include all open process
equipment and vents associated with
pulping process equipment, beginning
with the digester, and up to and
including the last piece of pulp
conditioning equipment prior to
bleaching. These last pieces of pulp
conditioning equipment generally serve
1 the purpose of removing dirt, fines, and
, shives from the washed pulp and
thickening of the pulp prior to
bleaching. The emission points within
the pulping process include;,but are not
limited to, those listed in Table'£-1.
The bleaching process emission
points include all open process
equipment and,vents associated with
each bleaching stage where oxidizing
chemicals are used to delignify and
brighten the pulp. This definition
includes, but is not limited to, oxygen
delignification stagesvpre-chlorination
stages, chlorine and chlorine dioxide
stages, and totally chlorine^free stages
such as ozonation, oxygen, and peroxide
stages. Common emission points within
the bleaching stages include tower ^
vents, open washers and washer vents,
and seal tank vents.
TABLE X-1— LIST OF COMMON PO-
TENTIAL .EMISSION POINTS WITHIN
THE PULPING PROCESS
. Digester relief vents
Turpentine recovery system vents
Digester blow gas vents .
Noncondensible gas system vents
Knotter '• «
Brownstock or pulp washer
Washer foam tanks '
Washer filtrate tanks
Decker
Screen
Weak black liquor storage tank
Evaporator noncondensible gas vent
Evaporator hotwell gas vent
Different technologies are effective for
controlling halogenated and
nonhalogenated compounds. The
selection of the floor level of control
technology, discussed in Section X.D.4,
is in part a function of whether
halogenated compounds are emitted.
Halogenated compounds are1 present in -
air emissions from bleaching processes
where chlorine and chlorine-containing
compounds are applied, but are not
emitted from pulping processes.
Therefore, for the purpose of the air
emission standards being proposed
today, the pulping component (as
opposed to the pulping process) shall be
defined to include all process
equipment beginning with the digester
system and up to and including the last
piece of pulp conditioning equipment
prior to the bleaching component. The
bleaching component (as opposed to the
bleaching process) shall be defined to
include all process equipment ,
beginning with the first application of
chlorine or chlorine-containing
compounds up to and including the
final bleaching'stage. Treatment with
ozone, oxygen, and peroxide may occur
before or after the addition of chlorine.
If treatment occurs before this chlorine
addition, these stages are included in
the pulping component; if .treatment
occurs after the addition of chlorine,
these bleaching stages are included in
the bleaching component. This
delineation of the pulping and .the
bleaching components corresponds to
the MACT floor level of control.
The process wastewater component
includes air emissions from all process
wastewater streams produced from the
pulping and bleaching processes.
Process wastewater streams commonly
produced from pulping processes
include digester condensates (e.g.,
digester blow gas eondensates, non-
eondensible gas (NCG) system.
condensates, digester relief .
condensates), decanted waste waters
from turpentine recovery systems, and
evaporator condensates. The process
wastewater streams associated with
bleaching processes include acid and
caustic filtrates from all bleaching •
'stages. The air emission release points
in the process'wastewater'collection and
treatment system include individual.
drain systems, which are comprised of •
equipment such as open trenches,
drains, manholes, junction boxes, lift
stations, and weirs; surface
impoundments; wastewater tanks;
clarifiers; and biological treatment units.
At these release points, HAPs can be
transferred from the process wastewater
streams to the air.
C. Definition of Source : • •
For today's regulations, EPA is
proposing to define a single source to
include the pulping processes, the
bleaching processes, and the pulping
and bleaching process wastewater
streams at a pulp and paper mill. With
this definition, all pulping process
emissions, all bleaching process
emissions, and all emissions from
process wastewater streams from the
pulping and bleaching processes will be
subject to the standards.
EPA considered three definitions of
"source" for today's regulations. One
option was to define each piece of
equipment in the pulping and bleaching
processes, as well as each process
wastewater stream, as a source. This
definition would result in the existence
of multiple sources within a mill, each
subject to today's standards. EPA also
considered identifying three kinds of
sources: the pulping process, the
bleaching process, and all associated
process wastewater streams. The third
option defined a single source that
included all pulping processes, all
bleaching processes, and process,
wastewater streams, combined. Using
this definition, there would be only one
source within a mill.
-------
66136 Federal Register /-Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday,.December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
In deciding which definition of source
to propose with today's rule, 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 will
be deemed "new sources" under the
CAA.
The CAA and the CWA differ
regarding applicability requirements
and compliance deadlines for new
sources. Under the CAA, sources that
are constructed or reconstructed after
proposal of a standard are considered to
be new sources. With limited
exceptions, these new sources must be
in compliance with new source
standards on the date those standards
are promulgated. Under the CWA, only
those sources constructed or
reconstructed after promulgation of an
effluent guideline are considered to be
new sources (with limited exceptions).
Compliance with the limitations in the
effluent guidelines is required when
those sources begin discharging.
In light of the foregoing, any 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 of
promulgation) without knowing the
requirements of the effluent guidelines
for the industry. This could lead to
situations where mills install expensive
air controls to comply with the
' NESHAP, only to find that the
equipment on which those controls are
installed must be changed to comply
with the effluent guidelines. This
situation would appear to be
inconsistent with one objective of the
integrated rulemaking: allowing
facilities to do integrated compliance
planning.
One means of addressing this problem
is to define "source" broadly for this ,
NESHAP. If "source" is defined to
include all pulping processes, all
bleaching processes, and all associated
process wastewater streams at mills,
there will be far fewer instances in
which a source will be constructed or
reconstructed between proposal and
promulgation than if "source" is
defined to be an individual process or
individual piece of process equipment.
If "source" is defined to mean all
pulping processes, all bleaching
processes, and all process wastewater
streams at mills, a piece of equipment
that is added will not constitute a "new
source", in most situations, but instead
will be considered a change to an
existing source. Such changes would be
required to comply with the existing
source standards at some period of time
after promulgation of the standards,
when all requirements of the effluent
guidelines are known. If a change occurs
after a State has an approved part 70
Permit program in place, it may be
considered a modification and thus
subject to case-by-case MACT
determinations. Further details on this
process are given in Section X.L.
EPA solicits comments on the
definition of "source" that would be
most appropriate for this rule. In
particular, EPA solicits comments on
whether the broad definition of
"source" in today's proposal defining a
single source to include all pulping
processes, bleaching processes, and
process wastewaters) will in fact
promote integrated compliance
planning, either during the period
between proposal and promulgation or
once the rule is promulgated. EPA also
solicits comment on the impact of
adopting either of the two alternative
approaches considered, but not selected,
in defining the source for today's
proposal.
D. Determination of MACT Floor
Emission standards for new and
existing sources promulgated under
Section 112(d) of the CAA must
represent the maximum degree of
emission reduction achievable; this is
typically referred to as MACT. The CAA
establishes minimum levels, often
referred to as MACT floors, for
NESHAP. The floors must be
determined as follows:
• for existing sources in a category or
subcategory with 30 or more sources,
the MACT floor cannot be less stringent
than the "average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 12
percent of the existing sources . . ."
• for existing sources in a category or
subcategory with less than 30 sources,
the MACT floor cannot be less stringent
than the "average emission limitation
achieved by the best performing 5
sources."1
• for new sources, the MACT floor
cannot be "less stringent than the
emission control that is achieved by the
best controlled similar source'. . ."
EPA considered three primary factors
in establishing the MACT floor for this
source category: • '
• the meaning of the statutory
language used in Section 112(d)(3);
• whether there was a need to
subcategorize the industry, given that
MACT floors are established on a
category or subcategory basis; and
• the control technologies in use in
the industry.
EPA relied on the survey described in.
Section X.D.3 to determine which
control technologies were being used in
the industry and the extent to which
these control technologies are used. EPA
then determined the emission limitation
achieved by these control technologies.
The MACT floor level of control is .
described in Section X.D.4. The MACT
floor established for existing and new
sources is identified in Sections X.D.5
and 6.
1. Interpretation of Statutory Language
CAA sections 112(d)(3) (A) and (B)
require that EPA set standards no less
stringent than "the average emission
limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of the existing
sources" if there are at least 30 sources
in a category of "the average emission
limitation achieved by the best
performing 5 sources" if there are fewer
than 30 sources in a category. During
the development of these proposed
rules, EPA considered two
interpretations of this statutory
language. One interpretation groups the
words "average emission limitation
achieved by" together in a single phrase
and asks what is the "average emission
limitation achieved by" the best
performing 12 percent. This
interpretation places the emphasis on
"average." It would correspond to first
identifying the best performing 12
percent of the existing sources; then
determining the average emission
limitation achieved by these sources as
a group. Another interpretation groups
the words "average emission limitation"
into a single phrase and asks what
"average emission limitation" is
"achieved by" all members of the best
performing 12 percent. In this case, the
"average emission limitation" might be
interpreted as the average reduction
across the HAPs emitted by an emission
point over time. Under this
interpretation, EPA would look at the
average emission limits achieved by
each of the best performing 12 percent
of existing sources, and take the lowest.
This interpretation would correspond to
the level of control achieved by the
source at the 88th percentile if all
sources were ranked from the most
controlled (100th percentile) to the least
controlled (1st percentile). For today's
proposed regulation, the Administrator
is using the first interpretation
described above, which interprets the
statutory language to mean that the
MACT floor for existing sources should
be set.at the level of control achieved by
the "average" of the best performing 12
percent.
In establishing the MACT floor for
today's proposed regulations, EPA also
considered two possible meanings for
the word "average" as the term is used
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17. 1993 / Proposed Rules j>6137
in CAA section 112 (d)(3)(A) and (B).
First, EPA considered interpreting
"average" as the arithmetic mean. The
arithmetic mean of a set of , •
measurements is the sum of the
measurements divided by the number of
measurements in the set. EPA
determined that the arithmetic mean ol
the emissions limitations achieved by
the best performing 12 percent of
existing sources in some cases would
yield an emission limitation that fails to
correspond to the limitation achieved by
any particular technology. Accordingly,
EPA decided not Jo select this approach.
EPA also considered interpreting
"average" as the median emission
limitation value. The median is the
value in a set of measurements below
and above which there are an equal
number of values (when the
measurements are arranged in order of
magnitude). EPA selected this
' interpretation because! for all cases in
the pulp arid paper industry, it yields a
value that corresponds to a particular
emission control technology. ^
Thus, in identifying the MACT floor
for this source category, EPA
determined the median emission
limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of existing
sources. This determination was made
by identifying the emission limitation
achieved by those sources within the
top 12 percent, arranging those
emissions limitations by magnitude, and
taking the control level achieved by, the
median source. This is mathematically
equivalent.to identifying the emission
limitation achieved by the mill at
• approximately the observed 94th
percentile level of emissions control.
For purposes of today's proposal, EPA
identified the emission limitation
achieved at a mill based upon the type
of control technology used.
One possible'way to establish the
MACT floor, not used by EPA in this
proposal, would be to identify a mass
emission limit or a mass emission
reduction percentage across the source
as a whole, or across the process area.
For the broad source definition in
today's proposal, this would mean
identifying the floor based upon a mass
emission limit or a mass emission
reduction percentage achieved at the
best performing 12 percent of the
- process areas as a whole. For the more
narrow definition of source by process
area, this would mean identifying the
floor based upon a mass emission limit
or a mass emission reduction percentage
at the best performing 12 percent of the
process areas (e.g., the best performing
12 percent of the pulping area sources).
However, EPA does not consider data
currently available as sufficient to
establish either a mass emission limit or
a mass emission reduction percentage
for process areas or entire sources. In
part as a result, EPA elected to establish
the MACT floor on a emission point
basis according to control technologies ;
currently in use in the industry at
individual emission points and
knowledge of the performance
capabilities of these control
technologies.
EPA solicits comment on its
interpretation of "the average emission
limitation achieved by the best
performing 12 percent of the existing
sources" (CAA § 112(d)(3)(A)J and its
. methodology for determining the MACT
floor. EPA specifically solicits comment
on whether the MACT floor should be
set at the 88th or 94th percentile level
of control. EPA also requests
- information and data necessary to
devejop a mass emission limit or mass
emission reduction percentage and
comments on whether a model plant
and emission factor approach could be
used to estimate these values.
2. Subcategorization
Another step in establishing the
MACT floor was deciding whether to
subcategorize the source category.
'Subcategorization may be appropriate
if some segments of the industry have
relevant characteristics, such as
applicable control technologies or costs
of implementation that are significantly
different from others. In developing
today's emission standards, EPA
considered subcategorizing according to
pulping process (kraft, sulfite, soda, and
semi-chemical), end product
(papergrade or dissolving grade pulp),
arid wood species (hardwood or
softwood). However, common control
technologies, described in the following
section, are applicable to all segments of"
the industry regardless of pulping
process, end product, or wood species.
Based upon available data, the
application of these technologies
effectively controls HAP emissions from
the source (i.e., the pulping, bleaching,
and process wastewater components) for
all mills subject to today's proposed
regulations. Accordingly, EPA decided
not to propose subcategories for this
NESHAP.
EPA is aware that scrubbing, rather
than venting to a combustion device, is
utilized in sulfite mills to control
pulping process emissions. EPA solicits
comments and requests data regarding:
The efficiency of scrubbers for
controlling HAP emissions from pulping
process vents at sulfite mills; whether
standards for sulfite mill pulping
processes should be based on the use of
scrubbing; and whether this NESHAP •
should contain a separate subcategory
for sulfite mills. •
EPA is also aware that soda mills do
not have gas collection systems in place
for pulping area vents," because soda
mills do not use sulfur-containing
chemicals to digest the wood. EPA
believes that gas collection followed by
'combustion is a feasible control
technology to reduce HAP emissions
from soda pulping processes. However,
during the development of these
proposed regulations, representatives of
soda mills urged EPA to create a
separate subcategory for those mills, due
in part to the extra expense soda mills
might incur for installing gas collection
systems. Such systems are already in
place in most kraft mills, which emit
(and, are currently required to control)
sulfur-containing compounds: EPA
solicits comments ori the HAP content
of soda mill pulping process vent
streams, the capacity of existing ;
combustion .devices, the costs of
collecting and routing these vent
streams to a combustion device, and '
whether this NESHAP should contain a
separate subcategory for soda mills.
3. Industry Survey
To determine what control
technologies are being used in the
industry, and the frequency with which •
those control technologies are used,
EPA utilized results from a voluntary
survey conducted by the American
Forest and Paper Association (AFPA;'
formerly the American Paper Institute
lAPI]) and the National Council of the
Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement (NCASI). The AFPA and
NCASI sent a voluntary survey in
February 1992 to member institutions,
including the majority of mills that
would be regulated under today's
proposed emission standards. Of the
124 facilities that responded,,116 are '
estimated to be subject to today's
proposal. The responses came from a
cross section of mills of varying size and
location, using the range of pulping and
bleaching processes subject to today's
proposed'rules. Data from the survey
included information on the percentage
of emission points controlled from
individual process units and the control
technologies utilized in each of the
three main emission areas—pulping,
bleaching, and wastewater.
4. MACT Floor Level Control
Technologies for Existing and New
Sources . ,'
As described in Section X.D, the
MACT floor technologies are based
upon technologies in use in the
industry. Survey responses indicated
that the following technologies are in
-------
66138 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
use: combustion devices, process
changes, gas scrubbers, steam strippers,
and air strippers. Combustion devices
are applicable for controlling HAP
emissions from the pulping component,
as well as for controlling emissions from
the bleaching and process wastewater
components. Process changes and gas
scrubbing are used to reduce HAP
emissions in the bleaching component.
Steam strippers and air strippers are
used to remove HAPs from process
wastewaters. Combustion devices are
used to destroy the HAPs removed by
steam stripping and air stripping. A
detailed description of these control
technologies is included in the BID.
Combustion devices are also used in the
industry to reduce HAP emissions from
the pulping component. These include
stand-alone control devices such as
thermal incinerators and existing
devices such as lime kilns, power
boilers, and recovery furnaces.
The potential floor technologies for
the bleaching component include gas
scrubbing and process changes. Process
changes affect the formation of bleach
plant HAP compounds in the pulping
and bleaching processes by changing
characteristics of the emission point or
by altering the process operating
conditions or bleaching chemicals used.
Pulping process changes (e.g., extended
cooking and improved washing) reduce
the quantity of lignin in the pulp going
to the bleaching process, thereby
reducing the amount of chlorinated
bleaching chemicals used and
potentially reducing the quantity of
chlorinated compounds formed. The
bleaching process changes include'
reduced use of chlorinated bleaching
chemicals, thereby further reducing the
quantity of chlorinated compounds
formed.
Based upon the available data,
process change technologies applied to
the bleaching process are projected to
decrease emissions of chlorinated HAPs,
including chloroform, chlorine, and
hydrochloric acid, but increase air
emissions of some nonchlorinated
HAPs, including methanol, methyl ethyl
ketone, and formaldehyde. EPA did not
find process changes to be the MACT
floor for the bleaching area because their
overall effect is no statistically
significant net impact on total HAP
emissions. Emission factors used to
conduct this assessment are presented
in the BID. EPA solicits data on the
effect of process changes on air
emissions of total HAP as well as
specific HAPs.
EPA also evaluated the HAP air
emission reductions achieved by
scrubbing bleaching component
emissions. Based upon available
information, gas scrubbers are the most
effective technology in use for reducing
total HAP emissions from the bleaching
component. Thus, gas scrubbers were
selected as the floor technology for the
bleaching component.
However, because available data
indicate that process changes are
particularly effective for reducing
emissions of chlorinated orgahics, some
of which are not controlled effectively
through scrubbing, EPA also considered
the use of process changes in
conjunction with scrubbing as a control
technology for the floor. Based upon
available data, the use of these
technologies in combination results in
no additional overall air emission
reduction from a source than scrubbing
alone. Because no additional air
emission reduction would occur, EPA
rejected this combination as the basis
for the floor.
EPA solicits data and comments on
the following aspects on the floor
technology for the bleaching
component: '
« The types of process changes in use
in the industry, and the effectiveness of
these changes for reducing emissions of
total HAP, as well as individual .
compounds.
• Whether the combination of process
changes and gas scrubbing could be
identified as the MACT floor for
purposes of these standards.
• Because a significant number of
mills have greater than 50 percent
chlorine dioxide substitution, which
reduces the emissions of chlorinated
organic HAPs, process changes could be
considered as candidates for a MACT
floor technology for chlorinated HAPs. ,
Therefore, EPA solicits comment on
whether emission limits for chlorinated
organic compounds should be set, based
on the reductions obtained by process
changes.
Technologies used in the industry to
remove organic compounds from
process wastewaters include steam
stripping and air stripping. Although air
strippers are employed in the pulp and
paper industry to reduce TRS emissions,
steam strippers achieve a higher percent
removal of total HAP emissions.
Therefore, steam stripping is the best
technology in use for removing organic
compounds from process wastewater.
The overhead gases from these strippers
are typically sent to combustion
devices.
After identifying the best technologies
in use, EPA used industry survey data
to identify the percentage of emission
points that were controlled by these
technologies. This information,
summarized in Table X-2, was used to
establish the MACT floor for existing
and new sources.
TABLE X-2.—MACT FLOOR FOR EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES
Emission point
Pulping Component:
Digester Blow or NCG System
Digester Relief or Turpentine Recovery System ;
Evaporator NCG and Evaporator Hotwell Gases :
Oxygen Delignification Unit2 (Blow Gas and Washer)
Foam Breaker Tank or Filtrate Tanks .....
Weak Black Liquor Storage
Knotter
Brownstock or Pulp Washer .".
Deckers and/or Screens
Bleaching Components
Washer Vents ".
Characteristics of baseline
Percent con-
trolled
82
80
80
25
25
25
7
7
4
15
Control effi-
ciency1 (per-
cent)
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
99
Characteristics of floor
Existing: con-
trol efficiency
of median of
best perform-
ing 12% (per-
cent)
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
0
99
New: control
efficiency of
best controlled
similar source
(percent)
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
98
99
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 513, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66139
TABLE X-2.—MACT FLOOR FOR EXISTING AND NEW SOURCES—Continued
- • • '
Emission point
Tower Vents • ' - •
Seal Tank Vents r • •—
Process Wastewater Component:
Digester Condensates . • ••••
Turnentine. Recoverv Wastewaters .
Characteristics of baseline ,
Percent con-
trolled
15
15
' 12
26
22
Control effi-
ciency1 (per-
cent)
99
'99
90
90
90
Characteristics of floor
Existing: con-
trol efficiency'
of median of
; best perform-
ing 12% (per-
cent)
99
99
90
90
an
New: control
efficiency of
best controlled
similar source
(percent)
99
99
90
90
on
1 Control efficiency of pulping component based upon use of a combustion device. Control efficiency of bleaching component based upon use-
of a gas scrubber. Control efficiency of 'process wastewater component based upon use of. a steam stripper. V '
23 of 12 units. ,' >-'''-•
sVents are for C, EI, H, Di, E2, and D2 stages.
i Foul means >500 ppmw HAP. • , - -
The column labeled "control
efficiency" is based on EPA's
knowledge of the performance levels
achievable by the control technology
Used. This information forms thetmsis
of the MACT floor level of control.
5. MACT Floor for Existing Sources
As shown in Table X-2, the control
basis of the floor for existing sources is:
• Combustion of all pulping
component emission points except
equipment after primary washing that is
used to remove dirt, fines, and shives or
to thicken the pulp (e.g., deckers and
screens);
• Scrubbing of all bleaching
component emission points; and
• Steam stripping of certain pulping
process wastewater streams in the
process wastewater component to
remove HAP from the process
wastewater, followed by combustion of
stripper overhead gases. ~
The best controlled existing sources
'control all pulping and bleaching
emission points (with the exception
.noted above) for which information is
available. However, there exist low flow
' pr episodic pulping and bleaching
component vents for which no
information was gathered, but which are
believed to be uncontrolled. Sections
X.G and X.H discuss the development of
applicability levels to identify those
. vents that .are not controlled at the floor.
Similarly, the best controlled existing
sources do not apply steam strippers to
every pulping process wastewater
stream. There are three types of pulping
process wastewater streams that are
steam stripped—digester condensates,
evaporator condensates, and turpentine
recovery wastewaters. The MACT floor
, control technology, steam stripping
followed by combustion, is not
currently applied to any bleaching
process w.astewater streams. In addition,
there are also pulping process
wastewater streams that are not '
controlled. Therefore, the floor for these
process wastewater streams is no
control. Similar to pulping and
bleaching component emission points,
the development of applicability levels
to identify those process wastewater
streams not requiring control are
discussed in Sections X.G and X.H.
The floor level of control for the
pulping component includes
combustion of emissions from oxygen
delignification units. Based upon
available information, there are 12
oxygen delignification units in use in
the industry and three of these are
controlled. Applying the framework set
forth in § 112(d)(3)(B), and interpreting
, "average" to mean median, the average
emission limitation achieved by the best
performing 5 sources would be the level
of control used by the third best-
controlled source. That unit controls its
oxygen delignification by venting to a
combustion device to achieve a 98
percent reduction in HAP emissions.
Therefore, the floor level of control for
oxygen delignification units, where
those units are found, is combustion
designed to achieve a 98% reduction..
In establishing MACT, EPA also
evaluated options in which the oxygen
delignification units were not included
in the MACT floor level of control, but
were instead included in the option :
above the floor. This analysis indicated
that it was highly cost-effective ($750/
Mg) to control at the level above the
floor; which included oxygen
delignification units. Using this
analysis, the selected MACT technology
basis would have been the option above
the floor; Oxygen delignification units
would also have been controlled by
combustion. EPA solicits comment on
the inclusion of oxygen delignification
units in the MACT floor with other
pulping component emission points,
and requests data on the use of such
units within the industry. ,
6. MACT Floor for New Sources
The MACT floor for new sources (also
shown in Table X-2) is the MACT floor
for existing sources plus combustion of
HAP emissions from equipment
following primary washing that is used
to remove dirt, fines, and shives or to
thicken the1 pulp (e.g., deckers and
screens). As shown in Table X-2, this
technology was selected because it is,
used by the best controlled similar
source.
E. Selection of Basis of Proposed
Standards for Existing Source's ; •
1. Analyzing MACT Options ' ..
In addition to evaluating the MACT
floor level of control, EPA also
evaluated a number of more stringent
options. This evaluation included
consideration of technologies'to control
HAP emissions from emission points
not controlled at the floor. It also
included consideration of controlling
emission points to-a level more stringent
than the floor level of control.
The MACT floor for existing sources
does not include the control of certain
emission points within the pulping,
bleaching, and process wastewater
.components. Specifically, the floor does
not include control of:
• • Emissions from pulping component
equipment used to remove dirt, fines,
and shives or to thicken the pulp (e.g.,
deckers and screens) that follows
primary washing;
• Emissions from low flow or ,
episodic pulping and bleaching
component vents not controlled at
existing mills; • .
-------
66140 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 /Friday, December 17, 19957 Proposed Rules
• Scrubber off-gases in the bleaching
component; and
• All bleaching process wastewater
streams and pulping process wastewater
streams with low HAP concentrations
and flow rates.
No other technologies were identified
that would further reduce emissions
from points controlled at the floor. EPA
did not have sufficient data to fully
characterize the low flow or episodic
pulping and bleaching component vents
not controlled at the floor. As a result,
a complete analysis of the potential to
control these sources is not possible.
EPA solicits comments and data on the
characterization of these vents and their
control potential.
EPA considered but rejected further
control of the process wastewater
streams listed above. Based on
knowledge and information that EPA
has been developing on steam stripping
wastewater in the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI), the costs of controlling
process wastewater streams with low
HAP concentrations is unreasonable.
Thus, Table X-3 presents three MACT
control options for existing sources—the
floor and two additional options
representing control.levels more
stringent than the floor. Each of these
control options contain pulping,
bleaching, and process wastewater
components. Although additional
options were considered, EPA selected
these three options as the best
candidates for the MACT technology
basis.
The MACT control options for
existing sources are shown in Table X—
3. A mill-specific industry profile and
model process units were used to
estimate the impacts of the options. The
mill-specific industry profile contains
information on the 161 mills to be
regulated under the NESHAP and was
developed using information from
EPA's wastewater sampling program,
emissions testing program, 1990 census
questionnaire, API/NCASI survey, and
other sources.
EPA developed model process units
to estimate the national impacts of
implementing each of the control
options. The model process units
developed include 18 pulping and 12 <
bleaching processes. The model process
units were assigned to the mills in the
mill-specific industry profile based
upon capacity and process type.
TABLE X-3.—MACT CONTROL OPTIONS FOR EXISTING SOURCES
Pulping component
Bleaching component
Wastewater component
Floor—Combust Emissions from:
Digester blow or NOG system
Digester relief or turpentine recovery sys-
tem
Evaporator noncondensible gases and
evaporator hotwell gases
Foam breaker tank or filtrate tank
Weak black liquor
Knotter
Brownstock or pulp washer
Oxygen delignification unit (blow gas and
washer)
Option 1—Same as floor, but add combustion
of emissions from deckers and screens
Option 2—Same as floor
Scrub:
1 st C stage
All D stages
1st and 2nd E stage
1st H-stage
Steam strip:
Digester Condensates.
Evaporator Foul Condensates.
Turpentine Recovery Wastewaters.
Same as floor
Same as floor, but add combustion of
scrubber off-gases . •
Same as floor.
Same as floor.
EPA used outputs generated by
assigning these model processes to
specific mills to calculate the pollutant
reductions and costs of various levels of
control. For example, uncontrolled air
emissions were calculated by
multiplying model process emission
factors by mill-specific process
capacities.
Baseline air emissions were
calculated frc-m the uncontrolled air
emissions by assigning appropriate
control efficiencies to the control
devices (if any) known to be present at
each facility. The baseline emissions,
calculated by emission point, were then
summed for each process and mill.
National baseline emissions were
estimated by summing emissions from
all individual mills.
Air emission control impacts (i.e.,
emissions, emission reductions, costs)
were calculated for each mill for each
MACT control option. To calculate
controlled air emissions, the control
efficiency required by each control
option was assigned to each emission
point not already controlled to this level
at baseline. Emission reductions were
calculated as the difference between
baseline emissions and controlled
emissions.
The emission reductions achieved for
each option were summed for each
process line, for each mill, and then for
all mills combined, to generate national
air emission reduction impacts.
Costs were calculated for each control
device .using procedures described in
the BID. Because the air controls may be
applied to multiple emission points
within a mill, control costs were^not
calculated by emission point, but, .
instead, were calculated by process line
or by mill. That is, depending on the
capacity of the applicable control
device, multiple streams were assumed
to be routed to the device together (e.g.,
via a common header). Costs for each
mill were summed to determine an
estimate of national cost impacts.
2. Selection of Basis of Standard For
Existing Sources
EPA considered several factors in
selecting the MACT technology upon
which the proposed standards are
based. These factors include: The
magnitude of the emission reductions
achievable, cost of the emission
reductions, other non-air quality health
and environmental impacts, and energy
requirements. The non-air quality health
and environmental impacts, as well as
the energy impacts, of the three options
are not significantly different. Therefore,
cost effectiveness, which is a function of
emission reductions and associated
costs, was used as the primary criterion
for option selection.
For existing sources, EPA evaluated
the national impacts of the baseline
level of control, the floor level of
control, and two control levels based
upon options more stringent than the
floor. The floor level of control reduces
total HAP emissions by 120,000 Mg
(approximately 70 percent).
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday/December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66141
OpVion "V includes the floor level of
control and combustion control of
emissions from pulping equipment used
to remove dirt, fines, and shives or to
thicken the pulp (e.g., deckers and
screens) that follows primary washing.
An additional 320 Mg of HAPs are
reduced at an incremental cost
effectiveness of $91,400 per Mg.
Option 2 includes the floor level of
control and combustion control of
bleaching process scrubber off-gases. An
additional 1,000 Mg of HAPs are
reduced from that achieved at the floor
at an incremental cost effectiveness of
$91,200 per Mg.
Scrubbing followed by combustion of
the scrubber off-gases reduces more
HAP emissions than scrubbing alone, as
scrubbing rempves inorganic chlorine
and methanol, and combustion destroys
the remaining insoluble organic
compounds such as chloroform.
However, combustion after scrubbing
achieves little additional HAP emission
reduction beyond scrubbing alone, due
to the high efficiency of scrubbing for
removing methanol, which is the
predominant HAP. The cost
effectiveness of Option 2 is thus
unreasonable for the additional HAP
emission reduction achieved, and EPA
rejected this option from further
consideration.
Although not presented as an option
above, EPA also evaluated combustion
followed by scrubbing of the
combustion device exhaust. As with
Option 2, little additional HAP emission
reduction is achieved over scrubbing
alone, due to the efficiency of scrubbing
for removing the predominant HAP-
methanol. In addition, combustion of
vent streams prior to scrubbing
introduces chlorinated organic
compounds (e.g., hydrochloric acid and
chlorine) that are highly corrosive and
more expensive to incinerate in the
combustion device. Thus, the cost
effectiveness of combustion followed by
scrubbing is unreasonable for the HAP
emission .reduction achieved, and this
option was also rejected.
The Agency did not consider
combustion of selected bleachjplant
vent streams followed by scrubbing ol
vent streams with high chlorine
concentrations. Such an option would
combust the vent streams with the
greatest organic HAP emissions and
would potentially be more cost effective
than scrubbing and combusting all
bleach plant vent streams. EPA requests
comment on whether this would be a
reasonable option, and on which vent
streams would be included under such
an option.
After considering the other
technology options, EPA selected the
floor as the basis for the proposed ~
standards for existing sources. Options
1 and 2 are 'not selected as the basis for
the proposed standard because in both
cases the additional HAP emission
reduction does not justify the high costs
of controL The proposed existing source
MACT standards based on the floor-
level control technology are projected to
result in a significant reduction in HAP
emissions from the pulp and paper
source category.- .
EPA requests data and solicits
comments on several factors related to
selection of the basis for the MACT
standards for the bleaching component.
Although data available prior to today's
proposal showed combustion of
bleaching plant vent streams (either
before or after scrubbing) to have ,
unreasonable cost effectiveness, the
Agency believes that the .costs of
combusting bleaching component vent
streams may be overestimated and
emissions reductions may be
underestimated. If methanol and
chloroform concentrations have been
underestimated or scrubber efficiencies
for methanol overestimated, the cost •
effectiveness of combusting bleaching
component vent streams would be more
reasonable, and might be a viable
option. EPA requests data and
comments on methanol and chloroform
concentrations in bleaching component
vent streams and on the efficiency of
scrubbing for removing methanol.'
F. Selection of Basis for Proposed
Standards for New Sources
1. Analyzing MACT Options
The MACT .floor for new sources does
not include contro] of certain emission
points within the bleaching and process
wastewater components:
• Scrubber off-gases in the bleaching
component;
• All bleaching component process
wastewater streams; and .
• Pulping cpmponent process
wastewater streams with low total HAP
concentrations and flow rates. •
As discussed in Section X.E.I, EPA
considered but rejected control of the
process wastewater streams listed above
because analyses in support of previous
regulations indicate that the costs of
controlling these dilute streams is •".
unreasonable. The low flow and
episodic pulping and bleaching
component vents that are not controlled
at the floor for existing sources, as
described in Section X.E.I, are also not
controlled at the floor for new sources
for the same reasons. Two MACT
control options for new sources were
evaluated—the floor and one option
representing a control level more
stringent than the floor, which includes
the combustion of scrubber off-gases.
Combustion before scrubbing was
considered but rejected for the same
reason discussed in the MACT option
evaluation for existing sources. The
MACT control options analyzed for new
sources are shown in Table X—4.
To estimate impacts of the MACT
options for new sources, EPA, developed
• a model mill. The model mill is a 1,000
ton per day greenfield papergrade kraft
mill pulping softwood. The process
includes oxygen delignification,
improved washing, and 100 percent
substitution of chlorine dioxide for
chlorine in the bleaching process.
TABLE X-4.—MACT CONTROL OPTIONS FOR NEW SOURCES
Pulping component
Bleaching component.
Wastewater component
Floor—Combust Emissions from:
Digester blow or NCG system
Digester relief or turpentine recovery sys-
tem
Evaporator noncondensible gases and
evaporator hotwell gases
Foam breaker tank or filtrate tank
Weak black liquor
Knotter
Brownstock or pulp washer
Oxygen delignification unit (blow gas arid
washer)
Scrub:
1stC stage
, All D stages
1st and 2nd E stage
1st H-stage
Steam Strip:
Digester Condensates.
Evaporator Foul Condensates.
Turpentine Recovery Wastewaters.
-------
66142 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
TABLE X-4"— MACT CONTROL OPTIONS FOR NEW SOURCES—Continued
Pulping component
deckers/screens
Option 1 — Same as floor
Bleaching component
Same as floor, but add: combust scrubber
off-gases
Wastewater component
Same as floor.
These process parameters were
selected based on available information
about new mills in the industry, and are
consistent with the technology basis for
the effluent guidelines limitations
NSPS. The estimated impacts are
calculated assuming that the mill will
have to upgrade from a baseline level of
control represented by the NSPS for
emissions from kraft mills. Secondary
impacts of the selected new source
MACT option are summarized in
Section XI of this document.
2. Selection of MACT Option for New
Sources
The factors evaluated in selecting \he*
existing source standards were also
considered to select the standards for
new sources. The non-air quality health
and environmental impacts, as well as
the energy impacts, of the two options
were not significantly different.
Therefore, cost-effectiveness, a function
of emission reductions and associated
costs, was used as the primary criterion
for option selection.
The floor level of control reduces
annual total HAP emissions by 384 Mg
, at an annual cost effectiveness of $6,600
per Mg for the model mill. Option 1
includes the floor level of control and
control of bleaching process scrubber
off-gases. The incremental cost
effectiveness of this option is $90,000
per Mg.
Based on these factors, the control
option selected as the basis for the
proposed MACT standards for new
sources is the floor. Option 1 was not
selected as the control basis because the
additional HAP emissions reduction is
small and the incremental cost'
effectiveness is unreasonable.
EPA solicits comments and requests
data on the selection of the basis of the
new source MACT standards for the
bleaching component, which are those
mentioned for existing sources.
G. Selection of the Format for the
Proposed Standards
1. Statutory Requirements
Section 112 of the CAA requires that
emission standards for control of HAPs
be prescribed unless, in the judgment of
the Administrator, it is not feasible to
prescribe or enforce emission standards.
Emission standards can be written in
the form of a percent reduction, a
concentration, or a mass emission limit.
Section 112(h)(2) identifies two
conditions under which it is not feasible
to establish an emission standard. These
conditions are: if the pollutants cannot
be emitted through a conveyance
designed and constructed to emit or
capture the pollutant, or if the
application of measurement technology
to a particular class of sources is not
practicable because of technological and
economic limitations. If emission
standards are not feasible to prescribe or
enforce, EPA may instead establish
design, equipment, work practice, or
operational standards, or a combination
thereof.
The standards proposed today are a
combination of emission standards and
equipment, design, work practice, and
operational standards. Wherever
feasible, emission standards have been
proposed. However, in some cases,
emission limitations would not
adequately ensure that the maximum
emission reductions required by these
standards are achieved. In those cases,
a combination of equipment, design,
and work practice and operational
standards are proposed. These
alternative standards have been
determined by EPA to be equivalent to
the emission standards proposed today.
In addition to ensuring that maximum
emission reductions are achieved, they
are included to offer the owner or
operator of an affected source the
maximum flexibility in complying with
these standards. The specific formats for
each of the components are discussed in
the following sections. The selection of
numerical values for each of the
proposed formats is discussed in
Section X.H of this notice.
2. Format of Standards for the Pulping
Component
The standards for controlling air
emissions from the pulping component
are a combination of equipment, design,
work practice, and .emission standards.
The standards include requirements for
enclosures and closed vent systems, as
well as for reduction of HAP emissions
in the pulping component. The pulping
component standards also include
applicability levels to identify those
pulping vents that are not required to be
controlled. The rationale for choosing
the format of the standards is discussed
below.
a. Applicability Levels. As discussed
in Section X.D., EPA identified certain
low flow and episodic pulping vents
that are not believed to be controlled at
the floor. These points include
unintentional pressure release points
and sample line vents. These vents are
small, intermittent sources with little
emission potential. EPA did not have
sufficient data to fully characterize these
emission points or to make a floor
determination. Based upon previous
experience and engineering judgment,
these vents are assumed to be
uncontrolled at the floor. In addition,
EPA decided not to require these
sources to be controlled under the
NESHAP. Since limited data are
available, definition of these emission
ppints is difficult. However, EPA can
establish parameters that would be
characteristic of the low flow and
episodic emission points. These streams
can be identified by volumetric flow
rate, mass flow rate, or liquid phase
HAP mass loading of the combined
streams entering pulping component
process equipment. EPA is therefore
proposing that volumetric flow rate,
mass flow rate, and HAP mass loading
are appropriate formats to identify these
points. EPA requests data and solicits
comment on the types of pulping
component emission points that are not
controlled within the industry, and
whether volumetric flow rate, mass flow
rate, and HAP mass loading are in fact
good parameters for identifying such
emission points.
b. Pulping Component Enclosures and
Closed Vent Systems. A combination of
equipment and work practice standards
is proposed for pulping component
enclosures and closed vent systems.
These standards are proposed to ensure
that all open process equipment is
enclosed such that a negative pressure
drop is maintained at each enclosure
opening and that all emissions from
process equipment within the pulping
component are transported to the
control device via enclosed piping and
duct work with no detectable leaks.
Proper work practices are needed to
ensure that the equipment will capture
and convey the emissions to a control
device. The proposed work practice
includes periodic monitoring,
-------
66143
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday. December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
inspections, and repair. An emissions
standard was not a reasonable format for
pulping component closed vent systems
because it would require an enclosure to
be used to capture and measure
emissions from an already enclosed
system. , .
c. Reduction of HAP in the Pulping
Component Emissions. An emission
standard and two equipment and design
standards are proposed for control of
HAP emissions from the pulping .
. component of this source category. The
proposed emission standard includes
two alternatives—a weight percent
reduction and an outlet concentration.
A mass emission limit was not
appropriate for pulping process
emission points because variation
within the industry, including capacity
and processes, greatly affects emission
rates; and data were not available to
determine the mass limits that would
address this variation. In general, a
weight percent reduction format will
ensure that the MACT is applied and
the required emission reductions are
realized. However, the technology that
is the basis for MACT (combustion)
cannot be demonstrated to achieve the
selected percent reduction for streams
with low organic HAP concentrations.
Therefore, an alternative concentration
limit that is achievable has been,
included.' The combination of the
weight percent reduction or
concentration limit will ensure that the
best technology is applied to all pulping
process emission points, whether they
have higher or lower concentrations.
Two equivalent standards—each of
which is an equipment and design
standard—are also proposed for pulping
component emission control. These
standards have been determined by EPA
to be equivalent to the emission
standards, and are proposed to provide
maximum compliance flexibility. The
selection of the numerical values for
' these standards is presented in Section
X.H of this notice.
The first equipment and design
standard is the requirement that gas
streams from pulping component
emission points be routed to a
combustion device designed and
operated at a minimum temperature and
residence time. The second equipment
and design standard requires that gas
streams from pulping component
emission points be routed to a boiler,
lime kiln, or recovery furnace and
introduced: (1) Into the flame zone or (2)
with the primary fuel. Each of these
alternative standards would achieve
emission reductions equivalent to the
proposed emission standard, as they are
based on the performance of the MACT
technology—i.e., combustion.
3: Format of the Standards for the
Bleaching Component o;.
The standards for controlling air
emissions from the bleaching
component are a combination of
equipment, design, work practice, and
emission standards. The standards
include requirements for enclosures and
closed vent systems, as well as for
reduction of HAP emissions in the
bleaching component. The bleaching
component standards also include
applicability levels to identify those
bleaching vents that are not required to
be controlled. The rationale for choosing
the format of the standards is discussed
below. . .
a. Applicability Levels. For the same
reasons identified for the pulping
component, EPA identified certain low
flow and episodic bleaching vents that
are not believed to be controlled at the
floor. Available data indicate that these
minor bleaching component emission
points can also be identified by
volumetric flow rate or mass flow rate.
EPA requests data and solicits comment
on the types of bleaching component
emission points that are not controlled
within the industry, and on whether
volumetric flow rate and mass flow rate
are in fact good indicators of such
emission points. EPA is not proposing
to identify these minor emission points
with a liquid phase HAP mass loading
of the combined streams entering the ,
process equipment. Chemical reactions
that occur within the equipment change
the characteristics of the HAPs in the
equipment, making an entering mass
loading limit not representative of .
emission potential. EPA solicits
comment and requests data on whether
a HAP mass loading for streams entering
the process equipment would be an
appropriate format.
b. Bleaching Component Enclosures
and Closed Vent Systems. A
combination of equipment and work
practice standards is proposed for
bleaching component enclosures and
closed vent systems. These standards
are proposed to ensure that all open
process equipment is enclosed such that
a negative pressure drop is maintained
at each enclosure opening and that all
• emissions from process equipment
within the bleaching component are
transported to the control device via a
closed vent system with no detectable
emissions. Proper work practices are
needed to ensure that the equipment
will capture and convey all emissions.
The proposed work practice includes
periodic monitoring, inspections, and
repair. An emissions standard was not
a reasonable format for bleaching
component closed vent systems for the
same reasons discussed in Section
X.G.2.b for-the pulping component.
c. Reduction of HAP in the Bleaching
Component Emissions. An emission
standard is proposed for the bleaching
component emission points. The
proposed emission standard is a weight
percent reduction, which is based on
the efficiency of the MACT technology
(scrubbing). A mass emission limitation
was not appropriate for bleaching
component emission points because
variation within the industry, including
capacity and processes utilized, greatly
affects emission rates; and data were not
available to determine the mass
limitations that would address this
variation. '
4. Format of the Standards for the
Process Wastewater Component
EPA is proposing standards for ,
process wastewater stream emissions
within the process wastewater
component of this source category. To
ensure that emissions are captured and
conveyed to a control device, the
proposed standards include
requirements for:
• An enclosed process wastewater • • •
collection and treatment system;
• Treatment to reduce the HAP
concentration in the process wastewater
streams; and
• Conveyance of emissions vented
from the process wastewater treatment
device and the enclosed process
wastewater collection system in a closed
vent system to a control device.
Applicability levels are included in the
process wastewater component
standards to identify those process
wastewater streams that are not required
to be controlled.
a. Applicability Levels. As discussed
in Section X.D., EPA identified certain
process wastewater streams that are not
currently being controlled. These
include all bleaching process
wastewater streams, and some pulping
process wastewater streams. However,
defining the specific pulping process
wastewater streams'that are not required
to be controlled is not proposed because
mills define these streams differently. In
reviewing the emissions test data and
the API/NCASI voluntary survey data,
EPA determined that mills do not
control process wastewater streams with
low concentrations and flows.
Therefore, EPA is proposing
concentration and flow rate parameters
to identify pulping process wastewater
streams that do not require control. EPA
solicits data on the: types of pulping
process wastewaters that are currently
steam stripped, the flow rates of these
process wastewater streams, and the
annual average HAP concentration of
-------
66144
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17. 1993 / Proposed Rules
these process wastewater streams. EPA
also solicits comment on whether it is
better to name specific process
wastewater streams to be controlled or
to set a concentration and flow rate.
