National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category

Related Material

Other Related Documents

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: April 15, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 72)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18503-18552]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ap98-19]

[[Page 18503]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II

Environmental Protection Agency

_______________________________________________________________________

40 CFR Parts 63, 261, and 430 National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper
Production; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards,
and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Category; Final Rule

[[Page 18504]]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63, 261, and 430

[FRL-5924-8]
RIN 2040-AB53

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations
Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance
Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rules.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action promulgates effluent limitations guidelines and
standards under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for a portion of the pulp,
paper, and paperboard industry, and national emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as
amended in 1990 for the pulp and paper production source category.
EPA is also promulgating best management practices under the CWA
for a portion of the pulp, paper, and paperboard industry, and new
analytical methods for 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants and for
adsorbable organic halides (AOX). This action consolidates into 12
subcategories what had once been 26 subcategories of effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry, and revises the existing effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. The revised
effluent limitations guidelines and standards require existing and new
facilities within these two subcategories to limit the discharge of
pollutants into navigable waters of the United States and to limit the
introduction of pollutants into publicly owned treatment works. The
NESHAP requires existing and new major sources within the pulp and
paper production source category to control emissions using the maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) to control hazardous air
pollutants (HAP).
EPA is revising the effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory and the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory primarily to reduce the discharge of
toxic and nonconventional chemical compounds found in the effluents
from these mills. Discharge of these pollutants into the freshwater,
estuarine, and marine ecosystems may alter aquatic habitats, affect
aquatic life, and adversely impact human health. Discharges of
chlorinated organic compounds from chlorine bleaching, particularly
dioxins and furans, are human carcinogens and human system toxicants
and are extremely toxic to aquatic life. The final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are estimated to reduce the discharge of
adsorbable organic halides (AOX) by 28,210 kkg/year; chloroform by 45
kkg/year; chlorinated phenolics by 47 kkg/year; and 2,3,7,8-TCDD
(dioxin) and 2,3,7,8-TCDF (furan) by 125 gm/year. These reductions will
permit all 19 dioxin/furan-related fish consumption advisories
downstream of pulp and paper mills to be lifted.
EPA is revising the subcategorization scheme for the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards because the new scheme better
defines the processes typically found in U.S. mills and thus results in
what ultimately will be a streamlined regulation that can be
implemented more easily by the permit writer. With the exception of the
new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories, EPA is
making no substantive changes to the limitations and standards
applicable to the newly reorganized subcategories. Those portions of
the existing pulp, paper, and paperboard effluent limitations
guidelines and standards that are not substantively amended by this
action are not subject to judicial review; nor is their effective date
affected by this reorganization.
The HAPs emitted by facilities covered by the NESHAP include such
compounds as methanol, chlorinated compounds, formaldehyde, benzene,
and xylene. The health effects of exposure to these and other HAPs at
pulp and paper mills can include cancer, respiratory irritation, and
damage to the nervous system. The final NESHAP is expected to reduce
baseline emissions of HAP by 65 percent or 139,000 Mg/yr.
The pollutant reductions resulting from these rules will achieve
the primary goals of both the CAA and CWA, which are to ``enhance the
quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the public
health and welfare and productive capacity of its population'' and to
``restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation's waters,'' respectively. These rules will result in
continued environmental improvement at reasonable cost by providing
flexibility in when and how results are achieved and, for certain
mills, by providing incentives to surpass baseline requirements.
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is concurrently
proposing NESHAP to control hazardous air pollutants from chemical
recovery combustion sources at kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone
semi-chemical pulp mills.
In another proposed rule published in today's Federal Register, EPA
is also proposing a regulation that would require mills enrolled in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program being promulgated for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory to submit a plan
specifying research, construction, and other activities leading to
achievement of the Voluntary Advanced Technology effluent limitations,
with accompanying dates for achieving these milestones. Second, EPA
proposes to authorize Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory
mills under certain circumstances to submit a certification based on
process changes in lieu of monitoring for chloroform. Third, although
not proposing totally chlorine-free (TCF) technologies for new source
performance standards under the CWA for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory at this time, EPA is requesting comments and data
regarding the feasibility of TCF processes for this subcategory,
especially the range of products made and their specifications. In that
proposal EPA is also requesting comments and data regarding the
effluent reduction performance of TCF processes for this subcategory.

DATES: In accordance with the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, the regulations shall become effective June 15,
1998. For compliance dates, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
under the heading ``Compliance Dates.''

ADDRESSES: Air Dockets. The Air Dockets are available for public
inspection between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday except for
Federal holidays, at the following address: U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (MC-
6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460, Room M-1500, Waterside
Mall; telephone: (202) 260-7548.
Water Docket. The complete public record for the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards rulemaking is available for
review, Monday through Friday except for federal holidays, at EPA's
Water Docket, Room M2616, 401

[[Page 18505]]

M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. For access to Docket materials, call
(202) 260-3027. The Docket staff requests that interested parties call
between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm for an appointment before visiting the
docket.
For additional information about the dockets, see section X.A
below.
Background and support documents containing technical, cost,
economic, and health information, as well as EPA's response to public
comments, are available for public use. A listing and how to obtain
these background documents is provided in section XI in this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions regarding air emissions
standards for chemical wood pulping mills, contact Ms. Penny Lassiter,
Emissions Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-
5396; or Mr. Stephen Shedd, at the same address, telephone number (919)
541-5397. For information concerning the final air standards for
mechanical pulping processes, secondary fiber pulping processes, and
nonwood fiber pulping processes, contact Ms. Elaine Manning, at the
same Research Triangle Park address, telephone number (919) 541-5499.
For questions on compliance, enforcement and applicability
determinations, contact Ms. Maria Eisemann, Office of Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance (2223A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone number (202) 564-7106.
For questions regarding wastewater standards, contact Mr. Donald
Anderson at the following address: Engineering and Analysis Division
(4303), EPA, 401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, telephone
number (202) 260-7189; or Ms. Wendy D. Smith at the same address,
telephone number (202) 260-7184.
For additional information on the economic impact analyses, contact
Dr. William Wheeler, Office of Water, Engineering and Analysis Division
(4303), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,
Washington, DC, 20460, (202) 260-7905.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

The preamble summarizes the legal authority for these rules,
background information, the technical and economic methodologies used
by the Agency to develop these rules, the impacts of the rules,
regulatory implementation, and the availability of supporting
documents.

Regulated Entities

Entities regulated by today's action are those operations that
chemically pulp and nonchemically pulp wood and nonwood fibers for pulp
and paper production. EPA projects that approximately 490 mills are
subject to the air regulations promulgated today. Of these mills, 155
will be affected by MACT standards for mills that chemically pulp wood.
Within that group, 96 are subject to the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated today. Regulated categories and
entities include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Rule Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry..................... NESHAP.............................. Pulp mills and integrated mills (mills that
manufacture pulp and paper/paperboard)
that: chemically pulp wood fiber (using
kraft, sulfite, soda, or semi-chemical
methods); pulp secondary fiber; pulp
nonwood fiber; and mechanically pulp wood
fiber.
Effluent Guidelines................. Subset of mills subject to the NESHAP that
chemically pulp wood fiber using kraft,
sulfite, or soda methods to produce
bleached papergrade pulp and/or bleached
paper/paperboard.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foregoing table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather
provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated
by the NESHAP and effluent limitations guidelines and standards
promulgated today. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is
now aware could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of
entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine
whether your facility or company is regulated by this NESHAP, you
should carefully examine the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.440 of
the air rule and the applicability criteria in part 63, Subpart A of
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. To determine whether your
facility is regulated by the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in
Sec. 430.20 and Sec. 430.50 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations.
If you have questions regarding the applicability of the NESHAP or
the effluent limitations guidelines and standards, see the section
entitled FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Judicial Review

In accordance with 40 CFR Sec. 23.2, the water portion of today's
rule shall be considered promulgated for the purposes of judicial
review at 1 pm Eastern time on April 29, 1998. Under section 509(b)(1)
of the Clean Water Act (CWA), judicial review of today's effluent
limitations guidelines and standards is available in the United States
Court of Appeals by filing a petition for review within 120 days from
the date of promulgation of those guidelines and standards. Under
section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, judicial review of the NESHAP is
available only by petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of today's publication
of this NESHAP. Under section 509(b)(2) of the CWA and section
307(b)(2) of the CAA, the requirements in this regulation may not be
challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to
enforce these requirements.

Compliance Dates

Existing direct dischargers must comply with limitations based on
the best available technology economically achievable (BAT) as soon as
such requirements are imposed in their National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits. The water regulation also
establishes specific deadlines for compliance with best management
practices (BMPs), which apply to all sources. The new reporting and
recordkeeping requirements promulgated today are not effective until
the Office of Management and Budget approves Information Collection
Requests for those requirements.
Except as provided in today's BMP regulation, existing indirect
dischargers subject to today's water regulations must comply with the
pretreatment standards for existing sources being promulgated today by
April 16, 2001. In addition, these dischargers must continue to comply
with the pretreatment standards for existing sources for
pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol.

[[Page 18506]]

Except as provided in today's BMP regulation, new direct and
indirect discharging sources must comply with applicable treatment
standards on the date the new source begins operation. For purposes of
new source performance standards (NSPS), a source is a new source if it
meets the definition of ``new source'' in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and if it
commences construction after June 15, 1998. For purposes of
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS), a source is a new source
if it meets the definition of ``new source'' in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and if
it commenced construction after December 17, 1993.
The following compliance dates apply to the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program being codified today as part of the water
regulations for Subpart B. Each existing direct discharging mill that
enrolls in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program must
comply immediately with limitations based on the mill's existing
effluent quality or its current technology-based permit limits for the
baseline BAT parameters, whichever are more stringent. Participating
mills must also comply with mill-specific interim milestones by the
dates specified in their NPDES permits. They must also achieve the
baseline BAT effluent limitations for dioxin, furan, chloroform, 12
specified chlorinated organic pollutants and, for mills enrolled at the
Tier II or Tier III level, AOX no later than April 15, 2004. Finally,
participating mills must achieve BAT limitations corresponding to the
most stringent phase of the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program by the dates specified below:
Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier I must be achieved by April 15,
2004.
Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier II must be achieved by April 15,
2009.
Voluntary BAT limitations for Tier III must be achieved by April
15, 2014.
For new direct discharging mills in Subpart B, EPA is promulgating
Voluntary NSPS at the Tier II and Tier III levels. Participating new
sources must achieve NSPS at the selected level upon commencing
operation.
Compliance dates for the NESHAP are as follows: Existing sources
must comply with the NESHAP no later than April 16, 2001 except for the
following cases. Equipment in the high volume low concentration (HVLC)
system at existing sources at kraft mills (e.g., pulp washer systems,
oxygen delignification systems) must comply no later than April 17,
2006. Bleach plants at existing source kraft and soda mills
participating in the effluent limitations guidelines Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program must comply with the first stage of the
NESHAP no later June 15, 1998 and with the second stage no later than
April 15, 2004.
Once today's rules take effect on June 15, 1998, new sources must
comply with applicable MACT requirements upon start-up. For a
discussion of the circumstances under which a source becomes a new
source for compliance with new source air emissions standards, see
Sections II.B.2.b. and VI.A.1.

Technology Transfer Network

The Technology Transfer Network (TTN) is one of EPA's electronic
bulletin boards. The TTN provides information and technology exchange
in various areas of air pollution control. New air regulations are now
being posted on the TTN through the world wide web at ``http://
www.epa.gov/ttn.'' For more information on the TTN, call the HELP line
at (919) 591-5384.
Information on the water regulations may be accessed through the
world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/OST/Rules/#final.

Organization of This Document

I. Legal Authority
II. Scope of This Rulemaking
A. EPA's Long-Term Environmental Goals
B. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(NESHAP)
C. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
III. Background
A. Prior Regulations, Proposal, Notices of Data Availability,
and Public Participation
B. Clean Air Act Statutory Authority
C. Clean Water Act Statutory Authority
D. Other EPA Activities Concerning the Pulp and Paper Industry
IV. Changes in the Industry Since Proposal
V. Summary of Data Gathering Activities Since Proposal
A. Data Gathering for the Development of Air Emissions Standards
B. Data Gathering for the Development of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
VI. Summary of the Major Changes Since Proposal and Rationale for
the Selection of the Final Regulations
A. Air Emission Standards
B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards
VII. Environmental Impacts
A. Summary of Sources and Level of Control
B. Air Emissions and Water Effluent Reductions
C. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards (BAT, PSES, and BMPs)
D. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of New Source
Performance Standards and Pretreatment Standards for New Source
(NSPS and PSNS)
VIII. Analysis of Costs, Economic Impacts, and Benefits
A. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts
B. Overview of Economic Analysis
C. Costs and Economic Impacts for Air Emissions Standards
D. Costs and Economic Impacts for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards
E. Costs and Impacts for the Integrated Rule
F. Costs and Impacts of Rejected BAT/PSES Options for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
G. Benefits
H. Comparison of Costs and Benefits
I. Costs and Benefits of Rejected Options for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory--Option B and TCF
J. Benefit-Cost Comparison Using Case Studies
IX. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements
A. The Voluntary Advances Technology Incentives Program
B. Incentives Available After Achievement of Advanced Technology
BAT Limitations and NSPS
X. Administrative Requirements and Related Government Acts or
Initiatives
A. Dockets
B. Executive Order 12866 and OMB Review
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Pollution Prevention Act
G. Common Sense Initiative
H. Executive Order 12875
I. Executive Order 12898
J. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
XI. Background Documents

I. Legal Authority

These regulations are being promulgated under the authority of
sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the Clean Water Act,
33 U.S.C. sections 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1342, and 1361, and
sections 112, 114, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. sections
7412, 7414, and 7601.

II. Scope of This Rulemaking

Today's Cluster Rules consist of effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for the control of wastewater pollutants and national
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. The final rules issued
today are based on extensive information gathered by the Agency and on
comments received from interested parties during the development of
these regulations.
Section VI of this notice discusses the major changes since
proposal and the rationale for the regulatory decisions

[[Page 18507]]

underlying the rules promulgated today. This summary section highlights
the technology bases and other key aspects of the final rules. More
detailed descriptions are included in the supporting documents listed
in section XI.
In addition, the Agency is today codifying the subcategorization
scheme that was proposed for 40 CFR parts 430 and 431, see 58 FR 66078,
66098-100 (Dec. 17, 1993) and is redesignating the section and subpart
numbers in 40 CFR part 430 accordingly.

A. EPA's Long-Term Environmental Goals

EPA has integrated the development of the regulations discussed
today to provide greater protection of human health and the
environment, reduce the cost of complying with the wastewater
regulations and air emissions controls, promote and facilitate
coordinated compliance planning by industry, promote and facilitate
pollution prevention, and emphasize the multimedia nature of pollution
control.
The Agency envisions a long-term approach to environmental
improvement that is consistent with sound capital expenditures. This
approach, which is presented in today's notice, stems from extensive
discussions with a range of stakeholders. The effluent limitations
guidelines and standards and air emissions standards are only one
component of the framework to achieve long-term environmental goals.
The overall regulatory framework also includes incentives to reward and
encourage mills that implement pollution prevention beyond regulatory
requirements. The Agency will continue to encourage mill-specific
solutions to remaining environmental problems through water quality-
based requirements in permits and enforcement of those requirements. In
addition, continuing research on minimum impact technologies, such as
closed-loop and totally chlorine-free bleaching processes, will help to
identify economical ways of furthering environmental improvement in
this industry.
EPA's long-term goals include improved air quality, improved water
quality, the elimination of fish consumption advisories downstream of
mills, and the elimination of ecologically significant bioaccumulation.
An integral part of these goals is an industry committed to continuous
environmental improvement--an industry that aggressively pursues
research and pilot projects to identify technologies that will reduce,
and ultimately eliminate, pollutant discharges from existing and new
sources. A holistic approach to implementing these pollution prevention
technologies would contribute to the long-term goal of minimizing
impacts of mills in all environmental media by moving mills toward
closed-loop process operations. Effective implementation of these
technologies is capable of increasing reuse of recoverable materials
and energy while concurrently reducing consumption of raw materials
(e.g., process water, unrecoverable chemicals, etc.), and reducing air
emissions and generation of hazardous and non-hazardous wastes. EPA
expects that this combination of regulation, research, pilot projects,
and incentives will foster continuous environmental improvement with
each mill investment cycle. For this reason, EPA is including an
incentives program as part of the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards being promulgated today for bleached papergrade kraft and
soda mills that accept enforceable permit limits requiring effluent
reductions well beyond the rule's regulatory baseline (see Section IX).
To ensure that today's air emission standards do not present barriers
or disincentives to mills in choosing technologies beyond baseline BAT,
EPA is providing additional time to comply with MACT beyond the three-
year compliance time for certain process units. See Sections VI.A.3.b
and VI.A.7 for details on MACT compliance times.

