Wednesday
April 153 1998
Part IV
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 430:
Amendments to the Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and
New Source Performance Standards for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Point Source Category;
Proposed Rule
18795
-------
18796
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 430
[FRL-5924-9; 2040-AD05]
RIN2040-AD05
Amendments to the Effluent
Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment
Standards, and New Source
Performance Standards for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory of the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Point Source Category
AGENCY: Environmental protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: Today EPA is proposing two
amendments to 40 CFR Part 430, the
Pulp, Paper and Paperboard Point
Source Category. The first affects only
existing direct discharging mills in
Subpart B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Spda Subcategory) that choose to
enroll in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program being
promulgated in the final Pulp and Paper
"Cluster Rules." found qlsewhere in
today's Federal Register. Today's
proposal would require such mills to
submit a plan (referred to as the
"Milestones Plan") specifying research,
construction, and other activities
leading to achievement of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT effluent
limitations in §430.24(b) of the final
"Cluster Rules," with accompanying
dates for achieving these milestones.
The purpose of the plan would be to
provide the permitting authority with
mill-specific information upon which to
base permit requirements reflecting
reasonable interim milestones as
required by § 430.24(b) (2).
The second amendment proposed
today would authorize mills in Subpart
B to demonstrate compliance with
applicable chloroform limitations and
standards, (also being promulgated
today in the "Cluster Rules") in lieu of-
monitoring at a fiber line, by certifying
that the fiber line is not using elemental
chlorine Or hypochlorite as bleaching
agents and that they also maintain
certain operational conditions specified
in the proposed regulation. This second
amendment would reduce the reporting
burden for those mills that choose to
certify.
In addition, although EPA is not
proposing totally chlorine-free (TCF)
technologies and associated process
wastewater flow reduction technologies
as the basis for new source performance
standards or pretreatment standards for
new sources for mills in Subpart B at
this time, EPA today is requesting
comments and data on the feasibility of
TCF processes for this Subcategory,
especially the range of products made
and their specifications. EPA is also
requesting comments arid data regarding
effluent reduction performance of TCF
processes for this Subcategory.
DATES: Comments on the proposed rule,
as well as information and data
regarding the feasibility of TCF
bleaching processes for new sources in
.
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory, must be received by June
15, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on this
proposal, as well as information and
data regarding TCF processes, in-
triplicate to Mr. J. Troy Swackhammer.
Office of Water, Engineering and
Analysis Division (4303), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW, Washington DC 20460. In
addition to submitting hard copies of
the comments, the public may also send
comments via e-mail to:swackhammer.j-
troy@epamail.epa.gov. The public
record (excluding confidential business
information) for this rulemaking is
available for review at the EPA's Water
Docket, 401 M Street, SW, Washington
DC. For access to docket materials, call
(202) 260-3027 between 9:00 a.m. and
3:30 p.m. for an appointment. The EPA
public information regulation (40 CFR
Part 2) provides that a reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
J. Troy Swackhammer at (202) 260-
7128.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated entities. Entities potentially
regulated by this action are those
operations that chemically pulp wood -
fiber using kraft or soda methods to
produce bleached papergrade pulp and/
or bleached paper/paperboard.
Regulated categories and entities
include:
Category
Applicable proposed amendment
Examples of regulated entities
Industry — Bleached Papergrade
Soda Subcategory.
Kraft and
Submittal of Milestones Plan
» Certification in place of chloroform monitor-
ing.
• Pulp and paper mills that choose to enroll in
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incen-
tives Program.
• Pulp and Paper Mills that choose to certify
to the use of Elemental Chlorine-Free proc-
esses and certain other processes and
operational controls in lieu of monitoring for
chloroform.
This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
regulated by this action. This table lists
the types of entities that EPA is now
aware could potentially be regulated by
this action. Other types of entities not
listed in the table could also be
regulated. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the
applicability criteria in §430.20 of the
final Pulp and Paper "Cluster Rules"
found elsewhere in today's Federal
Register. If you have questions
regarding the applicability of this action
to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Overview
This preamble describes the legal
authority of this proposed rule,
background information to the
development of the proposed
amendments, and the rationale for the
proposed Milestones Plan and the
proposed chloroform certification
provisions. This preamble also solicits
comments and data regarding the
proposed amendments, as well as
information and data regarding the
feasibility of Totally Chlorine-Free
bleaching processes as a basis for new
source performance standards (NSPS) or
pretreatment standards for new sources
(PSNS) for mills,in Subpart B (Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory).