EPA solicits information on defining
these named process wastewater
streams.
b. Wastewater Collection and
Treatment. Two formats were
considered in developing the proposed
standards for enclosed process
wastewater collection and treatment
system equipment. These formats
included a numerical emission standard
and combination'equipment and work
practice standard.
Although considered first, it was
determined that a numerical standard
would not be feasible because it would
be difficult to capture and measure
emissions from this equipment for the
purpose of evaluating compliance. Due
to the number of openings and possible
emission points, accurate measurement
would require enclosure of the entire
airspace around a piece of equipment.
This approach would not be practical
L?umerous equipment components.
The format selected was an
equipment and work practice standard.
Because the intent of the standard is to
capture all emissions from the process
wastewater collection and treatment
equipment, an equipment standard is
appropriate. The standard requires the
installation and proper maintenance of
roofs, covers, lids, water seals, and
enclosures on tanks, surface
impoundments, containers, and
individual drain systems. The work
practices would be required to ensure
proper operation and maintenance of
the equipment. The proposed work
practices include periodic monitoring,
inspection, and repair.
The proposed standards would
require that emissions from process
wastewater collection and treatment
system equipment be controlled from
the point of generation of the process
wastewater stream until: It enters the
treatment device; or it reaches a
controlled piece of equipment to which
it is being recycled (e.g., a washer) that
is subject to the standards for the
pulping or bleaching components being
proposed today.
c. Reduction of HAP Concentration in
the Process Wastewater Streams. Three
equivalent formats are proposed for
reduction of process wastewater stream
HAP concentration: a numerical format,
an equipment design and operational
format, and an equipment and work
practice standard. Another format, a
mass removal standard, is not proposed.
(1) Numerical Format. Two alternative
numerical emission limitation formats
are proposed to provide sources with a
maximum degree of operational
flexibility in complying with the
standards. These emission limitation
formats are: A mass percent reduction of
HAP in the process wastewater stream
or an effluent concentration limitation
for HAP. The rationale for providing
alternative emission limitations based
on both a percent reduction and an
effluent concentration is given below.
The percent reduction format is based
on the organic HAP removal efficiency
of a steam stripper; however, any
treatment process that can achieve the
proposed efficiency can be used to
comply with the standard (e.g.,
biological treatment). Percent reduction
was chosen because it is the best
representation of control technology
performance.
The effluent concentration limitations
are also based on the performance of a
steam stripper. Effluent concentration
limitations are provided as alternatives
to the percent reduction standard to
allow compliance flexibility for
facilities required to treat process
wastewater streams having low organic
HAP concentrations. Requiring a
percent reduction standard alone for
these process wastewater streams would
not be reasonable. At very low
concentrations, it is technically much
more difficult and costly to achieve the
same level of percent reduction.
(2) Equipment Design and Operational
Format. Another regulatory format
proposed for process wastewater stream
treatment is an equipment design and
operational format. The equipment
standard consists of the installation of a
steam stripper designed and operated at
specified parametric levels. The
specifications for the steam stripper
were developed to provide a standard
piece of equipment (with associated
operating conditions) that can achieve
either the mass percent HAP removal or
the effluent concentration of HAP.
This equipment design and
operational format was included to
provide an alternative means of
compliance that all sources would be
able to use, while achieving the desired
emission reduction.
(3) Equipment and Work Practice
Format. A final equivalent standard
proposed for controlling process
wastewater emissions is an equipment
and work practice standard. This format
is based on the recycling of process
wastewater in a closed collection system
to a controlled piece of equipment. A
controlled piece of equipment is defined
as any unit requiring control under the
proposed standards for pulping, such as-
a brownstock washer. When recycling is
used, process wastewater emissions are
controlled with equipment emissions,
and the process wastewater is reused.
This format is proposed to encourage
chemical recovery and pollution
prevention.
(4) Mass Removal. EPA is not
proposing a required mass removal
format as a standard for controlling
emissions from process wastewaters.
The Agency solicits comment on this
approach, however, specifically on the
HAP emission reductions that could be
achieved and on whether a mass
removal would be a preferable format to
that of the standards proposed
d. Vent Collection and Vapor
Recovery or Destruction Device. HAPs
are emitted from vents on process
wastewater treatment devices such as
steam strippers and from vents on
covered process wastewater collection
units such as clarifiers and junction
boxes. The equipment and work
practice standards for closed vent
systems that are proposed forpulping
component emission points are also
proposed for vents on wastewater
control devices. An emission standard is
generally appropriate for vapor
destruction devices used to control
vapor streams containing HAP from
transport, handling, and treatment
^equipment. The emission standard that
is proposed for pulping component
emissions is also proposed for
controlling vent emissions from process
wastewater control devices.
H. Selection of Numerical Values in
Emission Standards
This section discusses the rationale
for the selection of the standards for the
pulping, bleaching, and process
wastewater components of the source
category. The selection of applicability.
levels, numerical limitations for the
emission standards, and design
parameters is also included.
1. Selection of Standards for the Pulping
Component
The selection ofapplicability levels,
emission limitations, and equivalent
standards for the pulping component is
discussed in this section.
a. Applicability Levels. As discussed
in Section X.G., certain minor emission
points within the pulping process are
not required to be controlled by the
proposed standards. The following
applicability levels were established to
identify those points that are not
required to be controlled:
• Individual process emission points
from enclosed process equipment that
maintain either a volumetric flow rate
less than 0.0050 standard cubic meters
per minute (scmm), mass flow rates less
than 0.230 kilograms of total HAP per
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993V Proposed Rules
66145
hour IKg/hr), or mass flow rates less
than 0.0010 kilograms of total HAP per
megagram of air dry pulp produced (Kg
all pulp and process wastewater streams
entering the process equipment
maintaining a HAP mass loading of less
than 0.050 kilograms of total HAP per
megagram of ADP. Since MACT was
determined to be the floor level of
control, the numerical applicability
levels are set to control emission points
that are controlled at the floor. EPA
requests comment oh whether these
numerical applicability levels are
appropriate for identifying pulping
component emission points that are not
controlled. ,
b. Emission Limitations for the
Pulping Component. Two alternatives
that achieve equivalent emission
reduction—a percent reduction and an
outlet concentration— are proposed for
the pulping cornponent emission
standards. A 98 percent reduction of
HAP emissions was chosen based upon
the efficiency achievable by the floor
level control technology of combustion
in an incinerator, boiler, lime kiln, or
recovery furnace. A 20-ppmv HAP
outlet concentration corrected to three
percent oxygen was selected as an
equivalent alternative to 98-percent
reduction for incinerators. The percent
control is based upon an EPA analysis
of thermal incinerator performance for
NSPS (used to support the SOCMI
distillation reaction, and air oxidation
NSPS) and of incinerator performance
for VOC (See BID). Because most of the
HAP from pulping component and
process wastewater emissions is also
VOC, the reduction efficiency for total
HAP was determined to be the same as
that for VOC. Incinerators combusting
vent streams with concentrations less
than 1,000 ppmv may not be able to ,
demonstrate 98 percent control, but can
achieve outlet concentrations of HAP
less than 20 ppTmv corrected to three
percent oxygen. • j
e. Design and Equipment Standard for
Combustion Devices. The minimum
temperature of 1600° F and residence
time of 0.75 seconds in an incinerator
are required for the equivalent
equipment standard. These values are
based on the results of EPA analysis of
incinerator efficiencies mentioned
above. The minimum temperature and
residence time ensure that HAP
emissions are reduced to the level
achieved by the emission limit standard.
Analyses also showed that when vent
streams are: Introduced with the
primary fuel to boilers, lime kilns,
• recovery furnaces; or introduced into
the flame zone of such devices, over 98
percent reduction is achieved due to the
high temperatures and residence times
typical of such combustion devices. For
this reason, an equivalent equipment
and design standard is to route all
emission gas streams with the primary
fuel or into the flame zone of
combustion devices.
d. Equipment Standard for Enclosures
and Closed Vent Systems. All HAP
emissions from pulping component
emission points subject to control must
be captured and transported in a closed
vent system with no detectable leaks.
These standards are proposed to ensure
that all open process equipment is
enclosed such that a negative pressure
drop is maintained at each enclosure1
opening, and that all emissions from
process equipment within the pulping
component are transported to the
control deyice via enclosed piping and
duct work with no detectable leaks. No
detectable leaks are determined by a
portable hydrocarbon detector reading
of less than 500 parts per million above
background. Specifications for by-pass
lines are also included to ensure that
emission point gas streams are not
diverted to the atmosphere.
2. Selection of Standards for the
Bleaching Component
The selection of applicability levels,
emission limits, and alternative
standards for the bleaching component
is discussed in this section.
a. Applicability Levels. As discussed
in Section X.G., certain minor emission
points within the bleaching component
are not intended to be controlled by the
proposed standards. The following
applicability levels were established to
identify those individual process
emission points that are not required to
be controlled—emission points
maintaining either:
• Volumetric flow rate less than
0.0050 scmm;
• Mass flow rate less than 0.230
kilograms of total HAP per hour; or
• Mass flow rate less than 0.0010
kilograms of total HAP per megagram of
air dry pulp produced. Since MACT was
determined to be the floor level control,
the numerical applicability levels are set
to control emission points that are
controlled at the floor. EPA requests
comment on whether these numerical
applicability levels are appropriate for
identifying bleaching component
emission points that are not controlled.
b. Numerical Limitation. A 99 percent
reduction of the total HAP mass in the
vent stream was chosen based upon the
efficiency achievable by the floor level
control technology, which is scrubbing.
The efficiency was selected based upon
data from NCASI Bulletin 616.
According to the report, the best
performing scrubbers are designed with
a control efficiency of 99 percent for
chlorine and chlorine dioxide.
Engineering equations and models, were
used to determine the efficiency for"
other HAP compounds, including
hydrochloric acid and methanol. Using
.scrubber design specifications, scrubber
efficiencies for these compounds, which
comprise the majority of total HAP
emissions from the bleach plant, were
estimated to be 99 percent. EPA requests
comment on the removal efficiency of
scrubbers—specifically for methanol,
chloroform, chlorine, and any
additional HAP compounds.
c. Enclosures and Closed Vent
Systems Standards. Bleaching emission
points subject to control are required to
meet the same enclosure and closed
vent system standards that are
applicable for the pulping component.
3. Standards for the Process Wastewater
Component ,• ,
a.-Applicability Levels. As discussed
in Section X.G., EPA set applicability
levels to identify those pulping process
wastewater streams that are not '
controlled at the floor, and therefore
would not be required to be controlled
by today's proposed standards. As
-discussed in Section X.G., no bleaching
process wastewater streams are required'
to be controlled. According to available -
data, pulping process wastewater
streams that are steam stripped typically
have an annual average concentration of
at least 500 ppmw HAP or a flow rate
of at least 1 /pm. Therefore, the process
wastewater component of the floor is
limited to the application of steam
stripping for pulping process
wastewater streams with .either HAP
concentrations greater than or equal to
500 ppmw or flow rates greater than or
equal to 1
-------
66146
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
Identifying the floor. The industry has
undertaken a program to collect
additional process wastewater stream
concentration data that may be useful in
adjusting this concentration threshold,
if necessary, for the final rule. EPA
solicits comments and data on whether
the 500 ppmw HAP concentration and
1 f pm flow rate identify those process
wastewater streams not currently being
controlled.
b. Process Wastewater Collection
System. As discussed previously,
effective control of process wastewater
emissions requires control from the
point of generation until treated to
comply with the treatment standard, or,
until recycled to a controlled piece of
equipment that is in compliance with
the pulping process component
standards (e.g., a washer). Today's
proposed standards require that
emissions be controlled during process
wastewater collection and transport in
piping or individual drain systems, and
during handling and treatment in
wastewater tanks, containers, surface
impoundments, and treatment devices
by using covers, lids, water seals, roofs,
and enclosures designed to reduce
emissions. Proper work practices,
including periodic monitoring,
inspection, and repair, are also required
to ensure that the equipment will
control emissions. Emissions from these
process wastewater collection,
transport, and handling systems are
believed to be significant, thereby
requiring the use of controls to
effectively reduce air emissions.
However, emissions are typically
greatest from turbulent handling of
process wastewater. In quiescent basins
such as the clarifiers used at pulp and
paper facilities upstream from biological
treatment, emissions are much less
significant. For this reason, EPA
requests comments on the need to cover
these quiescent process wastewater
storage units.
c. Process Wastewater Treatment.
Today's proposed regulation provides
three equivalent formats for
demonstrating compliance with the
process wastewater treatment
standards—two emission limitations
and an equipment and design
specification, as discussed in Section
X.G.4. The first emission limitation is a
90 percent removal of HAP from the
process wastewater. The 90 percent
removal is based on the removal
efficiency of the floor level control
technology, which is a steam stripper
using 0.18 kilopascals (kPa) of steam per
liter of process wastewater treated.
However, the 90 percent removal may
be achieved through other.control
technologies. For example, another way
to achieve the 90 percent removal is
through biological treatment.
A second emission limitation that is
provided as an equivalent format for
demonstrating compliance with the
process wastewater treatment standard
is a total HAP concentration limit of 500
ppmw. This limitation is provided to
allow additional flexibility for the
owner in demonstrating compliance
with the process wastewater treatment
standard. In addition, because process
wastewater streams less than 500 ppmw
were determined to have a floor of no
control, treatment of process wastewater
streams to a concentration of less than
500 ppmw generates a process
wastewater stream that would require
no additional control from the point at
which it exits the steam stripper.
As stated previously, the 90 percent
removal is based on the average removal
efficiency of those steam strippers using
at least 0.18 kPa of steam per liter of
process wastewater feed. EPA requests '
comment on the efficiency of these
steam strippers for removing total HAP,
and methanol specifically.
An equipment and design standard
based on the use of a steam stripper is
proposed as a third equivalent format
for demonstrating compliance with the
process wastewater treatment standard.
If the owner or operator installs and
operates a steam stripper in compliance
with the following requirements, an
equivalent emission reduction to that
provided with the numerical emission
limits is achieved. These design and
operating.parameters include:
• Counter current flow configuration
with a minimum of 8 theoretical trays
in the stripping section of the column,
• A minimum steam flow rate of 0.18
kPa of steam per liter of process
wastewater feed with steam of at least
149 degrees Centigrade and 276
kilograms gauge pressure,
• Minimum process wastewater
column feed temperature of 96 degrees
Centigrade, and
• Maximum liquid loading of 44,600
liters per hour per square meter.
d. Vent Collection of Vapor Recovery
or Destruction. HAPs are emitted from
vents on enclosed or covered process
wastewater collection and treatment
system devices such as individual drain
systems and steam strippers. These
emissions are required to be vented
through a closed vent system meeting
the same requirements as those
proposed for the pulping component
emission points. The closed vent system
must route these vapors to a vapor
recovery or destruction device achieving
at least a 98 percent destruction or
recovery. This limitation is based on the
efficiency of a combustion device, as
discussed previously.
Because biological treatment units
destroy the HAP in the process
wastewater, a well-operated biological
treatment unit is not required to be
covered and vented to vapor recovery
and destruction. Instead, today's
proposed regulation requires an owner
or operator electing to use a biological
treatment unit to meet the 90 percent
removal requirement by demonstrating
that 90 percent of the HAP entering the
biological treatment unit is being
destroyed and not emitted.
/. Selection of Continuous Monitoring
Requirements
Section 114(a)(3) of the CAA requires
enhanced monitoring of control devices
by all major stationary sources. Section
70.6 of the promulgated operating
permit rule (57 FR 32250) requires the
submission of "compliance
certifications" to ensure continuous
compliance from sources subject to the
operating permit rule. In light of these
requirements, EPA has considered how
sources subject to this NESHAP would
demonstrate continuous compliance
with standards for the pulping,
bleaching, and process wastewater
components of the regulation.
EPA considered three monitoring
options: The use of continuous emission
monitors (CEMs) to measure total HAP,
the use of CEMs for surrogate
compounds such as methanol, chlorine,
VOC, or total hydrocarbons (THCs) as
surrogate for total HAP, or the
continuous monitoring of control device
operating parameters.
The first two options were determined
to be unreasonable for this industry.
Continuous emission monitors for total
HAP are currently not available and it
is technically not possible to monitor
each individual HAP. It may be
technically feasible to monitor VOC or
THCs as a surrogate for total HAP
through the use of a flame ionization
analyzer (FIA). However, the FIA does
not speciate compounds. At the outlet of
a combustion device, it will measure the
ionization potential of the uncombusted
fuel and products of incomplete
combustion in addition to the .
uncombusted components of the gas
stream, thus biasing monitoring results.
Additionally, FIAs do not respond
equally to all VOC or HAPs, and a
correlation of VOC or THC to HAP
compounds present in pulp and bleach
vent streams has not been established.
Because an FIA or similar device would
be an extra burden on the industry
without increasing the accuracy of
compliance demonstrations, this option
was determined to be unreasonable.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday. December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66147
The continuous monitoring of control
device operating parameters, established
during the performance test or specified
through design, is used to determine
whether continuous compliance is
achieved. Failure to maintain the
established values for these parameters
would be an enforceable violation of the
emission limits of today's proposed
standards. Some of the process
parameters are already monitored as
part of normal operation. Therefore,
continuous compliance is assured
without imposing an additional,
unnecessary burden on the facility. The
specific parameters that need to be
monitored for each component are
discussed below.
1. Pulping Process Continuous
Monitoring Requirements
In the proposed rule, owners or
'operators are required to enclose and
vent emissions from the pulping process
component into a closed vent system
and control those emissions as specified
in the regulation.
a. Enclosure and Closed Vent System
Monitoring Requirements.'The proposed
rule establishes requirements to ensure
that negative pressure is maintained on
enclosures and that emissions are
routed through a closed vent system
with no detectable leaks. If the closed
vent system contains bypass lines, the
proposed standards require the owner or
operator to ensure emissions are not
bypassing the control device.
•An initial performance test must be
conducted to ensure that negative
pressure is maintained on all openings
of each enclosure and a monthly
• inspection must be performed to
confirm that any enclosure openings
that were closed during the performance
test remain closed.'
To ensure continuous compliance
with the requirement of no detectable
leaks from die enclosure and closed
vent system, monitoring with a portable
hydrocarbon detector is required to be
performed initially and annually, along
with a program of monthly visible
inspections of the ductwork, piping, and
connections to covers for evidence of
visible defects. If visible defects in the.
closed vent system are observed,
readings greater than 500 ppmv above
background are measured, or enclosure
openings do not have negative pressure,
a first effort to repair the closed vent
system must be made as soon as
practicable and no later than 5 calendar
days. The repair must be completed no
later than 15 calendar days after
identification. ;
To ensure the control device is not
being bypassed if bypass lines are
present, owners or operators must
install, calibrate, maintain, and operate
according to manufacturer's instructions
a flow indicator that provides a record
of emission point gas stream flow at
least once every 15 minutes. As an
alternative, the proposed rule allows
bypass lines to be sealed in the closed
position and visually inspected every
month to ensure they are being
maintained in the closed position. The
use of flow indicators or seals on the
bypass lines ensures that process vent
streams are continuously being routed
to the control device.
b. Control Device Monitoring
Requirements. Owners or operators can
demonstrate compliance with the
requirements for pulping component
emission points either by conducting an
initial performance test to establish
parameters that achieve 98 percent
destruction or by meeting the design
requirements. Owners or operators
using an incinerator to comply with the
pulping component requirements-are
required to install, calibrate, operate,
and maintain according to
manufacturers' instructions a
temperature monitoring device
measuring firebox temperature, and
equipped with a continuous recorder.
The continuous monitoring of
temperature within the firebox ensures
compliance with the required percent
emission reduction or outlet
concentration by measuring that the
combustion temperature is sufficient to
ensure good combustion of HAPs.
Firebox temperature is typically
monitored within the pulp and paper
industry to ensure proper operation of
the incinerator.
' The continuous temperature
monitoring requirement described above
does not apply to vent streams
introduced into recovery furnace with
the primary fuel or into the flame zone.
These devices operate at temperatures
and residence times that EPA has
concluded will ensure compliance with
the emission limits (at least 98 percent
reduction of total HAP). Therefore, if the
vent stream is routed to the devices as
described above and enters at the .
specified locations, continuous
compliance is demonstrated.
The proposed rule requires
continuous compliance and does not
account for downtime associated with
existing combustion devices such as the
lime kiln and recovery furnace. Pulp
mills are assumed to operate and vent
emissions to these existing devices
during pulping process operations, or
vent emissions to a stand-alone
incinerator. EPA requests comments
concerning continuous compliance
associated with utilizing existing
combustion devices, such as data on
downtimes and frequencies while
pulping operations continue, capacity
utilization, retrofit information, and
current back-up operations.
2. Bleaching Process Continuous
Monitoring Requirements
The owner or operator is required in
the proposed rule to enclose and vent
emissions from the bleaching
component into a closed vent system
and control those emissions as specified
in the regulation.
a. Enclosure and Closed Vent System
Monitoring Requirements. Monitoring
requirements for bleaching component
closed vent systems are the same as
those described in Section X.I.I.a for the
pulping process component.
b. Control Device Monitoring
Requirements. Owners or operators
using a gas scrubber to comply with the
emission limits specified for the , '
•bleaching area are required to install,
calibrate, operate, and maintain
according to manufacturers'
specifications continuous monitors with
continuous recorders of:
• The pH of the gas scrubber effluent,
• The flow of the gas scrubber vent
gas inlet, and
• The gas scrubber liquid influent
flow rate. Monitoring the pH ensures
sufficient excess caustic needed for total
HAP removal. Monitoring the gas stream
and liquid stream flows ensures the
proper liquid-to-gas ratio needed for
total HAP removal. All of these
parameters are set during the initial
performance test that demonstrates
required total HAP reduction. Liquid
and gas flow rates, as well as pH, are
typically monitored under current
industry practices to ensure continuous
proper scrubber operation; therefore
continuous compliance of the gas
scrubber with the required control
. levels can be ensured without imposing
additional burden. The Agency requests
comment and data on the use of a
design scrubber, specifically on the
parameters that would ensure 90
percent reduction to allow facilities to
avoid compliance testing, including
flow rate and pH. '
3. Process Wastewater Continuous
Monitoring Requirements
The proposed standards include
• requirements for continuous monitoring
to ensure that owners suppress and
capture emissions from the process
wastewater collection system, treat the
process wastewater to reduce the HAP
concentration, and convey emissions
from the process wastewater collection
and treatment to a control device as
specified in the regulation.
-------
66148 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 241 / Friday. December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
o. Process Wastewater Collection. The
standards require monitoring to ensure
that the process wastewater collection
system equipment—including tanks,
surface impoundments, containers, and
drain systems—is operated with no
detectable leaks. The standards require
owners or operators to demonstrate
initially and annually that the system
has no detectable leaks according to the
procedures for pulping component
enclosure and closed vent systems, as
discussed in Section X.I.l.a. The
standards also include a requirement for
weekly inspection of the process
wastewater collection system to detect
and repair any leaks in the system.
b. Process Wastewater Treatment. The
proposed regulation requires each
owner or operator using a steam stripper
to comply with the emission limit or
design and equipment standards
specified for process wastewaters to
install, calibrate, operate, and maintain
according to manufacturers'
specifications continuous monitors with
continuous recorders of:
• The mass rate of process wastewater
fed to the stripper,
• The mass rate of steam fed to the
stripper, and
• The process wastewater column
feed temperature. These parameters are
either established during an initial
performance test or according to design
specification in the regulation. They are
typically monitored in the industry to
ensure proper operation; therefore
ensuring continuous compliance of a
steam stripper with the specified
requirements for HAP removal requires
no additional monitoring burden.
Owners or operators using a biological
treatment unit to achieve a 90 percent
total HAP reduction across the unit are
required to monthly measure the
methanol or HAP concentration in the
influent and effluent, and identify
appropriate parameters to be monitored
to ensure continuous compliance. These
parameters must be determined during
the initial performance test as
demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction, and monitored accordingly.
The NCASI is collecting information on
the effectiveness of biological treatment
units and monitoring techniques. One
potential method they have suggested is
the monitoring of inlet and outlet
soluble BOD. EPA requests comments
on applicable monitoring parameters for
biological treatment units and
supporting data on biorates and
corresponding parameters for
monitoring.
c. Enclosure and Closed Vent System
Monitoring Requirements. Enclosure
and closed vent system and vapor
control monitoring requirements for
combustion of the vent streams from
process wastewater collection and
treatment are identical to those
discussed for the pulping process
component monitoring requirements.
J Selection of Reporting and
Recordkeeping Requirements
Under Section 114(a) of the CAA, the
Administrator may require any owner or
operator of an affected source to
establish and maintain records; make
reports; use and maintain monitoring
equipment; use such audit procedures,
or methods; and provide such other
information as EPA may reasonably
require. The general requirements for all
affected sources are presented in the
proposed NESHAP General Provisions
in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A (58 FR
42760; August 11,1993) hereafter
referred to as the proposed General
Provisions). .,-11
The proposed rule would specifically
require sources to submit the following
five types of reports:
• Initial Notification,
• Notification of Performance Tests,
• Notification of Compliance Status,
• Exceedance Reports, and
• Quarterly Summary Reports.
These reporting requirements are
consistent with the proposed General
Provisions. The purpose and contents of
each of these reports are described in
this section, and differences between
today's proposed standards and the
proposed General Provisions are noted.
Reports are to be submitted to the
Administrator of EPA, an EPA regional
office, a State agency, or other authority
that has been delegated the authority to
implement this rule. In most cases,
reports will be sent to State agencies.
Addresses are provided in the proposed
General Provisions.
The exceedance and summary reports
are not required for emission points that
are not required to be controlled under
the standards for the pulping, bleaching,
and process wastewater components.
Records of reported information and
other information necessary to
document compliance with the
regulation are generally required by the
proposed General Provisions to be kept
for five years. A few records pertaining
to equipment design would be kept for
the life of the equipment.
1. Initial Notification
The proposed rule would require
owners or operators who are subject to
the standards to submit an Initial
Notification. This report will establish
an early dialog between the source and
the regulatory agency, allowing both to
plan for compliance activities. The
notice is due 45 days after the date of
promulgation for existing sources. For
new sources, it is due 180 days before
commencement of construction or
reconstruction, or 45 days after
promulgation of today's proposed
standards, whichever is later.
The notification must include the
owner or operator's name and address,
the source's location, a brief description
of the processes at the source that are
subject to the proposed standards, and
which provisions may apply (e.g.,
pulping, bleaching, and/or wastewater
component). A description of the
source's compliance strategy, including
a detailed identification of emission
points, must be included in the Initial
Notification. The Initial Notification
must also include a statement of
whether the source can achieve
compliance by the specified compliance
date. If a particular source anticipates a
delay that is beyond its control, it will
be important for the owner or operator
to discuss the problem with the
regulatory authority as early as possible.
Pursuant to Section 112(d) of the CAA,
the proposed rule has provisions for 1-
year compliance extensions to be
granted on a case-by-case basis.
2. Notification of Performance Tests
The Notification of Performance Tests
informs EPA of the owner or operator's
intention to conduct performance tests
of control equipment and performance
evaluations of continuous monitoring
systems. The notification must be
submitted at least 75 calendar days
before the performance tests are
scheduled to begin to allow EPA to
review and approve the site-specific test
plans and to have an observer present
during the tests.
3. Notification of Compliance Status
The Notification of Compliance Status
must be submitted by registered letter
before the close of business on the 45th
day following the completion of the
relevant performance tests or other
compliance demonstration activities.
The notification contains the
information necessary to demonstrate
that compliance has been achieved,
such as the methods used, control
device performance test results, and
continuous monitoring system
performance evaluations. The method's
that will be used to determine
continuing compliance are also
included in the notification, such as
descriptions of the monitoring and
reporting requirements and test
methods.
Another type of information to be
included in the Notification of
Compliance Status is the specific range
for each monitored parameter for each
-------
241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66149
emission point, and the rationale for
why this range demonstrates continuous
compliance with the emission limit. As
an example, for an emission point
controlled by the incinerator, the
notification would include the site-
specific minimum firebox temperature
that will ensure 98 percent emission
reduction by the incinerator, and the
data and rationale to support this
1 minimum temperature.
4. Exceedance Reports
Exceedance Reports are required for
any quarter where an exceedance of a
monitored parameter is noted. This
would include reporting when a process
parameter does not meet compliance
levels established in the compliance
report, as well as any other operating
procedures outlined in the standards
that are not followed, including the
monthly inspections of the closed vent
system or enclosed wastewater system.
These reports must contain the
following information: The date and
time of the monitoring parameter
exceedances; the nature of any
malfunction, start-up, or shut-down not
completely consistent with the
submitted plan and an explanation why;
any corrective action taken;* the total
process operating time during the
reporting period; and information
concerning times when the continuous
monitoring system is not operating
properly. If an Exceedance Report is
required, the summary report for that
quarter must contain the Exceedance
Report. A separate Exceedance Report is
not required.
quarterly Exceedance Report if an
Exceedance Report is required, and a
separate Exceedance Report will not be
submitted. This report is consistent with
the General Provisions.
6. Recordkeeping Requirements
The proposed rule requires sources to
keep readily accessible records of
monitored parameters. For those control
devices that must be monitored
continuously, records that include at
least one monitored value for every 15
minutes of operation are considered
sufficient. These monitoring records
must be maintained for five years.
The proposed General Provisions
require the submittal of a start-up, shut-
down, and malfunction plan. Anytime
an owner or operator is "not consistent
with the plan, accessible records
explaining why must be kept.
K. Selection of Test Methods and
Procedures
Test methods and procedures are
required to ensure compliance with the
standards proposed for the pulping,
bleaching, and process wastewater
components. These proposed standards
include requirements for demonstrating
that an emission point or process
wastewater stream does not require ..
control or that it is in compliance with
the control requirements. Requirements
to test for no detectable leaks from
control devices, enclosure and closed
vent systems, and process wastewater
collection and treatment systems are
also included.
5. Quarterly Summary Reports
A quarterly Summary Report shall be
submitted for each affected source. The
report contains the following
information: (I) The company name and
address; (2) an identification of each
HAP monitored at the affected source;
(3) the beginning and ending dates of
the reporting period; (4) a brief
description of the process units; (5) the
emission and operating parameter
limitations specified in the standards;
(6) the monitoring equipment
manufacturer(s) and model number(s);
(7) the date of the latest continuous
monitoring system certification or audit;
,(8) the total operating time of the
affected source during the reporting
period; (9) a summary of excess
emissions; (10) continuous monitoring
system performance summary; (11) a
description of any changes in processes,
controls, or monitoring systems; and
(12) the name, title, and signature of the
responsible official certifying the
accuracy of the report. The quarterly
Summary Report will contain the
1. Pulping Component
The proposed pulping component
standards require the use of approved
test methods and procedures to ensure
consistent and verifiable results for
demonstrating that a pulping
component emission point does not
require control, or for demonstrating
that the allowed emission levels are
achieved when controls are applied.
.Because the majority of all HAP
emissions from the pulping component
are methanol, the owner or operator has
the option of measuring methanol
concentration and methanol emissions
as a surrogate for total HAP.
As described in Section X.H., all
pulping component emission points
(other than deckers and screens at
existing sources) must be controlled for
HAP emissions under today's proposed
standards unless the owner or operator
demonstrates that one of the following
conditions exists:
« The vent is from an enclosed
process, and has a gas flow rate less
than 0.0050 scmm;
• The vent is from an enclosed
process, and has a vent stream emission
rate less than 0.230 Kg total HAP/hr;
• The vent is from an enclosed
process, and has vent stream emissions
less than 0.0010 Kg total HAP/Mg ADP;
or
• The sum of all streams entering the
piece of process equipment have a total
liquid phase mass loading of 0.050 Kg
HAP/Mg ADP.
Vent stream flow rates are measured
directly using Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Methods
3 and 4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A,
are used to determine the .oxygen and
carbon dioxide concentrations and the
'moisture content in the vent stream,
respectively. Another option for
demonstrating process vent flow rate is
to use engineering assessment, such as
previous test data, bench/pilot-scale •
data, or a design analysis based on
accepted chemical engineering
principles. The alternatives allow
sources to make use of existing
information on flow that can be
documented in an engineering
assessment. The engineering assessment
must include documentation of
methodology and assumptions, so that'it
can be reviewed by the enforcement
agency. The decision not to require
testing where sufficient information is
available to demonstrate flow will
reduce the testing cost and burden for
industry.
If sufficient' information is available,
owners or operators may also use an
engineer's assessment for determining
the HAP mass emission rate in either
kilograms per hour or kilograms per
niegagram of ADP pulp.-If engineering
assessment is not used, the owner or
operator may measure methanol
concentration (as a surrogate for total
HAP) in the vent stream using proposed
Method 308 of 40 GFR part 63, appendix
A. The minimum sampling time for
each of the three runs per method is one
hour. Because no one method can be
used to measure all HAPs, and the major
contributors to total HAP emissions
have specific methods; a method for
measuring total HAP concentrations is
not being proposed. At this time, there
are no validated test methods or
procedures for total HAP measurement.
The regulation allows the use of
.methanol to demonstrate compliance
with the standards. It is anticipated that
most sources subject to the standard
may opt to measure methanol instead of
total HAP. EPA solicits comments on
whether a method for total HAP is
"applicable, and if one is necessary.
The owner or operator may determine
the liquid-phase HAP concentration (or
the methanol concentration as a
-------
66150
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
surrogate for total HAP) in each stream
entering a piece of process equipment
using knowledge of the process streams,
bench scale or pilot scale test data, or
physical measurements of methanol
concentration. Again, the three methods
have been provided to allow less
expensive alternatives than actual
measurement if the appropriate
information is available. For physical
measurement of total HAP or methanol
concentration in a process liquid
stream, Method 305 (corrected for the
fraction of HAP or methanol measured
by the method) shall be used.
In addition to the methods described
above, the proposed standards also
allow the use of any test method or test
results validated according to the
protocol in Method 301 of 40 CFR part
63, appendix A.
Initial performance tests are required
in the proposed regulation for all
pulping component control devices
other than those meeting the equipment
standards described in Section X.H.I.
Initial performance tests are required
for all other pulping component control
devices to: demonstrate that a control
device can achieve the required control
level; and establish operating
parameters that ensure continuous
compliance. Flow and concentration
measurements are needed to
demonstrate compliance with the '
pulping component provisions of 98
percent HAP reduction or an outlet
concentration of 20 ppmv for
combustion devices. Method 2,2A, 2C,
or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A
may be used to measure vent stream
volumetric flow. Method 3 and Method
4 of the 40 CFR part 60, appendix A
may be used to determine the oxygen
and carbon dioxide concentrations, and
the moisture content of the vent system,
respectively. Proposed Method 308 of
40 CFR part 63, appendix A can be used
to measure the methanol concentration.
Three runs with a minimum sampling
time of one hour each must be
conducted for each method utilized. As
an alternative to these methods, any test
method or test results validated
according to the protocol in Method 301
of 40 CFR part 63, Appendix A can be
used. The proposed regulation contains
equations for calculating percent
reduction from the flow and
concentration measurements.
Procedures for correcting the outlet
concentration from combustion devices
to three percent oxygen are also
included in the proposed standards.
The proposed standards require the
use of Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A to test for no detectable
leaks in an enclosure and closed vent
system equipment. Method 21
incorporates the use of a portable
hydrocarbon detector to measure the
concentration of VOC. Method 21 is
used to test compliance in several
standards in 40 CFR parts 60, 61, and
63, and represents the best available
method for detecting leaks from these
sources. The organic compounds
measured by the hydrocarbon detector
are not necessarily HAP. However, if
organic compounds are contained in the
enclosure and closed vent system
equipment being tested, Method 21 is
the best procedure available for
providing an indication of leaks in the
system.
The standards require that an initial
performance test be conducted to
demonstrate that negative pressure
exists at the openings on enclosures
over process equipment. The standard •
allows the use of the following to
demonstrate negative pressure:
• An anemometer,
• visual inspection to indicate
negative pressure,
• A differential pressure monitor, or
• Calculation of average face velocity.
2. Bleaching Component
The proposed bleaching component
standards require the use of approved
test methods and procedures to ensure
consistent and verifiable results for
demonstration that a bleaching
component emission point does not
require control, or for demonstration
that the allowed emission levels are
achieved when controls are applied'. For
all bleaching'component requirements,
the owner or operator has the option of
measuring methanol and chlorine
concentration and emissions as a
surrogate for total HAP.
As described in Section X.H., all
bleaching component emission points
must control HAP emissions under
today's proposed standards, unless the
owner or operator demonstrates that the
emission point is from an enclosed
process, and has:
• A gas flow rate less than 0.0050
scmm; or
• A vent stream emission rate less
than 0.230 Kg of total HAP/hr; or
• A vent stream emission rate less
than 0.0010 Kg of total HAP/Mg air
dried pulp. The owner or operator may
use the methods described in Section
X.K.1 for determining the vent stream
flow rate and HAP emission rates.
For determining the HAP mass
emission rate, the owner or operator
may determine the total HAP mass
emissions or the methanol and chlorine
mass emissions. Methanol mass
emissions can be determined using the
methods described earlier in Section
X.K.I. The chlorine mass emissions may
be determined using Method 26A of 40
•CFR part 60, appendix A or any other
test method or data that has been
validated according to the protocols in
Method 301 of 40 CFR part 63, appendix
A. There must be three runs for each
method. The minimum sampling time
for each of the three runs is one hour.
Performance tests are required for
bleaching component control devices to:
Demonstrate that a control device can
achieve the required control level and
help establish operating)parameters that
ensure continuous compliance. To
demonstrate compliance with the
bleaching component .requirements of
99 percent reduction of total HAP mass
in the vent streams, Method 2, 2A, 2C,
or 2D of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A
may be'used to measure vent stream
volumetric flow. Method 3 and Method
4 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A may
be used to determine the oxygen and
carbon dioxide concentrations, and the
moisture content of the vent system, .
respectively. The method for
determining methanol and chlorine
concentrations is as described earlier in
Section X.K.I.
The proposed standards require the
use of Method 21 of 40 CFR part 60,
appendix A to test for no detectable
leaks in closed vent system equipment.
The standards require that an initial
performance test be conducted to
demonstrate that negative pressure
exists at the process equipment
enclosure openings. The methods for •
demonstrating negative pressure are the
same as those for the pulping
component, which are described in
Section X.K.I and earlier in this section,
respectively.
3. Process Wastewater Component
The proposed process wastewater
component standards require the use of
approved test methods and procedures
to ensure consistent and verifiable
results for demonstration that a process
wastewater component stream does not
require control, or for demonstration
that the allowed emission levels are
achieved when controls are applied. As
for the pulping component emission
points, the owner or operator has the
option of measuring methanol
concentrations and mass as a surrogate
for total HAP.
As described in Section X.H., all
.process wastewater component streams
from the pulping process must be
controlled for HAP emissions per the
requirements in today's proposed
standards, unless the owner or operator
demonstrates that one of the following
conditions exist: the annual average
process wastewater stream flow rate is
less than 1.0 /pm; or the annual average
-------
December 17,'l9'93 / Proposed Rules . 66151
Federal Register / Vol. 58, Mo. 241 / Friday,
HAP concentration is less than 500
ppmw. Process wastewaters from the
bleaching process are not required to be
controlled by these proposed standards.
Several methods can be used to
determine the annual average process
wastewater stream flow rate. The owner
or operator may estimate process
wastewater flow rate using the
maximum annual production capacity
of the process equipment, knowledge of
the process and mass balance. The
owner or operator may also use
measurements that are representative of
average process wastewater generation
rates. A third option is to select the
highest flow rate of process wastewater
from historical records. Knowledge-
based methods are allowed to provide
flexibility and to allow the use of less
expensive alternatives than actual
measurement if the appropriate
information is available.
For quantifying the annual average
HAP concentration of the process
wastewater streams, three methods are
available:
• Knowledge of the process
wastewater streams,
• Bench scale or pilot scale test data,
methanol concentrations (as a surrogate
for HAP concentration) in process
wastewater and flow rate. The methods
for these measurements are thie same as
the direct measurement methods used to
determine streams that are not required
to be controlled.
If an owner or operator elects to treat
a process wastewater stream in a
biological treatment uijit, the owner or
operator may use Method 304 to
determine site-specific biodegradation
rate constants for methanol, in
conjunction with modelling using
WATER7 (or another approved model),
to predict the HAP reduction achieved
in a biological treatment unit.
' All process wastewater collection and
treatment systems and associated closed
vent systems used to control emissions
from them are required to be evaluated
for no detectable leaks using Method 21
of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Vent
stream control device performance tests
for vents from the process wastewater
collection and treatment system use the
same methods as for pulping component
emission points.
L. Modifications, Reconstruction and
New Additions
or
• Physical measurement. Again, the
three methods have been allowed to
provide flexibility. Because available
data indicate that the majority of total
HAP emissions are methanol, the
methanol concentration is allowed as a
surrogate for total HAP concentration.
If the actual concentration of
methanol is measured, the proposed
regulation requires that the sample be
collected from the point of generation of
the individual process wastewater
stream, or if not feasible to be collected
at the point of generation, to be
corrected to the point-of-generation-
value. The sample is required to be
collected using the sampling procedures
specified in Method 305 of 40 CFR part
60, Appendix A, to prevent losses of
methanol during sample collection. The
sample may be analyzed using Method
305 or any test method or test data that
has been validated according to the
protocols in Method 301.
Initial performance tests are required
for all treatment devices used to reduce
the HAP concentrations in process
wastewater streams with the exception
of the design steam stripper, Installation
of Ihe specified equipment and
operation at the specified parameter
levels will achieve the required
reduction in HAP concentrations.
The proposed rule-includes treatment
process performance test procedures for
the effluent concentration and percent
reduction. These test procedures
involve direct measurements of
Section 112 of the CAA, as amended
in 1990, requires that many physical
and operational changes at existing
major sources meet MACT control
requirements. Examples of these
changes include modifications,
reconstructions, and the addition of new
equipment. EPA is engaged in several
rulemakings that will more precisely
define these requirements. Two of these
are a rule to implement section 112(g)
of the Act, and a rule known as the
"General Provisions," which will set
generic requirements for sources
covered by any MACT standard, These
two rules will determine the generic
administrative and control-level
requirements that apply to changes at all
major sources, including pulp and paper
EPA published the proposed NESHAP
General Provisions for comment in the
Federal Register on August 11,1993 (58
FR 42760). EPA plans in the near future
to publish and invite comment on a
proposed rule to implement section
112(g). Section 112(g) requires MACT
determinations for modification,
reconstruction or construction of a
major source of HAPs. These
determinations are to be made on a case-
by-case (facility specific) basis when
EPA has not yet promulgated a NESHAP
under section 112(d). ,
In today's pulp and paper rule, EPA.
is not attempting to resolve program-
wide issues such as the
interrelationship between sections
112(g) and 112(d), the control levels
required by statute for different types of
changes, or generic preconstruction
review requirements. EPA encourages
those interested in these issues to
submit comments on the proposed rule
to implement section 112(g) (A
discussion of the relationship between
sections 112(g), 112(d) and 112(j) is
included in the Federal Register notice
proposing a fule'to implement section
112(j) of the Act. 58 FR 37778 (July 13,
1993). Section 112(j) establishes .
requirements for case-by-case regulation
of ma^or. sources in the event EPA lags
more than 18 months behind schedule
in issuing a NESHAP for an industry).
Pulp and paper industry
representatives have voiced concerns
about the influence that today's
proposed NESHAP could have on
control requirements under § 112(d)
applicable to changes to an existing
mill. In today's proposed rule, EPA is
recommending a broad definition of
"source" to comprise all pulping,
bleaching and process wastewater
operations at a mill. This broad source
definition alleviates concerns that a
small change to an existing mill would
trigger new source requirements under
the NESHAP itself. ,
Industry representatives have voiced
an additional concern that involves
case-by-case MACT determinations
' required under CAA § 112(g) for
changes to an existing mill. Specifically,
their concern is that once a State permit
system is effective, States will use
today's proposed rule as the basis of
case-by-case MACT requirements for
mills that make modifications or
construct a new unit that by itself could
be considered a major source. Industry
representatives consider this to be a
problem because they believe that the
NESHAP standards proposed today are
too stringent, and that additional data
they are collecting will confirm this
view. EPA applauds the industry's
efforts to collect additional data and is
hopeful that such data will be useful in
refining the rule prior to promulgation.
However, EPA believes currently
available data provides a strong basis for
today's proposed rule. The NESHAP
proposed today are based on the
statutory minimum (referred to as the
floor) level of control, based on current
control practices in the industry.
In view of the industry's concern
about case-by-case MACT
determinations, EPA wishes to
emphasize the following points. In
making case-by-case MACT
determinations for pulp and paper mills
under section 112(g), permitting
authorities should take into account
available information. This information
-------
66152 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
would include today's proposed rule
and proposed MACT floor
determination, supporting information,
and information submitted to the
permitting authority during the public
comment period on a permit. EPA urges
permitting authorities to weigh carefully
the information provided by all parties
commenting on a proposed case-by-case
MACT determination, including any
new information submitted by industry
that might influence required levels of
control at a mill. At the same time,
permitting authorities must consider
whether a statutory minimum (or floor)
level of control exists and, if so, ensure
that case-by-case MACT requirements
are no less stringent.