B. National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)

1. Purpose of the NESHAP
The main purposes of the Clean Air Act (CAA) are to protect and
enhance the quality of our Nation's air resources, and to promote the
public health and welfare and the productive capacity of the
population. See CAA, section 101(b)(1). To this end, section 112(d) of
the CAA directs EPA to set standards for stationary sources emitting
greater than ten tons of any one HAP or 25 tons of total HAPs annually
(one ton is equal to 0.908 megagrams). EPA is promulgating this NESHAP
because pulp and paper mills are major sources of HAP emissions.
Individual mills are capable of emitting as much as several hundred
tons per year (tpy) of HAPs. The HAPs emitted may adversely affect air
quality and public health. The HAPs controlled by this rule are
associated with a variety of adverse health effects including cancer; a
number of other toxic health effects such as headaches, nausea, and
respiratory distress; and possible reproductive effects.
a. Hazardous Air Pollutants. Table II-1 lists the 14 HAPs emitted
in the largest quantities from pulp and paper mills. A few HAPs emitted
from pulp and paper mills have been classified as possible, probable,
or known human carcinogens. These include acetaldehyde, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride, chloroform, formaldehyde, and methylene chloride. The
total reduction in national HAP emissions by compliance with the NESHAP
is estimated to be 139,000 megagrams per year (Mg/yr).

Table II-1.--Highest Emitted Hazardous Air Pollutants From Pulp and
Paper Mills
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Air Pollutants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein.................................. Methanol.
Acetaldehyde.............................. Methylene chloride.
o-Cresol.................................. Methyl ethyl ketone.
Carbon tetrachloride...................... Phenol.
Chloroform................................ Propionaldehyde.
Cumene.................................... 1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.
Formaldehyde.............................. o-Xylene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Volatile Organic Compounds. Emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) have been associated with a variety of health and
welfare impacts. Volatile organic compound emissions, together with
nitrogen oxides (NOX), are precursors to the formation of
tropospheric ozone. Exposure to ozone is responsible for a series of
health impacts, such as alterations in lung capacity; eye, nose, and
throat irritation; malaise and nausea; and aggravation of existing
respiratory disease. Among the welfare impacts from exposure to ozone
include damage to selected commercial timber species and economic
losses for commercially valuable crops, such as soybeans and cotton.
The total reduction in national VOC emissions by compliance with the
NESHAP is estimated to be 409,000 Mg/yr.
c. Total Reduced Sulfur Compounds. Total reduced sulfur (TRS)
compound emissions are responsible for the malodors often associated
with pulp and paper production. The total reduction in TRS compound
emissions estimated as a result of compliance with this NESHAP is
79,000 Mg/yr. Surveys of odor pollution caused by pulp mills have
supported a link between odor and health symptoms such as headaches,
watery eyes, nasal problems, and breathing difficulties.
2. Summary of the NESHAP
The MACT standards apply to pulp and paper mills that have the
potential to emit ten tons per year of any one HAP

[[Page 18508]]

or 25 tons per year of all HAPs (one ton is equal to 0.908 megagrams).
Potential to emit is based on the total of all HAP emissions from all
activities at the mill.
The NESHAP specifies emission standards for pulping processes and
bleaching processes. The emission standards for pulping and bleaching
processes provide several options for compliance, including an
alternative pollution prevention option (the ``clean condensate
alternative'') for the kraft pulping process. The standards specify
compliance dates for new and existing sources, require control devices
to be properly operated and maintained at all times, and clarify the
applicability of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A) to sources subject to this rule.
The rule subcategorizes the industry to specify different emission
standards based on the type of pulping process (kraft, sulfite, semi-
chemical, soda, mechanical wood pulping, secondary fiber pulping, or
non-wood pulping) and bleaching process (papergrade or dissolving
grade). Mills that chemically pulp wood using kraft, semi-chemical,
sulfite, or soda processes are referred to in later sections as MACT I
mills. Mills that mechanically pulp wood, or that pulp secondary fiber
or non-wood fibers, or that produce paper or paperboard from purchased
pulp are referred to in later sections as MACT III mills.
The emission control requirements for new and existing sources
within each subcategory are the same, except that more emission points
are covered for sources subject to the new source provisions. Where two
or more subcategories are located at the same mill site and share a
piece of equipment, that piece of equipment would be considered a part
of the subcategory with the more stringent MACT requirements for that
piece of equipment. For example, the foul condensates from an
evaporation set processing both kraft weak black liquor and spent
liquor from a semi-chemical process would have to comply with the kraft
subcategory requirements for foul condensate. This more stringent
requirement is appropriate because there is no way to isolate the
emissions for each pulping source to determine compliance separately.
These standards do not address emissions from recovery area
combustion sources (referred to in later sections as MACT II). These
sources are being regulated under a separate NESHAP, which is proposed
elsewhere in today's Federal Register. A summary of the specific
provisions that apply to each of the subcategories is given in the
later parts of this section.
a. Definition of Affected Source. At chemical wood pulping mills,
the affected source is all emission points in the pulping and bleaching
systems. At mills that mechanically pulp wood, secondary fibers, or
non-wood materials, the affected source is all emission points in the
bleaching system. For kraft mills complying with the clean condensate
alternative, the affected source is the pulping system, bleaching
system, causticizing system, and papermaking system.
b. New Source MACT. New source MACT applies to: (1) An affected
source that commenced construction or reconstruction after initial
proposal; (2) pulping or bleaching systems that are reconstructed after
initial proposal; and (3) new pulping systems, pulping lines, bleaching
systems, and bleaching lines that are added to existing sources after
initial proposal. The initial proposal date for mills that chemically
pulp wood is December 17, 1993. The initial proposal date for mills
that mechanically pulp wood, pulp secondary fibers, or pulp non-wood
materials is March 8, 1996.
Descriptions of equipment in each subcategory subject to new source
MACT requirements are presented in later sections of this preamble.
c. Compliance Times. The rule requires existing sources to comply
with the NESHAP no later than April 16, 2001, except for the following
cases. Existing kraft sources are required to control all the equipment
in the HVLC collection system no later than April 17, 2006. Dissolving-
grade mills are required to comply with bleaching system standards no
later than three years after publication of the wastewater effluent
limitations guidelines and standards under 40 CFR part 430, subparts A
and D.
In addition, the NESHAP sets out a two-phased standard for existing
source papergrade kraft and soda bleach mills that elect, under the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, to control wastewater
discharges to levels surpassing today's BAT baseline. The first phase
for existing source MACT requires no increase in the existing HAP
emission levels from the papergrade bleaching system--i.e., no
backsliding--during the initial period when the mill is working toward
meeting its Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT requirements. EPA has
determined that immediate compliance with this requirement is
practicable because the requirement reflects, for each mill, the
performance level it is presently achieving. Therefore, the effective
date of the first phase requirements is June 15, 1998. The second phase
of existing source MACT requires the mill either to comply with BAT for
all pollutant parameters at the baseline level for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, or to certify that chlorine and
hypochlorite are not used in the bleach plant, in order to achieve the
MACT standard for chloroform emission reduction; it also requires the
mill to apply controls for other chlorinated HAPs. All such mills that
enroll in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program must
comply with the second phase of existing source MACT no later than
April 15, 2004.
Once today's rules take effect on June 15, 1998, new sources must
comply with applicable MACT requirements upon start-up.
d. Kraft Pulping Standards. For existing sources, the kraft pulping
standards promulgated today apply to the following equipment systems:
The low volume high concentration (LVHC) system, the pulp washing
system, the oxygen delignification system, decker systems that do not
use fresh water or whitewater from papermaking systems or that use
process water with HAP concentrations greater than or equal to 400
parts per million by weight (ppmw), and knotter systems and screening
systems that have total system emissions greater than or equal to 0.05
and 0.10 kilograms of HAP per megagram of oven-dried pulp (ODP)
produced, respectively (or have total [i.e., knotter and screening]
system emissions greater than or equal to 0.15 kilograms of HAP per
megagram of ODP produced combined). For new sources, the kraft pulping
standards apply to the equipment systems listed above for existing
sources, plus weak liquor storage tanks, all knotter systems, all
screening systems, and all decker systems.
Sources subject to the kraft pulping standards must enclose open
process equipment and route all emissions through a closed-vent system
to a control device. The closed-vent system must be designed and
operated with no detectable leaks. The rule provides three control
device options, as follows: (1) Reduce the HAP content by 98 percent by
weight (or, for thermal oxidizers, to a level of 20 parts per million
volume [ppmv] of total HAP, corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry
basis); (2) reduce HAPs by using a properly operated design thermal
oxidizer (operated at a minimum temperature of 1,600 deg.F and a
minimum residence time of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by using a
boiler, lime kiln, or recovery

[[Page 18509]]

furnace that introduces all emission streams to be controlled with the
primary fuel or into the flame zone.
The kraft condensate standards apply to condensate streams
generated in the following kraft pulping processes: Digester system,
evaporator system, turpentine recovery system, LVHC collection system,
and the high volume-low concentration (HVLC) collection system. The HAP
mass loading in the condensates from these systems must be reduced by
92 percent, based upon performance of steam stripping. The NESHAP also
includes the following four alternative ways to meet the kraft
condensate standard: (1) Recycle applicable condensate streams to
process equipment that is controlled in accordance with the kraft
pulping standards; (2) reduce the concentration of HAP (measured as
methanol) in the condensate to 330 ppmw for kraft mills with bleaching
systems, or 210 ppmw for kraft mills without bleaching systems; (3)
remove at least 5.1 kilograms of HAP (measured as methanol) per
megagram of ODP produced for kraft mills with bleaching systems, or
remove at least 3.3 kilogram of HAP per megagram of ODP produced for
kraft mills without bleaching systems; or (4) discharge pulping process
condensates to a biological treatment system achieving at least 92
percent destruction of total HAP.
The pulping process condensates must be conveyed to the treatment
system in a closed collection system that is designed and operated to
meet the individual drain system requirements specified in
Secs. 63.960, 63.961, 63.962, and 63.964 of subpart RR. These
essentially require that the means of conveyance be leak-free. Air
emissions of HAP from vents on any condensate treatment systems (except
biological treatment systems) that are used to comply with the
standards must be routed to a control device meeting the kraft pulping
standards.
All the pulping process condensates from the LVHC and HVLC
collection systems must be treated. However, the facility has the
option of minimizing the condensate volume sent to treatment from the
digester system, turpentine recovery system, and weak liquor feed
stages in the evaporator system (i.e., condensate segregation). If
sufficient segregation is not achieved, then the entire volume of
condensate from the digester system, turpentine recovery system, and
weak liquor feed stages in the evaporator system and the LVHC and HVLC
collection systems must be treated.
Two options are provided in the rule for determining if sufficient
segregation has been achieved. The first option is to isolate at least
65 percent of the total HAP mass in the total of all condensates from
the digester system, turpentine recovery system, and weak liquor feed
stages in the evaporator system.
The second option requires that a minimum total HAP mass from the
high HAP-concentrated condensates from the digester system, turpentine
recovery system, and weak liquor feed stages in the evaporator system
and the LVHC and HVLC collection system condensates be sent to
treatment.
e. Clean Condensate Alternative Standards for Kraft Pulping. The
final rule provides an alternative compliance option to the kraft
pulping standards for subject equipment in the HVLC systems. This
alternative compliance option is referred to as the clean condensate
alternative (CCA). The CCA focuses on reducing the HAP concentration in
process water (such as from the digestion and liquor evaporation areas)
that is introduced into process equipment throughout the mill. By
reducing the amount of HAP in the process water, reductions in HAP
emissions will also be achieved since less HAP will be available to
volatilize off the process to the atmosphere. To demonstrate
compliance, the mass emission reduction of HAPs achieved by the
alternative technology must equal or exceed that which would have been
achieved by implementing the kraft pulping vent controls.
Eligibility for this compliance alternative is determined on a
case-by-case basis during the permitting process.
For purposes of developing a compliance strategy, sources may use
either emission test data or engineering assessment to determine the
baseline HAP emission reductions that would be achieved by complying
with the kraft pulping vent standard. To demonstrate that the
alternative technology complies with the emission reduction
requirements of the standards, emission test data must be used. Two
conditions must be met for a CCA compliance demonstration: (1) Owners
and operators that choose this alternative must first comply with
pulping process condensate standards before implementing the
alternative technology; and (2) the HAP emission reductions cannot
include reductions associated with any control equipment required by
local, state, or Federal agencies' regulations or statutes or with
emission reductions attributed to equipment installed prior to December
17, 1993 (i.e., the date of publication of the proposed rule).
For purposes of the CCA, the rule provides an alternative
definition of the affected source. The alternative definition allows
for the CCA to apply to process systems outside of the kraft pulping
system. The expanded source includes the causticizing system and the
papermaking system. The mill must specify the process equipment within
the expanded source with which to generate the required HAP emissions
reductions using the CCA. The mass emission reduction of HAPs must
equal or exceed the reduction that would have been achieved through
application of the kraft pulping vent standards. The final
determination of equivalency shall be made by the permitting authority
based on an evaluation of the HAP emission reductions.
f. Sulfite Pulping Standards. For existing sources, the sulfite
pulping standards apply to the digester system vents, evaporator system
vents, and the pulp washing system. The sulfite pulping standards also
apply to air emissions from the effluent from any equipment used to
reduce HAP emissions to comply with the standards (e.g., acid plant
scrubber and nuisance scrubber). For new sources, the sulfite pulping
standards apply to the equipment systems listed for existing sources,
plus weak liquor tanks, strong liquor storage tanks, and acid
condensate storage tanks.
Sources subject to the sulfite pulping standards for equipment
systems must enclose open process equipment and route all HAP emissions
through a closed-vent system to a control device. The closed-vent
system must be designed and operated with no detectable leaks. The
total HAP emissions from the equipment systems and from the effluent
from any control device used to reduce HAP emissions must meet a mass
emission limit or a percent reduction requirement. Calcium- and sodium-
based sulfite pulping mills must meet an emission limit of 0.44
kilograms of methanol per megagram of ODP or achieve a 92 percent
methanol reduction. Ammonium- and magnesium-based sulfite pulping mills
must meet an emission limit of 1.1 kilograms of methanol per megagram
of ODP limit or achieve an 87 percent methanol removal.
g. Semi-Chemical Pulping Standards. For existing sources, the semi-
chemical pulping standards apply to the LVHC vent system. For new
sources, semi-chemical pulping standards apply to the LVHC system and
the pulp washing system.
Sources subject to the semi-chemical pulping standards must enclose
open process equipment and route all emissions through a closed-vent
system

[[Page 18510]]