Organization of this Preamble
I. Legal Authority
II. Background
A. Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program
B. Demonstrating Compliance With
Chloroform Limitations
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday. April 15, 1998 7 Proposed Rules
18797
C. Availability of Totally Chlorine-Free
Technologies ' . ...
III. The Milestones Plan
A. Rational for Subrhittal of the Plan
B. Scope of the Milestone Plan
C. Permit Writers' Responsibilities
D. Estimates of Burden for Milestones Plan
IV. Certification in Lieu of Monitoring for
. Chloroform
V. Solicitation of Data and Commenters
VI. Administrative Requirements
A: Executive Order 12866
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 •
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act "
. (UMRA)
E. Executive Order 128-75
F, Executive Order 12898
G. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
I. Legal Authority
This proposed regulation would
establish requirements for submitting a
"Milestones Plan" by mills that choose
to enroll in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program and
would reduce the monitoring burden on
mill's that certify that they use elemental
chlorine-free processes and other
operational controls. These amendments
to 40 CFR Part 430 are proposed under
the authorities of Sections 301, 304, 306,
307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.G. 1311, 1314, 1316,
1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361, as
amended.
II. Background
A. Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program
EPA is establishing a Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives
Program for Subpart B to encourage
direct discharging mills to move beyond
today's baseline BAT and NSPS
technologies toward the "mill of the
future," which EPA believes will have
a minimum impact on the environment.
See 40 CFR 430.24(b) and 430.25(c).
Mills that enroll in the incentives
program (hereafter AT mills) can choose
between two or three different levels of
"ultimate performance requirements (i.e.,
existing mills can choose Tier I, Tier II,
or Tier HI; new source mills can choose
Tier II or Tier III). In any tier, existing
AT mills must meet "stage 1"
limitations, interim milestones, and
"stage 2" limitations (i.e.., the ultimate
performance requirements for the
particular tier). New source AT mills
must meet the ultimate Tier
performance requirements upon
commencement of discharge. For further
details on this voluntary program, see
Section IX of the .preamble for the
promulgated "Cluster Rules" for the
pulp and paper industry published
elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
i In order to facilitate achievement of
the ultimate BAT limitations required
by this program, EPA is proposing today
to require all existing mills .enrolled in
the voluntary incentives program to
submit plans (referred to'as "Milestones
.Plans") detailing the strategy the mill •
will follow to develop and implement
the technologies or processes it intends
to use to achieve the Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT limitations
associated with the chosen incentive
tier. . . '
B. Demonstrating Compliance With
Chloroform Limitations
In response to comments, EPA
considered in connection with the final
Cluster Rules whether certification of
Elemental Chlorine-Free (ECF)
bleaching processes can be used in lieu
of monitoring as a basis for compliance
with the regulations published
elsewhere in "the Federal Register today.
EPA determined that the information .
available at this time does not
demonstrate that ECF certification alone
is sufficient to ensure compliance with
' the regulations promulgated today.
Therefore,, the effluent limitations
guidelines promulgated today do not
allow certification of ECF bleaching to
replace monitoring for any regulated
pollutant However, EPA is proposing
here to allow mills in Subpart B that
demonstrate compliance with the
applicable chloroform limitations or
standards through required monitoring
over a two-year period to demonstrate
continuing compliance with chloroform
limitations and standards by certifying
that they use ECF bleaching processes .
and also maintain process and operation
conditions in use during the initial two-
year monitoring period. See Section IV.
EPA is requesting data to further inform
its final decision in this matter. See
, Section V. - • -
. C. Availability of Totally Chlorine-Free '
: Technologies .