M. Emissions Averaging
During the development of today's
proposal, EPA considered including an
emissions averaging approach. EPA did
not include an emissions averaging
approach because of data limitations
and uncertainties regarding how
emissions averaging would be applied
to the pulp and paper industry. EPA
would be interested in pursuing the
development of an averaging alternative
if such alternative would be protective
of the environment and, as expected,
lower the cost of achieving any
particular emission reduction. A
possible benefit of an averaging
approach is that it may provide sources
greater flexibility in achieving emissions
reductions that may also translate into
cost savings for the source. EPA is
interested in receiving data and
comments that could be used to develop
an emissions averaging alternative in
the final rule.
• As discussed in Section X.C, EPA is
defining the MACT "source" broadly to
include all pulping process areas,
bleaching process areas, and pulping
and bleaching process wastewater
streams as a whole. As explained in
Section X.C, EPA could have defined
the source more narrowly as either an
individual emission point or as a
process area. If EPA had defined the
source based on process area, there
would be three types of sources: pulping
area source, bleaching area source, and
wastewater source. Although EPA chose
to define the source broadly, the MACT
floor was determined based upon
control technologies in use at individual
emission points across the industry.
To facilitate emissions averaging, an
alternative way to establish the MACT
floor would be to identify a mass
emission limit or a mass emission
reduction percentage across the source
as a whole. For the broad source
definition in today's proposal, this
would mean identifying the floor based
upon a mass emission limit or a mass
emission reduction percentage achieved
at the best performing 12 percent of the
process areas as a whole. For the more
narrow definition of source by process
area, this would mean identifying the
floor based upon a mass emission limit
or a mass emission reduction percentage
at the best performing 12 percent of the
process areas (e.g., the best performing
12 percent of the pulping area sources).
However, EPA does not consider data
currently available as sufficient to
establish either a mass emission limit or
a mass emission reduction percentage.
In part as a result, EPA elected to
establish the MACT floor on an
emission point basis according to
control technologies currently in use in
the industry at individual emission
points and knowledge df the
performance capabilities of these
control technologies.
EPA. also considered whether the day-
to-day variability of the pulp and paper
processes would preclude establishing
either a mass emission limit or a mass
emission reduction percentage and
whether an emissions averaging
approach could be implemented for this
industry given the potential process
variability. Process variabilities that
could affect air emissions include
swings in production depending on
wood species available and products
being produced, as well as other
variables associated with using a natural
feedstock such as wood.
EPA solicits comments on the
feasibility of emissions averaging in the
pulp and paper industry and requests
information and data that would be
necessary to support development and
implementation of an averaging
approach. Details on specific comments
and data requested are presented in
Section XIII, "Solicitation of
Comments."
For more information on emissions
averaging, refer to the proposed
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Categories: Organic Hazardous Air
Pollutants from the Synthetic Organic
Chemical Manufacturing Industry
(SOCMI) at 57 FR 62608. The final rule
for the SOCMI, known as the hazardous
organic NESHAP (HON), is currently
being developed. In the interim since
the HON proposal, EPA published a
supplemental notice at 58 FR 53478
announcing reopening of the public
comment period on an array of issues.
N. Relationship to Operating Permit
Program
Under title V of the CAA, all HAP-
emitting sources will be required to
obtain an operating permit. Often,
emission limits, monitoring, and
reporting and recordkeeping
requirements are scattered among
numerous provisions of State
. Implementation Plans (SIPs) or Federal
regulations. As discussed in the rule '
establishing the operating permit
program published on July 21,1992 (57
FR 32251), the operating permit
program will include in a single
document all of the requirements that
pertain to a single source. All applicable
requirements of the pulp and paper
NESHAP will ultimately be included in
the source's title V operating permit.
The permit will contain federally
enforceable conditions with which the
source must comply.
State operating permit programs must
be approved by EPA. Once a State's
permit program has been approved,
each pulp and paper mill within that
State must apply for and obtain an
operating permit. If the State where the
facility is located does not have an
approved permitting program, the
owner or operator of a facility must
submit the application to the EPA
Regional Office under the proposed
NESHAP General Provisions. The
addresses for the Regional Offices and
States are included in the proposed
NESHAP General Provisions.
XI. Impacts of Integrated Regulatory
Alternative
A. Integrated Regulatory Alternative
As discussed in Section VI, EPA
chose an integrated regulatory
alternative comprising the selected
control technology bases for BAT, PSES,
MACT, BPT, BCT and BMPs. Table
XI.A-1 summarizes the integrated
regulatory alternative. A summary of the
impacts of the alternative is presented
in Table XI.A-2. Impacts include the
effluent and emission reductions and
the total annualized costs.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 7 Proposed Rules 66153
TABLE XI.A-1.—INTEGRATED REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE
Effluent toxic and priority pollutant control (BAT technology
basis) by subcategory
Papergrade
kraft and soda
BAT Option 4
Oxygen
damnification
or extended
cooking and
complete
100% of chlo-
rine with chlo-
rine dioxide. "
Papergrade
sulfite
BAT Option 2
Totally chlorine
free bleach-
ing-
•
Dissolv-
ing sulfite
BAT Op-
tion 1
Oxygen
deligni-
fication
and
com-
plete
substi-
tution
of chlo-
rine
with
chlo-
rine di-
oxide.
Dissolv-
ing kraft
BAT Op-
tion 2
Oxygen
deligni-
fication
arid
70%
substi-
tution
of chlo-
rine
with
chlo-
rine di-
oxide.
HAP emission control (MACT technology
basis) by process area, all subcategories
Pulping
component
MACT
Floor
Combus^
tion of all
vents
(except
deckers
and
screens).
Bleaching
component
MACT
Floor
Scrubbing
at all
vents.
•
Process
wastewater
component
MACT Floor
Steam strip-
ping of di-
gester con-
densates,
evaporator
conden-
sates, tur-
pentine re-
covery
., wastewaters.
Effluent conven-
tional pollutant
control (BPT
technology
basis), all
subcategories
Wastewater treat-
ment improve-
ments to per-
formance level
of 50% of mills.
Best manage-
ment practices,
all subcateg'ories
Pulping and black
liquor spill pre-
vention and
' control.
TABLE XI.A-2.—SUMMARY OF IMPACTS OF PULP AND PAPER INTEGRATED REGULATORY ALTERNATIVE
1 Effluent reductions (Mg/yr)
Toxics
2,800
AOX
45,100
Conven-
tional pol- ,
lutants
227,000
Emission reductions (Mg/yr)
Hazard-
ous air
pollutants
120,000
Volatile
organic
com-
pounds
716,000
Total re-
duced
sulfur
295,000
Total
annualized
compliance
cost ($1992
million)
$600
B. Costs and Economic Impact
Considerations
1. Regulatory Compliance Costs
a. Engineering Control Cost'Estimates.
The cost of the integrated regulatory
alternative can be expressed in several
different ways. One way is an
engineering control cost estimate, which
is an estimate of the price paid by a
facility to install equipment and
perform procedures to .meet an
environmental standard. These costs are
incremental to any existing regulatory
compliance costs, and are specific to the
proposed standards. These costs are
comprised of a total capital investment
(TCI) component and an annual
operating and maintenance (O&M) •
component.
The BAT and PSES costs presented in
Section 1X.G consider only'capital and
O&M costs associated with process
changes, best management practices,
and COD control. The costs of the
integrated regulatory alternatives, which
are presented in this section, include
both of these components (TCI and
O&M) for both air and water pollution;
control. All costs in this section are
expressed in 1992 dollars.
The TCI component is an estimate of
the purchase price of capital equipment
and installation services to meet the
proposed standards. For the integrated
alternative, the national estimate of TCI
is $4.0 billion. The O&M component is
an estimate of the cost to operate and
maintain the capital equipment
installed to meet the standard, the
estimated cost of work practice
requirements, and an estimate of the
annual cost of overhead items
associated with the capital equipment
that includes the cost of insurance and
local property taxes. The national,
estimate of annual O&M costs is $401
million.
The TCI can be annualized and added
to the O&'M component to result in a
national estimate of the total annualized
cost (TAG) of the proposed integrated
regulatory alternative. The TCI is
annualized by amortizing the TCI over
the depreciable investment life of the
installed equipment using'a 10%
discount-rate. When calculated this
way, the TAG 'of the integrated
regulatory alternative is $921 million.
Additional information about the
development of engineering control
costs is included in Sections IX.G and
X.L of this preamble and in supporting
documents (background information
document and technical water
development document).
b. Mill-Specific Compliance Cost
Calculations. Another way to express . ,
the cost of the integrated regulatory
alternative is to estimate the actual after-
tax cost to an individual facility of
installing equipment and performing
procedures to meet an environmental
standard. This cost estimate is often
referred to as the private cost, because
it estimates the cost of the.regulatory
alternative to private entities. This
calculation is made for each facility .by
analyzing facility cash flows for
pollution abatement activities over the
depreciable life of the TCI. This
calculation reduces the annual cost by
the reduction in annual tax liability that
facilities are able to realize as a result of
increases in operating and depreciation
expenses, and assumes the facility will
be able to fully utilize the value of these
reductions each year. The total
annualized private cost—i.e., the sum of
the annualized compliance cost for each
affected facility—of the integrated
regulatory alternative is estimated to be
$600 million. .
2. Economic Impact Analysis
Methodology
The Agency's economic impact
analysis of the integrated regulatory
alternative addresses concerns about the
-------
66154 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
economic achievability and potential
market disruptions created by
environmental regulation. The Agency
has used the results of both a financial
impact analysis and a market impact
analysis to address these concerns. The
economic impact analysis is presented
m "Economic Impact and Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis of Proposed
Effluent Guidelines and NESHAP for the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry."
This document details the use of
regulatory compliance costs, the
economic impact methodologies, and
the projected economic effects of the
proposed rule. A summary of the key
economic impact results is presented in
this section.
a. Financial Impact Analysis. The
financial impact analysis estimates the
incidence of mill closures, the potential
employment, output, and export
impacts associated with mill closures,
and the change in key financial ratios
attributable to the incremental
compliance costs. To estimate potential
mill closure, the analysis compares
estimates of the discounted present
value of future earnings to estimates of
mill salvage value. The comparison is
made to determine whether, after
imposing regulatory compliance costs,
the mill would be more valuable to the
current owner if it were shut-down and
liquidated rather than in continued
operation. The analysis also estimates
the changes in key financial ratios (a
measure of financial health of mills)
after imposing regulatory compliance
costs, and compares the changes to
fluctuations that have historically
occurred in the business cycle.
b. Market Impact Analysis. The
market impact analysis estimates mill
supply responses and end-use demand
responses to regulatory compliance
costs for all market actors in 31 defined
product markets. This analysis estimates
the potential changes in pulp, paper,
and paperboard product prices,
individual and overall mill production
and employment levels, foreign imports
and domestic exports, and mill
production costs and revenues. The
analysis estimates mill closures by
estimating the post-regulatory earnings
before interest, depreciation and taxes
(EBIDT). Negative earnings indicate
potential closure.
3. Economic Impact Analysis Results
The Agency estimates that
approximately 300 pulp, paper, and
paperboard mills will incur direct costs
to comply with the proposed regulation.
Mill closure projections are based on
quantitative estimates of several
economic factors, but the decision to
close an industrial facility depends on
many judgments outside the scope of
the Agency's analysis. Thus, the
Agency's projections of potential
closures are interpreted as an indication
of the extent of plant, impact rather than
as a prediction of certain closure.
The Agency estimates that between 11
and 13 mills will face the possibility of
closure as a result of the change in
production costs due to the integrated
regulatory alternative, and from 2,800 to
10,700 jobs could be lost. This range is
created by differences in the
assumptions used in the financial and
the market models. The upper end of
the ranges reflects more conservative
assumptions.
Market prices for pulp, paper, and •
paperboard products are not expected to
be significantly affected, with the largest
price increase being 2.7 percent for
uncoated free sheet (used to make copy
paper, writing tablets, etc.). The
estimated overall impact of the
integrated regulatory alternative on the
total value and quantity of foreign
imports of pulp, paper, and paperboard
products is minor— less than 1 percent.
The most notable increases in import '
quantities for significant individual
product groups are 1.4 percent for clay
coated printing paper, 1.5 percent for
recycled paperboard, and 6.1 percent for
folding carton board.
The estimated overall impact on the
total value and quantity of exports is
also minor. However, individual
product groups may experience
significant declines in export value. The
most notable declines in export value
for significant individual product
groups are 20.5 percent for uncoated
free sheet, 7.6 percent for recycled
paperboard, 6.5 percent for newsprint,
and 3.8 percent for bleached sulfite
pulp.
4. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Part of the Agency's task of complying
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq., Pub. L. 96-354)
requires the Agency to examine the
potential economic impact of regulatory
actions on small entities. The Agency
has estimated the economic impact of •
the integrated regulatory alternative on
small mills and small companies
involved in pulp, paper, and paperboard
manufacturing, and has attempted to
illustrate the potential disparate impacts
between the groups of large and small
manufacturers.
For purposes of this proposed rule,
the Agency has considered several
alternative definitions for small entities
to capture the unique size and structure
characteristics of this industry. The
Agency considered three alternative
definitions for small entities: (1)
individual mills employing less than
750 workers, (2) individual mills
employing less than 125 workers, and
(3) independently owned and operated
companies employing less than 750
workers. Under the last definition, small
companies can be independently owned
single-facility entities, or multi-facility
companies that own more than one pulp
and paper mill, or own multiple
businesses in two or more SIC
categories. The Agency used each of
these definitions to characterize the
impacts of the proposed standards on
small entities.
The Agency estimates that 35 percent
of the mills in the industry employ less
than 125 workers and 84 percent
employ less than 750 workers. Of the
nearly 215 companies, about 70 percent
meet the definition of small. The
analyses indicate that between one and
six estimated mill closures are mills
employing less than 125 workers, and
about 9 of the estimated closures are
mills employing less than 750 workers.
Also, roughly one-half of all estimated
closures are mills owned by small
companies.
The Agency examined the impact of
the proposed rules on relevant financial
ratios of both large and small facilities.
The median results showed that
facilities employing less than 125
workers experience less deterioration in
financial health than larger facilities.
The results were-similar for facilities
employing less than 750 employees. The
company-level ratio analysis generally
indicates less deterioration in financial •
health for small companies as well. The
exceptions to this conclusion are the
results for the net working capital-to-
total assets ratio. Here, small companies
experience larger declines than large
companies, presumably due to the
smaller baseline net working capital that
smaller companies have.
The Agency also examined potential
changes in facility earnings before
interest, taxes, and depreciation
(EBITD). The results indicate that, as a
group, facilities employing less than 125
workers had a smaller decline in EBITD
than large facilities. The same holds true
for facilities employing less than 750
employees.
The Agency also employed the
Altman Z-score method to estimate the
likelihood of bankruptcy for companies,
and assess potential differences between
large and small company impacts of the
proposed standards. This analysis
indicates that small companies are not
any more likely to face bankruptcy than
large companies.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 /Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66155
5. Regulatory Impact Assessment
The Agency has prepared a regulatory
impact assessment (RIA) for the
proposed integrated regulatory
alternative. The RIA responds to the
requirements in Executive Order 12866
to assess both the costs and benefits to
society of significant regulatory actions.
Significant regulatory actions are that
impose an annual cost to the economy
of $100 million or more, or have certain
other regulatory, policy, or economic
impacts. The RIA is detailed in,
"Regulatory Impact Assessment of
Proposed Effluent Guidelines and
NESHAP for the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Industry," (see Section n for
availability of this and other supporting
documents). This RIA was submitted to
OMB for review as required by
Executive Order 12866 (and under
Executive Order 12291 prior to the new
executive order).
The RIA analyzes the effect of current
discharges and air emissions and
assesses benefits of proposed integrated
regulations for the pulp, paper and
paperboard industry. Three types of
benefits are analyzed: non-quantified
and non-monetized benefits, quantified
and non^monetized benefits, and
quantified and monetized benefits. The
non-quantified, non-monetized benefits,
assessed in this RIA include
improvements to recreational fishing,
improved aesthetic quality of waters
near the discharge outfalls, and benefits
to the wildlife and to threatened or •
endangered species.
The quantified, non-monetized
benefit assessment includes an
assessment of the potential risk
• reduction benefits to human health and
aquatic life from reduced air and water
releases.
The monetized benefits analysis
focuses onjiuman health as applicable,
and environmental benefits as related to
reduced water and air releases. The
health risk reduction benefits are
associated with reduced human
. exposure to various carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic contaminants through
inhalation and consumption of
subsistence arid recreationally-caught
finfish.
Because benefits are often highly site-
specific, the RIA also presents four case
studies that compare costs and benefits
of reducing pollutant releases in specific
geographic areas. These case studies
examine values associated with human
health risk reductions, recreational uses,
nonuse benefits, and benefits to Native;
"American tribal members.
a. Water Quality Benefits, Pulp and
paper mill effluents contain toxic and
nonconventional chemical compounds,
and conventional pollutants. Discharge-
of these nollutants into the freshwater,
estuarine, and marine ecosystems may
alter aquatic habitats, affect aquatic life,
and adversely impact human health.
Discharges from chlorine-bleaching
mills are of particular concern. Many of
the chlorinated organics in these
effluents are either human carcinogens,
human systemic toxicants, or aquatic
life toxicants. In addition, many of these
pollutants are persistent, resistant to
biodegradation and bioaccumulate in
aquatic organisms.
Two pollutants of particular concern
are 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin
(TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF). TCDD
and TCDF are extremely toxic to aquatic
life, are listed as probable human
carcinogens, and are known to have
adverse effects on human reproduction
'and liver function. Furthermore, as of
June 1993, states had issued 23 dioxin-
related fish advisories and bans near 29
bleaching pulp and paper mills.
The Agency's analysis of these
environmental and human health risk
concerns and of the water-related
Benefits resulting from the proposed
effluent guidelines is contained in
"Water Quality Assessment of Proposed
Effluent Guidelines for the Pulp, Paper,
and Paperboard Industry," hereafter
called the water quality assessment (see
Section II for availability of this
document). This assessment both
qualitatively and quantitatively -
evaluates the potential human health
benefits and water quality benefits of
controlling the discharges from four,
bleaching subcategories {Dissolving
Kraft, Bleached Papergrade Kraft,
Dissolving Sulfite, and Papergrade
Sulfite) in a mill-specific analysis of 26
pollutants, (see Section IX.C for a
discussion of the pollutants). In
addition, the environmental significance
of discharges from the non-bleaching
segment of the industry is also
qualitatively examined.
(1) Qualitative Description of Water-
Related Benefits. Water-related benefits
to aquatic life include reduction of
toxic, conventional, and
nonconventional pollutants to levels
below those considered to impact.
receiving water's biota. Such impacts
include acute and chronic toxicity,
sublethal effects on metabolic and
reproductive functions, physical
destruction of spawning and feeding
habitats, and loss of prey organisms.
Chemical contamination of aquatic biota
may also directly or indirectly impact
local terrestrial wildlife and birds.
The proposed BPT limitations and
BMP controls are expected to
significantly reduce environmental
impacts by reducing discharges of such
conventional pollutants as BOD and _
TSS. For example, habitat degradation
can result from increased suspended ,
particulate matter, that reduces light .' ..
penetration and, thus, primary ;_
productivity, or from an accumulation
of fibers that alters benthic spawning
grounds and feeding habitats.
(2) Quantitative Estimate 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
could be achieved by BAT process •
changes. The largest benefit category
under water-related benefits is the
reduction in the number of potential
cancer cases from the Consumption of
non-contaminated fish-by recreational
and subsistence anglers. The' next
largest category of benefits is derived ,
from the lifting of 13—17 dioxin-related
fish advisories. This will increase the
number of recreational anglers
substantially from the current levels—-
from an estimated 135^600 people who
currently fish to between, 161,400. and
162,400 anglers. Quantified but not
monetized benefits include reductions
in exceedances of health-based water
quality toxic effects levels and aquatic
life criteria. .
Quantified .human health benefits are
projected by:
• Estimating potential reduction of
carcinogenic risk and non-cancer
hazards from fish consumption;
• Estimating the number of existing
dioxin-related State fish advisories .
potentially lifted after implementation
of BAT; and
• Comparing estimated in-stream
concentrations to health-based water
quality toxic effect levels. Quantified
aquatic life benefits are estimated by
comparing modelled in-stream
concentrations to aquatic life water
quality criteria or toxic effect values.
The methodologies used in these
analyses, including all assumptions and
limitations, are explained in the water
quality assessment.
(i) Cancer Risk and Non-Cancer
Hazards and Benefits. Upper-bound
individual cancer risk, aggregate risk,
and non-cancer hazards from
consuming contaminated fish are
estimated for recreational and
subsistence anglers. Concentrations of
six carcinogenic and eleven systemic
toxicants in fish are estimated for 100
mills located near 68 receiving streams
using two site-specific water quality
models (a Simple Dilution model and
the Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation
model). Modelled fish concentrations
are used to estimate cance'r risk and
non-cancer hazards forrecreational and
-------
66156 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday. December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
subsistence fishing populations, and to
project the effect of BAT on existing
dioxin-related fish advisories.
Projected individual cancer risks vary
with the water quality modelling
approach and vary among the evaluated
mills and between recreational and
subsistence anglers. TCDD and TCDF
contribute most of the estimated cancer
risks. The totally chlorine free (TCP)
BAT option for the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory is projected to eliminate all
chlorinated organic chemical releases
(including TCDD and TCDF).
Consequently, the estimated baseline
individual cancer risk will be
eliminated over time. Proposed BAT
options for the Papergrade Kraft and
Soda, Dissolving Kraft, and Dissolving
Sulfite subcategories are projected to
reduce average baseline individual
cancer risks by about one order of
magnitude.
For combined recreational and
subsistence angler populations, the
proposed BAT for all four subcategories
is also projected to eliminate
approximately 5 to 35 annual cancer
cases per year from a baseline of about
6 to 37 cases projected at the current
discharge level; this is a reduction of
between 86 percent and 93 percent. The
range of values reflects the two different
models used for the cancer risk and
benefit assessment.
TCDD and TCDF also account for a
majority of the projected non-cancer
baseline hazard. Only two additional
pollutants, 4-chlorophenol and 2,4,5-
trfchlorophenol are projected to exceed
their non-cancer human health hazard
levels (RfDs) at the current discharge
levels. The proposed TCF BAT option is
expected to eliminate all chlorinated
organic chemical releases (including
TCDD and TCDF). Consequently,
projected baseline non-cancer hazards
for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory
will be eliminated over time. Proposed
BAT options for the Papergrade Kraft
and Soda, Dissolving Kraft, and
Dissolving Sulfite subcategories are
projected to reduce the number of mills
with projected non-cancer hazards from
between 68-84 mills to 22-52 mills, or
by 38 to 68 percent, As with the cancer
risk, the range of values for non-cancer
hazards reflects the two different
modelling approaches.
(H) Impact of BAT Controls on Dioxin-
Related Fish Advisories. EPA estimates
that as of June 1993, 23 dioxin-related
fish consumption advisories were in-
place downstream of bleaching pulp
and paper mills. EPA analyzed 20 of
these advisories by comparing modelled
TCDD.and TCDF fish concentrations for
each BAT option (using two modelling
approaches) to State-specific advisory
action levels or site-specific risk levels.
Data limitations for State advisory
action levels and stream flow precluded
benefits estimates for the remaining
three advisories. Of the 20 fish
advisories analyzed, three are related to
PCBs and mercury—pollutants that are
not being addressed in the proposed
rule—and will remain in effect. In
addition, due to low action levels used
by some states, low receiving water
stream flow rates, and uncertainties in
the projected dioxin levels, up to four
dioxin-related fish advisories will not be
lifted. In total, 13 to 17 fish advisories
could potentially be lifted after
implementation of proposed BAT.
(Hi) Exceedances of Health-Based
Water Quality Toxic Effect Levels. EPA
also compared the modelled in-stream
pollutant concentrations to health-based
toxic effect levels. Exceedances of the
toxic effect levels indicate potential
health-based water quality problems.
At current discharge levels, modelled
receiving water pollutant concentrations
for up to eight pollutants (of 13
pollutants with human health toxic
effect levels) and for 97 mills are
projected to exceed human health based
toxic effect levels. The proposed TCF
BAT option eliminates the projected
baseline impacts of four pollutants and
9 mills in the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory. The proposed BAT for the •
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory
reduces the projected baseline impacts
from eight pollutants and 80 mills to
four pollutants and 71 mills. For the
Dissolving Kraft subcategory, the
proposed BAT reduces baseline impacts
from seven pollutants and three mills to
three pollutants and two mills. The
proposed BAT for the Dissolving Sulfite
Subcategory will not change projected
baseline impacts for four pollutants and
5 mills.
(iv) Aquatic Life Benefits. EPA
assessed the effects of toxic discharges
on aquatic life by comparing modelled
in-stream pollutant concentrations to
• the EPA aquatic life criteria or to toxic
effect values. The water quality
assessment is based on pollutants both
regulated and removed incidentally.
Exceedances of these pollutant values
indicate potential impacts to aquatic
life.
EPA modelling results show that
receiving water pollutant concentrations
for up to nine pollutants and 28 mills
exceed aquatic life criteria or toxic effect
levels at current (baseline) discharge
levels. Proposed BAT options are
projected to reduce these baseline
impacts almost to zero. Only one
pollutant, TCDD, is projected to exceed
the chronic aquatic life toxic effect
value at proposed BAT for one mill.
(3) Monetization of Water Quality
Benefits. EPA has monetized the human
health benefits that were quantified
using the two site-specific water quality
models. Under the Simple Dilution
model, the benefits range between $70
million and $350 million. Under the
Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation model,
the benefits range between $10 million
and $50 million. EPA has also estimated
the benefit of lifting the fish advisories.
Estimates of increased values of the
fishery to anglers range from $5 million
to $24 million annually. Additionally,
annual benefits from avoided sludge
disposal costs are estimated to be $56
million. Thus, the monetized water-
related benefits range from $72 million
to $430 million. These estimates,
however, do not include the benefits
that have been identified but not
monetized, such as reduction in water
quality criteria exceedances, etc.
(4) Limitations and Uncertainties
Associated With Estimating Water
Quality Benefits. Uncertainties specific
to TCDD and TCDF notably affect the
human health and aquatic life benefits
because these two pollutants so
significantly contribute to the benefits
estimates. Important assumptions
include: estimates of pollutant loadings
when TCDD and TCDF were not
detected in laboratory measurements;
and use of bioconcentration factors,
aquatic life toxic effect values, cancer
slope factors, reference doses (RfDs),1
and toxic equivalency factors (TEFs)
that "may be updated based on EPA's
dioxin reassessment.
Also, the methodology used to
estimate fish advisory-related benefits
assumes the bleaching pulp and paper
mills are the only source of the dioxin
in the stream segment; the methodology
does not incorporate background
contributions either from contaminated
sediments due to previous discharge
practices or other upstream sources.
Furthermore, although the discharge of
these contaminants may cease or be
minimized, sediment contamination
and subsequent accumulation of dioxin
in aquatic organisms may continue for
. years. Actual improvements could only
be determined by site-specific biological
monitoring to assess the impact of
eliminating fish consumption
advisories.
b. Air Quality Benefits. The Agency
also examined the air quality benefits
.tha't would result from implementation
of the proposed integrated regulatory
alternative. This regulatory alternative is
expected to reduce emissions of a wide
range of hazardous air pollutants •
(HAPs), volatile organic compounds
(VOC), and total reduced sulfur (TRS).
The air quality benefits expected to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 >/ Friday, December 17, 1993 /Proposed Rules
66157
result from these emission reductions
, will be a decrease in adverse health
effects associated with inhalation of the
above pollutants, as well as improved
welfare effects such as improved crop
yields.
(1) Qualitative Description of Air
Quality Benefits. The Agency examined
the impact of the propo'sed integrated
regulatory alternative on emissions of
air pollutants regulated under the Clean
Air Act. As shown in Table XI.A-2,
VOC emissions are expected to greatly
decrease. This reduction is expected to
occur because most of the organic HAPs
emitted by sources in this industry are
also classified as VOC, and the MACT
requirements for controlling these
organic HAP emissions also control the
VOC emissions.
Emissions of VOC are responsible for
causing both health and welfare effects.
Volatile organic compounds are
precursors to the formation of ozone.
Approximately 12 percent of the VOC
emission reductions projected to result •
from today's proposal occur in areas out
of attainment of the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for ozone.
The benefits of reducing VOG
emissions are analyzed in terms of
reduced ambient ozone levels. Human
exposure to ozone primarily affects the
lungs. Ozone's most perceptible effects
on human health are acute respiratory
symptoms such as coughing and painful
deep breathing. Repeated exposure to
• ozone over a lifetime may result in
permanent impairment of the lungs.
Elevated concentrations of ambient
, ozone are also associated with adverse
welfare effects. The typical
concentration level of ozone found in
rural areas is thought to depress crop
yields and cause visible damage to other-
plant life such as premature aging and
leaf loss. Reduced ambient ozone levels
are expected to result in decreased
adverse health effects from ozone
exposure as well as decreased adverse
welfare effects such as crop damage.
An additional category of benefits
expected to result from the
implementation of the integrated
regulatory alternative is the reduction of
TRS emissions. Table XI.A-2 shows that
the integrated regulatory alternative is
expected to greatly decrease TRS
emissions. As with the VOC emissions,
total reduced sulfur compounds are
emitted with the organic HAPs and the
MACT requirement for controlling the
organic HAP emissions also controls
TSR emissions.
Total reduced sulfur emissions are
responsible for the malodors often
associated with pulp and paper
production. The benefits of reducing
total reduced sulfur emissions will be
the alleviation of the malodor problem.
Potential health benefits such as the
alleviation of headaches and nasal
irritation may also result.
' Section 112 of the CAA requires EPA
to regulate HAP emissions. The
proposed regulation is expected to
reduce emissions of a wide range of
HAPs. Inhalation of HAPs can cause a
variety of adverse health effects. Some
are classified as known or suspected
human carcinogens. Reducing the
emissions of these pollutants will
reduce the cancer risk of the exposed
population. Other hazardous air
pollutants have not been proven as
human carcinogens, but have been .
shown to cause adverse health effects
, such as lesions or abnormal cell growth
in animals. Health benchmark
concentrations have been established for
many of the pollutants in this category.
The benefits of reducing the emissions
of pollutants in this category will be
through decreased human exposure to
these pollutants below the benchmark
concentrations.
Although the proposed regulation will
reduce emissions, of a wide range of
pollutants, the integrated regulatory
alternative is expected to slightly
increase emissions of carbon monoxide,
nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and
particulate matter. These emission
increases result from combustion
controls that are the basis for the
proposed MACT standards. Adverse
health and welfare effects are associated
with the emissions of these pollutants.
Exposure to carbon monoxide
emissions may lead to aggravation of the
cardiovascular, central nervous, or
pulmonary systems. Like volatile
organic compounds, nitrogen oxide
emissions are precursors to ozone
formation. Sulfur dioxide emissions can.
be transformed into acid rain; which has
negative effects on crop yields and other
plant life. However, it should be noted
that the negative benefits associated
with the emissions of these criteria
pollutants are by far outweighed by the
positive benefits resulting from
decreases in the emissions of hazardous
air pollutants, volatile organic
compounds, and total reduced sulfur.
(2) Quantitative Assessment of Air
Quality Benefits. Reductions in VOC
emissions result in the largest category
of benefits that has been both quantified
and monetized. Reductions in TRS
emissions address the odor problem and
have been quantified but not monetized.
Likewise increases in.emissions of some
criteria pollutants were quantified but
not monetized. This assessment also
found human health benefits associated
with reductions in HAP emissions tp.be
minimal.
The largest category of benefits
expected to result from this regulation is
the reduction of VQC emissions by
approximately 716,000 Mg annually.
The control of VOC emissions is
important because the presence of these
compounds is a precursor to ozone
formation. Although data limitations
prevent quantification of the amount of
VOC emissions that are actually
transformed into ozone, the approach
•for valuing the benefits of reducing VOC
emissions will be derived, from the
monetized benefits of reducing ozone.
This regulatory alternative is also
expected to reduce TRS emissions by
approximately 295,000 Mg annually.
Total reduced sulfur emissions are
responsible for the rotten egg smell
often associated with areas near pulp
and paper mills. Surveys of odor
pollution caused by pulp mills have
supported a link'between odor and
health symptoms such as headaches,
watery eyes, runny noses, and breathing
difficulties. The above symptoms are
not readily measured or verified
objectively. Therefore, the benefits of
reduced total reduced sulfur emissions
are not further quantified.
The increase in emissions of carbon,
monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur
dioxide, and particulate matter will be
presented as the negative benefits of the
integrated regulatory alternative. Carbon
monoxide emissions are expected to
increase by approximately 300 Mg
annually, nitrogen oxide emissions by
1,300 Mg annually, sulfur dioxide
emissions by 168,200 Mg annually, and
particulate matter emissions by 100 Mg
annually. As shown, the increase in
emissions of sulfur dioxide are larger
than other criteria pollutant emission
increases; however, they are estimated
to be less than 15 percent of total sulfur
dioxide emissions currently generated
by the pulp and paper industry.
Sulfur dioxide emissions in the
pulping component, estimated to be
approximately 151,000 Mg/yr, are
attributed to the formation of sulfur
dioxide from combustion of TRS in the
pulping vent streams. Sulfur dioxide
emissions from the wastewater
•component, approximately 17,700 Mg/
yr, are generated by the fuel used to
make steam that is used in steam
stripping. This estimate is based on
several assumptions, including the
assumption that large TRS sources, such
as digester and evaporator vents, are
continuously controlled at baseline.
Another assumption is that criteria .
pollutants are released from recovery
furnaces, power boilers, lime kilns, and
smelt tanks according to the emission
rate established in AP-42.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
Due to lack of benefits data, the
adverse health and welfare effects of
increased emissions of sulfur dioxide
and other criteria pollutants cannot be
farther quantified.
Although this source category emits a
wide variety of hazardous air pollutants
only a small portion of the pollutants
are emitted in sufficient quantities to
pose a threat to human health and the
environment. (See background
information document for a complete
list of the hazardous air pollutant
emissions that will be affected by the
integrated regulatory alternative.) A risk
assessment of the carcinogenic
hazardous air pollutants evaluated the
cancer risk these pollutants pose to
humans. (Refer to the Air Quality
Assessment Document for a complete
discussion of the cancer risk
, methodology.)
Of the HAPs that are known or
suspected human carcinogens,
acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride,
chloroform, formaldehyde, and
methylene chloride were evaluated
because emissions data for the pulp and
paper industry and toxicologic data
indicated that these pollutants adversely
affect human health. The results of the
risk assessment of these five pollutants
indicated that the integrated regulatory
alternative would reduce annual cancer
risk by 0.39 of a statistical life. A
statistical life is defined to be the sum
of reduction in cancer risk for the
exposed population.
Mon-carcinogenic HAPs were
evaluated using an exposure assessment
model. (See the Air Quality Assessment
Document for a complete discussion of
'the exposure assessment methodology.)
A dose-response expressed in terms of
an inhalation reference concentration
(RfC) was used to evaluate the adverse
health effects of acrolein, acetaldehyde,
toluene, 2-butanone, methanol,
hydrochloric acid, and hexane. The
baseline exposure analysis revealed that
only two of the seven pollutants,
acrolein and acetaldehyde, posed any
adverse health threat to the exposed
population. An analysis of emissions of
these pollutants after the imposition of
the integrated regulatory alternative
revealed that an estimated 1,285,000
people would have their exposure
reduced from being above the RfC
health benchmark to being below the
benchmark. The significance of the RfC
benchmark is that exposures to levels
below the RfC are considered "safe"
because exposures to concentrations of
the chemical at or below the RfC have
not been linked with any observable
health effects.
(3) Monetized Air Quality Benefits.
The largest category of benefits expected
to result from the regulation are the
benefits from VOC emission reductions
(and therefore, reduced ambient ozone
levels). Valuation of the acute health -
and agricultural effects attributable to
the VOC emission reductions (using
. average benefit per Megagram value)
resulted in an estimated total annual
benefit ranging from $88.1 million to
$552.0 million.
It is important to note that the
approach used to monetize the benefits
of the VOC emission reductions only
account for the acute health effects and
agricultural benefits associated with
reduced exposure levels. However, 'this
approach ignores the chronic health
effects associated with repeated
exposure to ozone. This omission
results in an underestimation of the
total value of reduced ozone levels. This
conclusion is based on the evidence
(provided in the RIA) citing the
possibility of reversing the adverse
health effects due to acute ozone
exposure versus the permanent adverse
health effects due to chronic ozone
exposure.
Another large category of benefits, the
benefits of reducing total reduced sulfur
emissions, was not monetized because
health and welfare benefits associated
with undesirable odors are not readily
quantified.
An. increase in emissions of carbon
monoxide, nitrogen oxide, sulfur
dioxide, and particulate matter are
expected to result in negative benefits.
Lack of benefits data associated with
these criteria pollutant emissions "
prevent the negative benefits of these
emission increases from being
monetized.
The risk analysis showed that the
regulation will decrease annual cancer
risk by 0.39 of a statistical life. A range
of estimates for valuing reduced risk
were used to monetize this benefit
category.,The total annual benefit of the
above cancer risk reduction is estimated
to range from $0.8 million to $4.2
million. The results of the exposure
assessment could not be monetized
because information on valuing reduced
exposure to hazardous air pollutants
.was not available.
Net monetized air related benefits,
summed for all benefit categories, range
between $89 million and $556 million.
The monetized benefits presented above
are believed to underestimate the total
air quality benefits expected to result
from the regulation. This
underestimation is due 'to a lack of
benefits data that prevents all categories
of benefits from being fully quantified
and monetized. Furthermore, the
positive but non-monetized benefits of
reducing exposure to non-carcinogenic
hazardous air pollutants, reducing some
categories of adverse health effects from
ozone exposure, and reducing odor (and
potentially health) problems caused by
total reduced sulfur emissions are
expected to outweigh the negative but
non-monetized benefits of increasing
emissions of carbon monoxide, nitrogen
oxide, sulfur dioxide, and particulate
matter.
(4) Limitations Associated with
Estimating Air Benefits. Lack of
information for several benefit
categories precludes a complete
quantification of all benefit categories.
The benefits assessment was limited to
analyzing the pollutants for which
emissions information, including
toxicity data, was available. Similarly,
data limitations precluded quantified
estimates of the amount of VOC that is
actually transformed into ozone. The
benefits of reducing total reduced sulfur
(TRS) emission have not been
monetized because odor problems and
their link to health symptoms were not
readily quantified.
c. Summary of Air and Water
Benefits. The combined range of
national-level air and water benefits
from the proposed regulation are shown
in Table XI.B-l. Air-related benefits
incorporate both human health risk
reductions and air quality
improvements. The total benefits from
the regulation are estimated to range
from $160 million to $987 million.
TABLE XI.B-1 .—POTENTIAL NATION-
.WIDE AIR- AND WATER-RELATED
MONETIZED BENEFITS OF THE PRO-
POSED PULP AND PAPER REGULA-
TION
Benefit category
Air:
• Human Health
• Air Quality
Air benefits range :.
Water:
• Human Health
• Recreational Angling ..,
• Avoided Sludge Dis-
posal Costs
Water benefits range
Combined air and water
benefits range
Millions'of 1992
dollars per year
$0.8-$4.2
888.1-S552.0
S88.9-S556.2
$10.0-$430.4
$5.2-824.1
, $56.3
,871.5-8430.4
$160.4-8986.6
Note: Does not include benefits that could
not be quantified, or that could be quantified
but not monetized. These may be consider-
able. See discussion above.
d. Costs To Society. The social costs
of regulatory actions are the opportunity
costs to our society of employing our
scarce resources in pollution control
activity. The social costs of regulation
include both monetary and non-
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 2417 Friday. December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66159
monetary outlays made by society.
Monetary outlays include private-sector
compliance costs, government
administrative costs, and other
adjustment costs, like the cost of
reallocating displaced workers. Non-
monetary outlays, many of which can be
assigned monetary values, include
losses in consumers' and producers'
surpluses in affected product markets,
discomfort or inconvenience, loss of
time, and a slowdown in the rate of
innovation. The Agency used the results
of the market impact model to
approximate the social cost of the
proposed standards. The annual social
cost estimate for the integrated
regulatory proposed alternative is $948
million. .
Included in this cost are estimates of
the losses in both consumer and
producer surplus in affected markets
($920 million), estimates of worker
displacement costs ($25 million), and
estimates of private and government
administrative costs for the NESHAP ($3
million). In some instances, EPA
believes that compliance with the
proposed regulation will result in
increases in productivity, enhanced
product quality, and improved plant
equipment throughout the chemical
pulping and bleaching segments of the
industry. These considerations, which
have a positive social value, have not
been included in estimates of the social
cost of the rule. However, comment on
these considerations is being solicited in
section XIII.B of this preamble. These
social cost estimates also do not include
the private and government
administrative costs-associated with the
effluent guidelines.
e. Benefit-Cost Comparison. Because
not all of the benefits resulting from the
integrated regulatory alternative can be
valued in terms of dollars, a complete
cost-benefit comparison cannotbe
performed. The social cost of the
alternatives considered in the proposed
rule, discussed in the preceding section,
is estimated to be $948 million. The
sum total of benefits that can be valued
in dollar terms ranges from $160 to $987
million.
As shown in Table XI.B-2, the range
of total social cost and combined air and
water benefits overlap each other
considerably. If all of the benefits that
were identified could be quantified and
monetized, the overlap between these
ranges would be even greater.
TABLE XI.B-2.—COMPARISON OF NA-; the range of $0.6 to $2.5 million per
TIONAL ANNUAL BENEFITS TO COSTS -.year.
FOR THE PULP AND PAPER RULE-
MAKING
Benefits
Air benefits
Water benefits
Combined air and water
benefits
Total social cost
Industry compliance
for the proposed
grated alternative ..
cost
inte-
Millionsof 1992
dollars per year
$88.9-8556.2
$71.5-8430.4
S160.4-S986.6
$948.0
$600.0
Note: The calculation of monetized air-relat-
ed benefits includes benefits from reductions
in annual cancer incidences as well as acute
health and agricultural benefits attributable to
VOC emission reductions. Refer to Section
Xl.5.b.(3) of this preamble for a complete list
of benefit categories that were not monetized
due to lack of data.
/. Benefit-Cost Comparison Using
Case Studies. Because benefits are often
highly site-specific, EPA also estimated
both costs and benefits at four sites
using a case study approach. The case
studies include segments of: (1) The
Wisconsin River, located in central
Wisconsin; (2) the lower Columbia River
in Washington State; (3) the Penobscot
River in Maine; and (4) the Leaf River
in Mississippi. The case studies were
selected to provide geographic
representation of the impacts of the
proposed regulation, taking data
availability into consideration.
(1) The Penobscot River Case Study.
The Penobscot River is the site of a
sensitive Atlantic Salmon run and the
State's most active salmon sport fishery.
The river now accounts for about 83
percent of the total salmon catch (kept
and released) in Maine. It is also
important to the Penobscot Indian
Nation, whose territory includes 146
islands located in the river. Dioxins
were first detected in fish tissue samples-
in 1983, and a fish consumption
advisory was issued for the 1988 fishing
season for a section of the river.
The Penobscot receives discharges
from 5 pulp and paper mills and 10
major municipal sources over its entire
length of 103 miles. Two of these mills
are bleached kraft facilities. The
proposed regulation may result in lower
concentrations of dioxin in fish tissue
and may lead to lifting of the fish '
advisory. As a result, human health risk
would be reduced and both subsistence
and recreational angler populations
would benefit; fishing on the river may
increase; and finally, ecological benefits
would accrue, notably for piscivorous
birds and mammals. These benefits are
quantified and monetized and total in
For this case study area, the acute
health and agricultural benefits
associated with reduced air emissions
are estimated to be in the range of $0.4
to $2.3 million per year. The combined
range of benefits is $1.0 to $4.8 million.
In comparison, the estimated
annualized compliance costs to the two .
mills affected by the proposed
regulation are somewhat higher than the
range of benefits shown above. For
confidentiality reasons, cost estimates
cannot be presented for this case study.
(2) The Wisconsin River Case Study.
The Wisconsin River prbvfdes both
important recreational opportunities as
well as habitat for wildlife, including
important endangered species. The use
and nonuse values are currently limited
by environmental quality, with
significant impacts from dioxin
contamination as evidenced by a
number of fish advisories.
; Demand for water-related recreation
in this case study area is high. The
primary uses of the river and river parks
are passive day-use, swimming, fishing,
picnicking, boating, waterskiing, '
camping and hunting. This is also the
third most popular fishing region in the
state. Fish found in this section of the
river include walleye, northern pike,
bass, largemouth bass, bluegill and
muskie. The monetized benefits of the
proposed requirements are in the range
of $0.5 and $3.4 million.
For this case study area, the acute
health and agricultural benefits
associated with reduced air emissions
are estimated to be in the range of $0.9
to $5.4 million. The combined range of
benefits is $1.4 to $8.8 million. In
comparison, the five affected mills incur
an estimated $15.4 million in
annualized costs to meet the proposed
requirements. The estimated social cost
of regulating the mills in the study are
$24.9 million.
(3) Lower Columbia River Case Study.