to a control device. Positive-pressure portions of the closed-vent
system must be designed and operated with no detectable leaks. The rule
provides three control device options, as follows: (1) Reduce the HAP
content by 98 percent by weight (or, for thermal oxidizers, to a level
of 20 ppmv of total HAP, corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry
basis); (2) reduce HAPs by using a properly operated thermal oxidizer
(operated at a minimum temperature of 1,600 deg.F and a minimum
residence time of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by using a boiler,
lime kiln, or recovery furnace that introduces all emission streams to
be controlled with the primary fuel or into the flame zone.
h. Soda Pulping Standards. For existing sources, the soda pulping
standards apply to the LVHC vent system. For new sources, the soda
pulping standards apply to the LVHC system and the pulp washing system.
Sources subject to the soda pulping standards must enclose open
process equipment and route all emissions through a closed-vent system
to a control device. Positive pressure portions of the closed-vent
system must be designed and operated with no detectable leaks. The rule
provides three control device options, as follows: (1) Reduce the HAP
content by 98 percent by weight (or, for thermal oxidizers, to a level
of 20 ppmv of total HAP, corrected to 10 percent oxygen on a dry
basis); (2) reduce HAPs by using a properly operated thermal oxidizer
(operated at a minimum temperature of 1,600 deg.F and a minimum
residence time of 0.75 seconds); or (3) reduce HAPs by using a boiler,
lime kiln, or recovery furnace that introduces all emission streams to
be controlled with the primary fuel or into the flame zone.
i. Bleaching System Standards. The bleaching provisions apply to
bleaching systems that use elemental chlorine to bleach pulp. At kraft,
sulfite, and soda pulping processes, the bleaching system provisions
also apply to bleaching systems that use chlorinated compounds to
bleach pulp. At mechanical pulping, non-wood fiber pulping, and
secondary fiber pulping mills, only bleaching systems that use
elemental chlorine or chlorine dioxide to bleach pulp are subject to
the NESHAP. Bleaching systems that do not use chlorine or chlorinated
compounds are considered to be in compliance with the bleaching system
requirements. For the applicable systems (i.e., bleaching or
brightening in the different subcategories), the chlorinated HAP
emissions from bleaching systems that use elemental chlorine or
chlorinated compounds must be controlled. Existing source and new
source requirements are the same.
Sources subject to the bleaching system standards must enclose
process equipment in the bleaching stages and route all emissions
through a closed-vent system to a control device that achieves either a
99 percent reduction of chlorinated HAP's (other than chloroform), an
outlet concentration at or below 10 ppmv total chlorinated HAP (other
than chloroform), or a mass emission limit at or below 0.001 kg of
total chlorinated HAP (other than chloroform) per Mg ODP produced.
Chlorine may be used as a surrogate for measuring total chlorinated
HAP. The closed-vent system must be designed and operated with no
detectable leaks.
With respect to chloroform emissions from bleaching systems, EPA is
closely correlating the air and water standards. This is because EPA is
relying on the same process change technology basis to control both
chloroform emissions to air and pollutant discharges to water. Thus,
MACT to control chloroform for bleaching systems requires a mill either
to meet the applicable baseline effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for all pollutants being promulgated today under the Clean
Water Act or to certify that chlorine and hypochlorite are not used in
the bleaching system.
However, EPA at present lacks sufficient information to establish
new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for dissolving grade
mills, and also lacks information to reliably ascertain what a MACT
standard for chloroform air emissions would be for this unit operation.
(It is not appropriate to set MACT standards for chloroform based on
the control technology in use today to comply with current effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for dissolving grade mills because
these technologies are at the wastewater treatment system, rather than
in the bleaching process where the chloroform-emitting vents are
located.) EPA intends to set new effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for dissolving grade mills after analyses currently underway
by EPA are complete, and is deferring establishing MACT standards for
chloroform until these effluent limitations guidelines and standards
are established. Therefore, dissolving grade mills will be required to
control chloroform air emissions three years after the new effluent
limitations guidelines and standards are promulgated.
In a related action, EPA is also deferring establishing MACT for
chlorinated HAPs other than chloroform from dissolving grade bleaching
operations until three years after promulgation of new effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for mills performing those
operations. The Agency is doing so in order to avoid imposition of CAA
requirements which would be inconsistent with, or superseded by,
forthcoming CWA regulations.
EPA is not aware of any control presently in place or any available
control technology for reducing chloroform air emissions at mechanical,
secondary fiber, and non-wood pulping mills. Therefore, MACT for
chloroform at these mills is no control. Today's water rule does not
set new effluent limitations guidelines and standards for control of
chloroform at mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-wood pulping mills,
but EPA will evaluate whether it is appropriate to do so at a later
time. At that time, EPA will also determine whether it is appropriate
to revise MACT (pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(6)) in order to control
chloroform emissions at those mills.
In addition, EPA is establishing MACT in two phases for bleach
plant emissions from existing source papergrade kraft and soda
bleaching plants which elect, under the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program, to control wastewater discharges to levels
surpassing the baseline BAT limitations being promulgated today under
the CWA. Phase one represents the present MACT floor for existing
sources, i.e., no backsliding from existing controls during the initial
period when a mill is working toward meeting its Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT requirements; phase two requires the mill either to meet
baseline BAT requirements for all pollutants for bleached papergrade
kraft and soda mills or to certify that chlorine and hypochlorite are
not used in the bleaching system. EPA is establishing MACT in two
phases in order to avoid discouraging plants from electing
environmentally superior levels of wastewater treatment represented by
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. These points are
discussed in detail in section VI.A.7.
j. Mechanical Pulping Mill, Secondary Fiber Pulping Mill, Non-wood
Pulping Mill, and Papermaking System Standards. Mechanical pulping
(groundwood, thermomechanical, pressurized) mills, secondary fiber
pulping mills, and non-wood pulping mills must comply with the
bleaching system standards described in section II.B.2.i. There are no
control requirements for pulping systems or process condensates at
these mills. For

[[Page 18511]]

papermaking systems, there are no control requirements.
k. Test Methods. The standards specify test methods and procedures
for demonstrating that process equipment and condensate streams are in
compliance with the MACT standards or are exempt from the rule. The
rule also includes provisions to test for no detectable leaks from
closed-vent systems. Because the majority of all non-chlorinated HAP
emissions from process equipment and in pulping process condensates is
methanol, in most cases the owner or operator has the option of
measuring methanol as a surrogate for total HAP. For demonstrating
compliance using biological treatment or the CCA, the owner or operator
must measure total HAP. To demonstrate compliance with the
concentration limit requirements, mass emission limit requirements, and
percent reduction requirements for bleaching systems, chlorine may be
measured as a surrogate for total chlorinated HAP emissions (other than
chloroform).
l. Monitoring Provisions. Sources subject to the NESHAP are
required to continuously monitor specific process or operating
parameters for control devices and collection systems. Continuous
emissions monitoring is not required, except as an alternative to
certain control requirements. Parameter values are to be established
during an initial performance test. Alternative monitoring parameters
must be demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction to comply with
the standards. As at proposal, excursions outside the selected
parameter values are violations except for biological treatment
systems. If a biological treatment system monitoring parameter is
outside the established range, a performance test must be performed.
The parameters that must be monitored for vent and condensate
compliance are explained below.
Mills using a thermal oxidizer must install, calibrate, maintain,
and operate a temperature monitoring device and continuous recorder to
measure the temperature in the firebox or in the ductwork immediately
downstream of the firebox before any substantial heat exchange occurs.
Mills using gas scrubbers at bleaching systems or sulfite processes
must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a device to monitor and
continuously record (1) pH or the oxidation/reduction potential of
scrubber effluent, (2) vent gas inlet flow rate, and (3) scrubber
liquid influent flow rate. As an alternative to monitoring these
parameters, mills complying with the bleaching system outlet
concentration option must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
device to monitor and continuously record the chlorine outlet
concentration. Mills complying with the bleaching system outlet mass
emission limit option must install, calibrate, maintain, and operate a
device to monitor and continuously record the chlorine outlet
concentration and the scrubber outlet vent gas flow. Bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills enrolling in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program in the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards portion of today's rule must monitor the application
rates of chlorine and hypochlorite to demonstrate that no increase in
chlorine or hypochlorite use occurs between June 15, 1998 and April 15,
2004.
Mills using steam strippers must install, calibrate, maintain, and
operate a device to monitor and continuously record process water feed
rate, steam feed rate, and process water feed temperature. As an
alternative to monitoring those parameters, mills complying with the
steam stripper outlet concentration option may install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate a device to monitor the methanol outlet
concentration. In addition to monitoring around the stream stripper,
mills that choose to treat a smaller, more concentrated volume of
condensate rather than the whole volume of subject condensates must
also continuously monitor the condensates to demonstrate that the
minimum mass or percent of total mass is being treated. This practice
is often referred to as condensate segregation. Mills complying with
the condensate segregation requirements shall install, calibrate,
maintain, and operate monitors for appropriate parameters as determined
during the initial performance test.
Mills using a biological treatment system to treat pulping process
condensates must monitor on a daily basis samples of outlet soluble
BOD5 concentration (maximum daily and monthly averages),
inlet liquid flow, mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS),
liquid temperature, and the horsepower of aerator units. Additionally,
inlet and outlet grab samples from each biological treatment system
unit must be collected and stored for 5 days. These samples must be
collected and stored since some of the monitoring parameters (e.g.,
soluble BOD5) cannot be determined within a short period of
time. These samples are to be used in conjunction with the WATER8
emissions model to demonstrate compliance if the soluble
BOD5, MLVSS, or the aerator horsepower monitoring parameters
fall outside the range established during the initial performance test.
Monitoring requirements for the pulping process condensate
collection systems include initial and monthly visual inspections of
individual drain system components and vent control devices (if used),
and repair of defects. Additionally, inspection and monitoring
requirements from Sec. 63.964 of subpart RR (National Emission
Standards for Individual Drain Systems) are incorporated in the final
rule. Monitoring requirements for vent collection systems are (1) a
visual inspection of the closed-vent system and enclosure opening seals
initially and every 30 days, (2) demonstration of no detectable leaks
initially and annually for positive pressure systems or portions of
systems, and (3) repair of defects and leaks as soon as practical.
For the CCA, EPA is not specifying the parameters to be monitored
in the final rule since the types of equipment that would be used in
the CCA are not known at this time. Consequently, the final rule
specifies that owners or operators choosing to use the CCA must conduct
an initial performance test to determine the appropriate parameters and
corresponding parameter values to be monitored continuously. Rationale
for the parameter selection must also be provided for the
Administrator's approval.
m. Reporting and Recordkeeping Provisions. Sources subject to the
NESHAP are required to comply with recordkeeping and reporting
provisions in the part 63 General Provisions, and other specified
requirements in the NESHAP.
Sources subject to the rule are required to keep readily accessible
records of monitored parameters. The monitoring records must be
maintained for five years (two years on-site, three years off-site).
For each enclosure opening, closed-vent system, and pulping process
condensate storage tank, the owner or operator must record the
equipment type and identification; results of negative pressure tests
and leak detection tests; and specific information on the nature of the
defect and repairs. The position of bypass line valves, the condition
of valve seals, and the duration of the use of bypass valves on
computer controlled valves must also be recorded.
Sources subject to the NESHAP are required to submit the following
types of reports: (1) Initial Notification, (2) Notification of
Performance Tests, (3) Exceedance Reports, and (4) Semi-annual Summary
Reports. Exceedance and summary reports are not required

[[Page 18512]]

for emission points that are exempt from the rule. Kraft mills must
also submit, initially and bi-annually, a non-binding compliance
strategy report for pulping sources electing to comply with the eight-
year compliance extension (including the CCA) and for bleaching sources
at bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills electing to comply with the
Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT requirements. The compliance strategy
report must contain, among other information, a description of the
emission controls or process modifications selected for compliance and
a compliance schedule indicating when each step toward compliance will
be reached. For mills complying with the CCA, the report must contain a
description of alternative control technology used, identify each piece
of equipment affected by the alternative technology, and estimate total
HAP emissions and emission reductions.

C. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

1. Subcategorization and Schedule
EPA is replacing the subcategorization scheme under the former
effluent limitations guidelines for this industry (in 40 CFR parts 430
and 431) with a revised subcategorization scheme. EPA is redesignating
the Builders' Paper and Roofing Felt category, formerly regulated in 40
CFR part 431, to a subcategory in part 430. This eliminates CFR part
431. The Agency is also redesignating the previous subpart numbers and
section numbers, which are shown in Table II-2.
EPA is making no substantive changes to the limitations and
standards for any newly redesignated subcategory except for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory (new subpart B) and the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory (new subpart E). The rationale for
changing the existing subcategorization scheme is discussed in the
proposal (58 FR at 66098-66100), the Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper and
Paperboard Point Source Category, also referred to as the proposal
Technical Development Document (EPA 821-R93-019), and EPA's response to
comments on this issue (DCN 14497, Vol. 1).
Although the Agency is codifying the revised subcategorization
scheme for the whole industry today, EPA will promulgate revised
effluent limitations guidelines and standards, as appropriate, for this
industrial category in stages consisting of several subcategories at a
time. The Agency has labeled these groupings of subcategories as
``Phase I,'' ``Phase II,'' and ``Phase III.'' The schedule for these
phases is explained below and in the following table.

Table II-2.--Final Codified Subcategorization Scheme (With Previous Subparts Noted) and Schedule for
Promulgating Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards (by Phase)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of facilities covered including Promulgation
Final codified subpart Final subcategorization previous subcategories (with previous 40 schedule
scheme CFR part 430 subparts noted) (phase)*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A....................... Dissolving Kraft........ Dissolving Kraft (F)....................... III
B....................... Bleached Papergrade Market Bleached Kraft (G), BCT Bleached I **
Kraft and Soda. Kraft (H), Fine Bleached Kraft (I), Soda
(P).
C....................... Unbleached Kraft........ Unbleached Kraft (A)....................... II
Linerboard
Bag and Other Products
Unbleached Kraft and Semi-Chemical (D, V)
D....................... Dissolving Sulfite...... Dissolving Sulfite (K)..................... III
Nitration
Viscose
Cellophane
Acetate
E....................... Papergrade Sulfite...... Papergrade Sulfite (J, U).................. I **
Calcium-, Magnesium-, Blow Pit Wash
and Sodium-based pulps. Drum Wash
Ammonium-based pulps..
Specialty grade pulps.
F....................... Semi-Chemical........... Semi-Chemical (B).......................... II
Ammonia
Sodium
G....................... Mechanical Pulp......... Groundwood-Thermo-Mechanical (M), II
Groundwood-Coarse, Molded, News (N),
Groundwood-Fine Papers (O), Groundwood-
Chemi-Mechanical (L).
H....................... Non-Wood Chemical Pulp.. Miscellaneous mills not covered by a II
specific subpart.
I....................... Secondary Fiber Deink... Deink Secondary Fiber (Q).................. II
Fine Papers
Tissue Papers
Newsprint
J....................... Secondary Fiber Non- Tissue from Wastepaper (T), Paperboard from II
Deink. Wastepaper (E).
Corrugating Medium
Non-Corrugating Medium
Wastepaper-Molded Products (W)
Builders' Paper and Roofing Felt (40 CFR
Part 431, Subpart A)
K....................... Fine and Lightweight Non integrated Fine Papers (R)............. II
Papers from Purchased Wood Fiber Furnish
Pulp. Cotton Fiber Furnish
Nonintegrated Lightweight Papers (X)
Lightweight Papers
Lightweight Electrical Papers

[[Page 18513]]

L....................... Tissue, Filter, Non- Non integrated............................. II
Woven, and Paperboard Tissue Papers (S)
from Purchased Pulp. Filter and Non-Woven (Y)
Paperboard (Z)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Phase I: Promulgation today; Phases II and III: Promulgation dates to be determined.
** Certain parameter limits to be promulgated as part of Phase II.

a. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and Papergrade
Sulfite Subcategory (subparts B and E). Under the consent decree
entered in the case Environmental Defense Fund and National Wildlife
Federation v. Thomas, Civ. No. 85-0973 (D.D.C.), and subsequently
amended, EPA was required to use its best efforts to promulgate
regulations addressing discharges of dioxins and furans from 104
bleaching pulp mills by June 17, 1995. Despite making its best efforts,
EPA was not able to promulgate final effluent limitations guidelines
and standards applicable to those mills by that date. However, in
today's rule, EPA is promulgating effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory (subpart B) and the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory (subpart
E), thereby addressing discharges from 96 of the mills covered by the
consent decree. Regulating the discharge of dioxins and furans from the
mills in the dissolving kraft and dissolving sulfite subcategories
remains a very high priority; as discussed in more detail below, EPA
will promulgate effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
discharges of dioxins and furans from those mills as soon as possible.
b. Dissolving Kraft Subcategory and Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory
(subparts A and D). EPA is evaluating comments and preliminary new data
received since proposal affecting the Dissolving Kraft and Dissolving
Sulfite subcategories. The Agency anticipates that the final effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for these subcategories will be
based on different technologies than those that served as the basis for
the proposed limitations and standards. For example, EPA has received
data suggesting that oxygen delignification is not a feasible process
for making some dissolving pulp products, particularly high grade
products. In addition, some use of hypochlorite appears to be necessary
to maintain product quality for some products. Affected companies have
undertaken laboratory studies and mill trials to develop alternative
bleaching processes and to document the effects on wastewater and air
emissions. The Agency expects to receive data on these studies and
trials as the companies' efforts progress.
Because EPA's record presently is incomplete, EPA is not
promulgating final effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
these subcategories now. Even in the absence of these limitations and
standards, however, EPA anticipates that alternative bleaching
processes developed as a result of these studies and trials should
contribute to substantial reductions in the generation and release of
pollutants, when compared to current operating practices. Among the
pollutants EPA expects to be reduced are dioxin, furan, and chlorinated
phenolic pollutants at levels comparable to those achieved by subpart B
mills. The Agency also expects to see significant reductions in AOX and
chloroform. EPA encourages mills in these subcategories to
expeditiously complete developmental work that will facilitate
installation of alternative process technologies that achieve these
pollution prevention goals.
As defined today, the Dissolving Sulfite subcategory (subpart D)
applies to discharges from dissolving sulfite mills, including mills
that manufacture dissolving grade sulfite pulps and papergrade sulfite
pulps at the same site. See 40 CFR 430.40. This definition is based on
EPA's analysis of data collected in the ``1990 National Census of Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Facilities.'' Data from the survey
indicate that most sulfite mills that produce dissolving grade pulp do
so at a very high percentage (typically greater than 85 percent) of
their total pulp output. It has come to EPA's attention, however, that
some specialty grade papergrade sulfite mills now have the capability
to produce low percentages of dissolving grade pulp. EPA does not
intend for these mills to be regulated under subpart D; rather, they
are specialty grade sulfite mills within the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory (subpart E).
c. Schedule for the Remaining Subcategories. EPA is assessing
comments and data received since proposal for the remaining eight
subcategories. These eight subcategories are: (1) Unbleached Kraft; (2)
Semi-Chemical; (3) Mechanical Pulp; (4) Non-Wood Chemical Pulp; (5)
Secondary Fiber Deink; (6) Secondary Fiber Non-Deink; (7) Fine and
Lightweight Papers from Purchased Pulp; and (8) Tissue, Filter, Non-
Woven, and Paperboard from Purchased Pulp. For example, EPA has
received additional information from an industry-sponsored survey of
secondary fiber non-deink mills. The Agency also has received
additional data from mills in other subcategories, including semi-
chemical, unbleached kraft, and secondary fiber deink. EPA plans to
promulgate effluent limitations guidelines and standards for these
subcategories in the near future. It should be noted that air emission
standards are being promulgated today for these subcategories.
2. Best Practicable Control Technology Currently Available (BPT) and
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT) for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite
Subcategory
Although the Agency has the statutory authority to revise BPT
effluent limitations guidelines, the Agency is exercising its
discretion not to revise BPT for Subparts B and E at this time. In
addition, none of the technologies that EPA evaluated for the purpose
of setting more stringent effluent limitations for the conventional
pollutants biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5) and total
suspended solids (TSS) passed the BCT cost test for either subcategory.
Therefore, EPA is not revising BCT effluent limitations guidelines for
Subparts B and E in this rulemaking.