With respect to Totally Chlorine-Free
(TCP) bleaching processes, several non-
U.S. mills have reported the production
of TCP softwood kraft pulp at full
market brightness. However, EPA's data
are not sufficient to confirm that TCP
bleaching processes are technically
demonstrated for the full range of
market products currently served by the
bleached kraft process.. EPA is also
unable, based on the information
available today, to define a segment of
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory for which TCF bleaching
processes and, if appropriate, flow
reduction technologies similar to those
incorporated in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives program, .are
known to be technically feasible and
thus could be the basis for NSPS or
PSNS. EPA believes that progress being
made in developing TCF bleaching
processes and process wastewater flow
reduction technologies is substantial,
and that additional data may
demonstrate that TCF processes and
flow reduction technologies are indeed
available for the full range, or a
substantial portion, of market products.
To this end, EPA is soliciting additional
data and comment on the full range of
market specifications currently being
achieved for TCF kraft pulp (e.g.,
brightness, strength, and cleanliness).
EPA also will further evaluate whether
the performance of TCF and associated
process wastewater flow reduction
technologies would be superior ,
environmentally to the performance of
the technology basis of the new NSPS/
PSNS standards for Subpart B mills
published elsewhere in today's Federal
Register. Depending on these findings,
EPA will determine whether to propose
revisions to NSPS/PSNS. based upon
TCF for Subpart B mills.
III. The Milestones Plan
A. Rationale for Submittal of the Plan
- EPA has determined that the
Milestones Plan described in today's .
proposed amendment to 40 CFR 430.24
will provide information necessary for
the development of interim limitations
or permit conditions under 40 CFR
430.24(b)(2) that lead to achievement of
the Voluntary Advanced Technology •
BAT limitations codified at 40 CFR
430.24 (b) (3) and (4). See CWA section
308(a). Once incorporated into NPDES
permits, these milestones will be
enforceable and will provide valuable
benchmarks for reasonable inquiries
into progress being made by :
participating mills toward achievement
of the interim and ultimate Tier limits.
EPA believes that requiring each mill
enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program to
submit an individualized Milestones
Plan to its permitting authority,will
provide the necessary flexibility to the
mill and the permit writer so that the
milestones selected to be incorporated.
into the mill's NPDES permit reflect the
unique situation at that mill. These
interim milestones will represent
reasonable further progress toward the
achievement of the six-year milestone
limits for Tiers II and III and the
ultimate Advanced Technology BAT
limitations for all Tiers. As developed
by each individual mill, these
milestones should reflect the planning ••
process under which the. mill
washers/ etcT). " •"""
EPA is proposing that the certification
be made annually, rather than once
every permit cycle, because the
certification includes operational'factors
in addition to chemical use or
substitution. These factors require
greater oversight and control on the part
of the mill than can be achieved by
monitoring mill chemical purchases.
EPA believes that additional data will
allow it to further document and
confirm the specific process and
operating conditions that are necessary
to provide ah adequate basis for
establishing compliance with the
promulgated chloroform limitations and
standards. EPA believes that if
additional data becomes available that
further document and confirm pertinent
process and operating conditions, then
it would be appropriate to provide
flexibility to allow ECF mills to certify
that they consistently maintain, these
process changes and operating
conditions subsequent to .'the two-year
period of monitoring for compliance
demonstration. Thus, additional data ,
on the reasonableness ofTEe
response burden that such a plan would
impose. (See Sections III.D and VI.C of
today's proposal for discussions of the
burden estimated to be associated with
the Milestones Plan),
EPA is also seeking additional bleach
plant chloroform data from Subpart B
ECF mills, along with corresponding
process and operating information and
data, to determine whether,an ECF
certification process for chloroform
should also require certification that
relevant process and operating factors
are consistently maintained. Currently
available data and any new data that are
received will be used by EPA as a basis
for its final decision on whether to
promulgate the certification being
proposed today and the extent to which.
process and related factors are
incorporated.