The Columbia River and its tributaries
comprise the dominant water system in
the northwestern United States. The
Columbia River basin is rich in natural
resources that provide for the needs and
services of both people and the
environment. In addition to supporting
a myriad of industries, the river also
supports a substantial fishery that
provides recreation to thousands of
anglers annually. Popular species
caught in the lower Columbia include
shad, walleye, steelhead, sturgeon, and
several species of salmon. In addition, a
valuable commercial fishery thrives on
the river and contributes to Washington
state's economy.
-------
i ' I ' • .:, . . '
66160 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
Estimates of the total value of benefits
associated with the proposed reduction
in dioxin and other contaminants to the
lower Columbia river are a sum of the
values from four categories: human
health, recreational fishing, commercial
fishing, and non-consumptive use. The
total annual benefits are in the range of
$1.8 million and $12.5 million.
For this case study area, acute health
and agricultural benefits associated with
reduced air emissions are estimated to
be in the range of S4.2 to $26.5 million.
The combined benefits are in the range
of $6.0 to $39.0 million. In comparison,
the total annualized compliance costs
for the affected facilities are $46.0
million. The estimated social costs for
the six mills in this study are $67.5
million.
(4) Leaf River Case Study. This case
study provides a retrospective look at
how process changes may impact
environmental conditions at a site. This
study documents the effects of changes
in the discharges of dioxin and other
contaminants from a chlorine-bleaching
paper mill in Mississippi.
High levels of dioxin were detected in
the plant's effluent and in fish tissue
samples downstream of the mill in
1987. A fish advisory was issued in
1989. Process changes began in 1989 to
reduce the formation and discharge of
dioxin in the mill effluent. Subsequent '
sampling showed that dioxin in fish
declined from 24 ppt in 1989 to 8 ppt
in 1990, further declining to 3.6 ppt in
1992.
The downward trend of dioxin
detected in fish tissue samples near the
mill corresponds with the process
changes that were adapted between
1989 and 1991. These changes also
correspond to the relaxing of the fish
consumption advisory for the river.
These types of measurable ecosystem
improvements at other sites might be
expected from the proposed regulation,
with reductions in fish tissue
concentrations, and potential
elimination of fish advisories.
(5) Summary of Case Studies. Benefits
and costs for the case studies are
summarized and compared in Table
XI.B-3. The case study results indicate
that although monetized benefits are .
less than both social and private costs
than at the national level, they are of the
same order of magnitude. Case study
benefits comprise slightly less than five
percent of total national benefits, while
case study costs comprise
approximately ten percent of total
national costs. Thus, the case studies
tend to underrepresent potential
benefits and overrepresent potential
costs. At the national level, water-
related benefits are monetized for
human health risk reductions and
recreational anglers only. The case
study analyses also include water
quality-related benefits associated with
recreational angling, non-consumptive
recreation, and ecologic/non-use values.
TABLE XI.B-3.—COMPARISON OF POTENTIAL ANNUAL AIR- AND WATER-RELATED BENEFITS TO THE POTENTIAL COSTS OF
THE PULP AND PAPER REGULATION FOR THE CASE STUDY SITES
[Millions of 1992 dollars per year]
Benefits
Water related benefits •'•
Air related ' benefits •
Total benefits
Estimated social costs '
A Confidentiality agreements preclude disclosure of total costs for this site.
1 Source: U.S. EPA/OAQPS.
Penobscot
River
S0.61-S2.45
S0.37-S2.30
S0.98-S4.75
A
A
Wisconsin '
River
S0.49-S3.43
S0.86-S5 40
S1.35-S883
S1546
$24.9
Columbia
River
S1.79-S12.51
$4 22-S26 47
$6 01 -$38 98
$4602
$67.5
2 Total annualized cost of compliance with both air and water controls for the selected regulatory option, using mill specific interest rates.
aSource: ERG, 1993.
The case study results shown above
compared potential costs and benefits.
Another case study, Leaf River,
monitored the downward trend in
dioxin in fish tissue samples and
correlated dioxin measurements to the
process changes at the plant from 1989
through 1991. These changes also
correspond to the relaxing of the fish
consumption advisory for the river.
g. Restoration Costs. One approach to
assessing the benefits of reducing dioxin
discharges is to consider the potential
cost savings associated with restoration
efforts to clean water bodies impacted
by dioxin or other pollutants.
The remediation costs for the EPA
selected alternative in the case studies
ranges from $79 to $1,353 per cubic
yard. These remediation estimates
indicate the potential magnitude of
costs associated with addressing
problems associated with dioxins (and
other persistent toxic compounds) that
are found in sediment. Current loadings
of dioxin from pulp and paper mills are
not expected, in and of themselves, to
result in dioxin concentrations in
sediments that lead to these types of
remedial actions. Nonetheless, current
loadings contribute to sediment
contamination and, hence, some
fraction of the illustrative remediation
costs may be interpreted as reflecting
societal value associated with reduced
loadings.
6. Cost-Effectiveness. Cost-Effectiveness
is a Calculation of the Efficiency of
Control Technologies for Removing
Pollutants.
Cost-effectiveness is calculated as the
dollars spent to remove a pollutant
divided by the amount (mass) of the
pollutant removed. Cost-effectiveness •
can be calculated incrementally
between options or by comparing the
total costs and removals for any one
technology option to the baseline. The
pollutant removals can be expressed as
a total mass of a group of pollutants
(e.g., tons of total HAPs removed) or as
a summation of individually toxic-
weighted compounds (e.g., pound-
equivalent of a toxic pollutant, such as
chloroform). Cost-effectiveness results
have different purposes in establishing
regulatory control levels in the Clean
Water Act and in the Clean Air Act and
thus, are discussed separately for
effluent limitations and air emission
standards.
a. Cost-Effectiveness of Effluent
Limitations. EPA's cost-effectiveness
. analysis for BAT and PSES compares
the incremental pounds cost of a control
option to the pounds of pollutants
removed by the control option, where
those pounds are weighted by their
relative toxicity. The costs used in this
analysis reflect only those technology
components that would be necessary to
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday. December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66161
comply with effluent limitations, not
the total costs associated with the
integrated regulatory alternative.
Similarly, the pollutant removals reflect
only the reduced discharges of toxic and
nonconventional pollutants discharged
in wastewater, not the total reduction of
environmental emissions. The cost
effectiveness ratios for the BAT and
PSES limitations in today's proposed
rule are $53 per pound equivalent and
$89 per pound-equivalent, respectively.
The cost-effectiveness ratios for each
subcategory for BAT are $254 per
pound-equivalent for the Dissolving
Kraft subcatgory, $13 per pound-
equivalent for the Dissolving Sulfite
subcategory, $80 per pound-equivalent
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory, and $27 per pound-
equivalent for the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory. The cost-effectiveness
ratios, by subcategory, for PSES are $99
per pound-equivalent for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory
and $45 per pound-equivalent for the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.
Additional descriptions of the cost-
effectiveness methodology and more
detailed results are found in "Cost-
Effectiveness Analysis of Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry,"
which is included in the Record and is
available as one of the background
documents supporting the proposed
rule. .
b. Cost-Effectiveness of Air Emission
Standards. The cost-effectiveness of
MAGT controls is calculated based on
the total mass of hazardous air
pollutants (HAP) removed by a
regulatory alternative. The cost-
effectiveness of the MACT floor level of
control is estimated at $2,060 per
megagram. The integrated regulatory
alternative with the next most stringent
level of MACT control has an
incremental cost-effectiveness of over
$91,000 per megagram.
In addition to calculating the cost-
effectiveness of MACT controls relative
. to HAP emissions, the Agency also
conducted an incremental cost-
effectiveness analysis of MACT controls
relative to VOC emission reductions.
As explained in Section XI.B.S.b of
this preamble, the largest category of
benefits expected to result from the
implementation of the integrated rule
are the benefits from VOC emission
reductions. However, data limitations,
prevent a complete quantification of all
categories of benefits attributable to
VOC emission reductions. Since lack of
data prevent all VOC benefit categories
from being monetized, a direct
comparison of benefits to costs may not
be helpful in determining the desirable
regulatory alternative. However, an
assessment of the incremental cost-
effectiveness of VOC emission controls.
and a comparison of these estimates to
a policy-established benchmark may be
useful. The VOC cost-effectiveness
analysis will represent the cost of the air
emission controls relative to the
expected VOC emission reductions
attributable to the controls.
Although the costs used in this
analysis accurately represent the cost of
MACT requirements, the use of a VOC
cost-effectiveness analysis may
underestimate the benefits of these
requirements. In particular, the VOC
cost-effectiveness analysis ignores the
benefit of HAP emission reductions and
BOD effluent reductions that these
controls will also achieve. The result of
the "jointness" of the benefits of the
MACT requirements is that the VOC
cost-effectiveness values presented in
this analysis will be .overestimated.
It is difficult to estimate the
magnitude of the VOC cost-effectiveness
overestimatipn. The Agency has
estimated a range of monetized values
for the benefits of reduced annual
" cancer risk attributable to reduced
carcinogenic HAP emissions. The total
annual benefits of the annual cancer risk
reductions has been estimated to range
from $0.78 million to $4.5 millionll991
dollars) depending on the regulatory
alternative examined. If the VOC cost-
effectiveness calculation were to
account for this benefit category, the
magnitude of the VOC cost-effectiveness
overestimation could be characterized
as being relatively-small. However, the
Agency has also estimated the
reductions in exposure attributable to
reductions in emissions of non-
carcinogenic HAPs. Unfortunately, lack
of data prevent these health benefits
from being monetized. The effect of this
lack of valuation prevents a conclusion
from being drawn regarding the
magnitude of the benefits attributable to
non-carcinogenic HAP emission
• reductions. Therefore, the Agency
cannot confidently characterize the
magnitude of the VOC cost-effectiveness
overestimation.
The incremental VOC cost-
effectiveness analysis begins with
regulatory alternative 23, which
includes the MAGT floor level of
control. The incremental cost-
effectiveness of the MACT floor
requirements, averaged across multiple
emission points, above the baseline
level of control is approximately $3507
Mg. In other words, the average cost of
reducing each Mg of VOC emissions at'
the MACT floor level of control is $350.
The most stringent level of control
that was identified was regulatory
alternative-24. The incremental VOC
coskeffectiveness of going from
regulatory alternative 23 to regulatory
alternative 24 is approximately $1,650/,
Mg. •
The last regulatory alternative that
was identified was regulatory
alternative 25. The incremental VOC
cost-effectiveness of implementing
regulatory alternative 25 is
approximately $74,040/Mg.
One approach for analyzing the
significance of these incremental cost-
effectiveness values is to compare these
values to a policy-based cost--
effectiveness guidance developed by the
Agency in 1985. The policy-based VOC
cost-effectiveness value for new source
performance standards (intended to
address VOV emissions nationally) was
established at $l,570/Mg (1991$). If the
majority of the benefits of the MACT-
requirements are expected to be derived
, from VOC emission reductions, using
policy-based VOC cost-effectiveness
value to determine the desirable
regulatory alternative to implement may
be a reasonable approach. '
This incremental VOC cost-
effectiveness analysis reveals that
regulatory alternative 23 can. be justified
as a desirable option since the
incremental VOC cost-effectiveness of
implementing regulatory alternative 23
is much less than the policy-based
benchmark value. This analysis also
indicates that regulatory alternative 25
is a clearly undesirable option since the
incremental cost-effectiveness of this
regulatory alternative is much greater
than the established benchmark value.
The conclusion about the desirability of
implementing regulatory alternative 24
is less clear. The incremental cost-
effectiveness of implementing
regulatory alternative 23 is
approximately $l,650/Mg. This value is
slightly greater than the $l,570/Mg
benchmark value. However, as noted
earlier, this VOC cost-effectiveness
value ignores the additional benefits of
HAP and BOD control. If we take into
account the overestimation of the VOC
cost-effectiveness value due to the
omission of the HAP and BOD benefits,
the conclusion of the incremental cost-
effectiveness analysis may be that
regulatory alternative 24 may be a
desirable regulatory alternative.
Although the incremental VOC cost-
effectiveness of regulatory alternative 23
is significantly less than the established
benchmark, the Agency has little data to
draw conclusions regarding the net
benefits of the MACT portion of any of
the regulatory alternatives presented in
this analysis. The purpose of this
incremental VOC cost-effectiveness
analysis is to provide the Agency with
-------
66162 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
an additional method for evaluating the
relative merits of the various regulatory
alternatives.
C. Sludge, Energy, and Other
Environmental Impacts
1. Impact of Integrated Rule on Sludge
a. Types of Impacts. The technology
basis for BAT in the integrated
regulatory alternative for dissolving
sulfite, dissolving kraft, papergrade
sulfite, and papergrade kraft
subcategories includes process changes.
The impact of BAT on these
subcategories was examined from a
multi-media perspective, including the
impacts on sludge. With respect to
sludge, the Agency focused on pollution
prevention as a basis for reducing the
mass and concentration of 2,3,7,8- •
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF).
Reductions in the mass loadings and
concentrations of TCDD and TCDF will
impact the paper industry and society as
a whole in several ways. Reductions in
TCDD and TCDF will improve sludge
quality and make disposal. An Agency
analysis shows that land application is
generally the least expensive method for
disposing sludge. Greater use of land
application will enable mills in these
subcategories to achieve cost savings in
sludge management. For more details,
see "Regulatory Impact Assessment for
Land Application of Bleached Pulp and
Paper Mill Wastewater Treatment
Sludges."
b. Calculation of Sludge Quality
Impacts. To estimate the effect of the
integrated'regulatory alternative on
sludge quality in terms of TCDD and
TCDF mass loadings and
concentrations, the Agency first
estimated baseline levels of TCDD and
TCDF for all mills subject to BAT for
bleach plant effluent. Next, these
baseline levels were compared to
estimates of the levels of TCDD and
TCDF in sludge following the
implementation of BAT, with the
difference representing the pollutant
reduction. For a description of the
methodology used to calculate
reductions, see "Economic Analysis of
Impacts of Integrated Air/Water
Regulations for the Pulp and Paper
Industry on Disposal of Wastewater
Sludge."
For each facility, with few exceptions,
the most recent data from any of the
four data sources (the 104 Mill Study,
the Short-term Study, the Long-term
Study, and Self Monitoring Data as
reported on the 1990 Census of Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing
Facilities) were used to describe a
particular facility's baseline TCDD and
TCDF concentration levels. The data
bases cover the period from January 1,
1989 through December 31,1992. Mass
loadings were calculated using
production-normalized loading factors.
In some cases, data were transferred
from facilities with similar technology
and fiber furnish.
To estimate attainable TCDD and
TCDF loadings and concentrations
under various integrated regulatory
alternatives, the Agency first identified
the existing facility or group of facilities
and data sources that were judged to be
representative of the achievable levels
under each of the various integrated
regulatory alternatives. Pollutant
concentrations and load factors from
these representative facilities were used
to calculate the average TCDD/TCDF
concentrations and loadings for each
facility.
Overall, for each of the listed
subcategories, the proposed integrated
regulatory alternative is estimated to
reduce average loadings of TCDD and
TCDF as follows: for papergrade kraft,
111.1 and.602.6 grams/year, for
papergrade sulfite, 2.0 and 23.4 grams/
year, for dissolving kraft, 0.1 and 0.9
grams/year, and for dissolving sulfite,
1.6 and 3.5 grams/year, respectively. ,
Many of the assumptions used in the
water quality assessment (section XI.B)
were also used here. Sensitivity
analyses to test several of these
assumptions indicate that the loading
and concentration results for sludge
were not appreciably different when the
assumptions regarding non-detected
data are varied. i
c. Economic Benefits of TCDD and
TCDF Reduction in Sludge. The Agency
considered the benefits associated with
reductions of TCDD and TCDF levels in
sludge with respect to cost savings to
mills for sludge management, cost
savings to mills from avoiding potential
future rulemakings, and from the
reduction in risk to wildlife from
reduced exposure to TCDD and TCDF in-
land applied sludges.
(1) Estimation of Cost Savings from
Land Application. Currently, a small
percentage of mills subject to BAT land
apply their sludges; however, the
potential for higher levels of
participation exists. Comments on the
proposed rule for land application of
sludge indicated that permitting and
siting of landfills, an alternative sludge
management technique, is quite difficult
in some'regions. Additionally, land
application is generally less expensive
than alternative disposal methods, and
mills appear interested in making
beneficial use of sludge.
Barriers to land application that
currently exist include state regulatory
requirements pertaining to TCDD and
TCDF levels and public resistance to
using dioxin-contaminated sludge. By
reducing TCDD and TCDF levels in
sludge, the integrated regulatory
alternative will overcome some of these
barriers and mills will be able to take
advantage of cost sayings, offered by this
disposal option.
The methodology for estimating cost,
savings from land application due to
BAT process changes is described in the
document entitled "Economic Analysis
of Impacts of Integrated Air/Water
Regulations for the Pulp and Paper
Industry on Disposal of Wastewater
Sludge". In general, the analysis focuses
on 76 of the BAT mills that currently
dispose of sludge in landfills or surface
impoundments. Under several
scenarios, the Agency assumed that land
application becomes a viable disposal
option when TCDD levels become 25
ppt, 10 ppt, 3 ppt, and 1 ppt. Therefore,
under a regulatory option that is
predicted to lower TCDD concentrations
to that level, it is assumed that mills are
able to take advantage of disposal cost
savings from land application. Mills that
are currently land applying or disposing
of their sludge through incineration are
assumed to continue.
, In the analysis, mills that currently
utilize landfills and surface
impoundments will do so until they
reach their existing capacity. Mills are
then assumed to use land application to
dispose their sludge. The sludge
diverted to land application is assumed
to be distributed among the various
types of land application according to
the current share of land-applied sludge
(based upon the 1990 National Census).
Cost savings associated with switching
from sludge disposal to land application
is calculated using the difference in
average per-ton costs between land
application and the appropriate disposal
methods. Utilizing this approach, the
estimated annualized sum of the present
value savings ranges from $6 to $53
million depending upon which TCDD
level land application is expected to
occur. Under the proposed rule for land
application of sludge, 10 ppt was
considered to be the permissible level
for land application to occur. At this
level, the estimated annualized cost
savings is $53 million.
(2) Estimation of Cost Savings
Associated with Avoided Potential
• Rulemakingsi Reductions in TCDD and
TCDF levels may affect potential future
regulatory activities under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
and the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). EPA believes that it will be
more efficient and less costly to the'
regulated community to address
-------
66163
Federal Register I,Vol. 58. No. 241 / Friday, December 17. 1993 / Proposed Rules
concerns regarding TCDD and TCDF
levels in the sludge through this
integrated rule as opposed to several
separate rulemakings.
Under the proposed consent decree,
EOF v. Reilly, No. 89-0598, the Agency
may be required to make a listing
determination for pulp and paper
.sludge. Should the listing determination
lead to a hazardous waste finding, then
generators, disposers, and transporters
of pulp sludge would become subject to
a wide range of regulatory requirements.
If the integrated rulemaking reduces
TCDD and TCDF concentrations to
levels where a hazardous waste finding
would not be made, the potential
regulatory costs will be reduced or
avoided. ,
If the Agency, did not implement the
integrated rule, and if current levels of
TCDD and TCDF in the sludge are high
enough to result in a hazardous waste
finding, the Agency would be required
to set treatment standards for the waste
to ensure protection of human health
and the environment. These standards,
including compliance with the land
disposal restriction program, could
result in requirements for reductions of
TCDD and TCDF in the waste that
would most likely be at least as
expensive as the BAT and MACT
standards required in the integrated
rule. Currently thermal destruction is
the only RCRA approved technology for
treatment of dioxin wastes. The final
Regulatory Impact Analysis of Land
Disposal Restrictions for newly-listed
wastes (1992) indicated that typical
costs for thermal destruction were cited
as $2,300 per ton. Depending upon the
amount of sludge that will be subject to
RCRA listing, these costs could be
substantial.
In addition, if process changes are not
sufficient to reduce TCDD and TCDF
levels and if mills choose on-site
management and RCRA permitting, a
hazardous waste listing could expose
mills to the corrective action provisions
of RCRA. Based on prediction of
corrective action costs, the average
reported costs of RCRA facility-wide
corrective action is $7.2 million per
facility. For more details, see "Draft
-• Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Final
" Rulemaking on Corrective Action for
Solid Waste Management Units," March
1993. If costs of corrective action would
be similar for pulp and papermills, and
only 10% of the mills subject to BAT
required corrective action, potential
costs could be $72 million. If 50% of the
existing landfills and surface
impoundments required corrective
action, these costs could be $374
million, and if 100% of landfills and
surface impoundments were subject to
corrective action, the costs could be
$749 million. .
In addition to costs associated with
potential RCRA rulemakings, industry
may also be subject to costs associated
with potential TSCA rulemakings. The
Agency will revisit its proposed rule on
the land application of pulp and paper
sludge (56 FR 21802, May 10,1991)
following the promulgation of the
integrated rule. At that time the Agency
will consider the impacts of the
integrated rulemaking on the TCDD and
TCDF levels in sludge when land
applied, and may determine to proceed
with a final rule.
The regulatory impact analysis for the'
proposed rule on land application of
pulp and paper mill sludge estimated
the costs of that rulemaking to be $5.4
million per .year. In the absence of
sufficient improvements in the TCDD
and TCDF concentrations in sludge,
these costs could be incurred as a
consequence of a final TSCA ruling.
The cost savings associated with
sludge management and with avoiding
potential RCRA and TSCA rulemakings
have not been subtracted directly from
the compliance costs of the regulations
proposed in this notice, however, the
Agency will consider doing so with
further refinement of the estimates. EPA
invites comments on its estimate of
potential comments, including
supporting data.
Table XLC-1 summarizes the estimated
change in the use of energy associated
with the proposed integrated rule. For
more details, see the water development
document and the background
information document.
TABLE XI.C-1 .—CHANGES IN ENERGY
CONSUMPTION
Regula-
tion
•
BAT and-
PSES.
(
BPT „
BMP
MACT ....
Total
Source of energy use
Pulping and bleaching
process modifica-
tions.
Recovery of cooking
liquor solids.
Wastewater treatment
system upgrades.
Recovery of cooking
liquor solids.
Equipment upgrades, ;
increased steam
generation and aux-
iliary fuels.
Energy
use
change
(trillion
BTU/yr)
4-1
-7-8
1.0
-0.3
20.6
r
17.6
2. Energy Impacts ,
• According to the Department of
Energy, the pulp and paper industry is
the fourth largest industrial user of
energy, accounting for 9.9 percent of
total U.S. industrial energy
consumption (2.4 quadrillion BTUs in
1990). Much of the energy used by the
industry is produced on-site in power
and recovery boilers. In 1990, the •
sources of energy used by the industry
included cooking liquor fuel (40.2
percent), fossil fuels (37.1 percent), bark
and wood fuel (15.5 percent), and
purchased electricity (7.2 percent). The
fossil fuels used include natural gas,
fuel oil, and coal. . • '
Compliance w,ith the proposed
regulations is anticipated to increase the
industry's energy usage by less than one-
percent (17.6 trillion BTUs/yr). Among
the reasons for this increase are the
energy requirements for process
equipment upgrades for compliance
with BAT and PSES, treatment system
upgrades for compliance with BPT, and
equipment upgrades for compliance
with MACT. However, compliance with
BMP and BAT is anticipated to partially
offset the increase in energy usage »
industry-wide because of the energy
value of recovered cooking liquor solids
Additional energy requirements for
process equipment upgrades for BAT
and PSES mainly result from expansion
of chlorine dioxide generator capacity
and additional pumps for application of
oxygen and/or hydrogen peroxide in the
bleach plant. Additional energy
requirements for process equipment for
compliance with BPT mainly result
from increased aeration in the treatment
system. Additional energy requirements
for equipment upgrades for MACT
result from the electricity needed to
power fans and blowers to transport
vent streams, natural gas needed to
generate additional steam for steam
stripping of pulping wastewaters, and
natural gas as an auxiliary fuel for
incinerators for bleach plant vent
streams.
Implementing BMP and complying
.with BAT will increase the recovery of
cooking liquor solids. The energy value
of cooking liquor, recovered from fewer
spills and from extended oxygen
delignification and/or extended
cooking, largely offsets the increased
energy demand of the additional process
equipment.
3. Other Secondary Impacts
There are several secondary impacts
associated with the proposed integrated
rule that have not been discussed in '
previous sections of this preamble.^
Among the most important of these are
changes in the volume of water
discharged and the mass of wastewater
treatment sludge generated, and changes
-------
66164
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
in the quantities of chemicals used at
bleaching mills.
Compliance with BPT is anticipated
to require a reduction in the volume of
wastewater discharged at many
facilities. This reduction will likely
come from a combination of in-process
modifications resulting in less
wastewater generated as well as
Installation of flow control equipment at
some mills. The estimated reduction in
water usage for the industry is 1.21
billion liters per year. Compliance with
BPT/BCT is anticipated to increase the
mass of wastewater treatment sludge
generated by 52,000 metric tOns/yr,
mostly because of increased solids
removal at facilities with activated
sludge wastewater treatment systems.
Compliance with BAT will also affect
the quantity of bleaching chemicals
used in the industry. Quantities of
hypochlorite, chlorine, and sodium
hydroxide are expected to decrease
while quantities of chlorine dioxide,
oxygen, hydrogen peroxide, sodium
hydroxide, and ozone are expected to
increase. However, overall chemical
usage in the industry will decline
resulting in cost savings.
XII. Administrative Requirements
A. Changes in Format and Name
Today, EPA is proposing to
incorporate part 431, the builders' paper
and board mills point source category,
into part 430, the pulp, paper, and
paperboard point source category. The
builders' paper and board mills point
source category consists of only one
subpart, subpart A, in part 431 in the
current subcategorization scheme. The
Agency is proposing to move this
subpart and include it in subpart J of
part 430 in the proposed
subcategorization scheme (which is
discussed in section IX.A).
EPA is also proposing to consolidate
the titles of the two point source
categories into a new title for part 430.
The title is proposed to be changed from
"pulp, paper, and paperboard and the
builders' paper and board mills point
source categories" to "pulp, paper, and
paperboard point source category."
B. Docket and Public Record
The Record for this rulemaking is
available for public review at EPA
Headquarters, 401 M Street SW,
Washington, DC 20460. The Record
supporting the effluent limitations
guidelines in part 430 is located in the
Office of Water Docket, room L102 (in
the basement of Waterside Mall). The
Docket is staffed by an EPA contractor,
Labat-Anderson, Inc., and interested
parties are encouraged to call for an
appointment. The telephone number for
the Water Docket is (202) 260-3027.
EPA notes that many documents in
the record supporting these proposed
rules have been claimed as confidential
business information and, therefore, are
not included in the record that is
available to the public in the Air and
Water Dockets. To support the
rulemaking, EPA is presenting certain
information in aggregated form or is
masking mill 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.
The Record supporting the national "
emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants in part 63 is located in Room
M1500 at the same address, telephone
number (202) 260-7548. The EPA
information regulation (40 CFR part 2)
provides that a reasonable fee may be
charged for photocopying.
C. Clean Water Act Procedural
Requirements
As required by the Clean Water Act,
EPA will conduct a public hearing on
the pretreatment standards portion of
the proposed rule. The location and
time of this public hearing will be
announced in a future notice.
D. Clean Air Act Procedural
Requirements
In accordance with Section 117 of the
CAA, publication of this proposal was
preceded by consultation with
appropriate advisory committees,
independent experts, and Federal
departments and agencies. The
Administrator will welcome comments
on all aspects of the proposed
regulation, including health, economic,
and technological issues, as well as on
the proposed test Method 308.
This regulation will be reviewed eight
years from the date of promulgation.
This review will include an assessment
of such factors as an evaluation of the
residual health risks, any overlap with •
other programs, the existence of
. alternative methods, enforceability,
improvements in emission control
technology and health data, and the
recordkeeping and reporting
requirements.
. E. Executive Order 12866
Executive Order 12866 requires EPA
and other agencies to assess the
potential costs and benefits of all
significant regulatory actions.
Significant regulatory actions are those
that impose a cost on the economy of
$100 million or more annually or have
.certain other regulatory, policy, or
economic impacts. Today's rule meets
the criteria of a significant regulatory
action as set forth in section 3(f) of the
Executive Order. The regulatory
analysis for this proposed rule is
presented in "Regulatory Impact
Assessment of Proposed Effluent
Guidelines and NESHAP for the Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Industry." This
analysis (referred to as the RIA) is
summarized in section XI.B. Today's
proposed rule and the RIA were
submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget for review.
Briefly, the RIA assesses both the
costs and benefits to society of the
proposed rules. The RIA analyzes the
effect of current discharges and
emissions and the benefits associated
with reducing those environmental
releases as a result of compliance with
the proposed rules. Three classes of
benefits are analyzed: non-quantified
and non-monetized benefits, quantified
and non-monetized benefits, and
quantified and monetized benefits. The
non-quantified, non-monetized benefits
include improvements in recreational
fishing, improved aesthetic quality of
waters, and benefits to wildlife and to
threatened or endangered species. The
quantified, non-monetized benefits
include potential benefits to human
health such as the avoidance of
potential cancer cases and benefits to
aquatic life such as a reduced number
of exceedances of water quality criteria.
The monetized benefits also focus on
human health and aquatic life impacts.
The Agency estimates that the benefits
of today's proposed rules range from
$160 million to $987 million.
The social costs of the proposed
regulation include both monetary and
non-monetary outlays made by society.
Monetary outlays include private sector
compliance costs, government
administrative costs, and the costs of '
reallocating displaced workers. Non-
monetary outlays include losses in
consumers' and producers' surpluses,
discomfort or inconvenience, loss of
time, and a slowdown in the rate of
innovation. The Agency's estimate of
social costs includes values for
consumer and producer surplus losses,
government administrative costs and
worker dislocation costs, and is $948
million.
F. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5
U.S.C. 601 et. seq., requires EPA and
other agencies to prepare an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis for
regulations that have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. EPA projects that today's
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66165
proposed rule, if promulgated, could
affect small businesses. The initial
regulatory flexibility analysis for these
proposed rules is incorporated into the
economic impact analysis and is
discussed in section XI.B. Briefly, the
small entity analysis estimates the
economic impacts of the new
requirements on small mills and small
companies and describes the potential
disparate impacts between the groups ot
large and small manufacturers. The
analysis also presents the Agency's
consideration of alternatives that might
minimize the impacts on small entities.
The reasons why EPA is proposing
this rule are presented in sections IV
and V. The legal basis for today's rule
is presented in section III. The number
of small entities and the approach for
defining small entities are summarized
in section XI.B and detailed in the
economic impact analysis report for this
rulemaking. In short, the Agency does
not have evidence that small businesses
are disproportionately impacted by the
proposed rule. Reporting and other
compliance requirements are
summarized jn sections IX.I and X.J and
detailed in the technical water
development document and the
background information document.
While the Agency has not identified any
duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting
Federal rules, a discussion of other
related rulemakings is presented in
sections V.C and XI.C.
The Agency solicits comment on the
definition of small entity used in this
analysis, the analytical procedures for
assessing impacts on small entities, and
the opportunities to minimize the
impacts on small entities.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
The proposed effluent guidelines and
standards .contain no information
collection activities and, therefore, no
information collection request (ICR) has
been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
review and approval under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq-
OMB has approved the existing
information collection requirements
associated with NPDES discharge
permit applications under the •
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act and has assigned OMB control
number 2040-0086.
The collection of information required
for NPDES discharge permit
applications has an estimated reporting
burden averaging 12 hours per response
and an estimated annual recordkeeping
burden averaging two hours per
respondent. These estimates include
time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data
needed, and completing and reviewing
the collection of information.
The information collection
requirements for the proposed NESHAP
have been submitted for approval to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1657.01) and a copy may be
obtained from Sandy Farmer,
Information Policy Branch (2136); U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency; 401
M St., S.W.; Washington, DC 20460 or
by calling (202) 260-2740.
The public recordkeeping and
reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average
1,461 hours (or to vary from 923 to
1,797 hours) the first year. This
recordkeeping and reporting burden is
estimated to average 362 hours (or to
vary from 338 to 439 hours) annually,
thereafter. This includes time for .
reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Send comments regarding the burden
estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including
suggestions for reducing this burden to
Chief, Information Policy Branch (2136);
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC 20460;
and to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington,
DC 20503, marked "Attention: Desk
Officer for EPA." The final rule will
respond to any OMB or public
comments on the information collection
requirements contained in this proposal.
XIII. Solicitation of Data and Comments
A. Introduction and General Solicitation
EPA invites and encourages public
participation in this rulemaking. The
Agency asks that comments address any
perceived deficiencies in the record of
this proposal and that suggested
revisions or corrections be supported by
data.
The Agency invites all parties to
coordinate their data collection
activities with EPA to facilitate
mutually beneficial and cost-effective ''
data submissions. EPA is interested in
participating in study plans, data
collection and documentation. Please
refer to the "For Further Information"
section at the beginning of this preamble
for technical contacts at EPA.
B. Specific Data and Comment
Solicitations
EPA has solicited comments and data
on many individual topics throughout
this preamble. The Agency incorporates
each and every such solicitation here,
and reiterates its interest in receiving
data and comments on the issues
addressed by those solicitations. In
addition, EPA particularly requests
comments and data on the following
issues:
1. Technology Basis for BAT Limits for
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory
The Agency is proposing BAT effluent;
limitations for the bleached papergrade
kraft and soda subcategory based on
oxygen delignification and complete
(100 percent) substitution of chlorine
dioxide for elemental chlorine. The
Agency solicits comments and data on
all aspects of all options considered for
the bleached papergrade kraft and soda
subcategory, as well as on any options
not considered.
During the development of these
proposed regulations, industry
representatives commented that the • ,
costs associated with installing oxygen
delignification are not justified by the
corresponding effluent reduction
benefits, and recommended the use of
high levels of substitution without
oxygen delignification. The Agency
particularly solicits comments and .
relevant data on the process and
product quality improvements,
operating costs (and cost savings), arid
effluent reduction benefits attributable
to oxygen delignification.
.2. Technology Basis for BAT Limits for
Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
EPA is proposing BAT effluent
limitations for the dissolving kraft
subcategory based on transfer of
technology from the bleached
papergrade kraft subcategory. The
technology basis includes elimination of
hypochlorite, oxygen delignification,
and 70 percent substitution of chlorine
dioxide for elemental chlorine. The
Agency solicits comments and data on
all aspects of all options considered for
the dissolving kraft subcategory, as well
as on any options not considered.
During the development of these
proposed rules, EPA received comments
that none of the three mills in this
subcategory currently use this
technology, that use of hypochlorite .is
required to achieve the product quality
requirements of customers for these
dissolving kraft pulp products, and that
certain components of the technology
(e.g., extended cooking) are not
-------
66166 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
applicable in producing the dissolving
kraft products. EPA solicits additional
trial data from individual mills
demonstrating that products can (or
cannot) be made with oxygen
delignification.
Trials to date for hypochlorite
substitutes have not been successful in
maintaining stringent quality
specifications (e.g., degree of
polymerization, intrinsic viscosity, etc.)
for certain products as required in
customer contracts. Limited and
preliminary trial data have been
received by EPA indicating substantial
reductions in use of hypochlorite while
maintaining product quality, and
reductions in pollutant parameters of
concern such as chloroform. Further
qualification trials with customers of
any changed dissolving pulp
characteristics were reported to be
required and take from one to three
years to successfully complete through
revised product specifications in
contracts. The Agency solicits
additional trial data of any scale (i. e.,
bench, pilot, or mill-scale trials with
data for product quality parameters,
wastewater parameter and pollutant
• data for process filtrates, air emissions
data) for alternative processes beyond
existing technology to demonstrate
reduced use of hypochlorite and the use
of other process technologies (e.g.,
oxygen delignification), and the
reductions that can be achieved in
pollutants of concern.
3. Technology Basis for BAT Limits for
Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
EPA is proposing effluent limits for
the dissolving sulfite subcategory based
on oxygen delignification followed by
complete substitution of elemental
chlorine with chlorine-dioxide. The
Agency solicits comments and data on
all aspects of all options considered for
the dissolving sulfite subcategory, as
well as on any options not considered.
EPA has received comments and
limited trial data from individual mills
on the feasibility of TCP processes and
the dissolving grade products which can
and cannot be made by these processes.
Commenters have asserted that the
European mill on which EPA's option 2
is based is not representative of U.S.
mills, because the mill uses a beech
furnish rather than those furnishes
typical of U.S. sulfite mills. Industry
representatives also claim that the
European mill uses a different process
than that used by U.S. mills, does not
produce the full range of products,
including high quality acetate grade
dissolving pulps, and transfers its
dissolving pulp to an on-site rayon plant
that is asserted not to have the same
stringent product quality requirements
of customers served by U.S. mills. The
Agency solicits additional data from
individual mills regarding those
dissolving grade sulfite products >
demonstrating unacceptable product
quality, with associated wastewater and
air emissions data. The Agency solicits
additional data from individual mills on
those products that can be made by TCP
processes. For those products that
cannot be made by TCP processes, the
Agency solicits additional trial data of
any scale (i. e., bench, pilot, or mill-
scale trials with data for product quality
parameters, wastewater parameter and '
individual pollutant data for process •
filtrates, hazardous air pollutant
emissions data) for alternative processes
beyond existing technology, including
reductions in hypochlorite use, to
demonstrate the reductions that can be
achieved in air and wastewater
pollutants of concern.
4. Technology Basis for BAT Limits for
Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
EPA is proposing BAT effluent
limitations for the papergrade sulfite
subcategory on TCP technology. The
Agency solicits comment and data on all
aspects of all options considered for the
papergrade sulfite subcategory, as well
as on any options not considered.
During the development of these
proposed rules, the Agency received
comments and some trial data from
individual mills concerning the
feasibility of TCP processes and the
papergrade products that can and
cannot be made by these processes.
Commenters asserted that certain
processes (e.g., ammonium-based)
yielding specific products and
specifications, and certain specialty
papers and pulps (e.g., photographic
papers and plastic molding pulps) have
not yet been made by the TCP processes
with quality parameters acceptable to
mill customers. Many of the assertions
made by individual companies have yet
to be supported with mill trial and
wastewater analytical data for pollutants
of concern. The Agency solicits that
supporting data; without it, the
assertions cannot be evaluated.
The Agency also solicits additional
data regarding papergrade products that
can be made by TCP, including:
• Trial data of any scale (i.e., bench,
pilot, or mill-scale trials);
• Process descriptions (e.g., bleaching
sequence, chemical application rates,
etc.);
• Pulp flow rates;
• Product quality parameters (e.g.,
brightness, alpha cellu"
etc.);
llulose content,
• Wastewater parameter and
pollutant data (with analytical methods
specified, and QA/QC); and
• Hazardous air pollutants in process
filtrates and air emissions. The Agency'
solicits comments' and data on those '
options considered and not selected for
the papergrade sulfite subcategory, and
on any options the Agency did not
consider.
5. TCP Bleaching—Request for
Analytical Data for TCP Processes
The Agency currently has limited data
on the performance of TCP processes
(see section IX.E.3, subcategories D and
E). The industry trade association and
specific companies have made
assertions that TCP technologies are not
being used domestically, and are also
not capable of.making many products
made by U.S. mills. However,
environmental groups have argued that
EPA should propose BAT effluent
limitations based on TCP technology. In
light of the foregoing, the Agency
solicits TCP process technology
performance data and process details for
all pollutants of concern, including
metals and other organic pollutants, in
all media (air, wastewater, sludge).
These data are critical to meaningful
evaluation of TCP technologies. The
Agency solicits comments on the
proposal not to base BAT effluent
limitations on TCP technology for
bleached papergrade kraft, dissolving
sulfite and dissolving kraft mills at this
time.
6. Alternative Limits for TCP Processes
The Agency also solicits comments on
the proposed alternative limits for TGF
mills in the papergrade kraft, dissolving
sulfite and dissolving kraft
subcategories. EPA solicits comments
on data on whether these alternative
limits provide meaningful incentives,
whether such incentives are
appropriate, and recommendations for
any additional or different incentives.
7. Subcategorization
a. EPA's Proposed Consolidation of
Subcategories. EPA today proposes to
consolidate some of the subcategories
for the effluent guidelines covering this
industry. During development of these
proposed regulations, representatives
commented that mills within each of
EPA's proposed consolidated
subcategories show different raw waste
loads, wastewater treatment costs, and
achievability of end-of-pipe effluent
limitations for conventional pollutants.
Three examples of specific
Subcategorization concerns are: (1)
Industry representatives have
commented that the bleached
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules . 66167
papergrade kraft and soda subcategory
should be divided to distinguish
between bleached papergrade kraft and
soda mills; (2) Industry representatives
have requested that the dissolving
sulfite pulp subcategory be further
subdivided to distinguish between
different grades of dissolving sulfite
pulp; and (3) The Agency has proposed
to divide the production of paper and
paperboard from purchased pulp into
two subcategories: (i) Fine and
Lightweight Papers from Purchased
Pulp, and (ii) Tissue, Filter, Non-
Woven, and Paperboard from Purchased
Pulp even though the processes used by
these two subcategories are similar and
the production normalized BODs
effluent loadings are similar. The
Agency solicits detailed comments and
data, including cost and equipment
design data, on each of the foregoing
concerns. In addition, the Agency
solicits comments and data on whether
any subcategories proposed today
should be divided into smaller
subcategories, and whether any
subcategories proposed today should be
combined to form, larger subcategories. '
b. Alternative Approaches to
Subcategorization: During development
of these proposed regulations,
representatives of environmental groups
suggested that EPA subcategorize the
industry based upon the types of
furnishes used at individual mills. Such
an approach might provide greater
protection of the environment, since
mills using hardwood furnishes would
in general be able to meet more stringent
effluent limitations than these using
softwood furnishes. However, such an
approach might be difficult to
administer,, since many mills use both
hardwood and softwood furnishes and
vary the amounts of these furnishes over
time. Furthermore, EPA lacks complete
data concerning the limits that could be
achieved by mills using exclusively
hardwoods or softwoods, and on the
mix of these furnishes used at many
mills. EPA solicits comments on
whether the subcategorization in the
final rule should be based upon the type
of furnish used at a mill, as well as data
to support such comments.
In addition, during the development
of the proposed rules, EPA received
suggestions that subcategorization based
on product type might be appropriate,
in particular in those subcategories
where producers have expressed
concern about their ability to make
some but not all products with EPA's
proposed BAT technology bases. EPA
solicits comments and data on whether
the subcategorization in the final rule
should be based on products.
8. In-Plant Limitations on Pollutants in
Wastewaters
EPA is today proposing in-plant
limitations on certain pollutants (e.g.,
dioxin, furan, certain chlorinated
phenolics) found at the end-of-pipe at
levels below the current analytical
limits of detection. The Agency is also
proposing in-plant monitoring of these
and other pollutants. The Agency
traditionally has set technology-based
performance standards at the point of
discharge to waters of the United States
or the sewer system. However,
application of the process technologies
that serve as the basis for BAT
limitations result in measurements for
certain pollutants near the limits of
detection even in internal, smaller-
volume bleach plant wastewaters.
Therefore, measurement at the end-of-
pipe, after dilution of the bleach plant
wastewaters, does not provide
meaningful analytical data on the
performance of these process
technologies.
During development of these
proposed regulations, industry
representatives asserted that limitations
on internal streams may reduce their '
flexibility in compliance and require
installation of specific process
technologies. Based upon available data,
the Agency believes that mills will
retain considerable flexibility in
choosing specific compliance strategies
that may be implemented at individual
mills, including available process
technologies. EPA solicits comments
and data on whether end-of-pipe limits
could practically or feasibly be used to
measure the performance of process
technologies that form the basis of „ ,
EPA's proposed BAT, PSES, NSPS and
PSNS regulations. The Agency further
solicits comments and specific
supporting data on all aspects of the
'proposal to set limitations on internal
bleach plant streams.
9. BAT for Secondary Fiber Deink Mills
and Other Bleaching Pulp Mills for
Which BAT Effluent Limits Are Not
Proposed Today
A number of mills that do not
chemically pulp or that do not use a
virgin wood furnish -do bleach their
pulp with chlorine or chlorine-
derivatives. Data received from
secondary fiber deink mills, secondary
fiber non-deink mills, and non-wood
chemical pulp mills indicate the
discharge of dioxins, PCBs, and
chloroform. The Agency solicits
additional data on individual mills on
current bleaching practices and
sequences, chemical application rates,
wastewater discharges, and air
emissions from these mills. The Agency
solicits comments and trial data on the
feasibility of eliminating chlorine and
chlorine derivatives from the bleaching
process at these mills.
10. PCBData
As part of the Agency's review of
subcategories for which BAT is mot
being proposed at this time, the Agency
found that several secondary fiber mills
were discharging PCBs at levels ranging
from less than 0.1 ppb to more than 60
ppb during the period 1985-1990. Most
of the higher values were recorded
during the earlier part of this period.
The Agency also has effluent data for
one secondary fiber deink mill showing
PCB concentrations consistently not
detected. The Agency is considering
whether to establish effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for PCBs for
this industry as part of its section
304(m) planning process (see section
IX.E.3.a), and solicits comment on this
approach and on PCB data from 1990 to
the present from mills in all
subcategories, and specifically
secondary fiber deink and non-deink
mills.