[[Page 18514]]

3. Final Regulations for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory (Subpart B)
a. Pollutants Regulated. In this rule, EPA is promulgating effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for 2,3,7,8-TCDD (``dioxin''),
2,3,7,8-TCDF (``furan''), 12 specific chlorinated phenolic pollutants,
the volatile organic pollutant, chloroform, and adsorbable organic
halides (AOX). EPA is also promulgating new source performance
standards for BOD5 and TSS. As explained in section VI.B.3
below, the Agency is not promulgating effluent limitations guidelines
and standards for chemical oxygen demand (COD) at this time. EPA is
also not promulgating effluent limitations guidelines and standards for
methylene chloride, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), acetone, or color. See
Section VI.B.3.
b. Best Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT). After
re-evaluating technologies for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda subcategory, EPA has determined that the model technology for
effluent limitations based on best available technology economically
achievable (BAT) should be complete (100 percent) substitution of
chlorine dioxide for chlorine as the key process technology, along with
other in-process technologies and existing end-of-pipe biological
treatment technologies. See Section VI.B.5.a.
c. New Source Performance Standards. The Agency has determined that
the technology basis defining new source performance standards (NSPS)
for toxics and non-conventional pollutants is the BAT model technology
with the addition of oxygen delignification and/or extended cooking.
See Section VI.B.5.b. EPA is also promulgating NSPS for the
conventional pollutants BOD5 and TSS.
As discussed elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA also is
soliciting comment and intends to gather additional data with respect
to totally chlorine-free processes that may be available for the full
range of market products. EPA will determine whether to propose
revisions to NSPS based upon TCF and, if appropriate, flow reduction
technologies.
In this rule, NSPS are effective June 15, 1998. A source is a new
source if it meets the definition of new source in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and
if it commences construction after that date.
d. Pretreatment Standards. The Agency is promulgating pretreatment
standards for existing sources (PSES) based on the BAT model
technology, excluding biological treatment. EPA is promulgating
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) based on the model
technology for NSPS, excluding secondary biological treatment. A source
is a new source for purposes of PSNS if it meets the definition of new
source in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and if it commences construction after the
date of proposal, i.e., December 17, 1993. However, a new indirect
discharger is not required to meet PSNS for subpart B until those
standards become effective, i.e., June 15, 1998.
e. Voluntary Incentives Program Based on Advanced Technology. As
noted earlier in this notice, EPA's vision of long-term environmental
goals for the pulp and paper industry includes continuing research and
progress toward environmental improvement. EPA recognizes that
technologies exist, or are currently under development at some mills,
that have the ability to surpass the environmental protection that
would be provided by compliance with the baseline BAT effluent
limitations guidelines and NSPS promulgated today. The Agency believes
that individual mills could be encouraged to explore and install these
advanced technologies. Accordingly, EPA is establishing a Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program for direct discharging mills in
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. This program is
discussed in Section IX.
4. Final Regulations for the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory (Subpart E)
a. Segmentation of Subpart E and Best Available Technology
Economically Achievable (BAT). After assessing comments and data
received after the proposal, EPA is segmenting the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory to account for production of specialty grade pulps and the
applicability of technologies to ammonium-based pulping processes.
The Agency is segmenting this subcategory and establishing BAT
technology bases set forth below. (EPA has established the same
segments for new source performance standards and pretreatment
standards for subpart E.)
(1) For production of pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills
using an acidic cooking liquor of calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite
(unless the mill is a specialty grade sulfite mill), the BAT technology
basis is totally chlorine-free bleaching. EPA is promulgating
limitations for AOX for this segment. See Section VI.B.6.b.
(2) For production of pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills
using an acidic cooking liquor of ammonium sulfite (unless the mill is
a specialty grade sulfite mill), the BAT technology bases for this
segment are elemental chlorine-free (ECF) technologies (complete
substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine, peroxide
enhanced extraction, and elimination of hypochlorite) and biological
wastewater treatment. EPA is promulgating effluent limitations for
dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants for this segment,
but is reserving promulgation of chloroform, AOX, and COD limitations
until sufficient performance data are available. See Section VI.B.6.b.
(3) For production of pulp and paper at specialty grade sulfite
mills, the BAT technology bases for this segment are ECF technologies
(complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine,
oxygen and peroxide enhanced extraction, and elimination of
hypochlorite) and biological wastewater treatment. EPA is promulgating
effluent limitations for dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated phenolic
pollutants for this segment, but is reserving promulgation of
chloroform, AOX, and COD limitations for this segment until sufficient
performance data are available. See Section VI.B.6.b.
b. New Source Performance Standards. For each segment identified
above, EPA is establishing NSPS based on the model BAT technologies
selected for the particular segment. The pollutants are the same as
those regulated by BAT for the applicable segment. EPA is also
exercising its discretion not to revise NSPS for BOD5, TSS,
and pH. See Section VI.B.6.c.
c. Pretreatment Standards. The Agency is promulgating pretreatment
standards for the segments identified above. The pretreatment standards
for existing sources (PSES) control the same pollutants controlled by
BAT for the particular segment. EPA is promulgating pretreatment
standards for new sources (PSNS) for the same toxic and nonconventional
pollutants controlled by NSPS for the particular segment. A source is a
new source for purposes of PSNS if it meets the definition of new
source in 40 CFR 430.01(j) and if it commences construction after the
date of proposal, i.e., December 17, 1993. However, a new indirect
discharger is not required to meet PSNS for subpart E until those
standards become effective, i.e., June 15, 1998. The technology bases
for PSES and PSNS for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are the same
as those chosen for the particular segments at the BAT and NSPS levels,
respectively, excluding secondary biological treatment. For the
ammonium-based and specialty grade segments, EPA is deferring making a
pass-through determination, and hence,

[[Page 18515]]

promulgating pretreatment standards, for chloroform and AOX until it
has sufficient performance data to set limitations and standards for
those parameters. EPA is promulgating pretreatment standards for AOX
for the calcium-, magnesium-, and sodium-based sulfite segment. EPA has
made no pass-through determination at this time for COD for any
segment. More details are described below in section VI.B.6.d.
5. Best Management Practices for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
EPA is codifying best management practices (BMPs) applicable to
direct-and indirect-discharging mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. In response to comments,
EPA changed the scope of the BMPs to focus on spent pulping liquor,
turpentine, and soap control and to allow for more flexibility in
implementation. See Section VI.B.7.

III. Background

A. Prior Regulations, Proposal, Notices of Data Availability, and
Public Participation

The regulations that EPA developed for the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry prior to this date are discussed in the proposal.
See 58 FR at 66089-92.
In a Federal Register notice published on December 17, 1993 (58 FR
66078), EPA proposed integrated air and water rules that included
proposed limitations and standards to reduce the discharge of toxic,
conventional, and nonconventional pollutants in wastewaters and to
reduce emissions of hazardous air pollutants from the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry. These proposed integrated regulations subsequently
became known as ``the Cluster Rules.'' EPA held a public hearing in
Washington, D.C., on February 10, 1994, to provide interested persons
the opportunity for oral presentation of data, views, or arguments
concerning the proposed pretreatment standards. On March 17, 1994 (59
FR 12567), EPA published a correction notice to the proposed rules and
extended the comment period to April 18, 1994.
In the preamble to the proposed rules, EPA solicited data on
various issues and questions related to the proposed effluent
limitations guidelines and standards and air emissions standards. The
Agency received and added new material to the Air and Water Dockets. In
a notice of data availability published on February 22, 1995 (60 FR
9813), EPA announced the availability of new data related to the
proposed air emissions standards. Those new data are located in Air
Docket A-92-40.
In a second notice of data availability published on July 5, 1995
(60 FR 34938), EPA announced the availability of new information and
data related to the proposed effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. Those new data are located starting at Section 18.0 of the
Post-Proposal Rulemaking Record, which is a continuation of the
proposal record. The Post-Proposal Rulemaking Record is located in the
Water Docket. EPA did not solicit comment on the new air and water data
in either notice.
On March 8, 1996, EPA published a Federal Register notice
pertaining to the air portions of the proposed rules and announced the
availability of supplemental information (61 FR 9383). The comment
period for that notice closed on April 8, 1996. EPA also proposed MACT
standards for mechanical pulping mills, secondary fiber pulping
(deinked and non-deinked) mills, and non-wood mills, and asked for
additional information on these mills. Furthermore, EPA announced that
it was continuing to investigate paper machines and that no MACT
standard for paper machines was being proposed at the time. EPA
acknowledged an industry testing program was underway; EPA also
acknowledged its request to States for data on non-wood pulping mills.
EPA requested additional data on HAP emissions from, and control
technologies for, paper machines to supplement information previously
collected under the MACT process.
On July 15, 1996, the Agency published a Federal Register notice
announcing the Agency's thinking, based on preliminary evaluation of
the supplemented record and stakeholder discussions, regarding the
technology options being considered as a basis for final effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the proposed Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories (61 FR
36835). Data were added to the record and comments were solicited from
interested parties. The comment period for that notice closed on August
14, 1996.
The Agency has held numerous meetings on these proposed integrated
rules with many pulp and paper industry stakeholders, including a trade
association (American Forest and Paper Association, or AF&PA), numerous
individual companies, environmental groups, States, laboratories,
consultants and vendors, labor unions, and other interested parties.
EPA has added materials to the Air and Water Dockets to document these
meetings.

B. Clean Air Act Statutory Authority

Section 112(b) of the CAA lists 189 HAPs and directs EPA to develop
rules to control all major and some area sources emitting HAPs. Major
sources are facilities that emit 10 tons of any single HAP or 25 tons
of total HAPs annually. On July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576), EPA published a
list of major and area sources for which NESHAP are to be promulgated.
The goal of NESHAP is to require the implementation of maximum
achievable control technology (MACT) to reduce emissions and,
therefore, reduce public health hazards from pollutants emitted from
stationary sources. Pulp and paper production was listed as a category
of major sources. On December 3, 1993 (58 FR 83941), EPA published a
schedule for promulgating standards for the listed major and area
sources. Standards for the pulp and paper source category were
scheduled for promulgation by November 1997.
NESHAP established under section 112 of the Act reflect MACT or:

* * * the maximum degree of reduction in emissions of the [HAP] * *
* that the Administrator, taking into consideration the cost of
achieving such emission reduction, and any nonair quality health and
environmental impacts and energy requirements, determines is
achievable for new or existing sources in the category or
subcategory to which such emission standard applies * * * (See CAA
section 112(d)(2)).

C. Clean Water Act Statutory Authority

The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to ``restore and
maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters.'' CWA Section 101(a). To assist in achieving this
objective, EPA issues effluent limitations guidelines, pretreatment
standards, and new source performance standards for industrial
dischargers. The statutory requirements of these guidelines and
standards are summarized in the proposal. See 58 FR at 66088-89.

D. Other EPA Activities Concerning the Pulp and Paper Industry

1. Land Disposal Restrictions Activities
At the time of proposal, it appeared that many of the surface
impoundments used for wastewater treatment in the pulp and paper
industry might become subject to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulation under the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) program.
See 58 FR at 66091. This program establishes treatment standards that
hazardous wastes must meet before

[[Page 18516]]

they can be land disposed--placement in surface impoundments being a
type of land disposal. This requirement extends not only to wastes that
are identified or listed as hazardous under the RCRA rules when they
are land disposed, but also to wastes that are hazardous when
generated, cease to be hazardous as a result of dilution, and are then
disposed. Chemical Waste Management v. EPA, 976 F.2d 2 (D.C. Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 1057 (1993).
The pulp and paper industry has many mills that fit this pattern:
Numerous wastewater streams are generated, some of them exhibit a
characteristic of hazardous waste (corrosivity or toxicity in
particular), the streams are commingled before centralized wastewater
treatment occurs, and, in the course of commingling, the wastes no
longer exhibit the characteristic, and the commingled wastewaters are
then treated in a surface impoundment. EPA actually took action to
temporarily defer applying LDR rules to this type of situation in the
pulp and paper industry in order to allow unhindered promulgation of
these Cluster Rules. See 61 FR at 15660, 15574 (April 8, 1996).
This issue, however, is now moot, at least for the time being. As
discussed in the April 8, 1996, notice partially withdrawing the LDR
Phase III final rule, 61 FR 15660, the Land Disposal Program
Flexibility Act of 1996 provides, among other things, that RCRA
characteristic wastewaters are no longer prohibited from land disposal
once they are rendered nonhazardous, provided that they are managed in
either a treatment system whose ultimate discharge is regulated under
the CWA (including both direct and indirect dischargers), a CWA-
equivalent treatment system, or a Class I nonhazardous injection well
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Under the Land Disposal
Program Flexibility Act of 1996, the LDR treatment standards for RCRA
characteristic wastes in the pulp and paper industry (or any other
industry) do not apply if the characteristic is removed and the wastes
are subsequently treated in a surface impoundment that is part of a
wastewater treatment system whose ultimate discharge is regulated by
the CWA, or if a mill's treatment system provides wastewater treatment
that is CWA-equivalent.
It should be noted that the Act requires EPA to undertake a five-
year study to determine any potential risks posed by cross-media
transfer of hazardous constituents from surface impoundments that
accept these ``de-characterized'' wastes and warrant RCRA regulation.
The findings of this study, begun by the Agency in April 1996, could
eventually result in RCRA regulations for these units.
2. Land Application of Sludges
Under the Consent Decree entered in the case Environmental Defense
Fund and National Wildlife Federation v. Thomas, Civ. No. 85-0973
(D.D.C.), EPA was required to propose rules under section 6 of the
Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to regulate the use of sludge
produced from the treatment of wastewater effluent of pulp and paper
mills using chlorine and chlorine-derivative bleaching processes (56 FR
21802; Docket OPTS-62100). EPA published the proposed rules on May 10,
1991. The proposed regulations sought to establish a final maximum
dioxin and furan soil concentration of ten parts per trillion (ppt)
toxic equivalents (TEQ) and site management practices for the land
application of bleached kraft and sulfite mill sludge. EPA originally
planned to promulgate the rule by November 1992.
On December 11, 1992, EPA informed the plaintiffs of the Consent
Decree that the decision on the promulgation of the proposed sludge
land application rule was deferred pending promulgation of the
integrated rulemaking for effluent limitations guidelines and standards
and national emission standards. EPA reasoned that the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards and air emissions standards would
have the potential to result in bleach plant process changes that EPA
expected would result in reduced dioxin and furan contamination levels
in sludge. In addition, EPA was awaiting the results of its dioxin
reassessment activities.
In light of the anticipated impact of the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards and air emissions standards on reducing dioxin
in pulp and paper mill sludges, as well as reduction in sludge dioxin
levels from industry-initiated improvements, EPA chose to defer the
decision on promulgation of the final sludge land application rule.
When EPA has determined the final impact of today's effluent
limitations guidelines and standards on sludge dioxin concentration,
EPA will re-evaluate the risk from sludge land application and will
choose the appropriate regulatory or non-regulatory mechanism to
address the situation.
Prior to that determination, however, EPA has taken action to
achieve risk reduction for situations where sludge is being applied to
land.
While awaiting completion of the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards, air emission standards and the dioxin reassessment, EPA
has promoted the establishment of an industry environmental stewardship
program for the practice of sludge land application.
3. Hazardous Listing Determination
Under the consent decree entered in the case of Environmental
Defense Fund v. Browner, Civ. No. 89-0598 (D.D.C.), ``EPA shall
promulgate a listing determination for sludges from pulp and paper mill
effluent on or before the date 24 months after promulgation of an
effluent guideline regulation under the Clean Water Act for pulp and
paper mills. This listing determination shall be proposed for public
comment on or before the date 12 months after promulgation of such
effluent guideline regulation. However, EPA shall not be required to
propose or promulgate such a listing determination if the final rule
for the pending effluent guideline rulemaking (amending 40 CFR part
430) under the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of dioxins
from pulp and paper mills is based on the use of oxygen
delignification, ozone bleaching, prenox bleaching, enzymatic
bleaching, hydrogen peroxide bleaching, oxygen and peroxide enhanced
extraction, or any other technology involving substantially similar
reductions in uses of chlorine-containing compounds. If EPA concludes
that the final effluent guideline regulation is based on use of such a
process and that, as a result, no listing determination is required,
EPA shall so inform plaintiff in writing within 30 days of the
promulgation of the effluent guideline regulation.''
At this time, EPA is assessing whether the technology bases for the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today would
fulfill the condition described in the Consent Decree. If so, the
Agency would conclude that a listing determination is not warranted. If
EPA concludes it does not fulfill the condition, a listing
determination would be conducted.
4. Dioxin Reassessment
In the spring of 1991, EPA initiated an effort to reassess the
scientific bases for estimating dioxin risk. The activities associated
with the dioxin reassessment before proposal are described in the
proposal. See 58 FR at 66092-93. After the proposal, in September 1994,
EPA published a public review draft of this effort, which is commonly
referred to as the EPA Dioxin Reassessment. The draft reassessment
addressed not only the health effects of dioxin-like chemicals