EPA also is soliciting comment and
data on TCF processes and associated
• process wastewater flow reduction
technologies that may serve as the
technology basis for NSPS/PSNS for
Subpart B mills. EPA specifically
Nevertheless, EPA believes that it may
be appropriate to allow mills, to
demonstrate compliance with
chloroform limitations and standards
promulgated today through a •
certification that accounts for those
process and operating conditions. EPA
has reason to believe that these-
conditions are relevant to compliance
with.the promulgated chloroform
limitations and standards. Among the
process and related factors that EPA
believes may influence compliance are:
residual lignin content of unbleached
pulp (kappa number); the bleaching
chemicals used (e.g., chlorine dioxide,
or chlorine monoxide assuming
elemental chlorine and hypchlorite have
been eliminated); and, their application
rates, kappa factor, and .other physical
factors (e.g., mixing with other
wastewaters with differing properties
prior to monitoring point, etc,)'plus the
types of bleach plant washers used (e.g.,
high air flow drum washers, low air
flow washers; etc.).
Therefore, EPA is proposing new
rpcnilafnrw lanmiaryo in AC\
-------
18798
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Proposed Rules
determined the ultimate Tier limits to
be economically achievable.
B, Scope of the Milestones Plan
As proposed today, the Milestones
Plan would describe each envisioned
new technology component or process
modification the mill intends to
implement in order to achieve the
Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limits. In addition, the mill would be
required to include a master schedule in
the plan showing the sequence of
Implementing the new technologies and
process modifications and identifying
critical-path relationships within the
sequence. For each individual
technology or process modification, the
Milestones Plan would need to include:
(1) A schedule that lists the anticipated
dates that associated construction,
installation, and/or process changes will
be Initiated; (2) the anticipated date that
those steps will be completed; (3) the
anticipated date that the Advanced
Technology process or individual
component will be fully operational; (4)
and the anticipated reductions in
effluent quantity and improvements in
effluent oualitv as mpasnrpd at thp
approaches developed to ensure that the
ultimate tier limits are achieved by the
dates outlined in the master schedule.
EPA is proposing new regulatory
language describing the Milestones Plan
in§430:24(c).
C. Permit Writers' Responsibilities
EPA expects the permitting authority
to use the information contained in
those plans, as well as its own best
professional judgment, to establish
enforceable interim milestones applying
all statutory factors. EPA also expects'
permit writers to include reopener
clauses in the permits to adjust these
interim milestones as necessary to
reflect the results of research, process
development, mill trials, and
contingencies as appropriate.
D. Estimates of Burden for Milestones
Plan
EPA has estimated the reporting
burden associated with the required
Milestones Plan, and is developing a
draft Information Collection Request
(ICR) under the Paperwork Reduction
Act, described in Section VI.C. These
estimates reflect the burden of preparing
not perform research and development
activities. EPA'estimates that 14 mills
will enroll at the Tier I level.
EPA estimates 154 hours for the
preparation and submittal of the
Milestones Plan for mills enrolling in
Tier II of the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program in
addition to .an estimate of approximately
$14,000 for each scoping study, which
may be performed by a consultant. This
assumes the mill, upon implementing
the Milestones Plan, will conduct one
research and development project
related to condensate reuse, but
otherwise will implement readily-
available technology. The cost of the
research and development project,
which is estimated as part of EPA's
estimates for compliance with the
Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program, is not included in
this burden estimate. EPA estimates that
13 mills will enroll at the Tier II level.
EPA estimates 328 hours for the
preparation and submittal of the
Milestones Plan for mills enrolling in
Tier III of the Voluntary Advanced
Technoloev Incentives PrnccramJ.n
18800
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday, April 15, 1998/Proposed Rules
processes In the U.S., Canada, Europe,
and elsewhere. EPA also solicits and
will seek to gather additional
performance data for full scale TCP
mills that could serve as the basis for
NSPS/PSNS that may be proposed at a
later date.
Interested parties wishing to gather
and submit data at ECF mills for
chloroform generation and related
process variables, and for the
performance and products of TCP
processes and flow reduction
technologies, are strongly encouraged to
contact EPA to ensure that the data
gathering to be undertaken will be of
adequate scope, will utilize appropriate
analytical methods where necessary,
and will include sufficient
documentation to be useful. (Consult
the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
proposal.)