11. Non-Wood Furnish Mills
A small number of mills produce pulp
from furnishes other than wood, such as
cotton, hemp, or bagasse. The Agency
solicits data on discharges from these -
mills, particularly wastewater from
bleach plants, and on the feasibility of
eliminating chlorine and chlorine
derivatives from the bleaching processes
at these mills.
The Agency also requests information
and data on the feasibility of
implementing BMPs in non-wood
chemical pulp mills, as well as COD
data for these mills and any relationship
these data may bear to the non-
chlorinated constituents generated in
pulping operations and contained in
pulping liquor spills.
12. Limitations Based Upon Softwood
Furnish vs. Hardwood Furnish
Softwood fibers contain substantially
greater quantities of lignin than
hardwood fibers. In general, this means
that discharges of pollutants derived
from lignin are higher for mills that
pulp and subsequently bleach softwood
furnishes than those that use hardwood
furnishes. In today's proposed '
regulations, EPA based most of the BAT
effluent limitations on the use of
softwood furnishes, since mills that
pulp and subsequently bleach
hardwood furnishes should be able to
meet those limitations. Orie exception in
the long-term study noted by the
Agency is the generation and discharge
-------
66168 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
of trichlorosyringol at mills pulping
hardwoods. For this pollutant, the
Agency has established the proposed
effluent limitations based upon the
hardwood data rather than the softwood
data, which showed non-detects. The
Agency solicits comments on this
approach.
13. Validity of Volatiles Samples and
Laboratory Contamination
Methylene chloride analyses were
highly variable during the long-term
sampling program. Industry
representatives believe that this
variability is due to field and laboratory
contamination of the samples, that the
data is unrepresentative and, therefore,
that effluent limitations for this
pollutant should not be established. The
Agency determined that while there
were data sets that demonstrated
contamination (these data sets were
excluded from the data base), the
patterns of variability for remaining
samples do not solely reflect laboratory
contamination. There is concern that if
the levels of these pollutants cannot be
accurately determined during regulatory
development, the pollutant would not
be appropriately regulated and, as a
result, it may be difficult for mills to .
demonstrate compliance. The Agency
requests comments on this concern.
14. Scientific Validity of Analytic
Method for AOX/Right-Censored Data
During the first phase of the long-term
study, analysis for AOX was performed
using disposable carbon columns. The
majority of the data that resulted was
qualified as being greater than the value
recorded. During the second phase of
the long-term study, analysis for AOX
was performed using hand-packed
columns. Most of the resulting values
did not have to be qualified as "greater
than." The Agency has used most of the
data for both phases, except when there
was sufficient reason to exclude it based
on method performance criteria. In
developing the limitations, EPA used a
statistical procedure that modelled the
censoring in the data as well as
measurements associated with "exact"
values. The Agency solicits comments
on the use of right-censored data, and
on the analytical method for AOX
(Method 1650) and its method
performance criteria.
15. Role of Market Demand and
Government Procurement Practices
On October 20,1993, President
Clinton issued Executive Order 12873,
which directs federal government
agencies to purchase paper made using
environmentally-friendly technologies.
Revisions in the brightness
specifications and standards for federal
goverment paper purchases, which are
discussed in the Executive Order, may
likely provide additional incentives for
producing paper using TCP
technologies. The Agency solicits
comments on the roles that market
demand and federal government
procurement practices (e.g., paper
specifications and uses) may play both
in the evolution of TCP and other
process technologies.
16. Zero Discharge as Basis for
Secondary Fiber Subcategory NSPS
The Agency believes that some non-
deink secondary fiber mills can operate
without discharging effluent if they are
designed to do so initially. (This is
based upon current industry practices as
reflected by responses to the 1990
Census). However, EPA's information is •
incomplete concerning the ability of
mills in this subcategory other than
those making paperboard, roofing paper
or builders felt to achieve zero
discharge. Furthermore, information
available to the Agency suggests that
existing mills cannot alter discharging
practices to operate under zero
discharge conditions without incurring
excessive costs and, therefore, BAT
limitations based on zero discharge of
wastewater may not be economically
achievable. As a result, the Agency is
proposing NSPS based on zero
discharge for only a portion of this
subcategory, and is not proposing BAT
limits for this subcategory at this time.
The Agency solicits comments and data
on the foregoing, as well as on the
technical feasibility and cost
implications of zero discharge for new
and existing mills in this subcategory,
the impact on sludge generation and
disposal costs, and whether disposal of
dilute sludges or periodic wastewater
discharges, infrequent though they may
be, are necessary to maintain a complete
recycle system at these mills.
17. Revision of BPT
The Clean Water Act defines BPT as
the best practicable control technology
currently available. The Agency is
proposing to revise BPT effluent
limitations for mills in this industry,
based in most cases on the average of
the best 50 percent of the mills in each
effluent guideline subcategory. EPA
invites comment on whether the Agency
should revise the current BPT effluent
limitations for this industry. During the
development of these proposed
regulations, industry representatives
argued that EPA lacks the authority to
revise promulgated BPT effluent
limitations guidelines and that the
current BPT effluent,limitations, which
were promulgated in three phases in
1974,1977, and 1982, should remain
forever fixed. Representatives of
environmental groups offered a different
view—that EPA is required to revise
BPT and other guidelines where new
data indicate that existing limits are out
of date. EPA solicits comment on
whether the Agency is either legally
proscribed from, or legally required to,
revise BPT effluent limitations
guidelines. EPA further solicits
comment on the merits of revising BPT.
EPA solicits data on costs, effluent
reduction benefits, water quality
benefits and any other factors that may
be related to the proposed BPT and BCT
revisions.
18. Cost of Oxygen Delignification
During development of these
proposed regulations, industry
representatives submitted estimates of
the cost of retrofitting existing mills •
with oxygen delignification equipment
that far exceeded EPA's estimates. One
of the primary differences in the cost
analyses by the industry and EPA
appears to be industry's assumption that
replacement of recovery boilers and
related recovery cycle equipment would
be required at a significant number of
mills. The Agency believes that
upgrades of existing recovery boiler
capacity will be sufficient to
accommodate the marginal increases in
solids loadings from oxygen
delignification and other technologies
that are part of BAT. The costs of these
upgrades have been included in EPA's
cost estimate. Decisions for installing
additional recovery boiler capacity
beyond these upgrades are production-
based, and these costs are therefore
unnecessary to comply with the -
proposed regulations. The Agency
solicits comments and detailed costing
assumptions and data concerning the
cost of oxygen delignification.
19. Solicitation of Toxics Data
A small number of mills in
subcategories where BAT is being
proposed did not submit toxic pollutant
effluent data in response to th6 1990
Census. For those mills, data from the
"104-mill Study" was used to set mill-
specific dioxin baselines, and other
values for toxic pollutants were
transferred from similar mills. The
Agency solicits data on toxic pollutants
from mills that meet this description.
20. Whether To Regulate Color, AOX,
and COD
The Agency solicits comment on its
proposal to control AOX, COD, and
color with BAT effluent limitations.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules BB1B9
Color, AOX, and COD are each bulk
parameters, meaning that they do not
represent a single compound, but a
number of them. All three parameters
have been receiving attention from
various regulatory authorities as
alternatives for controlling individual
compounds. Color, in particular, has
received state-level attention because it
is a parameter visible to the average
person. AOX has received international
attention as an alternative parameter for
chlorinated organic compounds. COD
has received attention as a potential
parameter for controlling low-molecular
weight non-chlorinated compounds that
have displayed toxicity in Canadian
studies. Industry representatives
challenge the Agency's intent to set
limitations on these parameters, stating
that they do not bear a direct
relationship to any environmental
effects related to particular pollutants of
concern. Although direct statistical
relationships are not clearly
demonstrated, the Agency believes these
parameters have a general relationship
to a variety of compounds of concern,
many of which have not yet been
analyzed or identified. These bulk
parameters can often be measured when
specific pollutants cannot be measured
using existing analytic methods. The
Agency also believes that these
parameters are useful measures of the
performance of process and end-of-pipe
technologies. The Agency requests
comments on the utility of these
parameters, as measures of the
performance of process and end-of-pipe
technologies and otherwise. The Agency
solicits data relevant to the foregoing.
21. Data To Better Define Technology
Variability
Initial statistical analysis indicates
that for parameters that typically are
monitored very frequently (e.g., as often
as daily), such as AOX, individual
measurements may be autocorrelated.
The Agency requests the submission of
treatment system influent and final
effluent data for these parameters in
order to better define the performance
and variability of the process
technologies (including closed screen
rooms), BMP's, and secondary biological
treatment system at any mills that use
these and related technologies.
22. Upgrading Certain POTWs as an
Alternative to POTW Limits
As set forth in section IX.E.5, EPA
believes that controls equivalent to
some PSES limits proposed today might
be achieved more cost-effectively if the
POTW receiving pulp and paper mill
effluent were to upgrade its treatment
facilities (instead of relying on the mill
to meet PSES limits). EPA solicits
comments and data on approaches for
achieving the most cost-effective . •
•controls in this area,-consistent with the
Agency's legal obligations.
At 32 POTWs, pulp and paper mill
wastewaters make up more than 50
percent of either total flow, BOD5
loading, or TSS loading. The Agency
solicits comments and data on:
• The specific design and operating
parameters of these POTWs; •' ; *;
• Their performance in removing
BOD5, TSS, AOX, and COD;
• The utility of co-permitting the
mills in the POTW's NPDES permit;
• Any alternative strategies in
addition to those presented in this
proposal that wpuld achieve the same
effluent quality from the POTW (based
upon the proposed BAT production-
based mass AOX, COD, and color
limitations) if the proposed PSES
applicable to mills discharging into
some of these POTWs is not
appropriate; and ,
• The costs developed by the Agency
for upgrading the biological treatment
systems at each of the affected POTWs.
23. BMPs, Limits on COD and Data for
Control of Pulping Liquors
The Agency today proposes to require
best management practices (BMPs)
including pulping liquor spill
prevention, containment, and control
measures. These practices are known to
reduce the amount of pulping liquor
(especially "black liquor" at kraft mills)
discharged to wastewater treatment
systems, and reduce the cost of process
operation through increased chemical
recovery. These BMPs would include
certain mandatory practices, such as
developing and updating spill
prevention plans, training, and related
activities. These BMPs would also
include other practices chosen from a
"menu" of practices that are applicable
to individual mills, such as secondary
containment diking, covered storage
tanks, and tank level alarms.
The Agency solicits comments on the
utility and implementation of BMPs, for
pulping liquors as they contribute to
reducing chemical costs and discharges
of non-chlorinated compounds to the
environment. The Agency also solicits •
comment on whether some practices
should be mandatory for all mills, while
other practices should be selected and
applied as appropriate to individual
mills. The Agency further solicits
comment on the applicability of BMPs
to mills in the following effluent
: guideline subcategories: Dissolving
kraft; Bleached kraft and soda—
papergrade; Unbleached kraft;
Dissolving sulfite; Papergrade sulfite;
Semi-chemical, and Non-wood chemical
.pulp. .
Pulping liquors have been identified
as a likely source of non-chlorinated
organic compounds thait exhibit aquatic
toxicity. These liquors may contain .
specific toxic pollutants as provided by
Sections 307(a) and 311(3). Naturally
occurring phenolic compounds are
known from the literature to be present
in these liquors, including phenol. A
broad range of other compounds also
have been identified in the literature,
but additional specific compounds
among those on the lists of 307(a) and
311(e) compounds have not been
identified by the Agency's wastewater
sampling program to date. The Agency
solicits data on the specific non-
chlorinated compounds (e.g., phenol(s),
Others) that apparently are generated
from within the pulp mill and recovery
cycle portions of integrated mills (e.g.,
"black liquors,", "red liquors").
The Agency also requests comments
oh its proposal to control chemical
oxygen demand (COD) as a "bulk"
parameter to reflect effective
implementation of BMPs, as well as
closed screen rooms and well-designed
and operated biological treatment
systems.
The Agency specifically solicits
comments on the proposed COD
limitations, and the methodology with
which they were derived. The Agency
intends to continue to collect additional
COD and color data in each of the six
subcategories applicable, including the
dissolving sulfite subcategory for which
applicable data are not available.
Limitations may be derived in the future
from such data for these subcategories,
using the rationale presented in Section
IX of this preamble and in the technical
Development Document.
24. Toxic Weighting Factor for AOX
As explained in section XI.B., the
Agency calculated a cost-effectiveness
ratio for the BAT and PSES options. In
the cost-effectiveness analysis, each
pound of pollutant removed by a control
technology is multiplied by a pollutant-
specific toxic weighting factor to
express the removal in units of pound-
equivalent. The cost-effectiveness ratio
is calculated as the incremental cost of
an option divided by the incremental
pounds-equivalent removed. In the
development of BAT, the Agency
projects removals of the bulk parameter
AOX, and as a nonconventional
pollutant, the Agency is interested fn
including AOX in cost-effectiveness
calculations. Because AOX is not x
comprised of a unique set of compounds
in the same proportion at all time's, a
-------
66170
241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 /Proposed Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No
26. Definition of Process Wastewater
&\Jt UD*A*»*»•»*"•• — - —
and Prohibited Discharges
sound analytical procedure for
calculating a toxic weighting factor for
AOX was a difficult exercise. The cost-
effectiveness ratios presented in this
notice do not include toxic weighted
pounds of AOX. The toxic weighting
factor methodology for AOX (and other
pollutants) is described in the Record
for today's rulemaking. The Agency
solicits comment on the methodology
for estimating a toxic weighting factor
for AOX and also on alternative
procedures for including AOX in the
cost-effectiveness analysis.
25. Pollution Prevention Opportunities
Today's proposal incorporates
pollution prevention practices into the
proposed effluent limitations and
emission standards for the pulp and
paper industry. The Agency requests
information on other pollution
prevention opportunities that may be
available to mills covered by this
proposal. The Agency is aware that
many of the additives that may be used
in the pulping or papermaking process,
such as surfactant, are not specifically
addressed by effluent limitations in this
proposal. Also, biocides are commonly
used in the industry to prevent
biofouling and may not be specifically
addressed by effluent limitations in this
proposal. Such compounds may pose an
environmental risk in some instances
and may be candidates for pollution
prevention practices such as source
reduction or substitution. For example,
the Agency has limited information that
indicates that certain surfactants used in
the pulping process (e.g., nonylphenol
ethoxylates), or their degradation L
products, may be toxic or persistent in
the environment. Yet opportunities exist
to use less of the surfactant or an
alternative surfactant which does not
pose a similar risk. Similarly, the
Agency is aware of recent information
that one biocide (dodecylguanidine),
_t. * _t_ * _ ..^A J *vu*n«c**toltr in tnfi TlSTli
which is used extensively in the paper
roosed f
wc s use e
industry and has been proposed for use
as a molluscicide for zebra mussel
control, has been found to be very
persistent and highly toxic. Efforts are
underway by the vendors to find a
replacement biocide that is known to
degrade and whose toxicity can be
reduced or eliminated before discharge.
The Agency requests data that might
help to identify specific process
additives or biocides that might pose
environmental risks and information
regarding pollution prevention
opportunities that may exist for such
substances. EPA also requests comment
on whether the final rule should require
the implementation of specific pollution
prevention practices addressing process
additives or biocides.
The Agency proposed a definition of
process wastewater for the effluent
limitations guidelines regulation that
elands upon the definition of process
wastewate?set out at 40 CFR 122^The
definition specifically includes certain
non-process wastewaters (boiler
blowdown, cooling tower blowdown,
storm water from immediate process
areas) as process wastewater. The
Agency believes these non-process
wastewaters are typically co-treated
with process wastewaters at many mills,
and that the treated effluent data
reported by the industry and used by
the Agency to develop many of the
proposed effluent limitations guidelines
and standards were generated from co-
treatment of these non-process
wastewaters with process wastewaters.
Accordingly, the Agency believes that
those non-process wastewaters should
be included in the definition of process
wastewaters for this industry. The
Agency is proposing to exclude
groundwaters from groundwater
remediation projects from the definition
of process wastewaters. Because the
quantity and quality of such
groundwaters are likely to be highly
variable on a site-specific basis, the
Agency believes that the discharge of
such groundwaters to surface waters
should be regulated separately, or in
addition to, process wastewaters on a
case-by-case basis.
The Agency also proposes to exclude
a number of process materials from the
definition of process wastewaters and to
expressly prohibit the discharge of such
materials to publicly owned treatment
works or waters of the United States,
without an NPDES permit or individual
control mechanism authorizing such
discharge. The Agency believes that
discharge and loss of these materials is
inappropriate from the standpoints of
productivity loss, pollution prevention,
adverse impacts on wastewater
treatment, and increased air emissions.
The Agency believes that most
responsible mill operators operate in a
manner to prohibit such losses, but that
there are other mill operators that
operate with significant losses of such
materials. The Agency believes it has
accounted for much of the cost of
complying with the proposed *
prohibitions in the estimated costs to
comply with the BMP provisions of the
regulation and the effluent limitations
guidelines for COD and that the
remaining costs are not significant in
the context of the overall costs of the
regulation.
The Agency solicits comments on the
following:
• The expanded definition of process
wastewaters and the proposed exclusion
of groundwaters from the definition of
process wastewaters;
• The specific proposed list of
excluded and prohibited process'
materials and the potential costs of
complying with the proposed
prohibition of the discharge of process
materials.
27. Costs of the Regulation
For purposes of proposal, EPA
assigned the costs for process changes in
full to the regulation. EPA believes,
however, that in addition to significant
effluent reduction benefits, compliance
with the proposed regulation will result
in increases in productivity, enhanced
product quality, and improved plant
and equipment use throughout the
chemical pulping and bleaching
segment of the industry. EPA believes
that some portion, and perhaps a
substantial portion, of the costs of
compliance should be assigned or
allocated to productivity, product
quality and plant and equipment
benefits the industry will derive. If EPA
adopted this position, the portion of
costs so assigned or allocated might not
be considered as compliance costs in
the economic impact analysis for the
final regulation.
EPA specifically requests comments
on what specific productivity, product
quality and plant and equipment
benefits the industry will derive from
compliance with the regulation; how the
Agency should estimate such benefits;
and, whether, or to what extent the
Agency should consider those benefits
in the context of economic achievability
determinations.
28. Limitations Based on Minimum
Levels
EPA has proposed some BAT, PSES,
PSNS, and NSPS limitations for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Dissolving Kraft subcategories based
upon the current minimum levels of the
analytical methods. The data
characterizing the technology basis of
these limitations were all reported as
being below detection limits ("non-
detect"). Based on these data, EPA
believes that the BAT technologies for
these subcategories are capable of
reducing discharges of these pollutants
to the current minimum levels specified
in the analytical methods.
EPA considered applying variability
factors to the minimum levels to allow
for variability in the measurements.
However, EPA believes that the data
demonstrates that the technology is
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 241 /Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66171
always capable of achieving
concentrations below the minimum
level of the analytical method. Because"
all data for the pollutants for which
limitations are based on the minimum
level were "non detect", the variability
in the measurements occurs below the
minimum level and no additional
allowance above the minimum level is
therefore necessary. EPA also believes
that providing additional allowance for
variability beyond the minimum level is
unnecessary, does not represent the
capability of the technology, and would
not be as protective of the environment
as possible. ,,
EPA acknowledges that some of the
sample-specific detection limits
reported with the non-detect data are
higher .than the minimum levels
specified in the analytical methods.
However, EPA believes that when the
methods are used correctly that the
minimum level is attainable. The
achievability of the minimum levels has
been demonstrated by a number of
laboratories involved in the
development and implementation of the
methods.
EPA realizes that the analytical
methods are likely to change as they are
refined and the minimum levels may be
set equal to lower levels. With these
revised minimum levels, the data that
were previously reported to be "non-
detect" may be detected in
concentrations less than the previous
minimum level. EPA believes that all
such measurements will be reported as
below the previous minimum level. EPA
is proposing these limitations on a
concentration-basis instead of mass-
based limitations as proposed for the
pollutants for which there were detected
measurements.
EPA solicits comments on these
limitations that have been set equal tb
the minimum level of the analytical
methods. EPA requests comments as to
whether it is appropriate to determine
limitations based upon current
minimum levels, whether these
limitations can be achieved, and
whether other methods of estimating
limitations based on all non-detect data
would be more appropriate.
29. Multimedia Filtration as a BCT
Technology
EPA evaluated multimedia filtration
as a candidate BCT technology for
today's proposed rulemaking. EPA
found that multimedia filtration passed
the BCT cost test in one subcategory
(Mechanical Pulp) and failed the BCT
cost test in all remaining subcategories.
At present, EPA lacks adequate data
with which to develop limits that mills
within the Mechanical Pulp subcategory
could meet using multimedia filtration.
EPA solicits data and comments with
which to develop such limits. In
addition, EPA solicits comments and
data on (i) the costs and pollutant
removals associated with multimedia
filtration, in all subcategories, and (ii)
any candidate BCT technologies other
than multimedia filtration that EPA
should evaluate in developing BCT
limits for the industry.
30. Definition of "Source" for Air
Emission Standards
EPA is today proposing to define
"source" broadly for purposes of this,
NESHAP, to include all pulping areas,
bleaching areas and wastewater
treatment areas within a mill. As
discussed in section X.C, the reason for
this proposal is that the CAA and the
CWA differ regarding applicability
requirements and compliance deadlines
for new sources. The result of-these
differences is that mills planning to
construct or reconstruct a source of
HAPs between proposal and
promulgation of the integrated
regulations could find it necessary to
plan for compliance with the NESHAP
without knowing the requirements for
the effluent standards. !
One possible solution to this problem
is to define "source" broadly for the
NESHAP, to include all pulping and
bleaching processes and associated „
process wastewater streams. With this
definition there will be fewer instances
in which a source will be constructed or
reconstructed between proposal and
promulgation than if source is defined
to be an individual piece of equipment.
With the broad definition, a piece of ,
equipment that is added will not
constitute a "new source", in most
situations, but instead will be a change
to an existing source.
Two options considered other than
this broad definition of source were to
define each piece of equipment as a
source, or to define three kinds of
sources: the pulping process, the
bleaching process, and all associated
process wastewater streams.
EPA solicits comments on the
definition of "source" that would be
most appropriate for the NESHAP. In
particular, EPA solicits comments on
whether the broad definition of
"source" in today's proposal that
defines a single source to comprise all
pulping processes, bleaching processes,
and process wastewaters will in fact
promote integrated compliance
planning, either during the period
Between proposal and promulgation or
once the rule is promulgated. EPA also
solicits comment on the impact of
adopting either of the two alternative
approaches considered, but not selected,
in defining the source for today's
proposal.
31. Impacts of Section 112(g) on Today's
Proposed NESHAP
Industry representatives have voiced a
concern that involves case-by-case
MACT determinations required under
CAA section 112(g) for changes for an
existing mill. Specifically, their concern
is that once a State permit system is
effective, States.will use today's rule as
• the basis of case-by-case MACT
determinations for mills that make
modifications or construct a new unit
that by itself could be considered a
major source. Industry representatives
consider this to be a problem because
they believe that the NESHAP proposed
today are too stringent, and that
additional data they are collecting will
confirm this view. In making case-by-
case MACT determinations for pulp and
paper mills under Section 112(g),
permitting authorities should take all
available information into account. This
information would include today's
proposed rule and MACT floor
determination, supporting information,
arid information submitted to the
permitting authority during the public
comment period on a permit. At the
same time, permitting authorities must
consider whether a statutory minimum
(or floor) level of control exists and, if
so, ensure that case-by-case MACT
requirements are no less stringent.
EPA requests comments on the impact
that today's proposed NESHAP may
-have on CAA section 112(g) case-by-
case MACT determinations. EPA does
not solicit general comments not
specific to today's rulemaking, such as
the interrelationship between sections.
112(d), 112(g) and 112(j), the control
'levels required by statute for different
sorts of changes, and generic
preconstruction review requirements.
32. MACT Floor.
There are several issues discussed
under the development of the MACT
floor on which EPA solicits comments
and data. The three main topics are:
interpretation of statutory language,
definition of emission points controlled
at the floor, and the control technology
basis used to develop the floor.'
a. Interpretation of Statutory
Language. In Section X.D, EPA solicits
comment on its methodology for
determining the MACT floor—
specifically on its interpretation of "the
average emission limitation achieved by
the best, performing 12 percent of the
existing sources" (CAA Section
112(d)(3)(A)). EPA solicits comments on
two main areas of discussion: (1) the
-------
66172 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
interpretation of the statutory phrase as
it refers to "average emission
limitation" of the best performing 12
percent compared to "average emission
limitation" that is achieved by all of the
best performing 12 percent, and (2) the
interpretation of the term "average."
b. Definition of emission points
controlled at the floor. EPA identified
certain low flow and episodic pulping
and bleaching vent emission points that
are not believed to be controlled at the
floor. Available data indicate that these
minor emission points can be identified
by volumetric or mass flow rates, or
concentrations. EPA also identified
certain low concentration or low flow
process wastewater streams that are not
controlled at the floor. EPA solicits
comments and data on the HAP
concentration of these streams,
specifically on the acid and caustic
sewer streams and evaporator clean
condensate streams.
There are a few mills currently using
oxygen delignification units within their
pulping process. In section X.D, EPA
solicits comments and requests data on
the use of such units within the
industry. In addition, EPA specifically
solicits comments on the inclusion of
oxygen delignification units as
controlled emission points in the MACT
floor with other pulping component
emission points.
c. Control technology basis. In
sections X.D and X.E, EPA solicits
comments and data on information
related to the development of the
bleaching component of the MACT
floor. In section X.H, EPA solicits
comment and data on the efficiency of
steam stripping as the basis for the
process wastewater component of the
MACT floor.
Comment is solicited on the efficiency
of gas scrubbers for removal of
methanol, chloroform, chlorine and
other HAP compounds from bleaching
component emission points, the effect of
process changes on HAP emissions from
bleaching component emission points,
and whether emission limitations
should be set for chloroform emissions
from bleaching component emission
points. Comment is also requested on
the use of gas scrubbers in combination
with process changes; and on whether
process changes, scrubbing, or the
combination of both should be the
MACT floor for bleaching component
emission points.
EPA also solicits comment on
whether the combustion of selected
bleaching component vent streams
followed by scrubbing of vent streams
with high chlorine concentrations
would be a reasonable option beyond
the floor, and on which vent streams
would be included under such an
option.
For process wastewater component
emission points, EPA solicits comments
and requests data on the efficiency of
steam strippers for removal of total HAP
and methanol.
33. Emissions Averaging
During the development of today's
proposal, EPA considered including an
emissions averaging approach. EPA
solicits comments on the merits and
feasibility of emissions averaging in the •
pulp and paper industry and requests
information and data that would be.
necessary to support development and
implementation of an averaging
approach.
EPA solicits comments on the
approaches discussed in section X.M for
establishing the MACT floor based upon
the mass emission limit or mass
emission reduction percentage achieved
across either the process areas as a
whole or each process area individually
(see section X.C for descriptions of these
source definitions). Specifically, EPA
requests comments on the types and
amount of data necessary to develop
either a mass emission limit or a mass
emission reduction percentage that
would be associated with this type of
MACT floor determination. EPA solicits
comments on whether a mass emission
limit or a mass emission reduction
percentage could be established using a
model plant and emission factor
approach. EPA solicits comments on
whether the current model plants and
emission factors presented in the
Background Information Document are
sufficient to develop these values and
solicits information and data that would
be necessary to improve the model
plants and emission factors for this
purpose.
EPA solicits data on process
variabilities at a mill and how these
variabilities affect air emissions. EPA
solicits comment on how such
variability could be accounted for in
establishing either a mass emission limit
or a mass emission reduction
percentage.
EPA solicits comment on how an
averaging approach would be
implemented for this industry.
Specifically, EPA solicits comments on
how a mill could demonstrate
continuous compliance, as required by
the CAA, including any additional
monitoring, recordkeeping, or reporting
that would be necessary if an averaging
scheme was implemented. EPA solicits
comment on the length of the averaging
period.
34. Format of Air Emission Standards
EPA solicits comments and data on:
• Whether the applicability level for
pulping and bleaching process vent •
streams should be based upon
specifically named vents or upon a flow
rate or concentration level,
• Whether an additional applicability
level should be added for the bleaching
component vent emissions based upon
liquid-phase mass loading rates to the
process equipment,
« Whether the applicability levels for
process wastewater streams should be
based upon named wastewaters or upon
a flow rate and concentration level, and
• Whether a mass removal format for
the process wastewater component
should be an additional format for
demonstrating compliance with the
standards proposed today.
Applicability levels are proposed for
pulping and bleaching component
emission points in section X.H, to
establish those emission points that are
not required to be controlled. These
applicability levels are based upon flow'
rates and concentration from process
vents. The Agency solicits comments
and data on whether these numerical
applicability levels are appropriate for
identifying pulping and bleaching
component emission points that are not
currently being controlled.
Although a liquid-phase HAP mass
loading applicability level is provided
for open pulping component process
equipment based on the sum of all
liquid streams entering the piece of
process equipment, no such option is
provided for the bleaching component
because of the chemical reactions
occurring in the bleaching process
equipment. EPA solicits comments and
data on whether a liquid-phase HAP
mass loading for streams entering the
process equipment would be an
appropriate format for identification of
bleaching component equipment not
being controlled at the floor.
Applicability levels are also proposed
for process wastewater emission points
in section X.H, to.establish those
emission points that are not required to
be controlled. These applicability levels
are based upon concentration and flow
rates from process wastewater streams.
The Agency solicits comments and data
on whether these numerical
applicability levels are appropriate for
identifying process wastewater
component emission points that are not
currently being controlled.
35. Subcategorization
Subcategorization may be appropriate
if segments of the industry have
significantly different characteristics,
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 241 / Friday, December^, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66173
such as applicable control technologies
or costs for implementation of the
control technology. EPA determined
that the control technologies considered
in the development of today's proposed
standards were applicable to all
segments of the industry, regardless ol
pulping process, end product, or wood
species. ... ,, „ .
EPA is aware that scrubbing, ratner
than venting to a combustion device, is
utilized in sulfite mills to control
pulping process emissions. EPA solicits
comments and data regarding: Tne
efficiency of gas scrubbers for
controlling HAP emissions from pulping
' process vents at sulfite mills,, and
whether standards for sulfite mill
pulping processes should be based upon
the use of scrubbing. ,
EPA is also aware the soda mills do
not have eas collection systems in place
for pulping process vents, because soda
mills do not use sulfur-containing
chemicals to digest the wood. EPA
believes that gas collection and
incineration is a feasible control
technology to reduce total HAP
emissions from soda mills.
Representatives from these mills,
however, urged EPA to create a separate
subcategory for soda mills, due in part
to the extra expense soda mills may
incur when installing gas collection
systems. EPA solicits comments on the
HAP content of soda mill pulping
process vent streams, the capacity of
existing combustion devices, the costs
of collecting and routing these vent
• streams to a combustion device, and
whether there should be a separate
subcategory for soda mills.
36. Time Extension for Totally Chlorine-
Free ,
The CAA requires that sources corrie
into compliance with a NESHAP as
soon as practical, but no later than three
years after promulgation of a rule.
However, the CAA also provides for one
additional year to come into compliance
if equipment changes are required. The
Agency solicits comment on
i automatically granting mills this one
additional year for compliance on the
condition that they adopt a totally
chlorine-free technology.
37. Model Plants and Emission
Estimates
EPA used emission models to predict
air emissions of HAPs from the process
wastewater collection and treatment
system. EPA solicits comments and
requests data on the emission estimates
made for emissions and on flows and
HAP concentrations in the pulping,
bleaching, and process wastewater
models used to develop today's
proposed standards. Specifically, data is
requested on process wastewater
characteristics, EPA's wastewater model
plant documented in the air docket, and
emissions of HAPs especially methanol.
EPA also solicits comments and data
on the models for wastewater, pulping,
and bleaching component emission
points; specifically on flowrates and
concentrations of total HAP and
individual HAP compounds.
38. Monitoring Issues
EPA requests comments on the
monitoring of control device operating
parameters to determine, compliance
with the proposed NESHAP.
Specifically, EPA requests comment on
whether it is reasonable to monitor
actual emissions from certain control
devices; and on the applicability of the
proposed parameters for determining
compliance.
In Section X.I, EPA requests
comments concerning continuous
compliance associated with utilizing
existing combustion devices for pulping
component emission points, including:
•> Data on duration and frequency of
combustor downtimes while pulping
operations continue,
» Combustor capacity utilization,
» Retrofit information, and
» Current back-up operations for the
pulping component.
In Section X.I, EPA requests
comments on applicable monitoring
parameters when biological treatment
units are used to comply with the
process wastewater standards. These
include supporting data on biorates and
corresponding parameters for
monitoring. Specifically, EPA requests
comments on the monitoring of soluble
BOD in the biological treatment unit
effluent as a parameter for determining
compliance. , ,
39. Recordkeeping and Reporting
EPA solicits comments on the
reporting time requirement of 45 days
for the Initial Notification for all
sources. EPA also solicits comments on
the content and reporting time
requirements for any of the other
required reports.
40. Modification Issue
EPA solicits comment on the impact
of this specific rulemaking on
modifications to affected sources under
the NESHAP. We do not solicit
comments on this rulemaking regarding
CAA Section 112(g) in general.
C. Solicitation of Comment on an
Industry Proposal
Section V.F of this preamble describes
the public meetings that EPA sponsored
during development of the proposed
rules. One of the advantages of
exchanging preliminary regulatory
information prior to proposal is the
opportunity for first-hand experience
and reaction from the regulated
community. By participating in a
dialogue with representatives of . '_, :
industry and other concerned parties
throughout regulatory development, the
Agency was better able to characterize
and document the technical feasibility
of,control options. ,
Many ideas and suggestions were •
presented in the public meetings and in
other, meetings with individual
companies. Some of those ideas are the
source of specific data requests
described above in this section. For
example, industry representatives
suggested that EPA change the proposed
subcategorization, and Item 6 above
specifically solicits the information that-
EPA needs to adequately analyze the
suggestion and then, possibly to
incorporate the suggestion into the final
regulations.
In addition to the suggestions and
comments provided during public
meetings, the industry trade association,
the American Forest & Paper
Association (AFPA), submitted a
specific set of comments and
suggestions concerning the Clean Water
Act effluent guidelines and the Clean
Air Act NESHAP. The set of AFPA
suggestions is hereafter referred to as the
AFPA Proposal (as it was also labelled
by AFPA). •
The AFPA Proposal was presented to
the Administrator at a meeting on July
19,1993. An outline of the AFPA
presentation and the AFPA Proposal are
included in the Record for today's
proposed rulemaking. A summary of the
AFPA Proposal is included here as a
means to invite comment.
EPA incorporates the AFPA Proposal
into this notice as an alternative to the
proposed effluent limitations
guidelines. EPA invites comment on any
and all aspects of the AFPA Proposal as
an alternative to the technology basis
described in this preamble and to the
effluent limitations presented in part
430, in whole or in part. EPA requests
data and information to support
comments on any aspect of the AFPA
proposal. Specifically, EPA requests
information on the technology basis that
will achieve the numeric (or other)
effluent limitations included in the
AFPA Proposal. Similarly, EPA requests
information, such as treatment
effectiveness data, to develop effluent
limitations for the technology basis
suggestions in the AFPA Proposal. "
EPA emphasizes that, for purposes of
notice-and-comment, if any aspect of
-------
66174 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
the AFPA Proposal is supported with
adequate documentation to demonstrate
technical feasibility, economic
achievability, or other statutory factors,
EPA may revise the technology basis
and corresponding effluent limitations
for promulgation of these rules.
The following summary of the AFPA
Proposal for effluent guidelines includes
key provisions of the technology basis
and effluent standards. EPA does not
intend to interpret or otherwise react to
the AFPA Proposal at this time, but
instead to summarize the submission
provided to the Administrator.
Interested parties are encouraged to^
review the complete AFPA submission,
which is included in the docket.
For mills in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda, Papergrade Sulfite,
Dissolving Kraft, and Dissolving Sulfite
subcategories, the AFPA Proposal
includes an effluent limitation for TCDD
of nondetect at 10 ppq measured at the
point of discharge. For the same four
subcategories, the AFPA Proposal
includes effluent limitations for BOD
and TSS (based on BCT) equivalent to
the average BOD and TSS discharges of
the best 90 percent of mills in the
relevant subcategory. For the same four
subcategories, the AFPA Proposal
includes the adoption of mill-specific
BMP programs for spill control to
address color and COD (no effluent
limits for color and COD are identified
in the AFPA Proposal).
For mills in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft subcategory, the AFPA Proposal
includes effluent limitations for AOX
measured at the point of discharge using
EPA Method 1650 of 1.0 Kg/ton (annual
average of 0.8 Kg/ton) on October 31,
1998; and 1.2 Kg/ton (annual average of
1.0 Kg/ton) on October 31,1996, for a
minimum of 90 percent of mills in the
subcategory. For new sources in this
subcategory, the AFPA Proposal
includes a 30-day average effluent
limitation for AOX measured at a point
of discharge using EPA Method 1650 of
0.6 Kg/ton (annual average of 0.48 Kg/
ton) for new sources that commence
construction after October 31,1994.
In addition to the effluent limitations
shown above for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft subcategory, the AFPA
Proposal includes a study of a mutually-
agreed upon list of chlorinated phenolic
compounds to determine whether the
amount and toxicity of these
compounds pose a residual risk to
human health and the environment that
justifies national regulations after
compliance with the AOX limitations
cited in the preceding paragraph. One
goal of this study would be for EPA to
use the study's results to determine
whether there is a need to establish
effluent limitations for individual
compounds.
For mills in the Papergrade Sulfite,
Dissolving Sulfite, and Dissolving Kraft
subcategories, the AFPA Proposal
includes two suggestions. First, at the
time the rules are promulgated, totally
chlorine free technologies will not be
the technology basis due to product
specifications for customers of
papergrade sulfite and dissolving sulfite
mills. Second, at the time the rules are
promulgated, the use of hypochlorite in
dissolving kraft mills will be allowed
because that chemical's use is necessary
to continued manufacture of products to
customer specifications.
The AFPA Proposal for the NESHAP
focuses on an industry-funded study of
HAP emissions and a deferral of
proposed NESHAP pending receipt of
that study's results. Because today's
proposed rules include NESHAP in part
63, th.3 Agency cannot sensibly present
this provision of the AFPA Proposal as
an alternative. The reasons for the
suggested deferral, as described in the
AFPA Proposal, are that the NESHAP
should be based on sound, scientific
data and engineering practices. The
industry's study to characterize and
quantify emissions of HAP from pulp
and paper industry sources is intended
to establish the necessary basis for the
rules. The AFPA Proposal indicates that
the Agency is currently lacking credible
data. The Agency invites comment on
the adequacy of the data supporting
today's proposed rules and on the AFPA
Proposal's indication of the absence of
credible data. The Agency also invites '
comment on the use of the industry's
study to establish NESHAP for the final
rules.
D. Solicitation of Comment on an
Environmental Group Petition
In September 1993, the Natural
Resources Defense Council and the,
Natural Resources Council of Maine, on
behalf of 57 environmental, Native
American and citizen organizations, and
individuals, filed a petition with EPA to
prohibit the discharge of 2,3,7,8-
'tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin by pulp
and paper mills (hereafter referred to as
the "NRDC Petition"). While this
petition is not an alternative "proposal"
for the effluent guidelines and NESHAP,
the petition addresses many of the
issues that today's proposed rules
address. Hence, the Agency invites
comment on the petition and its
supporting documentation. The NRDC
Petition is summarized here, and the
complete submission that EPA received
is included in the public 'record
supporting the proposed rules.
By discussing the NRDC petition in
this notice, EPA is not indicating any
response to the petition. Specifically,
EPA is not "publish[ing] in the Federal
Register a proposed effluent standard"
under CWA section 307(a)(2) with
respect to dioxin or any other pollutant.
EPA is instead inviting comment on the
issues raised in the petition.
The NRDC Petition asks the
Administrator to issue a prohibition on
the discharge of all dioxin from pulp
and paper mills. The petitioners ask that
the prohibition be accomplished by
requiring that the use of chlorine and
chlorine-containing compounds as
inputs in the manufacturing process be
prohibited. The petitioners believe that
the prohibitions are warranted by the
dangers to human health and the
environment posed by dioxin. The
NRDC Petition points to sec. 307(a)(2) of
the CWA for the authority for such a'
prohibition.
EPA invites comment on all aspects of
the NRDC Petition including its
scientific and legal authorities.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection Air
pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 430
Air pollution control, Pulp, paper, or
paperboard manufacturing, Pollution
prevention, Sludge disposal,
Wastewater treatment, Water pollution
control.
Dated: October 29,1993.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the
preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations is proposed to be
amended as follows:
PART 63—NATIONAL EMISSION
STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR
POLLUTANTS FOR SOURCE
CATEGORIES
1. The authority citation for part 63
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
2. It is proposed that part 63 be
amended by adding Subpart S to read as
follows:
Subpart S—National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
From the Pulp and Paper Industry
Sec. '
63.440 Applicability.
63.441 Definitions.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 /. Proposed Rules " 66175
Sec.
63.442 [Reserved]
63.443 [Reserved] "
63.444 Standards for pulping component. .
63.445 Standards for bleaching component.
63.446 Standards for process wastewater
component.
63.447 [Reserved]
63.448 [Reserved]
63.449 [Reserved] ,
63.450 Standards for enclosures and closed
. vent systems.
63.451 Test methods and procedures.
63.452 [Reserved]
63.453 Continuous monitoring.
63.454 Recordkeeping.
63.455 Reporting.
63.456 Delegation of authority.
63.457 [Reserved]
63.458 [Reserved]
63.459 [Reserved]
Subpart S—National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the Pulp
and Paper Industry
§63.440 Applicability.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
apply to the owners or operators of any
pulping component, bleaching
component or process wastewater
component associated with the
production of chemical pulp from
wood, including kraft, soda, sulfite, or
semi-chemical processes. For purposes
of this subpart, a source shall be
comprised of all pulping components,
bleaching components and process
wastewater components at a mill, in
combination.
(b) Each source that commenced
construction or reconstruction before
December 17,1993 shall achieve
compliance with the provisions of the
subpart as expeditiously as practical
after the date of promulgation of this
subpart, but in no event later than 3
years after such date.
(c) Each source that commences
construction or reconstruction on or
after December if, 1993 shall achieve
compliance with the provisions of this
subpart immediately upon startup or the
date of promulgation of this subpart,
whichever is later.
(d) This subpart is not applicable to
sources for which the owner or operator
has demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction that the facility is not a
major source as defined in Section
112(a)(l) of the Clean Air Act.
§63.441 Definitions.
All terms used in this subpart shall
have the meaning given them in the Act,
- in subpart A of this part, .and in this
section as follows:
Air dried pulp (ADP)meansa pulp
sample with a moisture content of less
than or equal to 10 percent by weight.
• Pulp samples for the pulping
component shall be unbleached pulp
and for the bleaching component shall
be bleached pulp.
Bleaching Brightening and
delignification of pulp by the addition
of oxidizing chemicals. -
Bleaching component means all
process equipment beginning with the
first application of chlorine or chlorine-
containing compound up to and
including the final bleaching stage:
Treatment with ozonation, oxygen,
peroxide may occur before or after the
addition of chlorine. If treatment occurs
before this chlorine addition, then these
stages are included in the pulping
•component; if treatment occurs after the
addition of chlorine, then these
bleaching stages are included in the
bleaching component.
Boiler means any enclosed
combustion device that extracts useful
energy in the form of steam. Boilers are
not considered incinerators.
. Chemical recovery means the. process
by which pulping chemicals in the
spent cooking liquor are extracted or
recovered after the multiple effect
evaporator system. ;
Closed-vent system means a system
that is not open to the atmosphere and
is composed of piping, ductwork,
connections, and, if necessary, flow
inducing devices that transport gas or
vapor from an emission point to a
control device.
Combustion device means an
individual unit of equipment, including
but not limited to, an incinerator, lime
kiln, recovery furnace, process heater, or
boiler, used for the thermal oxidation of
organic hazardous air pollutant vapors.
" Container means any portable unit in
which wastewater or HAP removed
from wastewater is stored, transported,
treated, or otherwise handled. Examples
of containers are drums, barrels, tank
trucks, barges, dumpsters, tank cars,
dump trucks, and ships.
Decker means a piece of equipment
used to thicken or reduce the water
content of the pulp slurry after the pulp
washer system.
Digester system means each
continuous digester or each set of batch
digesters used for the chemical
treatment of wood, including associated
flash tank(s), blow tank(s), chip
steamer(s), condenser(s), and pre-
hydrolysis unit(s).
Emission point means any location
.within a source from which air
pollutants are emitted, including an
individual process vent, wastewater
collection and treatment system, or an
open piece of process equipment.
Flow indicator means a device which
indicates whether gas flow is present in
a closed vent system.
Incinerator means an enclosed
combustion device that is used for
destroying organic compounds.
Auxiliary fuel may be used to heat
waste gas to combustion temperatures.
Any energy recovery section present is
not physically formed into one
manufactured or assembled unit with
the combustion section; rather, the
energy recovery section is a separate
section following the combustion
section and the two are joined by ducts
or connections carrying flue gas.