[[Page 18517]]

but also dioxin sources and pathways for human exposure. Since the
draft documents were released, EPA received thousands of pages of
public comments. EPA submitted the documents to formal peer review by
the EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB). The SAB was supportive of the
overall reassessment effort and endorsed the major conclusions of the
exposure document and chapters one through seven of the health
document. They did, however, believe that additional work was needed on
the dose-response modeling chapter and the risk characterization
chapter.
The reassessment is currently being revised and updated in response
to public comments. The two chapters singled out by the SAB are being
revised by specially established panels composed of scientists from
both inside and outside the Agency. Once the work of the special panels
is completed these two revised chapters will be examined by peer review
panels, and then resubmitted to the SAB for final review. EPA currently
anticipates completion and release of the dioxin reassessment in the
spring of 1998.
5. Clean Water Act Section 307(a) Petition
On September 14, 1993, the Natural Resources Defense Council and
the Natural Resources Council of Maine filed with EPA on behalf of 57
individuals and environmental groups a petition to prohibit the
discharge of dioxin by pulp and paper mills. The petitioners ask EPA to
accomplish this prohibition by prohibiting the use of chlorine and
chlorine-containing compounds as inputs in the manufacturing process.
The petitioners believe that the prohibition is warranted by the
dangers to human health and the environment posed by dioxin. The
petitioners invoke CWA section 307(a)(2) for authority for such a
prohibition.
Authority for the petition and requested prohibition derives from a
different section of the Clean Water Act than today's technology-based
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. However, because the
petition raised many issues related to the effluent guidelines
rulemaking, EPA solicited comment on the issues raised in the petition
at the time it proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards
for the pulp and paper industry. See 58 FR at 66174. EPA received
thousands of pages of comments and expects to issue a decision granting
or denying the petition after completion of the dioxin reassessment.
6. Cooling Tower Intake Assessment
EPA is developing regulations under section 316(b) of the Clean
Water Act, which provides that any standard established pursuant to
Section 301 or 306 and applicable to a point source shall require that
the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water
intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing
adverse environmental impact. Section 316(b) applies only to the intake
of water, not the discharge. A primary goal of the regulation that EPA
is developing would be to minimize the destruction of fish and other
aquatic organisms as they are drawn into an industrial facility's water
intake. EPA plans to conduct screening level and detailed surveys to
estimate the number and type of facilities that utilize cooling water
intake structures and thus are within the scope of Section 316(b). The
pulp and paper industry uses a significant amount of cooling water. EPA
intends to gather data on pulp and paper facilities during the Section
316(b) rulemaking through questionnaires and site visits. The Section
316(b) regulation is scheduled for proposal in 1999 with the final rule
due in 2001.

IV. Changes in the Industry Since Proposal

A description of the pulp and paper industry, including
manufacturing processes, pulping processes, bleaching processes, and
papermaking is included in the proposal. See 58 FR at 66095-96.
The proposed water regulation encompassed the entire pulp and paper
industry of approximately 500 facilities. The proposed air regulations
(MACT I and MACT III) covered approximately the same number. Under
today's action, approximately 490 mills will be covered by the final
MACT I and MACT III rules. Of these mills, 155 will be affected by MACT
standards for mills that chemically pulp wood. A subset of these
mills--96 mills--will be covered by the final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated today.
Since the proposal, some facilities have modified their processes.
There has been a substantial move toward elemental chlorine-free (ECF)
bleaching, and mills are continuing to increase their substitution of
chlorine dioxide for chlorine. Additionally, more mills are utilizing
oxygen delignification and extended cooking than at proposal. All these
developments result in decreased discharges of dioxins and furans to
receiving waters.
The U.S. pulp and paper industry's involvement with totally
chlorine-free (TCF) bleaching has not changed substantially since
proposal. As was the case at the time of proposal, only one U.S. mill
produces TCF kraft pulp; however, this mill is now able to attain
higher brightness than was achieved at the time of the proposal.
The number of companies in the industry is constantly changing as
new companies enter the market and other companies leave the industry
or merge with other companies. In the subcategories now designated as
Subparts B and E, only one mill has closed since proposal and one has
changed subcategories. No new Subpart B or E mills have commenced
construction since the time of proposal.
For more details on the technology status of mills covered by the
final Cluster Rules, see the ``Supplemental Technical Development
Document,'' DCN 14487.

V. Summary of Data Gathering Activities Since Proposal

A. Data Gathering for the Development of Air Emissions Standards

To develop today's standards, extensive data collection and
technical analyses were conducted. Prior to proposal, EPA used
information in a 1990 census of pulp and paper mills, a 1992 voluntary
mill survey, an EPA sampling program, site visits at a number of mills,
and a review of State and local regulations to obtain information on
emissions, emission control technologies, and emission control costs
for pulp and paper mill emission points. After proposal, EPA obtained
additional information from the industry. This information included
test reports from a variety of testing programs, as well as numerous
reports, studies, and memoranda on other issues related to the
development of emission control requirements. The information collected
before and after proposal was used as the technical basis in
determining the MACT level of control.
EPA also used information on pulp and paper mill production
processes available in the general literature and information on
control technology performance and cost information developed under
other EPA standards to determine MACT.
Industry commenters indicated that they would be completing a
comprehensive emission testing program after proposal, and EPA
considered this information to be vital to the development of the final
regulation. Therefore, EPA agreed to consider the new data and issued
two notices of availability of supplemental information on February 22,
1995 (60 FR 9813) and March 8, 1996 (61 FR

[[Page 18518]]

9383) announcing the information and offering the likely implications
to the final rule. The opportunity for a public hearing was offered on
the March 8, 1996 action, but no request for a hearing was received.
Public comments on the March 8, 1996 action were accepted from March 8,
1996 to April 8, 1996. Commenters included industry representatives,
States, environmental organizations, and other members of the public.
In the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice, EPA solicited additional
data and comments on proposed changes to the December 17, 1993 proposed
rule.
Data added to Air Docket A-92-40 since the March 8, 1996
supplemental notice are located in section IV of this docket. These
items include additional information on sulfite mills (IV-D1-98, IV-D1-
100), comments on definitions (IV-D1-97, IV-D1-99, IV-D1-104), comments
on the emission factor document (IV-D1-102), clarification of the 1992
MACT survey responses (IV-D1-101), and other information.

B. Data Gathering for the Development of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards

EPA has gathered a substantial amount of new information and data
since proposal in connection with today's water regulations. Much of
this information was collected with the cooperation and support of the
American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA) and the National Council
of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), and with
the assistance of many individual mills in the United States.
Additional information also has been submitted by environmental groups.
EPA has gathered additional information from pulp and paper mills
outside of the United States, primarily in Canada and Europe.
Some of the new information and data were generated through EPA-
sponsored field sampling or visits at individual mills in the United
States, Canada, and Europe. Additional sampling data were voluntarily
supplied by many facilities, and information from laboratory and pilot-
scale studies was shared with the Agency. In order to clarify comments
on the proposal, the Agency also gathered information from several
surveys administered by AF&PA and NCASI, including data on secondary
fiber mill processes, recovery furnace capacities, best management
practices, capital and operating costs, process operations, and impacts
of technology on the recovery cycle.
The data gathering activities for this final rule are summarized in
detail in the proposal, see 58 FR at 66096, and in the July 15, 1996,
notice of data availability, see 61 FR at 36837.

VI. Summary of the Major Changes Since Proposal and Rationale for
the Selection of the Final Regulations

A. Air Emission Standards

At proposal, the standards for mills that chemically pulp wood were
based on the MACT floor control level. A uniform set of requirements
would have applied to all mills that chemically pulp wood using the
kraft, sulfite, soda, or semi-chemical process. The proposed standards
would have required that, with the exception of some with very low
volumetric and mass flow rates, all emission points in the pulping and
bleaching area of these mills be controlled. The proposed standards
also would have required that all wastewater streams produced in the
pulping area of the mill be controlled except for those with a
specified low concentration of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The
proposed control technology basis was to enclose any open process
equipment in the pulping and bleaching areas and route all vents and
pulping wastewater to a control device. The proposed control technology
basis was combustion for pulping area vent sources, scrubbing for
bleaching area vent sources, and steam stripping for pulping
wastewater.
Following proposal, EPA received a large number of comments and
data to support the need for subcategories with separate MACT standards
for each. After considering the data and comments, the final rule
specifies separate MACT requirements for each of the four types of
pulping processes subject to the standard. The low volumetric and mass
flow rates for pulping and bleaching vents and the low concentration
value for pulping wastewater are no longer used to determine
applicability to the standard. Rather, for each subcategory, the
standard lists the specific equipment and pulping area condensates that
require control.
For each subcategory, the Agency determined the MACT floor level of
control for existing and new sources, and analyzed the cost and impacts
for control options more stringent than the floor. This analysis is
presented in chapter 20 of the background information document for the
promulgated NESHAP, and is also discussed in the proposal preamble.
Based on the results of this analysis, the Agency determined that it
was not reasonable to go beyond the MACT floor level of control for
sources at kraft, semi-chemical, and sulfite pulp mills, bleaching
systems, or kraft condensate systems. The Agency determined that
control beyond the floor at soda mills was technically feasible and
could be achieved at a reasonable cost. A discussion of the Agency's
decision for soda mills is presented in the March 8 supplemental notice
and in section VI.A.5.
In response to comments received on the proposed standards, several
changes have been made to the final rule. While some of these changes
are clarifications designed to make the Agency's intent clearer, a
number of them are significant changes to the compliance requirements.
A summary of the substantive comments and changes made since the
proposal are described in the following sections. Detailed Agency
responses to public comments and the revised analysis for the final
rule are contained in the background information document and docket.
See Section X.A.
1. Definition of Source
At proposal, EPA defined a single broad source that was subject to
both existing and new source MACT. That single source included the
pulping processes, the bleaching processes, and the pulping and
bleaching process wastewater streams at a pulp and paper mill. EPA also
considered and solicited comments on the concept of multiple smaller
sources that would be subject to the existing and new source MACT
requirements.
In defining the source at proposal, EPA considered the impact of
the definition on mills making changes to existing facilities. In
general, the narrower the definition of source, the more likely it is
that changes to existing facilities would be deemed ``new sources''
under the CAA. With limited exceptions, these new sources must be in
compliance with new source MACT standards on the date of startup or
June 15, 1998, whichever is later. However, the CAA and the CWA differ
regarding applicability requirements and compliance deadlines for new
sources. As such, EPA was concerned that a pulp and paper mill planning
to construct or reconstruct a source of HAPs between proposal and
promulgation of these integrated regulations would find it necessary to
plan for compliance with the NESHAP (required on the date it becomes
effective) without knowing the requirements of the effluent guidelines
for the industry. This situation appeared to be inconsistent with one
objective of the integrated rulemaking: allowing facilities to do
integrated compliance planning. EPA thus determined that the

[[Page 18519]]

best solution to these concerns was to define a single broad source at
proposal.
In the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice, EPA indicated a
continuing inclination for a broad, single source definition. EPA also
discussed broadening the source definition further to include
papermaking systems and causticizing equipment and solicited comments
on these additions. EPA's reason for considering the addition of these
two equipment systems was to facilitate implementation of the clean
condensate alternative for kraft mills.
Commenters on the proposed standards and on the March 8 notice
largely agreed with the broad, single source definition. One commenter
supported a narrow source definition, noting it was inappropriate for
new construction at an existing source to be classified as a
modification (and hence subject to existing source MACT). The commenter
further stated that the final regulation should specify a narrow source
definition for determining applicability to new source MACT. Some
commenters also stated that EPA should clarify for the final regulation
that mill processes not included in the source definition should not be
subject to future case-by-case MACT requirements under CAA section
112(g).
EPA considered all of the comments received on this issue since
proposal and maintains that the definition of source should be broad
enough such that small changes to an existing mill do not trigger new
source requirements in the NESHAP. However, EPA also agrees with the
commenter that at some point, changes to an existing mill are
substantial enough that new source MACT should apply.
In considering how best to define the source, EPA did not want to
define it so narrowly that changes to or additions of individual pieces
of equipment would be subject to new source MACT and be required to be
in compliance with new source MACT at startup. In fact, EPA was
concerned that to do so could discourage mills from implementing
pollution-prevention changes as soon as practicable after promulgation
of the Cluster Rules. Such changes might include replacing an existing
rotary vacuum washer system with a low-flow washer system or installing
an oxygen delignification system, both of which, if subject to existing
source requirements, would get the eight-year compliance time,
discussed later in section VI.A.3.b. Once mills are complying with the
existing source MACT requirements, it also did not seem reasonable that
they should have to tear out and rebuild that vent collection system to
accommodate small equipment changes in the future unless those changes
occurred along with other substantial changes that would justify
rebuilding the vent collection system.
For the final regulation, EPA is defining the affected source to
which existing MACT requirements apply to include the total of all HAP
emission points in the pulping and bleaching systems (including pulping
condensates). In considering how mills might engineer their vent
collection systems and control devices, EPA has concluded that the
following actions occurring after proposal are substantial enough that
new source MACT requirements apply:
A pulping or bleaching system at an existing mill is
constructed or reconstructed; or
A new pulping line or bleaching line is added to an
existing mill.
The proposal date for mills that chemically pulp wood is December
17, 1993. The proposal date for mills that mechanically pulp wood, pulp
secondary fibers, or pulp non-wood materials is March 8, 1996.
The final regulation also provides for an alternative definition of
source to facilitate implementation of the clean condensate
alternative. For mills using the alternative to comply with the kraft
pulping standards, the final regulation defines a single broad source
that includes the total of all pulping, bleach, causticizing, and
papermaking systems. A more detailed discussion of the clean condensate
alternative is given in section VI.A.3.d.
EPA agrees with the commenters that certain emission points that
are excluded from the definition of affected source in today's rule, or
are subject to a determination that MACT for these operations is no
control, should not be required to undergo CAA section 112(g) review.
The sources that have been so identified are wood yard operations
(including wood piles); tall oil recovery systems at kraft mills;
pulping systems at mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-wood fiber
pulping mills; and papermaking systems. With regard to wood yard
operations, tall oil recovery systems, and pulping systems at
mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-wood fiber pulping mills, EPA has
determined that these sources do not emit significant quantities of
HAPs and EPA is not aware of any reasonable technologies for
controlling HAPs from these sources. For papermaking systems, EPA has
not identified any reasonable control technology, other than the clean
condensate alternative, that can reduce HAP emissions attributable to
HAPs present in the pulp arriving from the pulping and bleaching
systems. Additionally, EPA has determined that the use of papermaking
systems additives and solvents do not result in significant emissions
of HAPs (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-27). Therefore, based on the
applicability requirements of section 112(g) [40 CFR 63 part B,
63.40(b)], the following sources would not be required to undergo
section 112(g) review: wood yard operations; pulping systems at
mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-wood fiber mills; tall oil
recovery systems; and papermaking systems.
2. Named Stream Approach
At proposal, the rule proposed applicability cutoff values (i.e.,
volumetric flow rate and mass flow rate) as a way to distinguish the
vent and condensate streams that would be required to meet the rule.
Since proposal, the pulp and paper industry submitted additional data
that allowed EPA to better characterize the vent and condensate streams
that should be controlled.
In the final rule, the applicability cutoffs contained in the
proposed rule have been replaced in favor of specifically naming
process equipment and condensate streams that would be required to meet
the rule, with the exception of decker, knotter, and screen systems at
existing sources. For these systems, the additional industry data was
used to determine applicability cutoffs in the form of HAP emission
limits (for knotter and screen systems) and HAP concentration limits in
process water (for decker systems) to identify the systems that should
be controlled at existing sources. A description of the vent and
condensate streams to be controlled is presented in sections II.B.2,
VI.A.3.a, and VI.A.4-7. The Agency added language in the definitions
for the named systems to make the definitions applicable to equipment
that serves a similar function as those specifically listed. This
addition was made because there are no standard names for process
equipment. The EPA's intent was to include the equipment that function
the same as the equipment specifically named in the definitions, even
though the mill may use a different name for that piece of equipment.
The different approach used in the final rule does not
significantly change the number of emission points controlled from
those intended to be controlled in the proposed rule. The emission
points and condensate streams that are being controlled in the final
rule are fundamentally the same emission sources that EPA intended to
be controlled in the proposed rule. EPA

[[Page 18520]]

concluded that the revised approach is easier and less costly to
implement, for both the affected industry and the enforcement
officials, since extensive emission source testing is not required to
identify the vent and condensate streams to be controlled.