Finally, EPA is soliciting comment on
the estimated burden associated with
preparing the Milestones Plan (see
Sections HI.D and VI.C of today's notice
for detailed discussions of the estimated
burden),
VI. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, 58 FR
51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), the Agency must
determine whether the regulatory action
is "significant" and therefore subject to
OMB review and the requirements of
the Executive Order. The Order defines
"significant regulatory action" as one
that is likely to result in a rule that may:
(1) Have an annual effect on the
economy of SI00 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the
economy, a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs,.the
environment, public health or safety, or
State, local, or tribal governments or
communities;
(2) Create a serious inconsistency .or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary
impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,
or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the
President's priorities, or the principles
set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive
Order 12866. it has been determined
that this rule is a "significant regulatory
action." As such, this action was
submitted to OMB for review. Changes
made in response to OMB suggestions or
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 etseq.), whenever
a federal agency is required by section
553 of the Administrative Procedure Act
(or any other law) to publish a general
notice of proposed rulemaking for any
proposed rule, the Agency generally
must prepare an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis (IRFA) describing the
economic impact of the regulatory
action on small entities. The Agency
must prepare an IRFA for a proposed
rule unless the head of the agency
certifies that it will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
EPA is today certifying, pursuant to
section 605(b) of the RFA, that this rule
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, the Agency did not
prepare ah IRFA.
The proposal, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. The RFA
defines "small .entity" to mean a small
business, small organization or small
governmental jurisdiction. The proposal
to allow certification in lieu of
monitoring for chloroform would reduce
the economic cost of compliance for any
direct discharging mill that chooses to
certify, including any mill that is a
small business. Therefore, the proposal
to allow certification, if adopted, would
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities.
With respect to the Milestones Plan
proposal, EPA has determined that there
are only three mills in Subpart B that
are small businesses. These mills would
be subject to the proposed Milestones
Plan requirement only if they choose to
enroll in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program
(VATIP). EPA does not believe three to
be a substantial number. Furthermore,
EPA has concluded that the cost of the
Milstones Plan requirement to any mill
choosing to enroll in VATIP that is a
small business is not significant. EPA
has calculated the cost of the Milestones
Plan requirement to be between $4,000
and $50,000 per mill, depending on
whether the mill chose Tier I, II or III.
This amount is a small fraction of the
total cost of the new effluent guideline
requirements for Subpart B, which EPA
has already certified as not having a
significant impact elsewhere in today's
Federal Register. Furthermore, the
voluntarily choose to enroll in the
program. In these'circumstances, the
Milestones Plan requirement would not,
if promulgated, have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection
requirements in this proposed rule will
be submitted for approval to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 etseq., following the 60 day
comment period of this notice and
incorporation/consideration of those
comments received on the burden of the
information collection requirements. An
Information Collection Request (ICR)
document will be prepared by EPA for
submission to OMB. However, EPA is
using today's notice to solicit public
comments on the estimates associated
with the burden of the Milestones Plan
for Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III Advanced
Technology mills prior to submitting the
ICR document to OMB (See Section III.D
of today's notice for a discussion of the
burden' estimates). EPA will publish a
notice in the Federal Register when the
ICR is submitted to OMB for approval,
allowing for additional public
comments to be submitted to OMB on
the burden estimates. The information
requirements are not effective until
OMB approves them and today's
proposed amendments are promulgated.
As discussed in Section III.A of
today's notice, EPA believes the
Milestones Plan is necessary to provide
NPDES permit writers with the
information necessary to design a
permit that contains mill specific
"interim milestones" required by the
Voluntary Advanced Technologies
Incentives Program. See §430.24(b)(2) of
the final Pulp and Paper "Cluster
Rules," found elsewhere in today's
Federal Register. The Milestones Plan
will allow permit writers to set
milestones on a schedule that the mill
believes is realistic for its facility.
EPA does not believe the second
proposed amendment in today's
notice—certification in lieu of
monitoring for chloroform—will cause
any additional burden on those mills
choosing to certify. In fact,"EPA believes
that for mills that choose to make the
certification, the burden associated with
monitoring will be reduced because
they will no longer need to monitor for
chloroform.