Individual drain system means the
system used to convey process
wastewater streams from the pulping or
bleaching process equipment or tank or
process wastewater collection and
treatment system unit to a receiving
process wastewater collection, and ;
treatment system unit. The term
includes all process drains and junction
boxes, together with their associatecl
sewer lines and other junction boxes,
manholes, sumps, and lift stations,
down to the receiving process
wastewater treatment system. The
individual drain system shall be
designed to segregate the vapors within
the system from other drain systems. A
segregated stormwater sewer system,
which is a drain and collection system
designed and operated for the sole
purpose of collecting rainfall-runoff at a
facility, and which is segregated from all
other individual drain systems, is
excluded from this definition.
Junction box means a manhole access
point to a wastewater sewer system line
or a lift station.
Knotter means a piece of equipment
where knots or pieces of uncooked
wood are removed from the pulp slurry
after the digester system and prior to the
pulp washer system. Equipment used to
remove oversized particles from pulp
following the pulp washer are
considered screens. .
Kraft pulping.means a chemical
pulping process that uses a mixture of
sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide
as the cooking liquor.
Lime kiln means an enclosed
combustion device used to calcine lime
mud, which consists primarily of
calcium carbonate, into calcium oxide.
Multiple-effect evaporator system
means a series of evaporators operated
at different pressures such that the
vapor from one evaporator body
becomes the steam supply for the next
evaporator, and associated condenser(s)
and hotwell(s) used to concentrate the
spent cooking liquid that is separated
from the pulp. ^
Operating parameter value means a
minimum or maximum value
established for a control device or
process parameter if achieved by itself,
-------
66176 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17. 1993 / Proposed Rules
or in combination with one or more
other operating parameter values;
determines that an owner or operator
has complied with an applicable
emission limitation or standard.
Point of generation means the location
where the process wastewater stream
exits the pulping or bleaching process
equipment or tank prior to mixing with
other process wastewater streams or^
prior to handling or treatment in a piece
of equipment that is not an integral part
of the pulping or bleaching process
equipment. A piece of equipment is an
integral part of the process if it is
essential to the operation of the process
(i.e., removal of the equipment would
result in the process being shut down).
Primary fuel means the fuel that
provides the principle heat input to the
combustion device. To be considered
primary, the fuel must be able to sustain
operation of the combustion device
without the addition of other fuels.
Process emission point means a gas
stream that contains hazardous air
pollutants discharged during operation
of process equipment including, but not
limited to digesters, evaporators, pulp
washer systems, bleaching towers,
bleaching stage washers, and associated
filtrate tanks. Process emission points
include gas streams that are discharged
directly to the atmosphere, discharged
to the atmosphere via vents or open
process equipment, or after diversion
through a product recovery device.
Process wastewater collection system
means a piece of equipment, structure,
or transport mechanism used in
conveying or storing a process •
wastewater stream. Examples of process
wastewater collection system equipment
include individual drain systems,
wastewater tanks, surface
impoundments, or containers.
Process wastewater component means
air emissions from all process
wastewater streams produced from the
pulping and bleaching processes.
Process wastewater stream means any
HAP-containing liquid that results from
either direct or indirect contact of water
with organic compounds. Examples of a
process wastewater stream include, but
are not limited to, digester condensates,
evaporator condensates, and non-
condensible gas system (NCG)
condensates.
Process wastewater treatment system
means a process or specific technique
that removes or destroys the organics or
any HAP in a process wastewater
stream. Examples include, but are riot
limited to, a stream stripping unit,
wastewater incinerator, or biological
treatment unit.
Pulping component means all process
equipment, beginning with the digester
system, and up to and including the last .
piece of pulp conditioning equipment
prior to the bleaching component,
including treatment with ozone, oxygen,
or peroxide before the first application
of chlorine or chlorine-containing
compounds.
Pulp washer system means pulp or
brown stock washers and associated .
vacuum pumps, filtrate tanks, and foam
breakers or tanks used to wash the pulp
to separate spent cooking chemicals
following the digestion system and prior
to the bleaching component.
Recovery device means an individual
unit of equipment, such as an absorber
or a condenser, capable of and used for
the purpose of recovering chemicals for
use, reuse, or sale.
Recovery furnace means an enclosed
combustion device where concentrated
spent liquor is burned to recover
sodium and sulfur, produce steam, and
dispose of unwanted dissolved wood
components in the liquor.
Relief valve means a valve used only
to release an unplanned, nonroutine •
discharge. A relief valve discharge can
result from an operator error, a
malfunction such as a power failure or
equipment failure, or other unexpected
cause that requires immediate venting of
gas from process equipment to avoid
safety hazards or equipment damage.
Screen means a piece of process
equipment where pieces of oversized
particles are removed from the pulp
slurry after the pulp washer system and
prior to the papermaking equipment.
Equipment used to remove uncooked
wood prior to the pulp washer system
are considered knotters.
Semi-chemical pulping means a
pulping process that combines both
chemical and mechanical pulping
processes.
Sewer line means a lateral, trunk line,
branch line, or other conduit including,
but not limited to, grates, and trenches
used to convey process wastewater
streams or any HAP removed from
process wastewater streams to a
downstream unit in the process
wastewater collection and treatment
system.
Soda pulping means a chemical
pulping process that uses sodium
hydroxide as the active chemical in the
cooking liquor.
Spent liquor means cooking liquor
from a digestion or pulp-washer
process,' containing dissolved organic
wood materials and residual cooking
compounds.
Stripper system means a column, and
associated condensers or heat
exchangers, used to strip compounds
from wastewater, using air or steam.
Sulfite pulping means a chemical
pulping process that uses a mixture of
sulfurous acid and bisulfite ion as the
cooking liquor. . .
Surface impoundment means a unit
Which is a natural topographic
depression, manmade excavation, or
diked area formed primarily of earthen
materials (although it may be lined with
manmade materials), which is used for
the purpose of treating, .storing, or
disposing of wastewater and is not an
injection well .-Examples of surface
impoundments are equalization,
settling, and aeration pits, ponds, and
lagoons.
Temperature monitoring device
means a piece of equipment used to
monitor temperature and having an
accuracy of ±1 percent of the
temperature being monitored expressed
in degrees Celsius or ±0.5 degrees
Celsius (°C), whichever is greater.
§63.442 [Reserved]
§63.443 [Reserved]
§ 63.444 Standards for pulping
component
(a) The owner or operator of a new or
existing source subject to the
requirements of this subpart shall
enclose and vent all emission points
into a closed vent system as specified in
§ 63.450 and control all pulping
component emission points as specified
by paragraph (b) of this section, except:
(1) Decker(s) and screen(s) at existing
sources; or
(2) Individual process emission points
from enclosed process equipment which
maintain either:
(i) A volumetric flow rate less than
0.0050 standard cubic meters per
minute; or
(ii) A mass flow rate less than 0.230
kilograms of total HAP per hour; or
(iii) A mass flow rate less than 0.0010
kilograms of total HAP per megagram of
ADP;or
(3) Process equipment at which the
sum of all pulp and process wastewater
streams entering the process equipment
maintains a HAP mass loading of less
than 0.050 kilograms of total HAP per
megagram of ADP.
(b) For each pulping component
emission point, the owner or operator
shall comply with either (b)(l), (b)(2), br
(b)(3) of this section.
(1) Reduce total HAP emissions by at
least 98 percent by weight or, if an
incinerator is used, reduce total HAP
emissions by at least 98 percent by
weight or meet an outlet concentration
of 20 parts per million by volume of
total HAP; or
(2) Route all emission point gas
streams to an incinerator designed and
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 /Friday, December 17, 1993 /.Proposed Rules 66177
operated at a minimum temperature of
1600 "F.and a minimum residence time -
of 0.75 seconds; or
(3) Route all emission point gas
streams to a boiler, lime kiln, or
recovery furnace which introduces all
emission point gas streams with the
primary fuel or into the flame zone.
§ 63.445 Standards for the bleaching
component.
(a) The owner or operator of a new or
existing source subject to the
requirements of this subpart shall
enclose and vent all emission points
into a closed vent system as specified in
§ 63.450"and control all bleaching
component emission points as specified •
by paragraph (b) of this section, except
individual process emission points from
enclosed process equipment
maintaining either:
(1) A volumetric flow rate less than
0.0050 standard cubic feet per minute;
or
(2) A mass flow rate less than 0.230
kilograms of total HAP per hour; or
(3) A mass flow rate less than 0.0010
kilograms of total HAP per megagram of
ADP.
(b) For bleaching component emission
points, the owner or operator shall
reduce the total HAP mass in the vent
stream entering the treatment device by
99 percent.
§ 63.446 Standards for process
wastewater component
(a) The owner or operator of a new or
existing source subject to the
requirements of this Subpart shall
control all process wastewater streams
as'specified in paragraphs (b) through
(e) of this section until treated to meet
the requirements of paragraph (f) and (g)
of this section, except:
(1) Bleaching caustic or acid sewer
streams; or •
(2) Process wastewater streams with
annual average flow rates less than 1.0
liters per minute at the point of
generation; or
(3) Process wastewater streams with
an annual average total HAP
concentration less than 500 parts per
million'by weight at the point of
generation. .
(b) For each wastewater tank that
receives, manages, or treats either a
process wastewater stream or any HAP
removed from a process wastewater
stream and that is prior to treatment of
the wastewater stream to meet
paragraph (f) of this section, the owner
or operator shall .operate and maintain
a fixed roof and route all HAP vapors
vented from the wastewater tank into a
closed vent system as specified in
§ 63.450 and control all HAP vapors as
specified in § 63.444(b). The fixed roof
and closed vent system shall meet the
following Requirements:
(1) The fixed roof and all openings
(e.g., access hatches, sampling ports,
gauge wells) shall be designed for and
operated with no detectable leaks as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 parts per million above
background.
(2) Each opening shall be maintained
in a closed, sealed position (e.g.,
covered by a lid that is gasketed and
latched) at all times that the wastewater
tank contains a wastewater stream or '
any HAP removed from a process
wastewater stream except when it is
necessary to use the opening for process
wastewater sampling, removal, or for
equipment inspection, maintenance, or
repair.
(c) For each surface impoundment
that receives, manages, or treats a
process wastewater stream and that is
prior to treatment of the wastewater
stream to meet paragraph (f) of this
section, the owner or operator shall
maintain on each surface impoundment
a cover (e.g., air-supported structure or
rigid cover) and operate a closed-vent
system as specified in § 63.450 and
control all HAP vapors as specified in
§63.444(b).
(1) The cover and all openings (e.g.,
access hatches, sampling ports, and
gauge wells) shall be designed and
operated with no detectable leaks as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 parts per million above
background.
(2) Each opening shall be maintained
in a closed, sealed position (e.g.,
covered by a lid that is gasketed and
latched) at all times that a process
wastewater stream is in the surface
impoundment except when it is
necessary to use the opening for
sampling, removal, or for equipment
inspections, maintenance, or repair.
(3) The cover shall be used at all times
that a process wastewater stream is in
the surface impoundment except during
removal of any HAP in accordance with
40 CFR 268.4 or closure of the surface
impoundment in accordance with 40
CFR 264.228.
(d) For each container that receives,
manages, or treats either a process
wastewater stream or any HAP removed
from a process wastwater stream and
that is prior to treatment of the
wastewater stream to meet paragraph (f)
of this section, the owner or operator
shall comply with the requirements of
paragraphs (d)(l) through (d)(3) of this
section.
(1) The owner or operator shall
operate and maintain a cover on each
container used to handle, transfer, or
store a process wastewater stream or any
HAP removed from a process
wastewater stream in accordance with
the following requirements: • -.
(i) The cover and all openings (e.g.,
hatches, sampling ports, and pressure
relief devices) shall be designed and
operated with no detectable leaks as •
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 parts permillion above
background, except for pressure relief
events related to safety considerations.
(ii) The cover and all openings shall
be maintained in a closed, sealed
position (e.g., covered by a lid that is
gasketed and latched) at all times that a
process wastewater stream or any HAP
removed from a process wastewater
,stream is in the container except when
it is necessary to use the opening for
filling, removal, inspection, sampling,
or pressure relief events related to safety
considerations.
(2) A submerged fill pipe shall be
used when a container is being filled
with a process wastewater stream or any
HAP removed from a process
wastewater stream.-
(i) The submerged fill pipe outlet
shall extend to within two fill pipe.
diameters of the bottom of the container
while the container is being filled.
(ii) The cover shall remain in place
and all openings shall be maintained in
a closed, sealed position except for
those openings required for the
submerged fill pipe and for venting of
the container to prevent physical
damage or permanent deformation of
the container or cover.
(3) During treatment of a process
wastewater stream or any HAP removed
from a process wastewater stream,
including aeration, loading operations,
thermal or other treatment which
generates vapors, in a container,
whenever it is necessary for the
container to be open, the container shall
be located within an enclosure with a
close-vent system as specified in
§63.450 and that routes the HAP vapors
vented from the container to be
controlled, and controls of all HAP '
vapors as specified in § 63.444(b)
device. The enclosure and all openings
(e.g., doors, hatches) shall be designed
and operated with no detectable leaks as
indicated by an instrument reading of
less than 500 parts per million above
background.
(e) For each individual drain system
that receives or manages either a process
, wastewater stream or any HAP removed
from a process wastewater stream and
that is prior to treatment of the
wastewater stream to meet paragraph (f)
of this section, the owner or operator •
shall comply with the requirements of
paragraph'(e)(l) or (e)(2) of this section.
-------
66178 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 241 / Friday, December 17. 1993 / Proposed Rules
(1) If the owner or operator elects to
comply with this paragraph, the owner
or operator shall operate and maintain
on each opening in the individual dram
system a cover and closed-vent system
as specified in § 63.450 and control all
HAP as specified in § 63.444(b)*nd the
owner or operator shall comply with the
requirements of paragraph (e)(l)W
through (e)(l)(iii) of this section.
(5) The cover and all openings (e.g.,
access hatches, sampling ports) shall be
designed and operated with no
detectable leaks as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500
parts per million above background.
(ii) The cover and all openings shall
bfl maintained in a closed, sealed
position (e.g., covered by a lid that is
gasketed and latched) at all times that a
process wastewater stream or any HAP
removed from a process wastewater
stream is in the drain system except
when it is necessary to use the opening
for sampling or removal, or for
equipment inspection, maintenance, or
repair.
(2) If the owner or operator elects to
comply with this paragraph, the owner
or operator shall comply with the
requirements in paragraphs (e)(2)(i)
through (e)(2)(iv) of this section:
(i) Each drain shall be equipped with
water seal controls, such as a p-trap or
s-trap, or a tightly sealed cap or plug.
For each drain using a p-trap or s-trap,
the owner or operator shall ensure that
water is maintained in the p-trap or s-
trap.
Ui) Each junction box shall be
equipped with a cover and, if vented,
shall have a vent pipe. Any vent pipe
shall be at least 90 centimeters in length
and shall not exceed 10.2 centimeters in
diameter. Junction box covers shall have
a tight seal around the edge and shall be
kept in place at all times, except during
inspection and maintenance.
(fii) One of the following methods
shall be used to control emissions from
the junction box vent pipe to the
atmosphere:
(A) Equip the junction box or lift
station with a system to prevent the
flow of HAP vapors from the vent pipe
to the atmosphere during normal
operation. An example of such a system
includes use of water seal controls on
the wastewater pipes entering the
junction box.
(B) Connect the vent pipe to a closed-
vent system and control device that is
designed, operated, and inspected in
accordance with the requirements of
§63.450 of this Subpart and control on
HAP vapors as specified in § 63.444(b).
(iv) Each sewer line shall not be open
to the atmosphere and shall be covered
or enclosed in a manner so as to have
no visible gaps or cracks in joints, seals,
or other emission interfaces.
(f) For each process wastewater
stream, the owner or operator shall meet
one of the following treatment
requirements:
(1) Recycle the process wastewater
streams to a process unit meeting the
requirements of § 63.444(b); or
(2) Treat the process wastewater
streams to reduce the total HAP
• concentration to a level less than 500
parts per million by weight. The
intentional or unintentional reduction
in total HAP concentration of a process
wastewater stream by dilution with
other process wastewater streams or'
materials containing less than 100 parts
per million of total HAP by weight is
not allowed for the purposes of
complying with this requirement; or
(3) Treat the process wastewater
streams to reduce or destroy the total
HAP by at least 90 percent by weight;
or
(4) Treat the process wastewater
streams using a steam stripper meeting
the following design and operating
specifications in paragraphs (f)(4)(i)
through (iv) of this section:
(i) Countercurrent flow configuration
with a minimum of 8 theoretical trays
in the stripping section of the column,
and
(ii) Minimum steam flow rate of 0.18
kilopascals of steam per liter of process
wastewater feed with steam of at least
149 degrees centigrade and 276
kilograms gauge pressure,
(iii) Minimum process wastewater
column feed temperature of 96 degrees
Centigrade, and
(iv) Maximum liquid loading of
44,600 liters per hour per square meter.
(g) For any HAP removed from the
process wastewater during treatment
and handling under paragraphs (f)(2),
(f)(3), or (f)(4) of this section, the owner
or operator shall:
(1) Recycle any HAP containing
condensate streams as specified in
paragraph (f)(l) of this section; and
(2) Control any HAP containing gas
streams as specified in § 63.444(b).
(h) The owner or operator of a new or
existing source subject to the
requirements of this subpart shall
evaluate all process wastewater streams
as specified in § 63.451 (f) or (g) initially
and whenever a process change occurs
that has the potential to impact process
wastewater flow or HAP concentration
of streams initially exempt from control
and cause a wastewater stream to
become subject to the standards of this
Subpart.
§63.447 [Reserved]
§63.448 [Reserved]
§63.449 [Reserved]
§ 63.450 Standards for enclosures and
closed vent systems.
(a) For each emission point subject to
§ 63.444(b) and § 43.445(b), the owner or
operator shall install an enclosure to
capture and contain all HAP emissions
and transport for control all HAP
emissions in a closed vent system. The
enclosure and closed vent system shall
meet the following requirements:
(1) The enclosure shall capture all
HAP emissions from process equipment
by maintaining negative pressure at
each enclosure opening. Each enclosure
opening that was closed during the
performance test specified in § 63.451(1)
shall be secured in the closed position
with a car-seal or a lock-and-key type
configuration; and
(2) The closed vent system shall be
designed for and operated with no
detectable leaks as indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500
parts per million above background.
(b) Bypass lines that could divert an
emission point gas stream away from
the control device to the atmosphere
shall comply with the requirements of
paragraph (b)(l) or (b)(2) of this section.
(1) Install; calibrate, maintain, and
operate according to manufacturer's
specification a flow indicator that
provides a record of emission point gas
stream flow at least once every 15
minutes..The flow indicator shall be
installed at the entrance to any bypass
line; or
(2) Secure the bypass line valve in the
closed position with a car-seal or a lock-
and-key type configuration. A visual
inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism shall be performed at least
once every 30 days to ensure the valve
is maintained in the closed position and
the emission point gas stream is not
diverted through the bypass line.
§ 63.451 Test methods and procedures.
(a) An initial performance test is
required for all emission points except
the following:
(1) A combustion device designed and
operated as specified in § 63.444 (b)(2)
or (b)(3); or
(2) A steam stripper designed and
operated as specified in § 63.446(f)(4).
(b) An owner or operator may use
engineering assessment to evaluate the
exemption from control limits for the
pulping and bleaching component
specified in § 63.444(a) and § 63.445(a)
if information and documentation is
provided to the satisfaction of the
Administrator. Engineering assessment
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 513, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66179
may be used to determine enclosed vent
stream flow rate and individual or total
HAP emission rates for the
representative operating conditions.
Engineering assessment includes, but is
not limited to, the following:
(1) New and previous test results
provided the tests are representative of
current operating practices at the
process unit. '
(2) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data
representative of the process under
representative operating conditions.
(3) Maximum flow rate, methanol
emission rate, chlorine emission rate, or
total HAP emission rate specified within
an applicable permit limit.
(4) Design analysis based upon
accepted chemical engineering
principles, measurable process
parameters, or physical or chemical
laws or properties. Examples of
analytical methods include, but are not
limited to:
(i) Use of material balances based
upon process stoichiometry to estimate
maximum total HAP concentrations,
(ii) Estimation of maximum flow rate
based on physical equipment design
such as pump or blower capacities,
(iii) Estimate of methanol, chlorine, or
total HAP concentrations based upon
saturation conditions.
. (5) All data, assumptions, and
procedures used in the engineering
assessment shall be documented.
(c) For purposes of determining
sampling location and vent stream flow
rates for emission point flow rate, mass,
or vent stream concentration required in
§ 63.444 and § 63.445, as specified
under paragraph (c)(2), (d), or (e) of this
section, the owner or operator shall
comply with the following:
. (1) Method 1 or 1A of Part 60,
Appendix A, as appropriate, shall be
used for selection of the sampling site.
(i) For determining a process emission
point flow rate as specified in
§ 63.444(a){2) and § 63.445(a)(l), or for
determining a process emission point
mass emission as specified in
§ 63.444(a)(3) and (4); and §63.445(a) (2)
and (3), the sampling site shall be
located prior to dilution of the emission
• point gas stream 'and prior to release to '
the atmosphere. ' •
(ii) For determining the HAP mass >
loading rate in liquid streams entering a
piece of equipment in the pulping
component, as specified in
§63.444(a)(5), the sampling site shall be
located as close as practical to where the
pulp stream enters the process
equipment.
(iii) For determination of compliance
with the percent reduction requirements
of § 63.444(b)(l) and § 63.445(b),
sampling sites shall be located after the
final recovery device outlet and prior to
the inlet of the control device and at the
outlet of the control device.
(iv) For determination of compliance
with the parts per million by volume
concentration limit in §63.444(b)(l), the
sampling site shall be located at the
outlet of the control device.
(2) The gas volumetric flow rate shall
be determined using Method 2,2A, 2C,
or 2D of Part 60, Appendix A, as
appropriate.
(3) No traverse site selection method
is needed for vents smaller than 0.10
meter in diameter.
(d) The owner or operator shall use
the following procedures to determine
the mass emission rate of an emission
point as specified in § 63.444 and
§63.445:
(1) For the mass limit requirements in
§63.444(a) and the percent reduction
requirements in § 63.444(b)(l), the total
HAP concentration for the pulping
component may be measured as either
total HAP or methanol using the
following:
(i) The average result of three tests
using Method 308 shall be used to
determine methanol concentration in
the emission point gas stream; or
(ii) Any other method or data that has
been validated according to the
applicable procedures in Method 301 of
Part 63, Appendix A, may be used to
determine the concentration to be used
in the following procedures or emission
rate.
(2) For the mass limit requirements or,
percent reduction requirements in
§ 63.445 (a) and (b), the total HAP
concentration in the bleaching
component may be measured as either
total HAP or methanol and chlorine
individually using the following:
(i) The average result of three tests ,
using Method 308 shall be used to
determine methanol concentration and
the average result of three tests using
Method 26A shall be used to determine
the chlorine concentration in the
emission point gas stream; or
(ii) Any other method or data that has
been validated according to the
applicable procedures in Method 301 of
Part 63, Appendix A, may be used to
determine the concentration to be used
in the following procedures or emission
rate. '
(3) The minimum sampling time for
each of the three runs per method shall
be 1 hour in which either an integrated
sample or four grab samples shall be
taken. If grab sampling is used, then the
samples shall be taken at approximately
equal intervals in time, such as 15
minute intervals during the run.
(4) The methanol, chlorine, or total
HAP mass emission rate in the emission
point gas stream shall be calculated
using the following equation:
= K-
£-150nCjMj
where:
E=Mass emission rate of total HAP,
chlorine, or methanol in the
sample, kilograms per hour.
K2=Constant, 2.494x10-6 (parts per
million)-' (gram-mole per standard
cubic meter) (kilogram/gram)
(minutes/hour), where standard
temperature for (gram-mole per
standard cubic meter) is 20 °C.
Cj=Concentration on, a dry basis of
compound j in parts per million as
measured by Method 308, or '
Method 26A as indicated in •
paragraph (d) (1) or (2) of this
section.
Mj=Molecular weight of j, gram/gram-
mole. •
Q,s=Vent stream flow rate (dry standard
cubic meter per minute) at a .
temperature of 20 °C as indicated in
paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(5) The total HAP, chlorine, or
methanol mass emission per unit of
pulp produced as -specified in
§ 63.444(a)(4) or § 63.445(a)(3) shall be
calculated using the following equation:
where:
F=Mass emission rate of total HAP,
chlorine, or methanol in the
sample, kilograms per air dry
megagram of pulp.
Ej=Mass emission rate of total HAP,
chlorine, or methanol in the '
sample, kilogram per hour as
calculated in (d)(4) of this section.
P=The mass of pulp produced during
the sample, megagrams ADP per
hour. •
(e) Except as provided in paragraphs
(a) of this section, the owner or operator
complying with the percent reduction
efficiency requirements in §63.444(b)(l)
and § 63.445(b) shall conduct a
performance test using the procedures
in paragraphs (e)(l) through (e)(4) of this
section.
(1) The procedures specified in
paragraph (c) of this section shall be
used for selection of the sampling sites.
(2) The owner or operator shall use
the test methods specified in paragraph
(d) of this section to determine emission
rates at the inlet and outlet of the
control device. ' ^ '
(3) If a combustion device is used to
comply with the 20 ppmv limit in
§ 63.444(b)(l), the concentrations
-------
. ' I ' I .' . " 'I. . • ., • I I .I'" ' ' .' .
66180 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
obtained at the outlet of the combustion
device using the appropriate test
method shall be corrected to 3 percent
oxygen using the following procedures:
fij The emission rate correction factor
or excess air, integrated sampling and
analysis procedures of Method 3B of
Part 60, Appendix A shall be used to
determine the oxygen concentration
(%02(1). The samples shall be taken
during the same time that the HAP, or
methanol samples are taken. •
(ii) The concentration corrected to 3
percent oxygen (CJ shall be computed
using either of the following equations:
C —
~
17.9
20.9 -%O,
where:
Cc=Concentration of total HAP,
chlorine, or methanol corrected to 3
percent oxygen, dry basis, parts per
million by volume.
QnsConcentration of total HAP,
methanol or chlorine, dry basis,
parts per million by volume, as
specified in paragraph (d) of this
section.
%O2d=Concentration of oxygen, dry
basis, percent by volume.
(4) The percent reduction of total
HAP, methanol, or chlorine as specified
in § 63.444(b)(l) or § 63.445(b)(l) shall
be calculated as follows:
R=
where:
RsControl efficiency of control device,
percent.
E,=Mass emission rate of HAP, chlorine,
or methanol at the inlet to the
control device as calculated under
paragraph (d)(4) of this section,
kilograms of constituent per hour.
Eo=Mass emission rate of HAP, chlorine,
or methanol at the outlet of the
control device, as calculated under
paragraph (d)(4) of this section,
kilograms constituent per hour.
(f) To determine the annual average
process wastewater flow rate for a
process wastewater stream as specified
in § 63.446(a)(2) and (h), the owner or
operator shall use one of the following
methods:
(1) Use the maximum annual
production capacity of the process
equipment, knowledge of the process,
and mass balance information to either:
estimate directly the process wastewater
flow rate, in liters per minute; or
estimate the total annual process
wastewater volume and then divide
total volume by 525,600 minutes in a
year to determine the process
wastewater flow rate in liters per
minute;
(2) Select the highest flow rate of •
process wastewater from historical
records representing the most recent 5
years of operation or, if the process unit
has been in service for less than 5 years
but at least 1 year, from historical
records representing the total operating
life of the process unit;
(3) Measure the flow rate of the
process wastewater at the point of
generation during conditions that are
representative of wastewater generation
rates.
(g) An owner or operator shall
determine the annual average total HAP
concentration of a process wastewater
stream as required in § 63.446(a)(3) at
the point of generation by one of the
methods in paragraphs (g)(l), (2), or (3)
of this section. For the purpose of
determining the annual average total
HAP concentration in a process
wastewater stream, either total HAP or
methanol concentration may be
measured.
(1) Knowledge of the process
wastewater. The owner or operator shall
provide sufficient information to
document the annual average total HAP
or methanol concentration of the
process wastewater stream. Examples of
information that could constitute
knowledge include material balances or
previous test results provided the
results are still representative of current
operating practices at the process,
unit(s). If test data are used, then the
owner or operator shall provide
documentation describing the testing
protocol and the means by which
sampling variability and analytical
variability were accounted for 'in the
determination of the concentration for
the process wastewater stream; or
(2) Bench-scale or pilot-scale test data.
The owner or operator shall provide
sufficient information, to demonstrate
that the bench-scale or pilot-scale test
concentration data are representative of
the actual annual average total HAP or
methanol concentration. The owner or
operator shall also provide
documentation describing the testing
protocol, and the means by whidh
sampling variability and analytical
variability were accounted for in the
determination of the total HAP or
methanol concentration for the process
wastewater stream; or
(3) Measurements made at the point of
generation or, when not feasible,
measurements made at a downstream
location that are corrected to point of
generation values of the total HAP or
methanol concentration in the process
wastewater stream in accordance with
the following procedures:
(i) Collect a minimum of three
samples from each process wastewater
stream which are representative of
normal flow and concentration ,
conditions. Where feasible, samples . .
shall be taken from an enclosed pipe
prior to the process wastewater being
exposed to the atmosphere. Process
wastewater samples shall be collected
using the sampling procedures specified
in 40 CFR, Appendix A, Method 305.
(ii) When sampling from an enclosed
pipe is not feasible, a minimum of three
representative samples shall be
collected in a manner to minimize
exposure of the sample to the
atmosphere and loss of HAP compounds
prior to sampling.
(iii) Each process wastewater sample
shall be analyzed using one of the
following test methods for determining
the total HAP or methanol concentration
in a process wastewater stream:
(A) Test Method 305; or
(B) A method or results from a test
method that measures methanol
concentration in the process
wastewater, and that has been validated
according to Method 301.
(iv) The methanol concentration shall
be calculated by averaging the results of
the sample analyses as follows and
correcting for the fraction measured by
the method:
where:
C=Methanol concentration for process
wastewater stream, parts per
million by weight.
n=Number of process wastewater
samples (at least 3).
Cj=Measured average methanol
concentration in process
wastewater sample i, parts per
million by' weight.
fm=Fraction of total HAP or methanol
measured by the method compared
to total mass in the liquid for
Method 305, the fm for methanol is
0.85.
(h) The owner or operator shall use
the following procedures to demonstrate
compliance of a treatment process with
the parts per million by weight process
wastewater stream concentration limits
at the outlet of the treatment process as
specified in § 63.446(f)(2). For the
purpose of demonstrating compliance
with the process wastewater stream
concentration limits, either total HAP or
methanol concentration may be
measured.
(l>The total HAP or methanol
concentration shall be measured using
Test Method 305.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules . , 66181
12) A minimum of three representative
samples of the process wastewater.
stream exiting the treatment process
shall be collected and analyzed using
the procedures in paragraph (g)(3) of
this subpart. ,
(i) The owner or operator shall use the
following procedures to demonstrate
compliance with the percent reduction
limits for total HAP or methanol mass
flow rate as specified in § 63.446(0(3)
except as specified in paragraph (j) of
this section.
(1) The percent reduction of total HAP
or methanol mass flow rate shall be
measured using Method 305 from both
the inlet and outlet of the treatment
process or a method or results from a
test method that measures methanol
concentration in the process
wastewater, and that has been validated
according to Method 301.
(2) The mass flow rate of total HAP or
methanol entering the treatment process
(Eb) and exiting the treatment process
(Ea) shall be determined by computing
the product of the flow rate of the
process wastewater stream entering or
exiting the. treatment process, and the
total HAP or methanol concentration of
the entering or exiting wastewater
streams, respectively.
(i) The flow rate of the entering and
exiting process wastewater streams shall
be determined using the inlet and outlet
flow meters, respectively.
(ii) the total HAP or methanol
concentration of the entering and
exiting process wastewater streams shall
be determined using the method
specified in paragraph (g)(3)(iii) and (iv)
of this section.
(Hi) Three grab samples of the
entering process wastewater stream
shall be taken at equally spaced time
intervals over a 1-hour period. Each 1-
hour period constitutes a run, and the _
performance test shall consist of a •
minimum of 3 runs.
(iv) Three grab samples of the exiting
process wastewater stream shall be
taken at equally spaced time intervals
over a 1-hour period. Each 1-hour
period constitutes a run, and the
performance test shall consist of a
minimum of 3 runs conducted over the
same 3-hour period at which the mass
flow rate of methanol entering the
treatment process is determined.
(v) The mass flow rates of total HAP
or methanol entering and exiting the
treatment process are calculated as
follows:
K
nxlO
where:
Eb=Mass flow rate of total HAP or
methanol entering the treatment
process, kilograms per hour.
Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP or
methanol exiting the treatment
process, kilograms per hour.
K=Density of the process wastewater
stream, kilograms per cubic meter.
Vbi=Average volumetric flow rate of
process wastewater entering the
. treatment process during each run i,
cubic meters per hour.
Vaj=Average volumetric flow rate of
process wastewater exiting the
treatment process during each run i,
cubic meters per hour.
Cbi=Average concentration of total HAP
or methanol in the process
wastewater stream entering the
treatment process during each run i,
parts per million by weight, as
specified in paragraph (g)(3)(iii) and
(iv) of this section. ,
Cai=Average concentration of total HAP
or methanol in the. process
' wastewater stream exiting the
treatment process during each run i,
. parts per million by weight, as
specified in paragraph (g)(3),(iii) and
(iv) of this section.
n=Number of runs.
(3) The percent reduction across the
treatment process shall be
calculated as follows:
-xlOO
where: .
R=Control efficiency of the treatment
process, percent.
Eb=Mass flow rate of total HAP or
methanol entering the treatment
process, kilograms per hour, as
, specified in paragraph (i)(3)(v) of
this section.
Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP or
methanol exiting the treatment
process, kilograms per hour, as
specified in paragraph (i)(3)(v) of
this section.
(j) The owner or operator shall use the
following procedures to demonstrate
compliance with the percent reduction
of total HAP for a biological treatment
unit as specified in § 63.446(f)(3). For
the purpose of demonstrating
compliance with the process wastewater
stream concentration limits, methanol
concentration may be measured.
(1) The procedures in paragraph (i)(l)
and (2) of this section shall be used to
measure the mass flow rate of methanol
entering and exiting the biological
treatment process.
(2) The percent reduction due to
destruction in the biological treatment
process shall be calculated as follows:
where:
R=Destruction of methanol in the
biological treatment process,
percent. •
Eb=Mass flow rate of methanol entering
the biological treatment process,
kilograms per hour.
Ea=Mass flow rate of methanol exiting
the biological treatment process,
kilograms per hour.
fbio=The fraction of methanol removed
using WATER7. The site specific
biorate constants used as inputs to
WATER7 shall be determined using
Method 304of Appendix A of this
Part.
(k) An owner or operator of a closed
vent system as specified in § 63.450 or
a process wastewater collection system
as specified in § 63.446(b), (c), (d), and
(e) shall test equipment for no
detectable leaks as, indicated by an
instrument reading of less than 500
parts per million by volume-above
background in accordance with the
following requirements:
(1) Method 21, from Appendix A of 40
CFR part 60, shall be used to determine
the presence of leaking sources.
(2) The instrument shall be calibrated
before use on each day of its use by the
procedures specified in Method 21. The
following calibration gases shall be
used:
(i) Zero air (less than 10 parts per
million by volume of hydrocarbon in
air); and
(ii) A mixture of methane or n-Hexane
and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10,000
parts per million by volume methane or
n-Hexane.
(1) An owner or operator of an
enclosure as specified in § 63.450 shall
test all process equipment enclosure
openings for negative pressure using
one of the following:
(1) Use an anemometer to demonstrate
flow into the enclosure opening; or
(2) Measure the static pressure across
the opening; or
(3) Visually demonstrate flow into the
enclosure opening; or •
(4) Calculate the average face velocity
for all openings.
(m) To determine total HAP or
methanol mass loading for the sum of
-------
66182 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed. Rules
all pulp and process wastewater streams
entering the process equipment as
specified in § 63.444(a)(5), an owner or
operator shall:
(1) Determine the total HAP or
methanol mass loading rate in each pulp
and process wastewater stream
following the procedures specified in
paragraph (i)(l) and (2) of this subpart
for the streams entering the process
equipment only. Samples shall be
obtained prior to dilution with other
streams entering the process and prior
to exposure to the atmosphere.
(2) The total HAP or methanol liquid
phase concentration shall be calculated
using the following equation:
where:
Lp=Liquid phase value of total HAP or
methanol entering process
equipment, kilograms per
megagram ADP.
Ebi=Individual stream total HAP or
methanol entering process
equipment mass loading entering
the piece of process equipment,
kilograms per hour.
PsThe mass of pulp handled in the
process equipment during the
sampling period, megagrams ADP
per hour.
§63.452 [Reserved]
§63.453 Continuous monitoring.
(a) Each enclosure and closed vent
. system used to comply with § 63.450
shall comply with the requirements
specified in paragraphs (a)(l) through
(a){4) of this section.
(1) For each enclosure opening, a
visual inspection of the seal or closure
mechanism specified in § 63.450(a)(l)
shall be performed at least once every
30 days to ensure the opening is
I maintained in the closed position and
j sealed.
; (2) Visually inspect each closed vent
' system as specified in § 63.450(a)(2)
every 30 days and at other times as
requested by the Administrator, The
visual inspection shall include
inspection of ductwork, piping,
enclosures, and connections to covers
for evidence of visible defects.
(3) Demonstrate no detectable leaks as
specified in §63.450(a)(2) measured
initially and annually by the procedures
in§63.451(k).
(4) If visible defects in ductwork,
piping, enclosures and connections to
covers as specified in § 63.450 are
observed during an inspection required
by paragraph (a)(3) of this section; or if
an instrument reading of 500 parts per
million by volume or greater above
background is measured; or if enclosure
openings do not have negative pressure
during an inspection required by
§63.450(a)(l), it shall be repaired as
soon as practicable.
(i) A first effort to repair the closed
vent system shall be made as soon as
practicable but no later than 5 calendar
days after identification.
(ii) Repair shall be completed no later
than 15 calendar days after
identification.
(b) Each owner or operator using an
incinerator or a combustion device to
comply with § 63.444 (b)(l) or (b)(2)
shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate according to manufacturers
specifications a temperature monitoring
device measuring the temperature in the
firebox or in the ductwork immediately
downstream of the firebox in a position
before any substantial heat exchange
occurs. The monitor shall be equipped
with a continuous recorder.
(c) Each owner or operator using a gas
scrubber to comply with § 63.445(b),
shall install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate with a continuous recorder
according to manufacturers
specifications equipment to monitor the
following:
(1) The pH of the gas scrubber
effluent; and
(2) The gas scrubber vent gas inlet
flow rate; and
(3) The gas scrubber liquid influent
flow rate.
(d) Each owner or operator using a
steam stripper to comply with
§63.446(0 (2), (3), or (4) shallinstall,
calibrate, maintain, and operate with a
continuous recorder, according to
manufacturers specifications equipment
to monitor the following:
(1) The process wastewater mass feed
rate; and
(2) The steam feed rate; and
(3) The process wastewater column
feed temperature.
(e) Each owner or operator using a
biological treatment unit to comply with
§ 63.446(f)(3) shall:
(1) Measure total HAP or methanol
concentration as specified in § 63.451(i)
in the influent and effluent of the
process wastewater treatment system
once every 30 days.
(2) Install, calibrate, maintain and
operate according to manufacturer's
specifications monitors for appropriate
parameters as specified in the operating
permit and demonstrated to the
Administrator's satisfaction.
(0 Each process wastewater collection
system used to comply with § 63.446
(b), (c), (d), or (e). shall comply with
requirements specified:
(1) Visually inspect each closed
collection system weekly and at other
times as requested by the Administrator.
The visual inspection shall include, but
not be limited to, inspection of piping
and connections to covers for evidence
of visible defects.
(2) Demonstrate no detectable leaks
measured initially and annually by the
procedures in §63.451(k).
(3) If visible defects in, but not limited
to, piping and connections to covers are
observed during an inspection required
by paragraph (c) of this section; or if
emissions of 500 parts per minion by
volume or greater above background, it
shall be repaired as soon as practicable.
(i) A first effort to repair the closed
collection system shall be made as soon
as practicable but no later than 5
calendar days after identification.
(ii) Repair shall be completed no later
• than 15 calendar days after
identification.
(g) Ah owner or operator using a
device other than those specified in
paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section
shall establish appropriate operating
parameters that will be monitored as
specified in the operating permit and
demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction.
(h) The owner or operator shall
establish the parameter value for each
operating parameter monitored under
paragraphs (b j through (e) and (g) of this
section during the initial performance
test specified in § 63.451. The owner or
operator complying with § 63.444(b) (2)
or (3), or § 63.446(0(4) shall use the
parameter values specified in these
sections.
(i) An owner or operator seeking to
monitor an alternative operating
parameter, or at an alternative frequency
to the requirements in paragraphs (b)
through (e) of this section shall first
demonstrate to the Administrator's
satisfaction that the alternative
parameter or frequency provides
continuous compliance with the
applicable standards.
(j) Each owner or operator of a control
device subject to the monitoring
provisions of this Subpart shall operate
the control device in a manner
consistent with the minimum or
maximum (as appropriate) operating
parameter value or procedure required
to be monitored under paragraphs (a)
through (i) of this section and
established under this Subpart.
Operation of the control device below
minimum operating parameter values or
above maximum operating parameter
values established under this Subpart or
failure to perform procedures required
-------
' •' '
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66183
by this Subpart shall constitute a
violation of the applicable emission
standard of this Subpart.
§63.454 Recordkeeping.
(a) The owner or operator shall record
and meet the recordkeeping
requirements for § 63.10 (a), (b), and (c)
for the monitoring parameters specified
in § 63.453.
(b) The owner or operator shall record
the monitoring parameters specified in
§ 63.453 and meet the requirements
specified in paragraph (a) of this section
for any emission point or process
wastewater stream that becomes subject
to the standards in this Subpart due to
an increase in the flow, concentration,
or mass parameters equal to or greater
than the limits specified in §63.444(a),
§ 63.445(a), or § 63.446 (a) or (h).
§63.455 Reporting.
(a) Each owner or operator of a source
subject to this subpart shall submit, the
reports listed in paragraphs (a)(l)
through^aXS) of this section.
(1) An Initial Notification described in
§ 63.9 (a) through (d) and § 63.10(f).
(2) A Notification of Performance
Tests specified in § 63.7 and •§ 63.9(g),
(3) A Notification of Compliance
Status specified in § 63.9(h),
(4) Exceedance Reports specified in
§63.10(e)(3)(i) through (v) and (viii).
(i) If actions taken by an owner or
operator during a startup, shutdown, or
malfunction of an affected source
•(including actions taken to correct a
malfunction) are not completely
consistent with the procedures specified
in the source's startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan specified in
§ 63.6(e)(3), the owner or operator shall
state such information in the quarterly
report. The startup, shutdown, and
malfunction report shall consist of a
letter, containing the name, title, and
signature of the responsible official who
is certifying its accuracy, that shall be
submitted to the Administrator, and
(ii) If the seals on the secured
enclosure openings specified in '
§ 63.453(a) are broken, the duration of
the event and an explanation of the
" reason for breaking the seal shall be
included in the exceedance report.
(iii) Separate exceedance reports are
not required if the information is
included in the quarterly report in
paragraph (a)(5) of this section.
(5) A quarterly summary report
. specified in §63.10(e)(3). The summary
report shall be entitled "Summary
Report—Gaseous Excess Emissions and
Continuous Monitoring System
Performance." The quarterly report
must contain any information for the
Exceedance Report in paragraph (a)(4) of
this section if an Exceedance Report is
required. ;
(b) The owner or operator shall meet
the requirements specified in paragraph
(a) of this section for any emission point
or process wastewater stream that
.becomes subject to the standards in this
Subpart due to an increase in the flow,
concentration, or mass parameters equal
to or greater than the limits specified in
§63.444(a), §63.445(a), and §63.446 (a)
and(h).
§63.456 Delegation of authority.
(a) In delegating implementation and
enforcement authority to a State under
section 112(d) of the Act, the authorities
contained in paragraph Ob) of this
section shall be retained by the
Administrator and not transferred to a
State.
(b) Authorities which will hot be
delegated to States: The authority
conferred in § 63.6(g) will not be
delegated to any State.
§63.457 [Reserved]
§63.458 [Reserved]
§63.459 [Reserved]
3. It is proposed that Appendix A to
part 63 be amended by.adding Method
308 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Part 63—Test Methods
Method 308—Procedure for
Determination of Methanol Emission
from Stationary Sources
1. Applicability and Principle
1.1 Applicability. This method
applies to the measurement of methanol
emissions from specified stationary
sources.
1.2 Principle. A gas sample is
extracted from the sampling point in the
stack. The methanol is collected in
deiohized distilled water and adsorbed
on silica gel. The sample is returned.to
the laboratory where the methanol in
the water fraction is separated from
other organic compounds with a gas
ehromatograph (GC) and is then
measured by a flame ionization detector
(FID). The fraction adsorbed on silica
gel is extracted with an aqueous
solution of n-propanol and is then
separated and measured by GC/FID.
2. Apparatus . .
2.1 Sampling. The sampling train is
shown in Figure 308-1 and component
parts are discussed below.
2.1.1 Probe. Teflon, approximately
6-mm outside diameter.