3. Kraft Pulping Standards

a. Applicability for Existing Kraft Sources. In the December 17,
1993 proposal, all pulping system equipment, with some exceptions,
would have been required to be controlled. The exceptions were for
deckers and screens at existing sources and small vents below specified
volumetric mass flow rates and mass loadings. EPA proposed to require
that treatment of all pulping wastewater streams except those with HAP
concentrations below 500 ppmw and flow rates below 1.0 liter per
minute.
In the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice, the Agency presented
potential changes to the kraft mill standards. These changes included
specifically naming equipment systems and pulping wastewater subject to
the standards. For existing sources, the named equipment systems in the
supplemental notice included: the LVHC system, pulp washing system,
oxygen delignification system, the pre-washer knotter and screening
system, and weak liquor storage tanks. The subject wastewater streams
are the pulping process condensates from the digester, evaporator,
turpentine recovery, LVHC collection, and the HVLC collection systems.
EPA identified these systems and condensates to be controlled based on
information presented in responses to industry surveys available prior
to proposal and on updates and clarifications to survey responses
submitted by the pulp and paper industry after proposal. At proposal,
EPA did not have sufficient information to define these equipment
systems.
At proposal, the Agency solicited comments on its determination of
the control technology basis for the MACT floor and for MACT. The
proposed MACT floor level of control at existing kraft sources was 98
percent reduction of emissions from the LVHC system, pulp washing
system, and oxygen delignification system. In considering information
received after proposal, the Agency continued to have questions, which
were discussed with representatives of the pulp and paper industry, on
the data provided in the survey responses on weak liquor storage tanks,
the knotter and screening system, and the decker system at existing
sources (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-D1-101). In the March 8, 1996 notice,
the Agency requested further information on whether to distinguish
between types or ages of weak liquor storage tanks, methods and costs
of controlling them, and the level of control that represents the MACT
floor for the different tanks. The Agency also requested data on the
type of controls present on knotter and screening systems.
Commenters to the March 8 notice provided additional information on
the kraft mills which control vents from knotter system, screen
systems, decker systems, weak liquor storage tanks, and oxygen
delignification systems. The commenters noted that many of the mills
surveyed originally had misinterpreted survey questions for these
systems. The commenters concluded that the revised information
indicated that less than 6 percent of the knotter and screen systems,
decker systems, and weak liquor storage tanks were actually controlled;
they concluded, therefore, that the existing source floor for these
vents is no control. Additionally, the commenters asserted that it
would not be cost-effective to go beyond the floor to control weak
liquor storage tanks because tanks at existing sources would not have
the structural integrity to withstand a vacuum on them caused by the
vent collection system. The commenters asserted that, to control
emissions, these tanks would either need to be replaced or be
retrofitted with expensive add-on controls that would not be cost-
effective. One commenter supported using age as a means to indicate
structural integrity and, therefore, rule applicability for weak liquor
storage tanks. Several commenters disagreed that age was an appropriate
indicator.
The Agency has evaluated the information submitted by the
commenters on the control level for the knotter system, screen system,
decker system, and weak liquor storage tanks. Information submitted by
the commenters indicated that of the 597 weak liquor storage tanks in
the survey only 28 (4.7 percent) actually had emissions routed to a
control device (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-D1-106). Some respondents had
previously included other types of controlled tanks, such as washer
filtrate tanks, in their totals because EPA's original survey did not
provide a definition of weak liquor storage tanks. The Agency,
therefore, has concluded that the MACT floor level of control for weak
liquor storage tanks at existing sources is no control. While some
tanks are controlled, available information does not support the
supposition that age is a good parameter for distinguishing structural
integrity. In addition, the Agency evaluated the cost of going beyond
the floor to control weak liquor tanks. The results of EPA's analysis
indicated that a significant cost would be incurred for a limited
emission reduction. This analysis is presented in Chapter 20 of the
background information document for the promulgated NESHAP. Therefore,
the Agency agrees with the commenters that control beyond the floor is
not justified. Weak liquor tanks at new sources are required to be
controlled.
The Agency disagrees with the comments that decker systems are not
controlled at the floor at existing sources. Information supplied by
the pulp and paper industry indicates there are 170 decker systems in
mills responding to EPA's industry survey questionnaires. All the
decker systems are associated with bleached mills. Of the 170 decker
systems, 14 are controlled (8 percent) (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-16).
The majority of decker systems controlled at the floor (10 systems)
are associated with oxygen delignification systems or are being used as
an additional stage of pulp washing. The Agency believes that these
types of decker systems are operated similarly to and have similar
emissions as pulp washers. Decker systems used in this manner receive
contaminated condensates or filtrates that may be recycled from other
processes, such as the oxygen delignification system or combined
condensate tanks. The process water may have a HAP concentration that
would release significant amounts of HAP to the air from the air-water
interface. The Agency characterized the emissions from this source to
identify the types of decker systems with high emissions. Information
supplied in NCASI technical bulletin 678 provided a relationship
between air emissions and methanol concentrations in process water used
in rotary vacuum drums. EPA evaluated this relationship and determined
that decker controls and higher HAP emission rates were associated with
deckers that used process water with HAP concentrations greater than or
equal to 400 ppmw, or that did not use fresh water or ``whitewater''
from papermaking systems (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-22).
Therefore, the Agency has determined that it is appropriate to make
a distinction among types of decker systems at existing sources for the
purpose of setting the MACT standard. Decker systems at existing
sources using fresh water or ``whitewater'' from papermaking systems,
or using process

[[Page 18521]]

water with HAP concentrations less than 400 ppmw, are not required to
be controlled. Decker systems at new sources are required to be
controlled regardless of the HAP concentration in the process water
introduced into the decker.
EPA has reviewed available data on knotter and screen systems and
has concluded that these systems are controlled sufficiently to
establish a MACT floor level of control, and also that control more
stringent than the floor is not warranted. Data used to reach this
conclusion include survey responses from the 1992 voluntary survey,
follow-up telephone surveys conducted by the National Council of the
Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI), and emissions
data from the NCASI 16-mill study. Although the data indicate that many
of these systems are currently controlled to some degree, the survey
responses were not detailed enough in their equipment system
descriptions and the test data were too limited for the Agency to use
these two sources of information alone to develop the MACT control
requirements. Because these equipment systems, nomenclature, and
control configurations vary across the industry, the Agency decided
that a HAP emissions limit would be the best way for mills to determine
which systems would require control. EPA lacks sufficient data,
however, to pinpoint any single value that represents the MACT floor.
Rather, based on the survey and test data, there are a range of values
from which EPA could choose. EPA further considered the costs of
control in choosing from this zone of reasonable values.
Of the 171 knotter systems reported in the 1992 voluntary survey,
12 knotter systems at 5 mills were reported as controlled and ducted
into the noncondensible gas (NCG) collection system and another 49
knotter systems at 23 mills were reported as having no vents. NCASI
followed up by telephone surveys with these 28 mills (Air Docket A-92-
40, IV-D1-101, IV-D1-112, IV-D1-114). The follow-up surveys indicated a
fair amount of misreporting at these 28 mills. NCASI did not resurvey
for all 171 knotter systems. Therefore, the following knotter system
floor determination assumes that the mills not resurveyed that
originally reported no knotter system controls did not control any
vents.
From the 28 mills resurveyed, it was determined that six knotter
systems or 3.6 percent (6/171) route all vents into the NCG collection
system; another two knotter systems or 1.2 percent (2/171) route all
knotter hood vents into the NCG collection system; another eight
knotter systems or 4.7 percent (8/171) use only pressure knotters; and
another two knotter systems or 1.2 percent (2/171) route all vents to
the smelt dissolving tank scrubber. Industry collected data at seven
pressure/open (also referred to as pressure/vibrating) knotter systems
and found the methanol emissions to range from 0.005-0.07 kilograms per
megagram of oven-dried pulp (ODP) produced, and collected data at one
pressure knotter system and found the methanol emissions to be 0.0042
kilograms per megagram ODP produced. Emissions data are summarized in
the Chemical Pulping Emission Factor Development Document (Air Docket
A-92-40, IV-A-8). Because the pressure knotter system emissions were
lower than the emissions at the pressure/open systems, pressure systems
can be considered a type of controlled system. Therefore, 18 or 10.5
percent (6+2+8+2 = 18/171) of the knotter systems have some level of
emissions control. The Agency believes that this estimate of the number
of knotter systems controlled may be somewhat low because it is
uncertain how many of the mills not resurveyed may have had the lower
emitting pressure systems.
The 1992 voluntary MACT survey responses indicated that 96
screening systems out of the 199 reported are not vented. NCASI
resurveyed by telephone 41 of these 96 mills. Assuming that the 55
mills not resurveyed look similar to the 41, the follow-up survey
determined that seven percent (6/41 x 96/199) route their vents to
the NCG collection system and 41 percent (35/41 x 96/199) have closed
screens that vent through auxiliary tanks. Therefore, 48 percent of the
screening systems have some level of control.
Industry collected data at one closed screen system and one open
screen system. The closed screen system tested had methanol emissions
of 0.004 kilograms per megagram of ODP produced. The open screen system
tested had methanol emissions of 0.22 kilograms per megagram of ODP
produced.
The Agency considered how best to characterize the average
emissions limitation achieved by the best controlled 12 percent of the
knotter systems and screen systems given the wide variety of control
scenarios present in the industry. Either collecting and controlling
vents on an open system or using closed equipment results in lower air
emissions. The Agency decided to select the emissions limitation using
the test data from the closed and open equipment systems. The Agency's
decision is due in part to the fact that the technology basis for the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards being promulgated in
these Cluster Rules at 40 CFR Part 430 for bleached papergrade kraft
and soda mills include closing the screening areas and returning
wastewater to the recovery system. Thus, it is likely that many mills
will move toward wider use of the lower air emitting pressure systems.
Because there is only one test data point for the pressure knotter
systems and that emissions value is similar to the low end of the range
of data points for the pressure/open knotter systems, the Agency did
not believe it would be appropriate to set the emission limit equal to
the one pressure knotter system. Similarly, because there is only one
test data point for closed screens, the Agency did not believe it would
be appropriate to use that single data point to set the emission limit
for screening systems. The Agency could have selected any emission
limit within the range of all available data for knotters (i.e., 0.0042
to 0.07 kilograms per megagram of ODP produced) and screens (i.e.,
0.004 to 0.22 kilograms per megagram of ODP produced). However,
recognizing the limited data available, the Agency also considered the
cost effectiveness of controlling these systems to aid in setting the
emission limits within the range of reasonable values (Air Docket A-92-
40, IV-B-21).
Based on considering all available data, the final rule requires
that existing kraft sources are required to control knotter systems
with total mass emission rates greater than or equal to 0.05 kilograms
of HAP per megagram ODP produced. Existing kraft sources are required
to control screening systems with total mass emission rates greater
than or equal to 0.10 kilograms of HAP per megagram ODP produced. Since
it is often difficult to distinguish between the knotter system and
screening system at mills, a mill may also choose to meet a total mass
emissions limit of 0.15 kilograms of HAP per megagram ODP produced
across the knotting and screening combined system. New sources are
required to control all knotter and screen systems, regardless of
emissions level.
b. Compliance Times for Kraft Mills. In the March 8, 1996
supplemental notice, the Agency discussed that it was considering
allowing kraft mills an extended compliance time of five additional
years (eight years total) for pulp washing and oxygen delignification
systems (61 FR at 9394-95). The notice discussed how the additional
time would encourage the

[[Page 18522]]

maximum degree of overall multi-media pollution reduction and, in
particular, would avoid discouraging mills from installing oxygen
delignification equipment to reduce water pollution. The notice
recognized the time constraints mills would face in trying to comply
with both air and water rules essentially at the same time and that too
short a compliance time could preclude mills from considering pollution
prevention techniques with considerable environmental benefits, such as
oxygen delignification and low-flow washers. These technologies reduce
the amount of pollutants discharged into the wastewater. The March 8,
1996 notice also solicited comment on whether this compliance extension
should be extended only to mills that commit to install these
technologies (if EPA were to decide not to include that equipment as
part of its BAT model technology).
Commenters supported the extension of compliance time for pulp
washing and oxygen delignification systems at existing sources. Several
commenters also requested that the compliance time be extended for weak
liquor tanks, knotter and screening systems, and other HVLC vent
streams because emissions from these sources will be transported and
controlled by the same HVLC collection and incineration system as the
pulp washing and oxygen delignification systems. The commenters noted
that extension of the compliance period for all HVLC sources also
allows for proper consideration of the full range of emerging
innovative water and air pollution control options. Comments were not
received on whether to provide the compliance extension only to mills
that elect to install more stringent control technologies than
necessary to comply with the baseline BAT requirements.
The Agency reviewed the comments and agrees that vents included in
the HVLC system should be allowed a similar compliance time as the pulp
washing and oxygen delignification systems. The majority of emissions
and vent gas flow from equipment associated with the HVLC vent streams
occur from the pulp washing system and the oxygen delignification
system. Therefore, the design of the HVLC collection and transport
system would be significantly influenced by these two systems. The
Agency determined if different compliance times were provided for the
components of the HVLC system, an affected source would expend
significant amounts of capital to control systems required to comply in
the three-year time frame. The source would have to re-design the gas
transport and control devices five years later to accommodate
controlling the washing system and oxygen delignification system. This
entire cost could discourage the implementation of low-flow washing
systems and oxygen delignification.
This would serve as an obvious disincentive to installation of
advanced wastewater treatment technology since mills would be
understandably reluctant to replace a newly installed air pollution
control system. Therefore, EPA concluded that additional compliance
time is appropriate and necessary for the remaining equipment
controlled by the HVLC collection and transport system as well as the
pulp washing system and the oxygen delignification system. See
generally 61 FR at 9394-95. The final rule thus allows affected sources
to control all the equipment in the HVLC system at kraft pulping
systems at the same time, not later than April 17, 2006. A mill that
installs an oxygen delignification system at an existing source after
April 17, 2006 must comply with the NESHAP upon commencing operation of
that system.
Regarding EPA's solicitation of comments on providing a compliance
extension to all kraft mills, no negative comments were received.
Therefore, EPA has decided to extend the compliance time for all kraft
mills.
The final rule includes requirements for kraft mills to submit a
non-binding control strategy report along with the initial notification
required by the part 63 General Provisions. The purpose of the control
strategy report is to provide the Agency and the permitting authority
with the status of progress towards compliance with the MACT standards.
The control strategy report must contain, among other information, a
description of the emission controls or process modifications selected
for compliance with the control requirements and a compliance schedule.
The information in the control strategy report must be revised or
updated every two years until the mill is in compliance with the
standards.
c. Condensate Segregation. The proposed standards for process
wastewater would have required that all pulping wastewaters that met
the mass emission rate and flow rate applicability criteria had to be
treated to achieve the specified control options. Comments and data
submitted to EPA indicated that kraft mills typically steam stripped
the condensates from the digester, turpentine recovery, LVHC, and HVLC
systems, and certain evaporator condensates. The data also indicated
that mills that use steam strippers also practiced varying degrees of
condensate segregation in order to minimize the flow rate and maximize
the HAP mass in condensate streams sent to treatment.
In the March 8, 1996 Federal Register supplemental notice, EPA
presented a discussion of condensate segregation and included
definitions for condensate segregation and a segregated condensate
stream. Commenters on the March 8 notice supported the definitions for
condensate segregation and segregated condensate stream. Commenters
also submitted additional information suggesting definitions for
condensate segregation and segregated condensate stream as well as
options for demonstrating compliance with the condensate segregation
requirements. EPA evaluated the information and included some of the
concepts in the final rule.
The final rule states that the condensates from pulping process
equipment at kraft mills must be treated and allows a number of
alternative methods of complying with the standards, all of which
represent MACT. The final rule also states that the entire volume of
condensate generated from the named pulping process equipment at kraft
mills must be treated unless the volume from the digester, turpentine
recovery, and weak liquor feed stages in the evaporator systems can be
reduced using condensate segregation. If adequate segregation (as
specified in the rule) is performed, only the high-HAP fraction streams
from the digester system, turpentine recovery system, and the weak
liquor feed stages in the evaporator system and the non-segregated
streams from the LVHC and HVLC collection systems must be sent to
treatment.
Discussions with the pulp and paper industry after the March 8,
1996 supplemental notice indicated that some mills might not be able to
achieve the proposed 65 percent mass isolation with their existing
equipment even though they are achieving high levels of HAP removal in
the steam stripper system (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-E-84). Therefore, the
final rule contains two options for demonstrating compliance with the
segregation requirements. The first option is to isolate at least 65
percent of the HAP mass in the total of all condensates from the
digester system, turpentine recovery system, and the weak liquor feed
stages in the evaporator system (condensate streams from the LVHC and
HVLC collection systems are not segregated). The second option requires
that a minimum total HAP mass from the high HAP concentrated
condensates from the digester system, turpentine recovery