As discussed in more detail in Section
III.D of today's notice, the total burden
-------
Federal Register /Vol. 63. No. 72/Wednesday. April 15, 19987 Proposed'RuJes
188O1
MILESTONE?, PLAN—ESTIMATED lNpjjst.Ry BURDEN
Tier ' v
Tier 1 1
Tier II
Tier III „...
Total for all Tiers : .„• "
? *- ~
Hours/Mill
56
154
; 328
' 3 :
Estimated
number of
enrolled
• mills
14
n
2
29
Total hours
7R4
2nno
656
•3 AA9
Scoping
study esti-
. mate ($)
co oon
oo/f AKn
Total cost
($)
inn nnn
Burden means the total time, effort, or
financial resources expended by persons
to generate* maintain, retain, or disclose
or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop,
acquire, install, and utilize technology
and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and Verifying
information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing
and providing information; adjust the
existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable, instructions and
requirements; train personnel to be able
, to respond to'a collection of
information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of
information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information. ,
An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor a collection of information, and '
• a person is not required to respond to
a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number. The OMB control numbers for
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR
part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
' (UMRA)
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.
104-4, establishes requirements for
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their regulatory actions on State, local,
and tribal governments and the private
sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA. •
EPA generally must prepare a written
statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules ' .
with "Federal mandates" that may
result in expenditures to State, local,
and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or to the private sector, of $100 million
or more in any one year. Before
promulgating an EPA rule for which a •
written statement is needed, section 205
of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
identify and consider a reasonable
number .of regulatory alternatives and
adopt the least costly, most cost- ' ,
effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule.
The provisions of section 205 do not
apply when they are inconsistent with
applicable law. Moreover; section 205
allows EPA to adopt an alternative other
than the least costly, most cost-effective
or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final
rule an explanation why that alternative
• was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
any regulatory requirements that may , _
significantly or uniquely affect small •.
governments, including tribal
governments, it must have developed
under section 203 of the UMRA.a small
government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially
affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments
to have meaningful and timely input in
the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal
intergovernmental mandates, and '
informing, educating, and advising
small governments on compliance with
the regulatory requirements. •
EPA has determined that this rule
does not contain a Federal mandate that
may result in expenditures of $1QO"
million or more for State, local, and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
the private sector in any one year. This
rule would impose a reporting burden
on the private sector of less thah 3,500
burden hours (costed at less than
$250,000) as a one-time expense. This
rule does not affect tribal governments
at all, will ease the burden on State
governments responsible for
implementing final regulations
published elsewhere in this Federal
Register today, and may ease the
compliance monitoring burden of local
governments responsible for
implementing final regulations .
published elsewhere in this Federal
.Register today. Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that
might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments for the same reasons
cited above.
E. Executive Order 12875 .
To reduce the burden of Federal
regulations on States and small
governments, the President issued -'"
Executive Order 12875 on October 28,
1993, entitled Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR
58093). In particular, this executive
order requires EPA to consult with
representatives of affected State, local,
or tribal governments, on Federal matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities. This rule does not affect
tribal governments at all, will ease the
burden on State governments
responsible for implementing final
regulations published elsewhere in this
Federal Register today, and may ease '
the compliance monitoring burden of
local governments responsible for
implementing final regulations
published elsewhere in this Federal
Register today.
F. Executive Order 12898
Executive Order 12898 directs Federal
agencies to "determine whether their
programs, policies, and activities have
disproportionally high adverse human
health or environmental effects on
minority populations and low-income
populations." (Sec. 3-301 and Sec. 3-
302). This proposed rule will not have
adverse health or environmental effects.
G. National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act
Under, section 12 (d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act ("NTTAA"), the Agency is required
to use voluntary consensus standards in
its regulatory activities unless to do, so
would be inconsistent with applicable
law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications,
test methods, sampling procedures,
business practices, etc.) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. Where
available and potentially applicable
voluntary consensus standards are not
used by EPA, the Act requires the
Agency to provide Congress, through
the Office of Management and Budget,
an explanation of the reasons for not
using such standards.