2.1.2 Impingers. Two 30-mL midget
impingers. The impingers must be
connected in series with leak-free glass
connectors. Silicone grease may not be
used to lubricate the connectors.
2.1.3 Adsorbent Tube. Glass lubes
packed with the required amount of the
specified adsorbent.
2.1.4 Valve. Needle valve, to
regulate sample gas flow rate.
2.1.5 Pump. Leak-free diaphragm
pump, or equivalent, to pull gas through
the train. Install a small surge tank
between the pump and rate meter to
eliminate the pulsation effect of the
diaphragm pump on the rotameter.
2.1.6 Rate Meter. Rotameter, or
equivalent, capable of measuring flow
rate to within 2 percent of the selected
flow rate of about 1000 cc/min.
2.1.7 Volume Meter. Dry gas meter
(DGM), sufficiently accurate to measure
the sample volume to within 2 percent,
calibrated at the selected flow rate and
conditions actually encountered during
sampling, and equipped with a
temperature gauge (dial thermometer, or
equivalent) capable of measuring
temperature accurately to within 3°C
(5.4°F).
2.1.8 Barometer. Mercury, aneroid,
or other barometer capable of measuring
atmospheric pressure to within 2.5 mm
(0.1 in.) Hg. See the note in Method 5
(40 CFR Part 60, Appendix A), Section
2.1.9.
2.1.9 Vacuum Gauge and Bolometer.
At least 760-mm (30-in.) Hg gauge and
0— to 40-cc/min rotameter, to be used
for leak-check of the sampling train.
2.2 Sample Recovery.
2.2. i Wash Bottles. Polyethylene or
glass, 500-mL, two.
2.2.2 Sample Vials. Glass 4D-mL
with Teflon-lined septa, to store
impinger samples (one per sample).
2.3 Analysis.
2.3.1 Gas Chromatograph. GC with
an FID, programmable temperature
control, and heated liquid injection
port.
•_ 2.3.2 Pump. Capable of pumping
100 mL/min. For flushing sample loop.
2.3.3 Flow Meter. To monitor
accurately sample loop flow rate of 100
mL/min.
2.3.4 Regulators. Two-stage
regulators used on gas cylinders for GC
and for cylinder standards.
2.3.5 Recorder. To record, integrate,
and store chromatograms.
2.3.6 Syringes. 1.0- and 10-microliter
size, calibrated, for injecting samples.
2.3.7 Tubing Fittings. Stainless steel,
to plumb GC and gas cylinders.
2.3.8 V/a7s. Two 5.0-mL glass vials
with screw caps fitted with Teflon-lined
septa for each sample. Also one for each •
standard for adsorbent tube samples.
2.3.9 Vials. Glass 40-mL with
Teflon-lined septa, to prepare
calibration standards (one per standard)
for impinger samples.
-------
66184 Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 241 / Friday. December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
3. Reagents
Unless otherwise indicated, all
reagents must conform to the
specifications established by the
Committee on Analytical Reagents of
the American Chemical Society. Where
such specifications are not available,
use the best available grade.
3.1 Sampling.
3.1.1 Water. Deionized distilled to
conform to ASTM Specification D 1193-
77, Type 3. At the option of the analyst,
the KMnO* test for oxidizable organic
matter may be omitted when high
concentrations of organic matter are not
expected to be present.
3.1.2 Silica Gel. Deactivated
chromatographic grade 20/40 mesh
silica gel packed in glass adsorbent
tubes. The silica gel is packed in two
sections. The front section contains 520
mg of silica gel, and the back section
contains 260 mg.
3.2 Analysis.
3.2.1 Water. Same as 3.1.1.
3.2.2 N-Propanol. 10 Percent. Mix
10 mL of n-propanol with 90 mL of
water.
3.2.3 Methanol Standards For
Impinger samples. Prepare a series of
methanol standards by injecting 0,10,
20, 30, and 40 ug of methanol
respectively into five 40-mL glass vials
filled with water and capped with
Teflon septa.
3.2.4 Methanol Standards for
Adsorbent Tube Samples. Prepare a
series of methanol standards by
injecting 0,10, 20, 30, and 40 ug of
methanol respectively into five 5-mL
glass vials capped with Teflon-lined
septa and containing 3 mL of a 10% n-
propanol solution.
3.2.5 GC Column. Capillary column,
30 meters long with an ID of 0.53 mm,
coated xvith DB 624 to a film thickness
of 3.0 microns, or an equivalent column.
3.2.6 Helium. Ultra high purity.
3.2.7 Hydrogen. Zero Grade.
3.2.8 Oxygen. Zero grade.
4. Procedure
4.1 Sampling.
4.1.1 Preparation of Collection
Train. Measure 20 mL of water into the
midget impinger. The adsorbent tube
must contain 520 mg of silica gel in the
front section and 260 mg of silica gel in
the backup section. Assemble the train
as shown in Figure 308-1. Place
crushed ice and water around the
impinger.
4.1.2 Leak Check. A leak-check prior
to the sampling run is optional;
however, a leak-check after the
sampling run is mandatory. The leak-
check procedure is as follows:
- Temporarily attach a suitable (e.g., 0-
to 40-cc/min) rotameter to the outlet of
the DGM, and place a vacuum gauge at
or near the probe inlet. Plug the probe
inlet pull a vacuum of at least 250 mm
(10 in ) Hg, and note the flow rate as
indicated by the rotameter. A leakage
rate not in excess of 2 percent of the
average sampling rate is acceptable.
Note: Carefully release the probe inlet plug
before turning off the pump.
4.1.3 Sample Collection. Record the
initial DGM reading and barometric
pressure. To begin sampling, position
the tip of the Teflon tubing at the
sampling point, connect the tubing to
the impinger, and start the pump.
Adjust the sample flow to a constant
rate of approximately 200 mL/min as
indicated by the rotameler. Maintain .
this constant rate (±10 percent) during
the entire sampling run. Take readings
(DGM, temperatures at DGM and at
impinger outlet, and rate meter) at least
every 5 minutes. Add more ice during
the run to keep the temperature of the
gases leaving the last impinger at 20°C
(68°F) or less. At the conclusion of each
run, turn off the pump, remove the
Teflon tubing from the stack, and record
the final readings. Conduct a leak-check
as in Section 4.1.2. (This leak-check is
mandatory.) If a leak is found, void the
test run or use procedures acceptable to
the Administrator to adjust the sample
volume for the leakage.
4.2 Sample Recovery.
4.2.1 Impingers. Disconnect the
impingers. Pour the contents of the
midget impingers into a leak-free
polyethylene bottle marked for
shipment. Rinse the two midget
impingers and the connecting tubes
with water, and add the washings to the
same storage container. Mark the fluid
level. Seal and identify the sample
container.
4.2.2 Adsorbent Tubes. Seal the
silica gel adsorbent tubes and place
them in an ice chest for shipment to the
laboratory.
4.3 Sample Analysis.
4.3.1 Gas Chromatograph Operating
Conditions.
4.3.1.1 Injector. Configured for
capillary column, splitless, 200°C.
4.3.1.2 Carrier. Helium at l&mL/
min.
4.3.1.3 Oven. Initially at 45°C for 3
minutes; then raise by 10°C to 70°C;
then raise by 70°C/min to 200°C.
4.3.2 Impinger Sample.
4.3.2.1 Note level of liquid in
container, and confirm whether any
sample was lost during shipment; note
this on analytical'data sheet. If a
noticeable amount of leakage has
occurred, either void the sample or use
methods, subject to the approval of the
Administrator, to correct the final
results.
4.3.2.2 Transfer the contents of the
storage container to a 1.00-mL
volumetric flask, and dilute to exactly
100 mL with water.
4.3.2.3 Inject 1 ul of the diluted
sample into the gas chromatograph.'
Repeat the injection until the responses
of two successive injections agree
within 5%. If the sample response is
above that of the highest calibration
standard, either dilute the sample until
it is in the measurement range of the
calibration line or prepare additional
calibration standards. If the sample
response is below that of the lowest
calibration standard, prepare additional
calibration standards. If additional .
calibration standards are prepared, there
shall be at least two which bracket the
response of the sample. These standards
should produce approximately 80% and
120% of the response of the sample.
4.3.3 ,Silica Gel Adsorbent Sample.
4.3.3.1 Preparation of Samples.
Extract the front and backup sections of
the adsorbent tube separately. With a -
file score the glass adsorbent tube in
front of the first section of silica gel.
Break the tube open. Remove and
discard the glass wool. Transfer the first
section of the silica gel to a 5-mL glass
vial and stopper the vial. Remove the
•spacer between the first and second
section of the adsorbent tube and
discard it. Transfer the second section of|
silica gel to a separate 5-mL glass vial
and stopper the vial.
4.3.3.2 Desorption of Samples. Add
3 mL of the 10% n-propanol solution to
each of the stoppered vials and shake or|
vibrate the vials for 30 minutes.
4.3.3.3 Inject 1 ul of the diluted
sample into the gas chromatograph.
Repeat the injection until the responses
of two successive injections agree
within 5%. If the sample response is
above that of the highest calibration
standard, either dilute the sample until
it is in the measurement range of the
calibration line or prepare additional
calibration standards. If the sample
response is below that of the lowest
calibration standard, prepare additional
calibration standards. If additional
calibration standards are prepared, ther
shall be at least two which bracket the
response of the sample. These standards!
should produce approximately 80% anc'
120% of the response of the sample.
5. Calibration
5.1 Metering System.
5.1.1 Initial Calibration.
5.1.1.1 Before its initial use in the
field, first leak-check the metering
system (drying tube, needle valve,
pump, rotameter, and DGM) as follows:
Place a vacuum gauge at the inlet to the
drying tube, and pull a vacuum of 250
-------
66185
mm (10 in.) Hg; plug or pinch pff the
outlet of the flow meter, and then turn
off the pump. The vacuum shallremain
stable for at least 30 seconds. Carefully
release the vacuum gauge before
releasing the flow meter end. >
5:1.1.2 Next, remove the drying
tube, and calibrate the metering system
(at the sampling flow rate specified by
the method) as follows: Connect an
appropriately sized wet test meter (e.g.,
1 liter per revolution) to the inlet of the
drying tube. Make three independent
calibrations runs, using at least five
revolutions of the DGM per run.
Calculate the calibration factor, Y (wet
test meter calibration volume divided by
the DGM volume, both volumes
adjusted to the same reference
temperature and pressure), for each run,
, and average the results. If any Y-value
deviates by more than 2 percent from
the average, the metering system is
unacceptable for use. Otherwise, use the
average as the calibration factor for
subsequent test runs. ,,, ,
5.1.2 Post-Test Calibration Check.
, After each field test series, conduct a
calibration check as in Section 5.1.1
above, except for the following
variations: (a) The leak-check is not to
be conducted, (b) three, or more
revolutions of the DGM may be used,
and (c) only two independent runs need
be made. If the calibration factor does
not deviate by more than 5 percent from
•the initial calibration factor (determined
in Section 5.1.1), then the DGM volumes
obtained during the test series are
acceptable. If the calibration factor
deviates by more than 5 percent,
recalibrate the metering system as in
Section 5.1.1, and for the calculations,
use the calibration factor (initial or
recalibration) that yields the lower gas
volume for each test run.
5.2 Thermometers. Calibrate against
mercury-in-glass thermometers.
5.3 , Rotameter. The rotameter need
not be calibrated, but should be cleaned
and maintained according to the
manufacturer's instruction.
5.4 Barometer. Calibrate against a
mercury barometer.
5.5 Gas Chromatograph.
5.5.1 Initial Calibration. Inject 1 ul
of each of the standards prepared in
Section 3.3.3 into the GC and record the
response. Repeat the injections for each
standard until two successive injections
agree within 5 %. Using the mean
response for each calibration standard,
prepare a linear least squares equation
relating the response to the mass of
methanol in the sample. Perform the
calibration before analyzing each set of
samples.
5.5.2 Continuing Calibration. At.the
beginning of each day, analyze the mid-
level calibration standard as described
in Section 5.5.1. The response from the
daily analysis must agree with the
response from the initial calibration
within 10%. If it does not the initial
calibration must be repeated:
6. Quality Assurance
8.1 Applicability. When the method
is used to analyze samples to
demonstrate compliance with a source
emission regulation, an audit sample
must be analyzed, subject to availability.
6.2 Audit Procedure. Analyze an
audit sample with each set of
compliance samples. Concurrently
analyze the audit sample and a set of
compliance samples in the same manner
to evaluate the technique of the analyst
and the standards preparation. The
same analyst, analytical reagents, and
analytical system shall be used both for
the compliance samples and the EPA
audit sample. , ,... . _,./
6.3 Audit Sample Availability. Audit
samples will be supplied.only to
enforcement agencies for compliance
tests. Audit samples may be obtained by
writing: Source Test Audit Coordinator
(MD-77B), Quality Assurance Division,
Atmospheric Research and Exposure
Assessment Laboratory, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, or by
calling the Source Test Audit
Coordinator (STAC) at (919) 541-7834.
The audit sample request must be made
at least 30 days prior to the scheduled
compliance sample analysis.
6.4 Audit Results. Calculate the.
audit sample concentration according to
the calculation procedure provided in
the audit instructions included with the
audit sample. Fill in the audit sample
concentration and the analyst's name on
the audit response form included with
the audit instructions. Send one copy to
the EPA Regional Office or the
appropriate enforcement agency and a
second copy to the STAC. The EPA
Regional Office or the appropriate
enforcement agency will report the
results of the audit to the laboratory
being audited. Include this response
with the results of the compliance
samples in relevant reports to the EPA
Regional Office or the appropriate
enforcement agency.
7. Calculations ' •
Pbar=Bardmetric pressure at the exit
orifice of the DGM, mm Hg (in. Hg).
Pstd=Standard absolute pressure, 760 ,
mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg).
Qstd=Dry volumetric stack gas flow rate-
corrected to standard conditions,
dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
Tm=Average DGM absolute temperature,
K(R).
Ts,d=Standard absolute temperature, 293
K(528R).
Va=Volume of sample aliquot titrated,
ml.
Vm=Dry gas volume as measured by the
DGM, dcm (dcf). ,
Vm(st=Dry gas volume measured by the
DGM; corrected to standard
conditions, dscm (dscf).
7.2 Mass of Methanol. Calculate the
total mass of methanol collected in the
sampling train using Equation 308-1.
Mtol=Mi+Ma
7.1 Nomenclature
E=Mass emission rate of methanol, kg/
hr(lb/hr).
Ma=Mass of methanol in the front and
back half of the adsorbent tube, ug.
Mi=Mass of methanol in the impinger
portion of the sample train, ug.
Mtol=Total mass of methanol collected
in the sample train, ug.
Equation 308-1
7.3 Dry Sample Gas Volume,
Corrected to Standard Conditions.
Calculate the volume of gas sampled at
standard conditions using Equation
308-2.
V YT P
v (std) =- m • Equation 308-2
m T P '
imrstd
7.4 MassEmission Rate of Methanol.
Calculate the mass emission rate of
methanol using Equation 308-3.
E_MtotQsd Equation 308-3
V -J
m(std)
8. Bibliography
1. Rom, J.J. Maintenance, Calibration,
and Operation of Isokinetic Source
Sampling Equipment. Office of Air .
Programs, Environmental Protection
Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC.
APTD-0576. March 1972.
2. Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
Part 31; Water, Atmospheric Analysis.
American Society for Testing and
Materials. Philadelphia, PA. 1974. pp.
40-42.
3. Westlin, P. R. and R. T. Shigehara. ,
Procedure for Calibrating and Using Dry
Gas Volume Meters as Calibration
Standards. Source Evaluation Society
Newsletter. 3(1):17-30. February 1978.
4. Yu, K. K. Evaluation of Moisture
Effect on Dry Gas Meter Calibration.
Source Evaluation Society Newsletter.
5(l):24-28. February 1980.
5. NIOSH.Manual of Analytical
Methods, Volume 2. U. S. Department of
Health and Human Services National
Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health. Center for Disease Control. 4676
Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio
. 45226. May be available from the
-------
66186
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
Superintendent of Documents,
Government Printing Office,
Washington, DC 20402.
6. Pinkerton, J. E. Method for
Measuring Methanol in Pulp Mill Vent
Gases. National Council of the Pulp and
Paper Industry for Air and Stream
Improvement, Inc., New York, NY.
1. Part 430 is revised to read as
follows:
PART 430—THE PULP, PAPER, AND
PAPERBOARD POINT SOURCE
CATEGORY
General Provisions
See.
430.00 Applicability
430.01 General definitions
430.02' Monitoring requirements
430.03 Best management practices plans for
pulping liquor management, spill
prevention, and control
Subpart A—Dissolving Kraft Subcategory
Sec
430.10 Applicability; description of the
dissolving kraft subcategory.
430,11 Specialized definitions.
430.12 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
430.13 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.14 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
430.15 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
430.16 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES). (Reserved)
430.17 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
430.18 Best management practices (BMPs).
Subpart B—Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Subcategory
Sec.
430.20 Applicability; description of the
bleached papergrade kraft and soda
subcategory.
430.21 Specialized definitions.
430,22 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
tho application of best practicable
control technology currently available -
(BPT).
430.23 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
430.24 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best available
technology economically achievable .
(BAT).
430.25 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
Sec.
430.26 Pretreatment standards for existina
sources (PSES).
430.27 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
430.28 Best management practices (BMPs).
Subpart C—Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
Sec.
430.30 Applicability; description of the
unbleached kraft subcategory.
430.31 Specialized definitions.
430.32 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
430.33 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
430.34 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
430.35 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
430.36 Pretreatment standards for existing
(PSES). 6
430.37 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
430.38 Best management practices (BMPs).
Subpart D—Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
Sec.
430.40 Applicability; description of the
dissolving sulfite subcategory.
430.41 Specialized definitions.
430.42 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
430.43 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
430.44 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
430.45 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
430.46 Pretreatment standards for existine
sources (PSES). [Reserved]
430.47 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
430.48 Best management practices (BMPs).
Sec.
430.54 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
430.55 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
430.56 Pretreatment standards for existine
sources (PSES).
430.57 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
430.58 Best management practices (BMPs).
Subpart F—Semi-Chemical Subcategory
Sec.
430.60 Applicability; description of the
semi-chemical subcategory.
430.61 Specialized definitions.
430.62 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
430.63 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
430.64 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT).
430.65 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
430.66 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES). .
430.67 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS).
430.68 Best management practices (BMPs).
Subpart G—Mechanical Pulp Subcategory
Sec.
Subpart E—Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
Sec.
430.50 Applicability; description of the
papergrade sulfite subcategory.
430.51 Specialized definitions.
430.52 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
430.53 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
430.70 Applicability; description of the
mechanical pulp subcategory. '
430.71 Specialized definitions.
430.72 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
430.73 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
430.74 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT). (Reserved)
430.75 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
430.76 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES). [Reserved]
430.77 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS). [Reserved]
430.78 Best management practices (BMPs)
[Reserved]
Subpart H—Non-Wood Chemical Pulp
Subcategory
Sec.
430.80 Applicability; description of the
non-wood chemical pulp subcateeorv
430.81 Specialized definitions!
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 /Proposed Rules - 66187
Sec.
430.82 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best practicable
control technology currently available
(BPT).
430.83 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
430.84 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best available
technology economically achievable
(BAT). IReserved]
430.85 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
430.86 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES). IReserved]
430.87 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS). [Reserved]
430.88 Best management practices (BMPs).
Subpart I—Secondary Fiber Deink
Subcategory
Sec.
430.90 Applicability; description of the
secondary fiber deink subcategory.
430.91 Specialized definitions.
430.92 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best practicable
control technology currently available :
(BPT).
.430.93 Effluent limitations representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
430.94 Effluent limitation's representing the
degree of effluent reduction attainable by
the application of best available
technology economically achievable
' (BAT). IReserved]
430.95 New source performance standards •
(NSPS).
430.96 Pretreatment standards for existing
; sources (PSES). [Reserved]
430.97 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS). [Reserved]
430.98 Best management practices' (BMPs).
[Reserved]
Subpart J—Secondary Fiber Non-Deink
Subcategory
Sec. '
430.100 Applicability; description of the
secondary fiber non-deink subcategory.
430.101 Specialized definitions.
430.102 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of best
practicable control technology currently
available (BPT).
430.103 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.104 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
430.105 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
Sec.
430 106 Pretreatment standards for existing
'sources (PSES). {Reserved]
430 107 Pretreatment standards for new
'sources (PSNS). [Reserved]
430.108 Best management practices (BMPs).
(Reserved] -• ,
Subpart K—Fine and Lightweight Papers
From Purchased Pulp Subcategory
Sec.
430.110 Applicability; description of the
fine and lightweight papers from
purchased pulp subcategory.
430.111 Specialized definitions.
430.112 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of best
practicable control technology currently
available {BPT).
430.113 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.114 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
430.115 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
430.116 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES). [Reserved]
430.117 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS). [Reserved]
430.118 Best management practices (BMPs).
[Reserved]
Subpart L—Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and
Paperboard from Purchased Pulp
Subcategory
Sec.
430.120 • Applicability; description of the
tissue, filter, non-woven, and paperboard
from purchased pulp subcategory.
430.121 Specialized definitions.
430.122 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction
.attainable by the application of best
practicable control technology currently
, available (BPT).
430.123 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.124 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of best
available technology economically
achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
430.125 New source performance standards
(NSPS).
• 430.126 Pretreatment standards for existing
sources (PSES). [Reserved]
430.127 Pretreatment standards for new
sources (PSNS). [Reserved]
430.128 Best management practices (BMPs).
[Reserved]
Authority: Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, and
501, Pub. L. 95-217, 91 Stat. 156, and Pub.
L. 100-4 (33 U.S.C. 1311,1314,1316,1317,
and 1361).
General Provisions
§430.00 Applicability.
This part applies to any pulp, paper,
or paperboard mill that discharges or
may discharge process .wastewater
pollutants to the waters of the United
States, or that introduces or may
introduce process wastewater pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works.
The provisions of this subpart are also
applicable to discharges resulting from
the production of builders' paper and
roofing felt from wastepaper, previously
part 431, the builders' paper and roofing
felt subcategory. EPA is proposing to
include mills that produce builders'
paper and roofing felt from wastepaper ,
in part 430, subpart J, and to eliminate
part 431.
§430.01 General definitions.
In addition to the definitions set forth
in 40 CFR part 401, the following
definitions shall apply to this part:
(a) Adsorbable organic halides
(AOX)—A bulk parameter that measures
the total mass of chlorinated organic
matter in water and wastewater.
(b) Annual average-^-The mean
concentration, mass loading or
production-normalized mass loading of
a pollutant over a period of 365
consecutive days (or such other period
of time determined by the permitting
authority to be sufficiently long to
encompass expected variability of the
concentration, mass loading, or
production-normalized mass loading at
the relevant point of measurement).
(c) Bleach plant—All process
equipment beginning with the first
application of bleaching agents (e.g.,
chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone,
sodium or calcium hypochlorite,
peroxide), each subsequent extraction
stage, and each subsequent stage where
bleaching agents are applied to the pulp.
A limited number of mills produce
specialty grades of pulp using
hydrolysis or extraction stages prior to
the first application of bleaching agents.
The bleach plant includes those pulp
pretreatment stages. Oxygen
delignification prior to the application
of bleaching agents is not part of the
bleach plant.
(d) Bleach plant effluent—The total
discharge of process wastewaters from
the bleach plant from, each physical
bleach line operated at the mill,
comprising separate acid and alkaline
filtrates or the combination thereof.
(e) Chemical oxygen demand (COD)—
A bulk parameter that measures the
oxygen-consuming capacity of refractory
organic and inorganic matter present in
water or wastewater. It is expressed as
-------
66188
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
the amount of oxygen consumed from a
chemical oxidant in a specific test.
(f) Conventional pollutants—The
pollutants identified in §304(a)(4) of the
CWA and the regulations thereunder
(biochemical oxygen demand (BODs),
total suspended solids (TSS), oil and
grease, pH, and fecal coliform).
tg) Elemental chlorine-free (ECF)—
Any process for bleaching pulps in the
absence of elemental chlorine.
(h) End-of-pipe effluent—Final mill
effluent discharged to waters of the
United States or to a POTW.
(i) Minimum level—The level at
which the analytical system gives
recognizable signals and an acceptable
calibration point.
(j) New source-r-EPA's NPDES
regulations define the term "new
source" at 40 CFR § 122.2 and § 122.29.
The following examples supplement
those definitions for the pulp, paper,
and paperboard industry only.
(1) The following are examples of
"new sources" within the pulp, paper,
and paperboard industry:
(i) At existing chemical pulp mills
with bleaching operations, (Subparts A,
B, D and E): the construction, within
any five year period, of
(A) a new pulping digester or pulping
digester that completely replaces an
existing digester, in combination with
(B) a new bleaching facility or
bleaching facility that completely
replaces an existing bleaching facility.
(ii) At existing chemical pulp mills
without bleaching operations (Subparts
C, F, and H):
(A) new pulping digester(s); or
(B) new pulping digester(s) that
totally replace(s) an existing pulping
digester.',..-, ,
(iii) At mechanical pulp, secondary
fiber, and non-integrated mills (Subparts
G, I, J, K, and L):
(A) a new paper or paperboard
machine; or
(B) a paper or paperboard machine
that totally replaces a paper or
paperboard machine.
(2) The following are examples of
changes in the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry that alone do not
cause an existing mill to become a "new
source":
(i) upgrades of existing pulping
operations;
(ii) upgrades or. replacement of pulp
screening and washing operations;
(iii) installation of oxygen
delignification systems or other post-
digester, prebleaching delignification
systems; and,
(iv) bleach plant modifications
including changes in method 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.
(k) Non-continuous discharger—
Discharge of wastewaters stored for
periods of at least 24 hours and released
on a batch basis.
(1) Nonconventional pollutants—
Pollutants that are neither conventional
pollutants nor toxic pollutants.
(m) Non-detect (ND) limitation—A
concentration-based measurement
reported, below the minimum level that
can-be reliably measured by the
analytical method for the pollutant. The
following minimum levels (for water
samples only) and analytical methods
apply to pollutants in this part.
Pollutant ;
2,3,7 8-TCDD
2,3,7,8-TCDF
Chloroform
Acetone ...
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
Trlchlorosyringol
3,4,5-Trichlorocatechol
3,4,6— Trtehlorocatechol
3,4,5— Trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6— Trichloroguaiacol ...
4,5,6-Trtohloroguaiacol
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol
2,4,6-Trichloropheno)
Tetrachlorocatechol
Tetrachloroguaiacol •..
2,3,4 ,6-Tetrachlorophenol
Pentachlorophenol
AOX ;
COD
Cotof
BODs
TSS
Method
1613
1613
1 624
1 624 '.
1 624
1624
1653
1 653
1 653
1 653 ;
1653 . .
1653 '
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1653
1650
410 i or 4102
NCASl 253
(•\
O
Minimum level
10DO/L
10pg/L.
10 ua/L
50 ua/L
50 ua/L
10 uq/L.
25 ua/L
5.0 ua/L-
50 ua/L
25 ua/L
25 ug/L
2 5 ug/L
25 ug/L
2 5 ug/L
5 0 ug/L
5 0 ug/L
2 5 ug/L
5 0 ug/L
20 nn/l
^nprifipH in 4H PPP 1^fi
N/A
t*\
\ 1
' O
*As specified in 40 CFR 136.
(n) POTVV—Publicly owned treatment
works as defined at § 403.3 (o).
(o) Process wastewater—Any water
which during manufacturing or
processing, comes into direct contact
with or results from the production or
use of any raw material, intermediate
product, finished product; byproduct, or
waste product. For purposes of this part,
process wastewater includes boiler
Slowdown; wastewaters from water
treatment and other utility operations;
blowdowns from high fate (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. For
purposes of this part, contaminated
groundwaters from on-site or off-site
groundwater remediation projects are
not process wastewaters. The discharge
of such groundwaters must be regulated
separately, or in addition to, process
wastewaters.
(1) The following process materials
are excluded from the definition of
process wastewater:
(i) Pulping Liquors: 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
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993' /Proposed Rules 66189
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;
(ii) Lime mud and magnesium oxide,
except to the extent they are used for
wastewater treatment or effluent pH
control;
(iii) Pulp stock;
(ivj Bleach chemical solutions prior to
use;
(v) Paper making additives prior to
use (e.g., alum, starch and size, clays
and coatings).
The discharge of these process materials
into publicly owned treatment works or
waters of the United States without an
NPDES permit or individual control
mechanism authorizing such discharge
is expressly prohibited.
(p) Product—As used in the
regulation tables, "product" means:
(1) For TSS and BODS effluent
limitations applied at the end-of-pipe,
the annual off-the-machine production
(including additives and coatings, at off-
the-machine moisture for paper and
paperboard and at 10 per cent moisture
for market pulp) divided by the number
of operating days of the paper machine
during the year;
(2) For COD and color effluent
limitations applied at the end-of-pipe,
the annual unbleached pulp production •
(at 10 percent moisture) divided by the
number of operating days of the pulp
mill during the year; or
(3) For effluent limitations on all
other pollutants, either at the bleach
plant (2,3,7,8-TCDD, 2,3,7,8-TCDF,
chlorinated phenolic compounds,
volatile compounds) or at end-of-pipe
'AOX, the annual unbleached pulp
production that enters the bleach plant
(at 10 percent moisture) divided by the
number of operating days of the bleach
line.
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.
(q) Purchased pulp-^Virgin pulp
purchased from an off-site facility or
obtained from an intra-company transfer
from another site.
(r) Totally chlorine-free (TCF)—Any
process for bleaching pulps in the
absence of both chlorine and chlorine-
containing compounds.
(s) Toxic pollutants—The pollutants
designated by EPA as toxic in 40 CFR
§401.15. •
(t) Zero discharge (ZD)—No discharge
of wastewater to waters of the United
States or to a POTW.
§430.02 Monitoring requirements.
The following monitoring
requirements apply to this part:
CAS No.
1198556 ...
2539175 ...
2539266 ...
2668248 ..
32139723
56961207
57057837
58902
60712449 '
87865
88062
95954 ......
1746016 ..
51207319
67641
67663
75092
78933
59473040 .
Color
1004
1002
1009
RPF_R|ea,
Pollutant '
Tetrachlorocatechol
Tetrachloroguiacol
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-trichIoroguaiacol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol
| 2,4,5-trichlorophenol "" j
2,3,7,8-TCDD - - .
2,3,7,8-TCDF "
2-propanone (acetone)
chloroform ' -
'methlyene chloride ..: •'
2-butanone (MEK) ' ' '
AOX ~ "~~ " ~
Color . •••••
COD ' " ; • • • '-•
BOD • " •
TSS "". ' ' ' ' --
h Plant £ff]iiAnt i - '• ~~ ~ ', ^
Monitoring frequency
BPE
Monthly ....
- -•
Monthly ....
Weekly
FE
None.
None.
None.
FE=Final Effluent.
§ 430.03 Best management practices plans
for pulping liquor management, spill
prevention, and control.
(a) The provisions of this part are
applicable to pulp, paper and
paperboard mills with pulp production
in Subparts A (Dissolving Kraft), B
(Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda), C
(Unbleached Kraft), D (Dissolving
Sulfite), E (Papergrade Sulfite), F (Semi-
Chemical), or H (Non-Wood Chemical
Pulp).
(b) Specialized definitions
(1) Board of review—A meeting
among process operators, maintenance
personnel, process engineering
, personnel, supervisory personnel, and
environmental control staff conducted
as soon as practicable after, a pulping
liquor spill or intentional pulping liquor
diversion that is not contained within
the immediate process area. The
purpose of the board of review is to
review the circumstances leading to the
incident, to review the effectiveness of
the corrective actions taken, and to
develop changes to equipment and
operating and maintenance'practices to
prevent recurrence. .
(2) Immediate process area—The
location at the mill where pulping,
screening, knotting, pulp washing,
pulping liquor concentration or
processing, chemical recovery, and
pulping liquor preparation facilities are
located, generally the battery limits of
-------
66190 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
the aforementioned processes.
"Immediate process area" includes
pulping liquor storage and spill control
tanks located at the mill, whether or not
they are located in the immediate
process area.
(3) Pulping liquor—Any intermediate
or final chemical solution used for
digesting or cooking wood or non-wood
fibrous materials in kraft, sulfite, semi-
chemical or non-wood chemical pulping
processes (e.g., green, white, and black
kraft liquors; ammonium, calcium,
magnesium and sodium base sulfite
liquors; semi-chemical liquors; and,
non-wood chemical liquors).
(4) Equipment in pulping liquor
service—Any process vessel, storage ,
tank, pumping system, evaporator, heat
exchanger, recovery furnace or boiler,
pipeline, valve, fitting, or other device
that contains, processes, transports, or
comes into contact xvith pulping liquor.
(c) Owners or operators of pulp,
paper, or paperboard mills with pulp
production in Subparts A, B, C, D, E, F,
or H shall prepare and implement a Best
Management Practices Plan, hereafter
referred to as a "BMPs plan," for each
mill on or before the compliance dates
set out in this part. New sources must
develop BMPs plans, and these plans
must be incorporated in their NPDES
permits prior to discharging. The BMPs
plan shall contain the elements set out
in, and be prepared in accordance with,
§430.03(j). The BMPs plan shall be
prepared within 120 days from the
effective date of this part and shall be
fully implemented within thirty months
from the effective date of this part.
(d) The BMPs plan shall contain the
following key elements:
(1) Engineering analyses,
(2) engineered controls and
containment,
(3) work practices,
(4) preventive maintenance,
(5) dedicated monitoring and alarm
systems,
(6) surveillance and repair programs,
and
(7) employee training. The principal
objective of the BMPs plan shall be to
prevent losses and spills of pulping
liquors from equipment items in
pulping liquor service; the secondary
objectives shall be to contain, collect,
and recover at the immediate process
area, or otherwise control, those spills
and losses that do occur, and to
minimize atmospheric emissions of total
reduced sulfur compounds and
hazardous air pollutants.
(e) No BMPs plan shall be effective to
satisfy the requirements of this part
unless it has been reviewed by a
registered professional engineer and
certified to by such registered
professional engineer. By means of this
certification, the engineer, having
examined the mill and being familiar
with the provisions of this part, shall
attest that the BMPs plan has been
prepared in accordance with good
engineering practices. Such certification
shall in no way relieve the owner or
operator of the mill of the obligation to
prepare and fully implement the BMPs
plan in accordance with § 430.03(j), as
required by paragraph (a) of this section.
(f) The owner or operator of a mill for
which a BMPs plan is required by
paragraph (a) of this section shall
maintain a complete copy of the plan at
such mill at all times and shall make •
such plan available to the Regional
Administrator or his designee for on-site
review during normal working hours.
(g) The owner or operator of a mill
subject to § 430.03 shall amend the
BMPs plan for such mill in accordance
with § 430.03(j) whenever there is a
change in mill design, construction,
operation or maintenance which
materially affects the potential for spills
or losses of pulping liquor from the
immediate process areas.
(h) Notwithstanding compliance with
paragraph (a) of this section, the owner
or operator of a mill subject to § 430.03
shall complete a review and evaluation
of the BMPs plan at least once every.
three years from the, date such mill
becomes subject to this part. As a result
of this review and evaluation, the owner
or operator shall amend the BMPs plan
within six months of the review to
include any management practices or
technologies that would significantly
reduce the likelihood of pulping liquor
losses from the immediate process areas.
(i) No amendment to a BMPs plan
shall be effective to satisfy the
requirements of this section unless it
has been certified by a registered
professional engineer in apcordance
with § 430.03(e).
(j) The BMPs plan shall be prepared
in accordance with good engineering
practice. If the BMPs plan calls for
additional management practices,
facilities or procedures, methods, or'
equipment not fully operational, the
details of the installation and the
operational start-up should be
explained. The complete BMPs plan
shall contain the elements described
below:
(1) The BMPs plan shall be approved
and signed by the mill manager.
(2) A detailed engineering review of
the pulping and chemical recovery
operations, including but not limited to
process equipment, storage tanks,
pipelines and pumping systems, loading
and unloading facilities, and other
appurtenant pulping and chemical
recovery equipment item's in pulping
liquor service, to determine the
magnitude and routing of potential
leaks, spills and intentional pulping
liquor diversions during the following
'periods of operation:
(i) process start-ups and shut downs;
(ii) maintenance;
(iii) grade changes;
(iv) storm events;
(v) power failures; and
(vi) normal operations.
(3) A detailed engineering review of
existing pulping liquor containment
facilities for the purpose of determining
whether there is adequate capacity for
collection and storage of anticipated
intentional liquor diversions with
sufficient contingency for collection and
containment of spills, based upon good
engineering practice. Secondary
containment equivalent to the volume of
the largest tank plus sufficient freeboard
for precipitation should be provided for
bulk storage tanks. The engineering
review shall also consider the need for
process wastewater diversion facilities
to protect end-of-pipe wastewater
treatment facilities from adverse effects
of pulping liquor spills and diversions;
the potential for contamination of storm
water from the immediate process areas;
the extent to which segregation and/or
collection and treatment of
contaminated storm water from the
immediate process areas is appropriate;
and the potential to reduce atmospheric
emissions of total reduced sulfur
compounds and hazardous air
pollutants-.
(4) Development and implementation
of preventive maintenance practices,
standard operating procedures, work
practices, engineered controls and
monitoring systems to prevent liquor
losses and to divert pulping liquors to
containment facilities such that the
diverted or spilled liquors may be
.returned to the process or metered to the
wastewater treatment system.
(5) A program of regular visual
inspections (at least once per operating
shift] of equipment items in pulping
liquor service and a program for repair
of leaking equipment items. The repair
program shall encompass immediate
repairs when possible and tagging for
repair during the next maintenance
outage those leaking equipment items
that cannot be repaired during normal
operations. The owner or operator of the
mill shall also establish conditions
under which production will be
curtailed or halted to repair leaking
equipment items or prevent liquor
losses. The repair program shall include
tracking repairs over time to identify
those equipment items where upgrade
or replacement-may be warranted based
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66191
upon frequency and severity of leaks or
failures. The owner or operator shall
• maintain logs showing the date pulping
liquor leaks were detected, the type of
pulping liquor (e.g., weak black liquor,
intermediate black liquor, strong black
liquor), an estimate of the magnitude of
the leak, the date of first attempt at
repair, and the date of final repair. The
logs shall be maintained at the mill for
review by the Regional Administrator or
his designee during normal working
hours.
(6) A program of initial and refresher
training of operators, maintenance
personnel, and other technical and
supervisory personnel who have
responsibility for operating,
maintaining, or supervising the ,
operation and maintenance of
equipment items and systems in
pulping liquor service. The refresher
training shall be conducted annually.
The training shall be documented and
records of training shall be maintained
at the mill for review by the Regional
Administrator or his designee during
normal working hours.
(7) A program of "boards of review"
to evaluate each spill not contained at
the immediate process area and any
intentional pulping liquor diversion not
contained in the immediate process
, area. The boards of review shall be
conducted as soon as practicable after
the event and shall be attended by the
involved process operators,
maintenance personnel, process
engineering personnel, and supervisory
personnel and environmental control
staff. A brief report shall be prepared for
each board of review. The report shall '
describe the equipment items involved,
the circumstances leading to the
incident, the effectiveness of the
corrective actions taken, and plans to
develop changes to equipment and
operating and maintenance practices to
prevent recurrence. Reports of the
boards of review shall be included as
part of the annual refresher training.
(8) A program to review any planned
modifications to the pulping and
chemical recovery facilities and any
construction activities in the' pulping
and chemical recovery areas before
these activities commence: The purpose
of the reviews shall be to ensure that
pulping liquor spill prevention and
control is considered as part of the
planned modifications and that
construction and supervisory personnel
are aware of possible liquor diversions
and the potential for liquor spills during
construction.
(9) A schedule not to exceed thirty
months from the effective date of this
part for construction o'f any pulping
liquor containment or diversion
facilities necessary to fully implement
•the BMPs plan. A schedule not to
exceed eighteen months from the .
effective date of this part for installation
or upgrade of continuous, automatic
monitoring systems, including but not
limited to, high level monitors and
alarms on existing storage tanks, process
area conductivity (or pH) monitoring
and alarms, and process area sewer,
process wastewater, and wastewater
treatment plant conductivity (or pH)
monitoring and alarms.
Notwithstanding any construction
activities, the owner or operator shall
begin implementing all other aspects of
the BMPs plan not later than four
months from the effective date of this
part.
Subpart A—Dissolving Kraft
Subcategory •
§430.10 Applicability; description of the
dissolving kraft subcategory.
' (a) The provisions of this subpart are
applicable to discharges resulting from
the production of pulp and paper at
dissolving kraft mills. This subcategory
includes, but is not necessarily limited
to, mills using an alkaline sodium
hydroxide and sodium sulfide cooking
liquor with acid prehydrolysis.
(b) To qualify for alternative
limitations at § 430.14, § 430.15,
§ 430.16, and § 430.17, the owner or
operator of the facility must certify, in
the NPDES permit application or
pretreatment baseline monitoring report,
that chlorine or chlorine-containing
compounds are not used for pulp
bleaching. In addition, the owner or
operator of the facility must provide, as
a part of the NPDES permit application
or pretreatment baseline monitoring
report, monitoring results for three
composite bleach plant wastewater •
samples for CDDs/CDFs and chlorinated,
phenolics, and three grab samples for
chloroform and methylene chloride.
Such samples shall be obtained at
approximately weekly intervals.
(c) The discharge of process materials
excluded from the definition of process
wastewater at § 430.01 into publicly
owned treatment works or waters of the
United States without an NPDES permit
or individual control mechanism
authorizing such discharge is expressly
prohibited. .
§430.11 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations,
and methods of analysis set forth in 40
CFR 401 and 430,01 shall apply to this
subpart.
§ 430.12 Effluent limitations representing
the degree of effluent reduction attainable
by the application of the best practicable
control technology currently available
-------
66192
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
§ 430.13 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The limitations shall be the same as those specified in §430.12 of
this subpart for the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
§ 430.14 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40'CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to
the monthly average mass effluent limitations. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the end-of-pipe maximum
day or annual average mass effluent limitations.
(a) The following limitations shall apply to the bleach plant effluent of all dischargers not using, a TCF process:
BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT
,••>
Pollutant or pollutant property
TCDD
TCDF ..
Chloroform . ......
Acetone .'.
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride •
trichtorosyringol .... •
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol •• ....
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol ...
3,4,5-trichloroguaracol
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
2,4,5-trlchlorophenol
2,4,6-trJchtorophenol
tetrachlorocatechol
tetrachloroguaiacol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol ,
pentachloroptienol
BAT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
300 ng/kkg ..
415 ng/kkg ..
10.1 g/kkg . ..
35.1 g/kkg . ..
1.89 g/kkg ...
ND .
218 mg/kkg ..
5690 mg/kkg
1 80 mg/kkg ..
2230 mg/kkg
97.7 mg/kkg .
400 mg/kkg ..
ND
21 80 mg/kkg
554 mg/kkg ..
134 mg/kkg ..
223 mg/kkg ..
ND :
Monthly aver-
age
N/A.
N/A.
7.06 g/kkg.
17.2 g/kkg.
1.04 g/kkg.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A:
N/A.
N/A
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A. '
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
(b) The following limitations shall apply to the end-of-pipe effluent of all dischargers not using a TCF process:
END-QF-PIPE EFFLUENT .
Pollutant or pollutant property
AOX
COD
BAT effluent
limitations
1.67
118
Continuous
dischargers
Maximum for
any 1 day
(kg/kkg)
0.650
84.1
Non-continuous discharg-
ers
Monthly av-
erage (kg/
kkg)
N/A
N/A
Maximum for
any 1 day
0.553
70.3
(c) The following limitations shall apply to the.end-of-pipe effluent of all dischargers using a TCF process:
ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR FACILITIES USING TCF PROCESSES
[End-of-Pipe Effluent]
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
AOX
COD
BAT effluent limitations
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1 ,000 |b) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
118
Monthly Av-
erage
N/A
84.1
• Non-continuous discharg-
ers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
. N/A
Annual av-
erage
N/A
70.3
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No: 2417 Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66193
§430.15 New source performance standards (NSPS). ,
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following new source performance standards (NSPS),
except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the monthly average mass effluent limitations. Non-
continuous dischargers shall be subject to the end-of-pipe maximum day or annual average mass effluent standards.
(a) The following limitations shall apply to the bleach plant effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP process:
' . • - BLEACH,PLANT EFFLUENT • .
... . .' ' ' .. • ' •
. , ' • ' «
Tnnn • • • — • • • •
Tpnp • • *
An&tnnA • * « > «
3 4 5-trichlorocatechol •
3 4 6-trichlorocatechol •— • «««•'« • —
3 4 5-trichloroguaiacol • '• ™~
4 5 6-trichloroguaiacol • •
pentachlorophenol •• - -, •,—-•
New source performance
standards
Maximum for
any 1 day
300 ng/kkg ....
415 ng/kkg ..:.
10.1 g/kkg
35.1 g/kkg
1.89 g/kkg
NO
218mg/kkg ...
5690 mg/kkg .
180 mg/kkg ...
2230 mg/kkg .
97.7 mg/kkg ..
400 mg/kkg ...
NO
2180 mg/kkg .
554 mg/kkg ...
134 mg/kkg ...
223 mg/kkg ...