[[Page 18523]]

system, and the weak liquor feed stages in the evaporator system and
the total LVHC and HVLC collection system condensates be sent to
treatment. The second option was included in the final rule because it
achieves the same objective by sending a large enough mass to treatment
to meet the floor-level control requirements.
For a detailed explanation of the concept of condensate segregation
readers are referred to the docket (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-D1-107).
d. Clean Condensate Alternative. The proposed rule did not contain
any provisions for emissions averaging. Industry comments on the
proposal indicated support for incorporating an emission averaging
approach in the final rule. After the public comment period, the pulp
and paper industry submitted a comparison between an option developed
by industry and the proposed MACT standards. The option formed the
basis for the clean condensate alternative (CCA) in the final rule. The
CCA focuses on reducing HAP emissions throughout the mill by reducing
the HAP mass in process water streams that are recycled to various
process areas in the mill. By lowering the HAP mass loading in the
recycled streams, less HAP will be volatilized to the atmosphere.
The March 8, 1996 Federal Register supplemental notice presented a
discussion of the industry's alternative (referred to as the ``clean
water alternative'' in the notice). In the March 8 notice, EPA
indicated that while the industry's concept was innovative, additional
information would need to be submitted to the Agency to make the
concept a viable compliance option, such as specific design parameters
and data supporting the relationship between condensate stream HAP
concentrations and HAP emissions from process equipment receiving the
condensates.
Design specifications for the CCA were not available since no mills
to date have implemented such a technology. However, the test data
collected by the pulp and paper industry following the December 17,
1993 proposal included data on vent emissions and process water HAP
concentrations that were used by industry to develop equations showing
the relationship between HAP emissions from specific process equipment
(e.g., pulp washers) and the HAP concentrations present in the process
water sent to the equipment.
EPA evaluated these data and concluded that sufficient relationship
appears to exist between HAP concentrations in recycled process
wastewater and HAP emissions from process equipment, such that the CCA
has the potential to achieve or exceed the requirements of the final
standards. However, EPA has determined that the correlation equations
developed by industry, because they were derived from small data sets,
would not be sufficient for demonstrating compliance or equivalency
with the final standards at a specific mill. Variability at a specific
mill, such as types of process equipment, operating practices, process
water recycle practices, and even type of wood pulped, can strongly
influence the relationship between concentration in the process water
and the process emissions.
The final rule contains provisions for using the CCA as a
compliance option to the kraft pulping standards for the subject
equipment in the HVLC system. An owner or operator must demonstrate to
the Administrator's satisfaction that the total HAP emissions
reductions achieved using the CCA are equal to or greater than the
total HAP emission reductions that would have been achieved by
compliance with the kraft pulping system standards for equipment in the
HVLC system. The baseline HAP emissions for each equipment system and
the total of all equipment systems in the CCA affected source (which is
the existing MACT affected source expanded to include the causticizing
and papermaking systems) must be determined after compliance with the
pulping process condensate standards; after consideration of the
effects of the effluent limitations guidelines and standards in 40 CFR
part 430, subpart B; and after all other applicable requirements of
local, State, and Federal agencies or statutes have been implemented.
While engineering assessments or test data may be used to determine the
feasibility of using the CCA, only test data may be used to demonstrate
compliance with the kraft pulping system standards using the CCA.
e. Biological Treatment. At proposal, owners or operators using a
biological treatment system to comply with the MACT requirements for
pulping wastewater would have been required to measure the HAP or
methanol concentration in the influent and effluent across the unit
every 30 days and to identify appropriate parameters to be monitored to
ensure continuous compliance. The proposed standards would have
required that during the initial performance test, mills collect
samples and analyze them using Method 304 to calculate a site-specific
biorate constant. That constant, along with the operating parameters
associated with the biological treatment system were to be entered into
the WATER7 (updated to WATER8 since proposal) emissions model to
demonstrate that the biological treatment system could achieve the
treatment level required by the standards. Those operating parameters
measured during the initial performance test were then to be monitored
continuously to demonstrate compliance.
EPA acknowledged at proposal that industry was collecting
information on the performance of biological treatment systems and
monitoring techniques. EPA also noted that the industry was
investigating the possibility of monitoring inlet and outlet soluble
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5). EPA requested comments on
applicable monitoring parameters for biological treatment systems and
supporting data on biorates and corresponding parameters for
monitoring.
EPA received a number of comments on testing and monitoring
requirements for biological treatment systems. The industry submitted
studies on biological treatment systems and on monitoring soluble
BOD5. Discussions were also held with the industry
representatives on this issue.
In general, commenters objected to the proposed requirements to use
Method 304 to calculate the site-specific biorate constants. Commenters
felt that the laboratory-scale simulation of the biological treatment
unit, which is basically what Method 304 requires, does not accurately
reflect the biological degradation rates of the full-scale system.
Commenters also stated that according to data collected, performance
testing to demonstrate that biological treatment systems can meet the
standards does not appear to be warranted given that methanol is highly
biodegradable. Commenters further requested that if they had to conduct
a performance test, they should also be permitted to use the inlet and
outlet concentration procedures for calculating a site-specific
biological degradation rate (biorate) constant as set forth in Appendix
C of the Hazardous Organic NESHAP (HON). See 59 FR 19402 (April 22,
1994). Commenters also objected to having to demonstrate continuous
compliance with the operating parameters, pointing out that a parameter
could be exceeded and the biological treatment system could still be
meeting the standards.
Following proposal, industry also submitted data on soluble
BOD5 across biological treatment system units. Industry
stated that their data indicated that as long as the biological
treatment system was achieving at least 80 percent

[[Page 18524]]

removal of soluble BOD5, the biological treatment system was
operating properly and that the unit would be meeting the standards.
However, industry argued that soluble BOD5 removal should
not be a continuous monitoring parameter that if exceeded, would
indicate a violation of the standards. Rather, a mill should be allowed
to start measuring methanol removal across the system to verify
compliance.
The Agency considered the comments and data received and agrees
that the provisions in Appendix C of the HON are an acceptable
alternative to Method 304 for calculating site-specific biorate
constants. However, EPA disagrees with the commenters on the issue of
the need to conduct performance testing. While EPA agrees that methanol
degrades more rapidly than many compounds, there are other HAPs present
in the condensate streams subject to the standards, and biological
treatment systems can vary widely in their operation and performance,
depending on their design, maintenance, and even their geographical
location. As such, the final regulation retains the proposed
requirements for performance testing.
EPA also became concerned that allowing the use of methanol as a
surrogate for total HAP may not be appropriate for this particular
treatment technology. Because methanol is one of the most difficult
HAPs to remove with a steam stripper (the technology on which the
standards are based), even greater removals of total HAP would occur
when a steam stripper is used. Thus, methanol is a reasonable surrogate
under such conditions. The opposite is true for biological treatment
systems, where methanol is one of the easier HAPs to degrade. As such,
the final regulation specifies that a total HAP removal (not just
methanol) of 92 percent be achieved by biological treatment systems.
EPA agrees with the commenters that soluble BOD5 is an
appropriate monitoring parameter for biological treatment systems.
However, EPA disagrees with the commenters on their position regarding
the monitoring of soluble BOD5 and operating parameters for
demonstrating continuous compliance. After discussion with the industry
on this issue, EPA has concluded that soluble BOD5 and
operating parameters are the most appropriate means available for
monitoring to demonstrate continuous compliance (A-92-40, IV-E-87). EPA
understands the concerns raised on this point, and as such the final
regulation provides flexibility. The regulation allows mills to
establish, through performance testing, their own range of treatment
system outlet soluble BOD5 and operating parameter values to
monitor. The final rule also allows owners and operators to demonstrate
compliance with the standard using the WATER8 model and inlet and
outlet samples from each biological treatment system unit when the
specified monitoring parameters are outside of the range established
during the initial performance test.
4. Sulfite Standards--Emission Limits for Sulfite Pulping Processes
In the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice (61 FR 9383), the Agency
presented potential changes to the proposed standards for sulfite
pulping processes. EPA had proposed that all pulping equipment at
kraft, sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical processes must be enclosed and
routed to a control device achieving 98 percent reduction in emissions.
In the March 8 notice, the Agency proposed that the MACT floor level of
control at existing sulfite processes was control of vents from the
digester system, evaporator system, and pulp washing system. The MACT
floor level of control at new sulfite processes would be control of the
equipment systems listed for existing sources, plus weak liquor tanks,
strong liquor storage tanks, and acid condensate storage tanks. In the
March 8 notice, the Agency discussed in detail its preliminary
determination that the sulfite standards should instead apply to the
total emissions from specific named vents and to any wastewater
emissions associated with air pollution control devices used to comply
with the rule. For calcium-based sulfite pulping processes, the new
proposed emission limit was 0.65 lb methanol/ODTP and the percent
reduction was 92 percent. For ammonium-and magnesium-based sulfite
pulping processes, the new proposed emission limit was 1.10 lb
methanol/ODTP, and the percent HAP reduction was 87 percent. The Agency
developed applicability cutoffs based on methanol because only methanol
emissions data were obtained for all of the equipment systems and
wastewater streams considered for control at sulfite mills. The test
data from sulfite mills also indicated that for the equipment systems
tested for other HAPs, methanol comprised the majority of HAP
emissions. Therefore, the Agency believes that the maximum control of
HAP emissions will be achieved by controlling methanol as a surrogate.
Several commenters objected that the proposed emission limits were
not appropriate because they were based on data that only indicated
possible levels of methanol emissions and not a rigorous assessment of
emission rates. The commenters contended that the proposed emission
limits were derived from limited data which may not be representative
of the range of mills in the industry; therefore, they argued, the
limits did not account for variability in emissions and are not
achievable. The commenters provided the Agency with emissions test data
that illustrated fluctuations in the methanol mass emissions over an
extended time period due to variations in products and process
conditions.
The Agency evaluated the information provided by the commenters and
subsequently agreed with the commenters regarding process variability
at sulfite mills. The Agency determined the amount of variability
associated with a 99.9 percent confidence level in the data supplied by
the commenters (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-20). This amount of
variability (confidence interval), therefore, was applied to the
average emission limits from the best controlled mills to develop the
final emission limit.
For ammonium- and magnesium-based sulfite pulping processes, the
final emission limit is 1.1 kilograms of methanol per megagram of ODP
produced. After the close of the March 8, 1996, Federal Register
supplemental notice comment period, additional information was provided
to the Agency that indicated that the sodium-based sulfite pulping
process is in use at some mills (A-92-40, IV-E-94). No emissions
information was available for this process. However, the Agency
determined, that due to the similarities in processes between calcium-
and sodium-based sulfite pulping processes, the same limit developed
for calcium-based mills would be applicable to sodium-based mills. For
calcium- and sodium-based sulfite pulping processes, the final emission
limit is 0.44 kilograms of methanol per megagram of ODP produced.
Because the variability is incorporated into the mass emission limit,
these emission limits and corresponding monitoring parameters are
never-to-be-exceeded values.
5. Soda and Semi-chemical Mill Standards
The proposed standards would have required the owners or operators
of new or existing kraft, semi-chemical, soda, and sulfite mills to
comply with the same emission standards. In the March 8, 1996 notice,
EPA proposed to subcategorize the pulp and paper industry by pulping
type and develop different MACT control requirements for soda and semi-
chemical mills based

[[Page 18525]]

on emission characteristics. Existing soda and semi-chemical mills
would be required to control the digester and evaporator systems (LVHC
system). New soda and semi-chemical mills would be required to control
the LVHC and the pulp washing systems. EPA solicited comments on this
proposed change.
Information provided by the pulp and paper industry in survey
responses and after proposal confirmed that the MACT floor level of
control at existing semi-chemical mills is collection and control of
the LVHC system. The Agency determined that it was not reasonable to
control other emission points at existing semi-chemical mills (Air
Docket A-92-40, IV-B-12). Data indicated that the best-controlled semi-
chemical mills combust LVHC system emissions and emissions from pulp
washing systems. Therefore, the final rule requires that existing semi-
chemical mills control the LVHC system, and new semi-chemical mills
control the LVHC and the pulp washing systems.
As discussed in the March 8, 1996 notice, the MACT floor level of
control for soda mills is no control. The Agency has determined that
HAP emissions from soda mills are similar to kraft mills (with the
exception that TRS compounds are not emitted from the soda pulping
process) and control of LVHC system vents is technically feasible and
can be achieved at a reasonable cost. The Agency has also determined
that controlling additional vents at existing sources cannot be
achieved at a reasonable cost. However, controlling the pulp washing
system at new soda mills can be achieved at a reasonable cost (Air
Docket A-92-40, IV-B-12). Therefore, the final rule requires that
existing soda mills control the LVHC system, and new soda mills control
the LVHC and the pulp washing system.
6. Mechanical Pulping Mill, Secondary Fiber Pulping Mill, Non-wood
Fiber Pulping Mill, and Papermaking System Standards
In the March 8, 1996 Federal Register notice, EPA proposed
standards for pulping and bleaching processes at mechanical pulping
mills, secondary fiber pulping mills, and non-wood fiber pulping mills.
As discussed in the proposal, EPA believes that there are no air
pollution control technologies in use on these processes except for
those installed on bleaching systems using chlorine. The March 8 notice
proposed no add-on controls for pulping systems (and the associated
wastewater), papermaking systems, and nonchlorine bleaching systems for
these mills. For traditional bleaching systems using chlorine, the
proposed control was based on the performance of caustic scrubbers. The
proposal stated that EPA would continue to investigate the use of HAP
chemicals in papermaking, the magnitude of HAP emissions, and the
viability of chemical substitution to reduce HAP emissions from
papermaking systems.
Some commenters questioned EPA's proceeding with the rule in
advance of the receipt of additional industry data that was being
collected. The commenters cautioned that EPA did not have sufficient
data on which to base a rule. Since the March 8, 1996 Federal Register
proposal, EPA has received the results of the NCASI-sponsored testing
program from these sources (A-92-40, IV-J-80 through IV-J-85). These
data have been used in the determination of the final standards for
these sources in today's rule. EPA has concluded that sufficient data
have been collected to include these sources in today's action.
Commenters agreed with EPA's March 8, 1996 proposal for bleaching
systems at these mills. Comments on the March 8 proposal supported the
conclusion that caustic scrubbers are in use only on chlorine and
chlorine dioxide bleaching systems. Furthermore, information available
to EPA indicate that non-wood pulping mills typically use chlorine or
chlorine dioxide bleaching systems. For chlorine and chlorine dioxide
bleaching systems, EPA determined that scrubbers are used to control
chlorinated compound emissions for process and worker safety reasons.
Thus, the control achieved by this technology represents the floor for
chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaching systems at these mills and is
the technological basis for the standard in today's rule. As stated in
the December 17, 1993 proposal, EPA analyzed more stringent controls,
such as combustion of bleaching vent gases after caustic scrubbing, for
bleaching systems at kraft, soda, and sulfite mills. EPA has determined
that these more stringent options are unreasonable considering cost and
environmental impacts. Because of the operational similarities of the
chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaching systems at non-wood fiber mills
to those at kraft, soda, and sulfite mills, EPA has concluded that
combustion following caustic scrubbers is also not cost-effective at
non-wood fiber mills. In addition, data available to EPA indicate that
HAP emissions from chlorine bleaching systems at these mills are
relatively low. In fact, the data show that the three largest non-wood
pulping mills, of the ten currently in operation, use elemental
chlorine in their bleaching systems and total HAP emissions from each
of these three mills is less than five tons of total HAP per year (Air
Docket A-95-31, IV-B-5).
For chlorine and chlorine dioxide bleaching systems at mechanical
pulping mills, secondary fiber pulping mills, and non-wood pulping
mills, today's rule requires the same level of control required for
bleaching systems at kraft, soda, and sulfite mills. Those requirements
are specified in Sec. 63.445 (a)-(c) of today's rule. However,
Sec. 63.445 (d) and (e) do not apply to these mills since there are no
effluent limitation guidelines for control of chloroform at mechanical,
secondary fiber, and non-wood fiber pulping mills. Additional
requirements for the control of chloroform emissions, based on the
effluent limitation guidelines for best available technology
economically achievable, are required in the standards for bleaching
systems for kraft, soda, and sulfite mills. However, EPA is not aware
of any controls presently in place or available for reducing chloroform
air emissions at mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-wood pulping
mills. Therefore, MACT is no control for chloroform air emissions from
bleaching systems at mechanical, secondary fiber, and non-wood fiber
pulping mills.
Since the March 8 proposal, EPA has also determined that while
mechanical pulping, secondary fiber pulping, and other non-wood pulping
mills do not typically use chlorine or chlorine dioxide bleaching,
these mills may brighten the pulp stock through the use of hypochlorite
and non-chlorine bleaching compounds. However, data available to EPA
indicate that HAP emissions from these systems are relatively low, and
that none of the bleaching systems that use hypochlorite and non-
chlorine compounds have installed emission controls. Based on these
findings, EPA established the MACT floor for bleaching systems at these
mills that use hypochlorite and non-chlorine bleaching to be no
control. EPA considered going beyond the floor and requiring HAP
control through incineration of vent streams for these sources but
determined that the minimal level of HAP emission reductions that would
be achieved did not justify going beyond the floor (Air Docket A-95-31,
IV-B-5).
In the March 8, 1996 Federal Register notice, EPA proposed no
standards for papermaking systems. The three potential sources of HAP
emissions from papermaking systems are HAPs contained in the pulp
stock, HAPs contained in the whitewater, and HAPs from additives and
solvents. Information available to EPA indicated no papermaking systems
are operating with HAP controls; thus the floor level