The Agency does not believe that this
proposed rule addresses any technical
standards subject to the NTTAA. A
-------
18802
Federal Register/Vol. 63, No. 72/Wednesday; April 15, 1998/Proposed Rules
commenter who disagrees with this
conclusion should indicate how the
notice is subject to the Act and identify
any potentially applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 430
Environmental protection,
Chloroform, Effluent guidelines,
Elemental chlorine-free. Incentives,
Milestones Plan, Pulp and paper
industry, Totally chlorine-free. Water
pollution control.
Dated: November 14, 1997,
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator,
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, title 40 chapter I of the Code
of Federal Regulations, part 430, is
proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 430—THE PULP, PAPER, AND
PAPERBOARD POINT SOURCE
CATEGORY
1. The authority citation for part 430
continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sees. 301, 304, 306, 307, 308,
402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act, (33
U.S.C, 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342,
and 1361), and section 112 of Clean Air Act
(42 U.S.C, 7412).
2, Section 430.02 is amended by
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:
§430.02 Monitoring requirements.
* » * * *
(f) Certification in Lieu of Monitoring.
A discharger subject to limitations and
standards for chloroform under subpart
B of this part is not required to monitor
for chloroform at a fiber line to which
the limitations or standards apply if:
(A) The discharger demonstrates,
based on two years of monitoring
conducted in accordance with
paragraph (a) of this section, that it is
achieving the applicable limitations or
standards for chloroform;
(B) The discharger certifies at that
time and annually thereafter to the
permitting or pretreatment control
authority that the fiber line'does not use
either elemental chlorine or
hypochlorite as bleaching agents, and
that the mill consistently maintains
process operation conditions
representative of those employed during
the two yea'r compliance monitoring
period required in paragraph (f)(l) of
this section, including pre-bleaching
kappa numbers, use of precursor-free
raw materials, kappa factor and
bleaching chemical application rates, .
and other factors pertinent to the initial
compliance demonstration; and
(C) The discharger maintains records
of the process and operating conditions
referenced in paragraph (f) (2) of this
section for the fiber line on site.
3. Section 430.24 is amended by
revising paragraph (b)(2) and,adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
§430.24 Effluent limitations
reflecting the degree df effluent
reduction attainable by application of
the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
*****
(b) * * * -
(2) Best Professional Judgment •
Milestones: Narrative or numeric
limitations and/or special permit
conditions, as appropriate, established
by the permitting authority on the basis
of his or her best professional judgment
that reflects a reasonable interim
milestones toward achievement of the
effluent limitations specified in
paragraphs (b) (3) and (b) (4) of this * '
section, as applicable, after
consideration of the Milestones Plan
submitted by the discharger in
accordance with paragraph (c) of this
section.
* * * ' * *
(c) All dischargers enrolled or
intending to enroll in the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives
Program must submit to the NPDES
permitting authority a Milestones Plan
covering all fiber lines enrolled or
intending to be enrolled in that program
at their mill by {insert 14 months from
date of publication of the final rule] or
the date the discharger applies for
NPDES permit limitations consistent
with paragraph (b) of this section,
whichever is later. The Milestones Plan
must include the following information:
(1) A description of each anticipated
new technology component or process
modification that is needed to achieve
the limitations in paragraphs (b) (3) and
(b) (4) of this section;
(2) A master schedule showing the
sequence of implementing the new
technology components or process . >'
modifications and identifying critical
path relationships;
(3) A schedule for each individual
new technology component or process
modification that includes:
(i) The anticipated initiation and
completion dates of construction,
installation and operational
"shakedown" period associated with
' the technology components or process
modifications and, when applicable, the
anticipated dates of initiation and
completion of associated research,
process development, and mill trials;
(ii) The anticipated date that the
discharger expects the technologies and
process modifications selected to
achieve the limitations specified in
paragraphs (b) (3) and (b) (4) of this
section are operational on a full-scale
basis;
(iii) Contingency plans should any
technology or process specified in the
Milestones Plan need to be adjusted or
alternative approaches developed to •
ensure that the limitations specified in
paragraphs (b) (3) and (b) (4) of this
section are met; and
. (4) A signature by the responsible
corporate officer as defined in 40 CFR
122.22.
*****
[FRDoc. 98-9615 Filed 4-14-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
------- |