ND
Monthly aver-
age
N/A.
N/A.
7.06 g/kkg.
17.2 g/kkg.
1.04 g/kkg.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
(b) The following standards shall apply to the end-of- pipe effluent of all dischargers:
- END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
BOD' .
TSS .„ .'. ~.~
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers; kg/
kkg (or pounds per 1 ,000 Ib)
of product
Maximum for
any 1 day
8.21
17.0
Monthly av-
erage'
4.90
6.84
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
'(or pounds
per 1 ,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
• 3.51
4.85
(c) The following, limitations shall apply to the end-of-pipe effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP process:
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant property
AOX
COD
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers
Maximum for
any 1 day
(kg/kkg)
1.67
118
Monthly aver-
age (kg/kkg)
0.650
84.1
Non-continuous discharg-
ers
Maximum
for any 1
day
N/A
N/A
Annual aver-
age (kg/kkg)
0.553
70.3'
(d) The following standards shall apply to the end-of-pipe effluent of all dischargers using a TCP process:
-------
66194
1 ',iii ' • i" ;! '• ' , , ' : :• , „ f. ., ' i ,!i
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES USING TCP PROCESSES
[End-of-Pipe Effluent]
•'.•(•'•
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
AOX .
COD
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers; kg/
kkg (or pounds per 1 ,000 Ib)
of product
Maximum for
any 1 day
0.1
118
Monthly av-
erage
N/A
84.1
Non-continuous discharg-
ers; kg/kkg (or pounds per
1, 000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
N/A
Annual av-
erage
N//
70.
§430.16 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). [Reserved]
§430.17 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following pretreatment standard;!
for new sources (PSNS), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and monthhj
average mass effluent standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the discharge-to-the-POTW maximur
day or annual average mass effluent standards.
(a) The following limitations shall apply to the bleach plant effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP process!
" ' , j " .' • • ' . ' •'. i1, I
; BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant property
TCDD • ••
TCDF
Chloroform •• '•
Acetone .'. ....'.
Methyl ethyl ketone
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol ,
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ." ......
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol ~
2,4,5-trichlorophehol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol .'.
tetrachlorocatcchol '. r
tetrachloroguaiacol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
pentachlorophenol
Pretreatment standards for
new sources
Maximum for
any 1 day
300 ng/kkg . ..
415 ng/kkg . ..
10.1 g/kkg .. ..
35.1 g/kkg „ ..
1.89 g/kkg ....
ND
218 mg/kkg ...
5690 mg/kkg .
180 mg/kkg ...
2230 mg/kkg .
97.7 mg/kkg ..
400 mg/kkg ...
ND
2180 mg/kkg .
554 mg/kkg ...
134 mg/kkg ...
223 mg/kkg ...
ND
Monthly aver-
age
N/A.
N/A.
7.06 g/kkg.
17.2 g/kkg.
1.04 g/kkg.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A
(b) The following standards shall apply to the discharge-to-the-POTW effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP
process: '
DISCHARGE-TO-THE-POTW
Pollutant or pollutant property
' , *
AOX
COD
>
Pretreatment standards for new sources
Continuous dischargers
Maximum for
any 1 day
. (kg/kkg)
1.67
118
Monthly aver-
age (kg/kkg)
0.650
84.1
Non-continuous discharg-
ers
Maximum
for any 1
day
N/A
N/A
Annual aver-
age (kg/kkg)
0.553
70.3
(c) The following standards shall apply to the discharge-to-the-POTW effluent of all dischargers using a TCP process:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66195
ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT STANDARDS FOR FACILITIES USING TCP PROCESSES
1 --, [Discharge-to-the-POTW] ;
' Pollutant or pollutant parameter
AOX ' " •
COD :
Pretreatment standards for new sources
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000
Ib) of product
Maximum for
any 1 day
0.1
118
Monthly av-
erage
N/A
84.1
Non-continuous discharg1
ers; kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000lb) of product.
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
N/A
Annual av-
erage
N/A
70.3
§430.18 Best management practices (BMPs).
The definitions and requirements set forth in 40 CFR §430.03 apply to this subpart.
Subpart B—Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
§430.20 Applicability; description of the bleached kraft and soda subcategory. ,
(a) The orovisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the production of pulp and paper
at bleached kraft and soda mills. This subcategory includes, but is not limited to, mills that produce a bleached kraft
wood pulp using an alkaline sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide cooking liquor. This subcategory also includes,
but is not limited to mills that produce bleached soda wood pulp using an alkaline sodium hydroxide cooking liquor.
Ibl To audifv for alternative limitations at §430.24, §430.25. §430.26, and §430.27, the owner or operator of the
facilitv must certify in the NPDES permit application or pretreatment baseline monitoring report, that chlorine or chlonne-
eontaininR compounds are not used for pulp bleaching. In addition, the owner or operator of the facility must provide,
as a part of the NPDES permit application or pretreatment baseline monitoring report, monitoring results tor three
composite bleach plant wastewater samples for CDDs/CDFs and chlorinated phenolics, and three grab samples for chloro-
form and methylene chloride. Such samples shall be obtained at approximately weekly intervals.
(c) The discharge of process materials excluded from the definition of process wastewater at §430.01 into publicly
owned treatment works or waters of the United States without an NPDES permit or individual control mechanism
authorizing such discharge is expressly prohibited. .
§430.21 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401 and 430:01 shall apply
to this subpart.
§ 430.22 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
'Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not, be subject
to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent limitations for BODS and TSS. _Non-continuous dischargers
shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent limitations.
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
BODs • •
TSS
BPT effluent limitations (end-of-pipe)
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1 ,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
4.26
8.75
Monthly Av-
erage
2.19
3.89
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1 ,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
1.57
2.72
§ 430.23 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The limitations shall be the same as those specified in § 430.22 of
this subpart for the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
§ 430.24 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
-------
66196 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
available technology economically achievable (BAT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to
the monthly average mass effluent limitations. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the end-of-pipe maximum
day or annual average mass effluent limitations.
(a) The following limitations shall apply to the bleach plant effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP process:
BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant property
TCOD -
TCDF
Chloroform
Acetone ' • — •
Methyl ethyl ketone • •
Methytene chloride •
trichloi'osyringol •
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
3,4,6-trichtorocatecnol .'
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-trtehloroguaiacol • •
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlorophenol '•••
tetrachlorocatechol
tetrachlofoguaiacol •
2,3.4,6-tetrachlorophenol
pentachtorophenol .'....- • ; ™ .......
BAT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
ND
359 ng/kkg ....
5.06 g/kkg
43.0g/kkg
3.81 g/kkg .....
1.33 g/kkg
218 mg/kkg ...
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
78.6 mg/kkg ..
ND
ND
ND
ND
Monthly aver-
age
N/A.
N/A.
2.01 g/kkg.
21. 9 g/kkg.
1.75 g/kkg.
0.51 8 g/kkg.
N/A.
N/A. .
N/A. .
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
(b) The following limitations shall apply to the end-of-pipe effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP process:
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant property
AOX
COD
Color
1
BAT effluent limitations
Continuous dischargers
Maximum for
any 1 day
(kg/kkg)
0.267
35.7
120
Monthly aver-
age (kg/kkg)
0.156
25.4
76.3
Non-continuous dischargers
Maximum for
any 1 day
N/A
N/A
N/A
Annual aver-
age (kg/kkg)
0.143
21.3
71.2
(c) The following limitations shall apply to the end-of-pipe effluent of all dischargers using a TCP process:
ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR FACILITIES USING TCP PROCESSES
[End-of-Pipe Effluent]
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
AOX
COD
Color
BAT effluent limitations
Continuous dischargers; kg/
kkg (or pounds per 1 ,000 Ib)
of product
Maximum for
any 1 day
0.1
35.7
120
Monthly av-
erage
N/A
25.4
76.3
Non-continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per 1 ,000 Ib)
of product
Maximum for
' any 1 day
O.t
N/A
N/A
Annual aver-
age
N/A
21.3
71.2
§430.25 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following new source performance standards (NSPS),
except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the monthly average mass effluent standards. Non-continuous
dischargers shall be subject to the end-of-pipe maximum day or annual average mass effluent standards.
(a) The following limitations shall apply to the bleach plant effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP process:
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66197
BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT
. Pollutant or pollutant property
TCDD ••-• "•"•• '
TCDF : " '
Acetone - ""
Methylene chloride •
trichlorosyringol • :
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol • "
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol — • • " " '
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol ' ' ' "'""
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol '
2,4,5-trichlorophenol • • •. "
2.4,6-trichlorophenol • f '-' " " ' ' '
tetrachlorocatechol • "'"
tetrachloroguaiacol • '• " ' """
2,3,4,6-tetrachloropheriol .... ' —•• •— • •—
pentachlorophenol "' ' " '"
New source p
stand
Maximum for
any 1 day
ND
329 ng/kkg ....
12.0 g/kkg
ND
218 mg/kkg ...
ND
ND
ND
ND ....
ND
ND
ND
ND
wn !
ND ...
lerformance
ards
Monthly aver-
age
N/A.
N/A.
6.09 g/kkg.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A
N/A. .
(b) The following standards shall apply to the end-of-pipe effluent of all dischargers:
END-OF-PIPE
Pollutant or pollutant parameter .
tss ---•••• • • '••••' : .—•
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.726
0.988
Monthly Av-
erage
0.365
0.383
Non-contin-
uous dis- .
• chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
0.262
0.241
(c) The .following standards shall apply to the end-of-pipe effluent of all dischargers using a TCP process:
ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR FACILITIES USING TCP PROCESSES
[End-bf-Pipe Effluent]
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
AOX • • • •• •
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1, 000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
Monthly av-
erage
N/A
Non-continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 Ib)
of product
Maximum for
any 1 day
0.1
Annual aver-
age
N/A
§430.26 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). t
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the monthly average
mass effluent standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the discharge-to-the-POTW maximum day or
annual average mass effluent standards. • ,',,,.,' • TVM-
(a) The Following limitations shall apply to the bleach plant effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP process:
BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT
TCDD „ ...
Pollutant or pollutant property
Pretreatment standards for
existing sources
Maximum for Monthly aver-
any 1 day age
ND N/A.
-------
66198
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT—Continued
Pollutant or pollutant property
' i ' i , ' . .
TCDF
2,4 5-trichlorophenol •
2 4 6-trichlorophenol •' • • •
pentachlorophenol ..,. • .' .'
Pretreatment standards for
existing sources
Maximum for
any 1 day
359 ng/kkg . .
5.06 g/kkg .. .
43.0g/kkg .. .
3.81 g/kkg .. .
1 .33 g/kkg .. .
218 mg/kkg .
ND
ND
ND
ND ;.
ND
ND
78.6 mg/kkg ..
ND
ND
ND
ND
Monthly aver-
age
N/A.
2.01 g/kkg.
21 .9 g/kkg.
1.75 g/kkg.
0.518 g/kkg.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
(b) The following standards shall apply to the discharge-to-the-POTW effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP
process:
DiSCHARGE-TO-THE-POTW
Pollutant or pollutant property
, i
AOX
COD
Color
Pretreatment standards for existing sources
Continuous dischargers
Maximum for
any 1 day
- (kg/kkg)
0.267
35.7
120
Monthly aver-
age (kg/kkg)
.0.156
25.4
76.3
Non-continuous discharg-
ers
Maximum
for any 1
day
N/A
N/A
N/A
Annual aver-
age (kg/kkg)
0.143
21.3
71.2
(c) The following standards shall apply to the discharge-to-the-POTW effluent of all dischargers using a TCP process:
ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR FACILITIES USING TCP PROCESSES
[Discharge-to-the-POTW]
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
AOX
COD
Color
Pretreatment standards for existing sources
Continuous dischargers; kg/
kkg (or pounds per 1 ,000 Ib)
of product
Maximum for
any 1 day
,0.1
35.7
120
Monthly av-
. erage
N/A
25.4
76.3
Non-continuous discharg-
ers; kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
N/A
N/A
Annual av-
erage
N/A
21.3
71.2
§430.27 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). ' ,
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that .introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following pretreatment standards
for new sources (PSNS), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the monthly average mass effluent
standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the discharge-to-the-POTW maximum day or annual average
mass effluent standards. . i .
(a) The following limitations shall apply to the bleach plant effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP process:
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 I Proposed Rules " 66199
: BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant property
TCDD • • • • — "•• •
TCDF • •
pentachlorophenol , ; • • • •••••
Pretreatment standards for .
new sources
Maximum for
any 1 day
ND
329 ng/kkg ....
12.0g/kkg
ND
218mg/kkg ...
ND
ND ......
ND ..;
ND ..:
ND
ND
ND ....
ND
ND :.
ND
Monthly aver-
age
N/A.
N/A.
6.09 g/kkg.
N/A.
N/A. .
N/A.
N/A
N/A.
N/A;
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A. ,-
(b) The following standards shall apply to the discharge-to-the-POTW effluent of all dischargers using a TCP process:
ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR FACILITIES USING TCP PROCESSES
; [Discharge-to-the-POTW]
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
AOX ; ...:
Pretreatment standards for new sources
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1 ,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
Monthly av-
erage
N/A
Non-continuous discharg-
ers; kg/kkg (or pounds per
1. 000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
Annual av-
erage
N/A
§430.28 Best management practices (BMPs). . ,
,The definitions and requirements set forth in'40 CFR §430.03 apply to this subpart.
Subpart C—Unbleached Kraft Subcategory
§430.30 Applicability; description of the unbleached kraft subcategory.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the production of pulp and paper
at unbleached .kraft mills. This subcategory includes, but is not limited to, mills that produce kraft wood pulp without
bleaching, using an alkaline sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide cooking liquor. This subcategory also includes, but
is not limited to, mills that produce both unbleached kraft and semi-chemical wood pulps with cross-recovery processes.
(b) The discharge of process materials excluded from the definition of process wastewater at §,430.01 into publicly
owned treatment works or waters of the United States without an NPDES permit or individual control mechanism
authorizing such discharge is expressly prohibited.
§430.31 Specialized definitions. ' .
The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401 and 430.01 shall apply
to this subpart. :
§ 430.32 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT). .
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject
to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS. Non-continuous dischargers
shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent limitations. • - '
-------
66200
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
i • • •
i, • i ; . '
BODj : ••-
TSS -••••••
BPT effluent limitations (end-of-pipe)
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
I.OOOIb) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
4.19
8.14
Monthly av-
erage
1.90
3.45
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
1.32
2.57
§ 430.33 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The limitations shall be the same as those specified in §430.32 of
this subpart for the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
§ 430.34 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
• Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT), except that non-continuous -dischargers shall not be subject to
the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent limitations. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the
annual average mass effluent limitations.
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
COD ... '
BAT effluent limitations
Continuous dischargers! '
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000lb) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
40.2
Monthly av-
erage
24.6
Non-contin-
. uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1 ,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
20.8
§430.35 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source, subject to this subpart must achieve the following new source performance standards (NSPS),
except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent
standards.Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent standards.
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
BODj .... .
TSS •.
COD ...-. '.
New source performance standards
Continuous d
kkg (or pound
of pr
Maximum for
any 1 day
0.736
1.87
40.2
schargers; kg/
s per 1 ,000 Ib)
oduct
Monthly aver-
age
0.315
0.892
24.6
Non-continu-
ous discharg-
ers; annual
average; kg/
kkg (or
pounds per
1,000lb)of
product
0.236
0.685
20.8
§ 430.36 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum
day and monthly average mass effluent standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the discharge-to-the-
POTVV annual average mass effluent standards.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66201
DlSCHARGE-TO-THE-POTW
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
COD ...„ • • :
Pretreatment standards for existing
sources
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
40.2
Monthly Av-
erage
24.6
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
20.8
§430.37 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a
publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following pretreatment standards
for new sources (PSNS), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and monthly
average mass effluent standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the discharge-to-the-POTW annual average
mass standards.
DlSCHARGE-TO-THE-POTW '
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
COD .'..; .-.
Pretreatment standards for existing .
sources
. Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1 ,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
40.2
Monthly av-
erage
2416
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1 ,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
20.8
§430.38 Best management practices (BMPs).
The definitions and requirements set forth in 40 CFR § 430.03 apply to this subpart.
Subpart D—Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
§430.40 Applicability; description of the dissolving sulfite subcategory.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the production of pulp and paper
at dissolving sulfite mills. This subcategory includes, but is not limited to, mills using acidic cooking liquors of calcium,
magnesium, ammonium, or sodium sulfites. This subcategory includes mills'that manufacture dissolving grade sulfite
pulps and papergrade sulfite pulps at the same site. .
(b) To qualify for alternative limitations at §430.44, §430.45, §430.46, and §430.47, the owner or operator of the
facility must certify, in the NPDES permit application or pretreatment baseline monitoring report, that chlorine or chlorine-
- containing compounds are not used for pulp bleaching. In addition, the owner or operator of the facility must provide,
as a part of the NPDES permit application or pretreatment baseline monitoring report, monitoring results for three
composite bleach plant wastewater samples for CDDs/CDFs and chlorinated phenolics, and three grab samples for chloro-
form and methylene chloride. Such samples shall be obtained at approximately weekly intervals.
(c) The discharge of process materials excluded from the definition of process wastewater at §430.01 into publicly
owned treatment works or waters of the United States without an NPDES permit or individual control mechanism
authorizing such discharge is expressly prohibited. . .
§430.41 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401 and 430.01 shall apply
to this subpart. . , ' •
§430.42 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT). . ~ '
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30—125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction'attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject
to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent, limitations for BODs and TSS. Non-continuous, dischargers
shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent limitations.
-------
66202 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
ll -1
; , I ' , ! •
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
' . " t , i ' '
BOD,
TSS
BPT effluent limitations (end-of-pipe)
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1, 000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
25.6
23.3
Monthly av-
erage
14.1
11.8
Non-continu-
ous discharg-
ers; annual
average; kg/
kkg (or
pounds per
1,000lb)of
product
11.7
9.44
§ 430.43 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction, attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The limitations shall be the same as those specified in §430.42 of
this subpart for the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
§ 430.44 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to
the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent limitations. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the
end-of- pipe maximum day or annual average mass effluent limitations.
(a) The following limitations shall apply to the bleach plant effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP process:
BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant property
TCDD
TCDF ""
Chloroform
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride
trichtorosyringol
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol
3.4,6-tnchtorocatechol
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
2,4,5-trtchloroprtenol
2,4,6-trfchlorophenol
telrachlorocatccho)
totrachlofoguaiacol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlofophenol
pentachlorophenol
BAT effluent limitations
Maximum for
any 1 day
Ml")
1,870ng/kkg
232 g/kkg ...
.1,620g/kkg
505 g/kkg ...
15.8 g/kkg ..
218 mg/kkg
ND
Kin
1 ,500 mg/kkg
881 mg/kkg. ...
Monthly aver-
age
N/A.
N/A.
74.4 g/kkg.
688 g/kkg.
167 g/kkg.
4.77 g/kkg.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A:
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
M/A
, (b) The following limitations shall apply to the end-of-pipe effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP process:
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant property
AOX
BAT effluent limitations
Continuous dischargers
Maximum
for any 1
day
(kg/kkg)
3.13
Monthly av-
erage
(kg/kkg)
1.39
Non-continuous
dischargers
Maximum
for any 1
day
N/A
Annual av-
erage
(kg/kkg)
• 1.22
(c) The following limitations shall apply to the end-of-pipe effluent of all dischargers using a TCP process:
-------
[. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
A
ALTERNATIvTErwiE^TLlMITATIONS FOR FACILITIES USING TCF PROCESSES
• • [End-of-Pipe Effluent]
66203
: — - — • -. •.
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
— -— ' Z~-: ---
BAT effluent limitations
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1, 000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
Monthly av-
erage
N/A
Non-continuous discharg-
ers; kg/kkg (or pounds per
1, 000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
Annual av-
erage
N/A
§430.45 New source performance standards (NSPS). ,•'>**«
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve'the following new source performance standards
except that
not be subject to the monthly average mass effluent limitations. Non-
to the end-of-pipe maximum day or annual average mass effluent standards.
the blL'ch plant effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP process:
BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT
TCDD ..;
TCDF
Chloroform
Acetone
Methyl ethyl ketone
Methylene chloride .
trichlorosyringol
3,4,5-trichlprocatechol
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol
2,4,5-trichlorophenol
2,4,6-trichlprophen<
tetrachlorocatechol
tetrachloroguaiacol
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol
pentachlorophenol
Pollutant or pollutant property
' ' """ ;
,-• •-- • '
lOl •
10i » • • "ZZZ"""""™"""
sol — '
col - • • ; • ' "'
col
jl :;
ihenol .— •• '• .....-•••
New source performance
standards
Maximum for
any 1 day
ND .,
1,870ng/kkg .
232g/kkg
1,620g/kkg ...
505g/kkg
15.8g/kkg
218mg/kkg ...
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
1 ,500 mg/kkg
ND
881 mg/kkg ..
ND -.-
ND
Monthly aver-
age
N/A.
N/A.
74.4 g/kkg.
688 g/kkg.
167 g/kkg.
4.77 g/kkg.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A
N/A.
N/A.
(b) The following standards shall apply to the end-of-pipe effluent of all dischargers:'
END-OF-PIPE
BOD5
TSS
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
. 1, 000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
25.6
23.3
Monthly av-
erage
'14.1
11.8
Non-continu-
ous discharg-
ers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000 Ib)
of product
11.7
9.44
(c)
The following standards shall apply to the end-of-pipe effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP process:
-------
66204
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday/December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules.
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant property
,i
AOX , ' ",'
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers
Maximum
tor any 1
day (kg/kkg)
3.13
Annual av-
erage (kg/
kkg)
1.39
Non-continuous discharg-
ers
Maximum
for any 1
day
N/A
Annual av-
erage (kg/
kkg)
1.2
(d) The following standards shall apply to the end-of-pipe effluent of all dischargers using a TCP process:
ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR FACILITIES USING TCP PROCESSES
[End-of-Pipe Effluent]
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
1 1' ,
1 "1! ' •
AOX '•
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
r.OOO Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
Monthly av-
- erage
N/A
Non-continuous discharg-
ers; kg/kkg (or pounds per
1, 000 to) or product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
Annual av-
erage
N//
* ' '
§430.46 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). [Reserved]
§430.47 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into
publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following pretreatment standard;!
for new sources (PSNS), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the monthly average mass effluenl
standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the discharge-to-the-POTW maximum day or annual averagif
mass effluent standards.
(a) The following limitations shall apply to the bleach plant effluent of all dischargers not using a TCP proce
BLEACH PLANT EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant property
TCDD ..». » ••» -•«<• '-«»»
TCDF : »»• — •
Methylene chloride . •
pentachlorophenol • •••• ••••••
Pretreatment standards for
new sources
Maximum for
any 1 day
ND
1 ,870 ng/kkg .
232 g/kkg
1 ,620 g/kkg ...
505 g/kkg
15.8 g/kkg
218 mg/kkg ...
ND
ND
ND :
ND
ND
ND
1,500 mg/kkg
ND
881 mg/kkg ...
ND
ND
Monthly aver-
age
N/A.
N/A.
74.4 g/kkg.
688 g/kkg.
167 g/kkg.
4.77 g/kkg.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
(b) The following limitations shall apply to the discharge-to-the-POTW effluent of all dischargers not using a TC
process:
-------
Federal Register I.'.Vol. 58, No. 241 7 Friday, December!?, 1993 / Proposed Rules ' 66205
DlSCHARGE-TO-THE-POTW
Pollutant or pollutant property ,
AOX :::. •'••••• - •••' •,
Pretreatment standards for new sources
•Continuous dischargers
Maximum
for any 1
day
(kg/kkg)
3.13
Monthly av-,
erage-
(kg/kkg)
1.39
Non-continuous discharg-
; ers
Maximum
for any 1
. day
N/A
Annual av-
erage
(kg/kkg)
1.22
(c) The following standards shall apply to the discharge-to-the-POTW effluent of all dischargers using a TCP process:
ALTERNATIVE EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS FOR FACILITIES USING TCP PROCESSES
_•' • . [Discharge-to-the-POTW]
" Pollutant or pollutant parameter
AOX - - • -
Pretreatment standards for new sources
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
. 1 ,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
- day
0.1
Monthly av-
erage
N/A
Non-continuous
dischargers; kg/kkg (or
pounds per 1,000 Ib) of
product
Maximum
for any'1 •
day
0.1
Annual av-
erage
N/A
§430.48 Best management practices (BMPs).
The definitions and requirements set forth in 40 CFR § 430.03 apply to this subpart.
Subpart E—Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
§430.50 Applicability; description of the papergrade sulffte subcategory. "
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to' discharges resulting from the production of pulp and paper
at papergrade sulfite mills. This subcategory includes, but is not limited to,.mills, with or without brightening or
bleaching, using an acidic cooking liquor of calcium, magnesium, ammonium, or sodium sulfites.
(b) To qualify for alternative limitations at §430.54, §430.55, §430.56, and §430.57, the owner or operator of the
facility must certify, in the NPDES permit application or pretreatment baseline monitoring report, that chlorine ,pr chlorine-
containing compounds are not used for pulp bleaching. In addition, the owner or operator of the facility must provide,
•as a part of the NPDES permit application or pretreatment baseline monitoring report, monitoring results for three
composite bleach plant wastewater samples for CDDs/CDFs and chlorinated phenolics, and three grab samples for chloro-
. form and methylene chloride. Such samples shall be obtained at approximately weekly intervals. "..,'.
(c) The discharge of process materials excluded from the definition of process wastewater at § 430.01 into publicly
owned treatment works ,or waters of the United States without an NPDES permit or individual control mechanism
authorizing such discharge is expressly prohibited.
§430.51 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401 and 430.01 shall apply
to this subpart.
§ 430.52 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent • limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall .not be subject
to the maximum day'and monthly average mass effluent limitations for BODs and TSS. Non-continuous dischargers
shall ,be subject to the annual average mass effluent limitations. ._<,,-
-------
66206 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
if > , i Ji ! ' ' i
BODj ........
TSS
BPT effluent limitations (end-of-pipe)
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
t.OOOIb) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
9.55
14.8
Monthly av-
erage
4.83
6.75
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
3.60
4.74
§ 430.53 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The limitations shall be the same as those specified in §430.52 of
this subpart for the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
1 " II! ' , ' 'I ,, ' • ' , t ',! , . I" "
§ 430.54 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to
the monthly average mass effluent limitations. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the end-of-pipe maximum
day or annual average mass effluent limitations.
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT ,' . , '
" • • . ' ' i . '•
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
' • ! !;
v • . ' , •', li '
'. • •' ' , I ,. '
AOX
COD '. ..
BAT effluent limitations
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1 ,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
144
Monthly Av-
erage
N/A
71.2
Non-continuous
dischargers; kg/kkg (or
pounds per 1 ,000 ib) of
product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
N/A
Annual av-
erage
N/A
63.7
§430.55 New source performance standards (NSPS). • '. .
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following new source performance standards (NSPS),
except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the monthly average mass effluent stand.ards. Non-continuous
dischargers shall be subject to the end-of-pipe maximum day or annual average mass effluent standards.
, • ' . . : M • "• •' ":•! • "'•. '• ; ',:.-'. ' , ,"'' " •"• ,. ; •;,
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT '
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
L , , '"' „
BODS
TSS
.'.;., ..:...:..;.v..v
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1, 000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
4.90
7.81
Monthly av-
erage
2.57
3.22
Annual av-
erage; kg/
kkg (or
pounds per
1,000lb)of
product
1.98
2.42
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66207
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant parameter .
AOY
COD
b
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per ,
1 ,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0,1
144
Monthly av-
erage
• N/A
71.2
Non-continuous discharg-
ers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1, 000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any- 1
day .
0.1
N/A
Annual av-
erage
N/A
63.7
§430.56 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the monthly average
mass effluent standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the discharge-to-the-POTW maximum day or
annual average mass effluent standards. ' .
DlSCHARGE-TO-THE-POTW
. Pollutant or pollutant parameter
AOX — "—
COD :
Pretreatment standards for existing sources
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1 ,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
144
Monthly av-
erage
N/A
71.2
Non-continuous discharg-
ers; kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000lb) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
N/A
Annual av-
erage
N/A
63.7
,§430.57 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source• subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a
E ublicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following pretreatment standards
)r new sources (PSNS), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the monthly average mass effluent
standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the' discharge-to-the POTW 'maximum day or annual average
mass effluent standards.
DlSCHARGE-TO-THE-POTW
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
AOX
COD
Pretreatment standards for new sources
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1 ,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
144
Monthly av-
erage
N/A
71.2
Non-continuous discharg-
ers; kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.1
N/A
Annual av-
erage
N/A
63.7
§ 430.58 Best management practices (BMPs).
The definitions and requirements set forth in 40 CFR § 430.P3 apply to this subpart.
Subpart F—Semi-Chemical Subcategory
§ 430.60 Applicability; description of the semi-chemical subcategory.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the production of pulp and paper
at semi-chemical mills. This subcategory includes, but is not limited to, mills producing bleached or unbleached pulp
from wood chips under pressure using a variety of cooking liquors, including but not limited to neutral sulfite semi-
chemical (NSSC), sulfur free (sodium carbonate), green liquor, and Permachem"*- Mills producing both semi-chemical
wood pulp and unbleached kraft wood pulp at the same site using a cross-recovery system are included in the unbleached
kraft subcategory. ' .
(b) The discharge of process materials excluded from the definition of process wastewater at § 430.01 into publicly
owned treatment works or waters of the United States without an NPDES permit or individual control mechanism
authorizing such discharge is expressly prohibited. . • :
-------
66208 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
§430.61 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401 and 430.01 shall apply
to this subpart.
§430.62 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent deduction attainable by the application of bast practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject
to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS. Non-continuous dischargers
shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent limitations.
(• ' Jl . *• ! "
, • ' ' • • 1 ' • ' ' ' •' ! ,
.' ' I1 •• ;. :• ,•
i,
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
,r
BOD} •
TSS *
BPT effluent limitations (end-of-pipe)
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
2.96
6.71
Monthly Av-
erage
1.43
2.90
Non-continu-
ous discharg-
ers; annual
average; kg/
kkg (or
pounds per
1,000lb)of
product
0.971
1.96
§ 430.63 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The limitations shall be the same as those specified in §430.62 of
this subpart for the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
§430.64 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30—125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
available technology economically achievable (BAT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to
the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent limitations. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the
end-of-pipe annual average mass effluent limitations.
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT •
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
• ii
COD
BAT effluent limitations
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
40.2
Monthly av-
erage
24.6
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
20.8
§430.65 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following new source performance standards (NSPS),
except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximurh day and monthly average mass effluent
standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the end-of-pipe annual average mass effluent standards.
' .••:!.' •:•!•'.• " •. ! .• .;"'>.
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT
:~" • , , • ,, i •, , , „
.. •"!' • :••:
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
, ' !" -;'".:<, .
' ' • ! • ' • • ;'
';. • . '•. . ' 'j; • >
BODj
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers; kg/
kkg (or pounds per 1 ,000 Ib)
of product
Maximum for
any 1 day
1.06
Monthly aver-
age
0.509
Non-continu-
ous discharg-
ers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000 Ib)
of product
0400
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66209
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT—Continued
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
JSS
COD ,
. New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers; kg/
kkg (or pounds per 1 ,000 Ib)
• of product
Maximum for
any 1 day
2.14
40.2
Monthly aver-
age
0.826
- 24.6
Non-continu-
ous discharg-
ers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000 Ib)
of product
0.548
20.8
§430.66 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source,subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants
into a publicly owned treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following • pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum
day and monthly average mass effluent standards. Non-continuous dischargers,shall be subject to the discharge-to-the-
POTW annual average mass effluent standards. , ,
•'•-';" DlSCHARGE-TO-THE-POTW
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
COD .:
Pretreatment standards for existing
sources •
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1, 000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
40.2
' Monthly av-
erage
24.6
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
20.8
§430.67 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a
publicly ownea treatment works must comply with 40 CFR part 403 and achieve the following pretreatment standards
for new sources (PSNS), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and monthly
average mass effluent standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the discharge-to-the-POTW annual average
mass effluent standards. . •
DlSCHARGE-TO-THE-POTW
" ; , . Pollutant or pollutant parameter
- ' ' .. '
COD
Pretreatment standards for existing
sources
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
40.2
Monthly av-
erage
24.6
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000 '
Ib) of prod-
uct
20.8
§430.68 Best management practices (BMPs). •
The definitions and requirements set forth in'40 CFR 430.03 apply to this subpart.
Subpart G—Mechanical Pulp Sufocategory
§430.70 Applicability; description of the mechanical pulp subcategory.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the production of pulp and paper
at mechanical pulping mills. This subcategory includes, but is not limited to, mills producing mechanical pulps, using
mechanical defibration by either stone grinders or steel refiners; or thermo-mechanical pulp (TMP) using steam followed
by mechanical defibration in refiners; or chemi- mechanical pulp (CMP) using a chemical cooking liquor to partially
cook-the wood; or a chemi-thermo-mechanical pulp (CTMP) using steam followed by a chemical cooking liquor to
partially cook the wood and mechanical defibration-in refinejs. ,
-------
66210 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 7 Proposed Rules
no TV. j- v. r » • i T j A t~nrr> tVi» Hpfinition of process wastewater at §430.01 into publicly
ownSTXS^^^^^ °r individuai c°ntroi mechani-
authorizing such discharge is expressly prohibited.
1 • ' - , , I' , T , i • . , ' , i . ;.,i " - « i • • • ,i ,
Thl GePn^ralZ?efinUnionsnSabbreviati0ns( and methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401 and 430.01 shall apply
to this suopart.
§430.72 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT). . .
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subiect to this subpart must achieve
the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject
to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS. Non-continuous dischargers
shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent limitations.
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
/ '
BODj
TSS
BPT effluent limitations (end-of-pipe)
Continuous dischargers; kg/
kkg (or pounds per 1,000 Ib)
of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
1.39
5.59
Monthly aver-
age
0.568
2.02
Non-continu-
ous discharg-
ers;
annual aver-
age kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000 Ib)
of product
0.380
1.35
§ 430.73 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30-125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
ii.r ' . /
11 1' ,1 f : '
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
: ' • I • ' '
1 . • <: , . '••' . ' i.
BODj
TSS
BCT effluent limitations (end-of-pipe)
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
I.OOOIb) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
, *
*
Monthly av-
erage
*
*
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1 ,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
*
*
'EPA is proposing multimedia filtration as the technology basis for BCT limitations for this subcategory. However, EPA does not have sufficient
data at this time to propose limitations based upon the use of that technology. See Preamble Sections IX.E.2 and XIII.29.
§ 430.74 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by trie application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
§ 430.75 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following new source performance standards (NSPS),
except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent
standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent standards.
• ' • ••: ' -I". :, :.!: -.'•;. ,' ;• • , • • ' , •,...• r •;
END-OF-PIPE •
. . ' . '• 1 •/ ' '"' ''.'•
•• .. ••.. • :•• ;.j',', :•'.•! •:•>
' - •, '.• i'1' " " .'.
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
' ' ' ' ,,i , ' <'l ';':"'
BODs
TSS
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers; kg/
kkg (or pounds per 1,000 Ib)
of product
Maximum for
any 1 day
0.480
1.62
Monthly av-
erage
0.208
0.598
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
0.155
0.455
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules " 66211
§430.76 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). [Reserved]
§430.77 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). [Reserved]
§430.78 Best management practices (BMPs). [Reserved]
Subpart H—Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory
§430.80 Applicability; description of the non-wood chemical pulp subcategory
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the production of pulp and paper
at non-wood chemical pulp mills. This subcategory includes, but is not limited to, mills producing non-wood pulps
from chemical pulping processes such as kraft, sulfite, or soda.
(b) The discharge of process materials excluded from the definition of process wastewater at §430.01 into publicly
owned treatment works or,waters of the United States without an NPDES permit or individual control mechanism
authorizing such discharge is expressly prohibited.
§430.81 Specialized definitions
The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401 and 430.01 shall apply
to this subpart.
§ 430.82 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve
the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject
to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent limitations for BODs and TSS. Non-continuous dischargers
shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent limitations.
. Pollutant or pollutant parameter
BOD5 '. -.
TSS
BPT effluent limitations (end-of-pipe)
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
I.OOOIb)
Maximum
for any 1
day
3.71
5.44
Monthly av-
erage
, 1.97
2.52
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
1.59
2.03
§ 430.83 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve
the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The limitations shall -be the same as those specified in §430.82 of
this subpart for the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
§ 430.84 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
§ 430.85 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following new source performance standards (NSPS),
except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent
standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent standards.
END-OF-PIPE
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
s, _ ' ' ' , '
BODj
TSS
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
I.OOOIb) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
3.71
5.44
Monthly av-
erage
1.97
2.52
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
1.59
2.03
-------
66212 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
§430.86 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). [Reserved]
§ 430.87 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). [Reserved],
'i i i i|i , . ' ,„ , , ' , i •
§430.88 Best management practices (BMPs).
The definitions and requirements set forth in 40 CFR § 430.03 apply to this subpart.
Subpart I—Secondary Fiber Deink Subcategory
§430.80 Applicability; description of the secondary fiber deink subcategory. .
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable ,to discharges resulting from the production of pulp and paper
at secondary fiber deink mills. This subcategory includes, but is not limited to, mills producing deinked pulps from
wastepapers using a chemical or solvent process to remove contaminants such as inks, coatings, and pigments.
(b) The discharge of process materials excluded from the definition of process wastewater at § 430.01 into publicly
owned treatment works or waters of the United States without an NPDES permit or individual control mechanism
authorizing such discharge is expressly prohibited. .
§430.91 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401 and 430.01 shall apply
to this subpart.
§ 430.92 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
. Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve
the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject
to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent limitations for BODs and TSS. Non-continuous dischargers
shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent limitations.
• - I •'
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
• ., :. !'..; •••:';.'
BODS
TSS
BPT effluent limitations (end-of-pipe)
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
5.29
6.12
Monthly av-
erage
2.16
2.29
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
1.40
1.50
§ 430.93 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT). .
' Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve
the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The limitations shall be the same as those specified in §430.92 of
this subpart for the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
§ 430.94 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
§430.95 New source performance standards (NSPS). " '.
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following new source performance standards (NSPS),
except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent
standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent standards.
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
BODi
TSS
'New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1, 000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
3.35
4.58
Monthly av-
erage
1.21
1.38
Non-contin-
uous dis-
charges;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
0.888
0.920
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules 66213
§430.96 Pretroatment standards for existing sources (PSESMReserved]
§430.97 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). [Reserved]
§430.98 Best management practices (BMPs). [Reserved]
SubpartJ—Secondary Fiber Non-Deink Subcategory
§430.100 Applicability; description of the secondary fiber non-deink subcategory. ,
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharge's resulting from the production of. pulp'and paper
at secondary fiber non-deink mills. This subcategory includes, but is not limited to, mills producing bleached or unbleached
pulps from wastepaper without deinking. > .
(b) The discharge of process materials excluded from the definition of process wastewater at §430.01 into publicly
owned treatment works or waters of the United States without ah NPDES permit or individual control mechanism
authorizing such discharge is expressly prohibited.
§430.101 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR 401 and 430.01 shall apply
to this subpart.
§ 430.102 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT). .
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve
the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject
to,the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS. Non-continuous dischargers
shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent limitations.
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
BOD5
TSS
, v
BPT effluent limitations (end-of-pipe)
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1, 000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
1.34
2.20
Monthly av-
erage
0.534
0.781
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1 ,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
0.363
, 0.527
§ 430.103 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve
the following effluent limitations .representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The limitations shall be the same as those specified in §430.102
of this subpart for the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
§ 430.104 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
§430.105 New source performance standards (NSPS).
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the' following new source performance standards (MSPS),
except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the. maximum day and monthly average mass effluent
standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent standards.
(af Paperboard, Builders' Paper, and Roofing Felt Segment. The following limitations shall apply to the production
of paperboard, builders' paper, and roofing felt from wastepaper that has not undergone deinking processes:
No new source within this segment of this subpart shall discharge wastewater to any waters of the United States.
. (b) Producers of Other Products from Non-Deink Secondary Fiber. The following limitations shall apply to the
production of products other than paperboard, builders' paper, and roofing felt from wastepaper that have not undergone
deinking processes: - ' , .
-------
66214 Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
END-OF-PIPE
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
BODj . . ..
TSS
New source performance standards
Continuous- dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000lb) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
1.42
2.02
Monthly av-
erage •
0.568
0.719
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1 ,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
0.386
0.485
§430.106 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES). [Reserved]
§430.107 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). [Reserved] *
§430.108 Best management practices (BMPs). [Reserved] .
Subpart K—Fine and Lightweight Papers From Purchased Pulp Subcategory
§430.110 Applicability; description of the fine and lightweight papers from purchased pulp subcategory.
(a) The provisions, of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the production of pulp and paper |
at fine and lightweight papers mills. This subcategory includes, but is not limited to, mills producing papers from
purchased virgin pulps or secondary fiber.
(b) The discharge of process materials excluded from the definition of process wastewater at §430.01 into publicly I
owned treatment works or waters of the United States without an NPDES permit or individual control mechanism |
authorizing such discharge is expressly prohibited.
§430.111 Specialized definitions.
The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR part 401 and §430.01 shall I
apply to this subpart. In addition, purchased virgin pulp is defined as pulp purchased from an offrsite facility or |
obtained from an intra-company transfer from another site. ,
§430.112 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve
the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
practicable control technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject
to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent limitations for BODs and TSS. Non-continuous dischargers |
shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent limitations.
, -
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
•'-..'• •','.
BODj
TSS .... . . . ..
1 ' " ••
' '
i
BPT effluent limitations (end-of-pipe)
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
5.87
4.87
Monthly av-
erage
2.29
1.62
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
1.59
1.23
§430.113 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve,
the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology' (BCT)., The limitations shall be the same as those specified in §430.112
of this subpart for the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
\ i,
§ 430.114 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
§430.115 New source performance standards (NSPS). .
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following new source performance standards (NSPS),
except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent
standards. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent standards.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58, No. 241 / Friday, December 17, 1993 / Proposed Rules
66215
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT
—
BODf
TSS
— • —
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1, 000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
2.37
2.1.6
Monthly av-
erage
0.922
0.921
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
0.641
0.724
§430.116 Pretreatment standards for existing (sources (PSES). [Reserved]
§430.117 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). [Reserved].
§430.118 Best management practices (BMPs). [Reserved] ,
Subpart L— Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard From Purchased Pulp Subcategory
6430120 Applicability; description of the tissue, filter, non-woven, and paperboard from purchased pulp subcategory.
(a) The provisions of this subpart are applicable to discharges resulting from the production of pulp and paper
at tissue fiUeTnon-woven, and paperboard mills. This subcategory includes, but is not limited to, production from
pmtaThe^ -ciuded fr°m the definition °f process wastewar ? §,430-01 ,into *f licly
o Jed Treatment works or waters of the United States without an NPDES permit or individual control mechanism
authorizing such discharge is expressly prohibited.
grevaons, and methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR part 401 and .§430.0! ; shall
app™to8*h7s Lfpart. In addition, purchased virgin pulp is defined as pulp purchased from an off-site facility or
obtained from an intra-company transfer from another site.
§430.122 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT). , ,,.,._.. u-
Excent as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve
the following Kent limitations representing -the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the apphcat ion of the be*
pracSable control technology currently available (BPT), except that »™^^ '^^J^*£ £j£*£
to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent limitations for BODS and TSS. Non-continuous dischargers
shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent limitations.
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
BPT effluent limitations (end-of-pipe)
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000
Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
2.96
5.32
Monthly aver-
age ,
0.974
1.73
Non-continu-
ous discharg-
ers; annual
average; kg/
kkg (or
pounds per
1,000lb)of
product
0.629
1.29
§ 430.123 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT). _
Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve
the following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the tort
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). The limitations shall be the same as those specified in §430.122
of this subpart for the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT).
§ 430.124 Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
§430.125 New source performance standards (NSPS). .
Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following new source^ performance standards (NSPS)
except that non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and monthly average mass effluent
limitations. Non-continuous dischargers shall be subject to the annual average mass effluent limitations.
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 58. No. 241 / Friday, December 17. 1993 / Proposed Rules
66216
END-OF-PIPE EFFLUENT
. —
\ ' 1 1' • , , 1, ' ,' ' ,
' ' - • . ' ' i. " • ,:',:•'
Pollutant or pollutant parameter
. • ; ' ' i, • " . ' • •
BODj V
New source performance standards
Continuous dischargers;
kg/kkg (or pounds per
1,000 Ib) of product
Maximum
for any 1
day
0.982
0.563
Monthly av-
erage
0.363
0.221
Non-contin-
uous dis-
chargers;
annual aver-
age; kg/kkg
(or pounds
per 1,000
Ib) of prod-
uct
0.248
0.175
§430.126 Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSESJ. [Reserved]
§430.127 Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). [Reserved]
§ 430.128 Best management practices (BMPs). [Reserved]
|FR Doc. 93-28245 Filed 12-16-93; 8:45 am]
BILLJNQ CODE 6S60-60-P
------- |