[[Page 18526]]

of control for papermaking systems is no control. EPA evaluated two
possible control options for papermaking systems: (1) Removal of HAPs
from the pulp stock and whitewater before the papermaking system; and
(2) control of papermaking system vent streams. Analysis of these
control options showed that there are no demonstrated methods for
removing HAPs from the pulp stock or whitewater and that applying HAP
control to the vent streams of papermaking systems is not cost-
effective (Air Docket A-95-31, IV-B-8). Therefore, EPA is not requiring
HAP control beyond the floor.
In the March 8, 1996 notice, EPA indicated that it was
investigating the use of HAP-containing additives in papermaking
systems, the magnitude of HAP emissions resulting from the use of
papermaking system additives, and the viability of a MACT standard
based on additive substitution. EPA has concluded that based on
emission test reports and a survey conducted on additive use, additives
do not contribute significantly to HAP emissions (Air Docket A-95-31,
Item IV-B-6). The amount of HAPs contained in additives used by the
paper industry for papermaking systems is relatively low, an estimated
236 tpy in 1995. Furthermore, less than 20 percent of HAPs contained in
the additives is emitted to the air. About 80 percent of the HAPs
remain on the paper or in the whitewater. Consequently, total annual
HAP emissions attributable to additives are an estimated 50 tons per
year, industry-wide. In comparison to the baseline emission level of
210,000 tons per year of total HAPs from the entire pulp and paper
industry, the contribution of HAPs from papermaking system additives is
negligible (Air Docket A-95-31, IV-B-6).
In a meeting between EPA and several representatives of the
Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), CMA stated that members have
been working to reduce HAP and solvent use in papermaking system
additives over the past 15 years, even in the absence of regulations.
Reductions have been achieved and CMA expects these efforts to
continue. CMA noted that HAP-free alternatives may not be possible for
all types of additives, as some HAPs are critical to product
performance. EPA believes that low-HAP additive substitution is
product-specific and it is not clear from the available information
that substitution options are technically feasible (Air Docket A-95-31,
IV-E-5). Therefore, EPA has concluded that a MACT standard for
papermaking systems based on low-HAP additive substitution is not
warranted.
In the March 8, 1996 notice, EPA proposed no standards for pulping
systems at mechanical, secondary fiber, or non-wood fiber pulping
mills. Information available to EPA indicated that no pulping systems
at these mills are operating with HAP controls. Therefore, EPA has
concluded that the floor for pulping systems at these mills is no
control. EPA evaluated the feasibility of going beyond the floor and
requiring HAP controls for these sources. Specifically, EPA
investigated the feasibility of routing vent streams from these pulping
systems to a combustion device for HAP control. EPA determined that the
cost of combusting the vent streams was not justified by the HAP
emission reductions achieved, and that requiring HAP control beyond the
floor was not justified. Furthermore, pulping chemical usage, which
correlates with HAP emission levels at kraft, semi-chemical, soda, and
sulfite pulping mills, is much lower at non-wood fiber and secondary
fiber pulping mills and minimal at mechanical pulping mills; thus the
potential for HAP emissions is lower (Air Docket A-95-31, IV-B-7).
7. Bleaching System Standards
In the proposed rule, bleaching systems would have been required to
control all HAP emissions by 99 percent using a caustic scrubber. In
the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice, the Agency revised the proposal
for the bleaching system requirements based on information and comments
received after proposal. The new data indicated that caustic scrubbing
reduces emissions of chlorinated HAP compounds (except chloroform), but
does not control non-chlorinated HAP emissions. The Agency determined
that no other option was feasible to control non-chlorinated HAPs. EPA
has determined that reduction of chloroform emissions through the use
of additional, add-on air pollution control technology is cost
prohibitive. The only feasible option for controlling chloroform
emissions is process modification, such as chlorine dioxide
substitution and elimination of hypochlorite use.
In the March 8 notice, the Agency proposed to require chlorinated
HAP emissions other than chloroform to be controlled by 99 percent
(with chlorine as a surrogate for chlorinated HAP) based on the
performance of a caustic scrubber. As an alternative to the percent
reduction standard, the Agency also proposed an emission limit of 10
ppmv chlorinated HAP at the caustic scrubber outlet (with chlorine as a
surrogate for chlorinated HAP). The Agency also solicited comments on
providing a mass emission limit alternative to the percent reduction
and the outlet concentration standards.
Commenters on the March 8, 1996 notice supported the changes to the
scrubber requirements in the proposed rule. Commenters also expressed
concern that bleaching systems with new low-flow vent systems would not
be able to meet either the percent reduction or the outlet
concentration standards. Therefore, they asserted, these standards
would discourage the use of new low-flow bleaching vent technologies.
Based on this concern, one commenter advocated a chlorinated HAP mass
emission limit for bleaching systems of 0.023 lb of chlorinated HAP
(excluding chloroform) per ODTP produced. The commenter claimed that a
mass emission limit would not penalize new low-flow bleaching vent
systems.
Based on available data, the Agency has concluded that low-flow
bleaching vent systems can achieve the 99 percent reduction and the 10
ppmv outlet concentration requirements for total chlorinated HAP (other
than chloroform). Based on a review of the information provided by the
commenter and the available data on bleaching system emissions, the
Agency has concluded that the commenter's recommended mass emission
limit of 0.023 lb of chlorinated HAP (excluding chloroform) per ODTP
produced is too high. The Agency evaluated the available data used to
develop the percent reduction and outlet concentration requirements for
bleaching systems (A-92-40, II-I-24). From this evaluation, the Agency
determined that a scrubber outlet mass emission rate of 0.001 kg of
total chlorinated HAP (other than chloroform) per Mg ODP produced
(0.002 lb/ODTP) would provide reductions equivalent to 99 percent
reduction standard (A-92-40, IV-B-29). The mass emission limit of 0.001
kg of chlorinated HAP (other than chloroform) per Mg ODP produced
represents a mass emission limit achievable by all units that also
achieved 99 percent reduction of chlorine. Furthermore, the available
data show that some of the scrubbers achieving the 99 percent chlorine
reduction standard, and the 10 ppmv outlet concentration limit, were
also operating on low-flow bleaching vent systems.
For the final rule, the Agency has provided a mass emission limit
option for bleaching systems of 0.001 kg of chlorinated HAP (excluding
chloroform) per Mg ODP produced (0.002 lb/ODTP). The Agency maintains
that this option

[[Page 18527]]

allows more flexibility for sources affected by this rule, does not
penalize bleaching systems operating with low-flow technology, and will
provide reductions in chlorinated HAP emissions (other than chloroform)
equivalent to the 99 percent reduction standard. Therefore, the final
rule allows sources to comply with the bleaching system requirements if
they achieve an scrubber outlet mass emission limit at or below 0.001
kg of total chlorinated HAP (other than chloroform) per Mg ODP
produced. Chlorine may be used as a surrogate for measuring total
chlorinated HAP.
After proposal, the Agency also evaluated the effect of process
modifications on chloroform emissions. The results of this analysis
indicated that the technology basis for MACT control of chloroform is
complete chlorine dioxide substitution and elimination of hypochlorite
as a bleaching agent. These process modifications were determined to
reduce chloroform emissions significantly. At the same time, EPA was
proposing complete chlorine dioxide substitution and hypochlorite
elimination as the technology bases for the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards under Subparts B and E (see 58 FR at 66109-11,
14-15). Since the control technologies that would be installed to
comply with effluent limitations guidelines and standards and MACT
would likely be the same for these bleached papergrade mills, EPA
therefore proposed in the March 8 notice that chloroform air emissions
at bleached papergrade mills be controlled by complying with the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards applicable to those
mills. No adverse comments were received on this proposal.
In the March 8, 1996 notice, the Agency solicited comments on
whether an alternative numerical air emission limit for chloroform
(i.e., besides complying with the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards) was needed. Some commenters contended that a numerical air
emissions limit for chloroform would be unnecessary because the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards would achieve the
requisite reductions. The Agency did not receive any indication of any
benefit from a numerical air emission limit for chloroform.
Additionally, the Agency did not have sufficient data and did not
receive any further data after the March 8 notice to develop a
numerical air emission limit (and hence is finding that a numerical
standard is not feasible for purposes of CAA Sec. 112(h)). Therefore,
the final rule does not include a numerical air emission limit for
chloroform (see the proposal at 58 FR 66142 for a discussion on setting
MACT standards in a format other than an emission standard). The Agency
is, however, providing an alternative compliance mechanism in the form
of a work practice standard of complete substitution of chlorine
dioxide for elemental chlorine and complete hypochlorite elimination--
the technical basis for BAT. (EPA also notes that although the Agency's
technical judgment is that compliance with BAT also will result in
control of air emissions to reflect the MACT level of control, the
Agency will continue to investigate whether this proves correct as the
rule is implemented.)
Because MACT for new sources is equivalent to MACT for existing
sources, the new source MACT standards for bleaching systems require
compliance with BAT/PSES requirements (or implementation of 100 percent
substitution and elimination of hypochlorite). This requirement applies
even if the mill or bleaching system also meets the definition of new
source under the effluent guidelines limitations and standards, and
thus is required to meet the more stringent new source effluent
requirements of NSPS/PSNS. Although achievement of the NSPS/PSNS may
result in installation of technologies that reduce effluent loading
beyond what is achieved by 100 percent substitution and elimination of
hypochlorite, EPA is not aware that these advanced technologies will
provide air emission reductions beyond what the BAT/PSES requirements
will achieve.
EPA notes that an affected bleached papergrade mill must comply
with the existing source MACT requirements no later than April 16, 2001
even if the mill's existing Clean Water Act NPDES permit does not yet
reflect the corresponding effluent limitations guidelines and standards
because its existing terms have not expired or it has been
administratively extended. Put another way, even if a mill's existing
NPDES permit serves as a shield (until reissuance) against imposition
of new limits based on new effluent limitations guidelines (see CWA
Section 402(k)), the MACT requirement for bleached papergrade mills to
control chloroform emissions through compliance with all parameter
requirements in the effluent limitations guidelines and standards takes
effect to satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Similarly, if
a bleached papergrade mill's NPDES permit is reissued sooner than the
expiration of the 3-year compliance schedule authorized for the
chloroform MACT requirements and calls for immediate compliance with
the BAT limitations, that deadline would prevail. The same principles
will apply when effluent limitations guidelines and MACT standards are
promulgated for dissolving grade mills. EPA's plans for promulgating
MACT standards for these mills are discussed immediately below.
An additional issue relating to compliance dates concerns bleaching
systems at existing source papergrade kraft and soda mills which have
elected, under the Clean Water Act portion of this rule, to treat
wastewater to levels surpassing baseline BAT requirements (such as
adding oxygen delignification prior to bleaching, and in some cases,
engaging in additional reduction of process wastewater and further
reductions in chlorinated bleaching chemicals used and bleaching system
modifications than are necessary to meet BAT baseline limitations). As
an incentive to make this election, EPA is not requiring participating
mills to achieve compliance with the more stringent portions of the
``Advanced Technology'' BAT limitations for six, eleven, and sixteen
years (for Tiers I, II, and III, respectively) in order to afford these
mills sufficient time to develop, finance, and install the Advanced
Technologies. In light of this, the Agency is concerned that requiring
bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills to comply in three years with
MACT standards based on process substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine would discourage these mills from electing to
participate in the Advanced Technology program. This is largely because
a mill that implements process substitution before it installs oxygen
or other extended delignification systems is likely to construct more
chlorine dioxide generating capacity than it ultimately will need. A
mill thus compelled to invest first in process substitution may be very
reluctant to abandon a portion of that investment soon afterwards in
order to participate in the voluntary incentives program.
EPA also believes that requiring compliance in three years with a
chloroform MACT standard based on baseline BAT for bleached papergrade
kraft and soda mills would present similar disincentives to achieving
greater effluent reductions. A mill in those circumstances will have
made a substantially larger capital investment than it will need to
control chloroform once its array of advanced water technologies is
installed. Also, depending on the degree of process modifications the
mill makes, the mill may need a much smaller scrubber for

[[Page 18528]]

the non-chloroform chlorinated HAPs and, in some cases, a scrubber may
not be needed at all to meet the MACT standards for chlorinated HAP
concentration limit. Thus, a mill otherwise interested in participating
in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program will find
itself diverting capital to environmental controls that it ultimately
will not need, instead of employing that capital to make more advanced
process modifications that will benefit both the water and the air.
Under these unusual circumstances where imposition of MACT
requirements could likely result in foregoing substantial cross-media
environmental benefits, EPA believes that a two-stage MACT compliance
scheme is justified for existing sources at bleached papergrade kraft
and soda mills that enroll in the water Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program (see 61 FR 9394 for a similar argument relating to
compliance with MACT for washers and oxygen delignification systems).
The first stage is an interim MACT of no backsliding--which reflects
the current level of air emissions control. The second stage requires
compliance with revised MACT based on baseline BAT requirements for all
parameters for bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills. (The second
stage in effect revises MACT to reflect the control technologies which
will be available at this later date. See CAA Sec. 112 (d)(6).) The no-
backsliding provisions apply to the period from June 15, 1998 until
compliance with the second-stage MACT standards is required April 15,
2004. This two-step alternative is available only to bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills actually making the binding decision to
comply with Tier I, II, or III water limitations.
EPA believes that providing these mills six years to comply with
second-stage MACT (i.e., baseline BAT requirements for all parameters)
is an appropriate and logical outgrowth of the discussions set forth in
the March 8, 1996 supplemental MACT notice (61 FR 9393) and the July
15, 1996 supplemental effluent guidelines notice (61 FR 36835-58). In
the March 8 notice, EPA solicited comments on its preliminary findings
that MACT for chloroform air emissions should be compliance with
baseline BAT. Commenters agreed with this preliminary determination. In
the July 15 notice, EPA set forth its vision of more stringent BAT for
mills that voluntarily enter the Advanced Technologies Incentives
program. As part of that voluntary program under the water standards,
EPA is promulgating a requirement that mills in Tiers II and III, at a
minimum, meet all the limitations promulgated as baseline BAT no later
than April 15, 2004. See Section IX.A. Thus, more stringent air
emission controls than stage one MACT will likewise be available at
this time since compliance with these interim BAT limitations will
result in compliance with MACT. For Tier II and Tier III mills, this
means that the second stage MACT requirement is compliance with the
baseline BAT limitations by April 15, 2004. The same is the case for
Tier I mills, even though under the water regulation Tier I mills will
be required to achieve more stringent limitations at that time. EPA is
defining MACT to be the baseline BAT limitations even in this situation
because compliance with the more stringent AOX limitations and other
requirements unique to Tier I are unnecessary to control chloroform
emissions at these mills.
EPA further believes that most plants likely to elect to comply
with a tier option already control air emissions of chlorinated HAPs
(both chloroform and other chlorinated HAPs) through application of the
MACT technologies (process substitution for chloroform and caustic
scrubbing for the remaining chlorinated HAPs). Thus, there will be some
control of the emissions from these bleaching operations during the
time preceding compliance with the second stage of MACT. To ensure that
there is no lessening of existing controls, EPA also is promulgating a
no backsliding requirement as an interim MACT--reflecting current
control levels. During the extended compliance period, mills thus may
not increase their application rates of chlorine or hypochlorite above
the average rates determined for the three-month period prior to June
15, 1998.
In the March 8 notice, the Agency proposed making a distinction
between requirements for bleaching systems at papergrade and dissolving
grade mills. The Agency solicited data concerning chloroform emissions
from dissolving grade bleaching processes and requested comment on an
appropriate chloroform MACT for dissolving grade bleaching systems.
Several commenters suggested that a separate MACT standard for
chloroform be developed for bleaching systems at dissolving grade
mills. Some commenters requested that the Agency defer chloroform
control requirements for dissolving grade mills until effluent
limitations guidelines and standards are established at those mills.
As stated in the July 15, 1996 Federal Register notice (61 FR
36835), EPA is evaluating new data on the technical feasibility of
reducing hypochlorite usage and implementing high levels of chlorine
dioxide substitution on a range of dissolving grade pulp products.
Therefore, EPA is deferring issuing effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for dissolving grade mills until the comments and data can be
fully evaluated. EPA expects to promulgate final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for dissolving grade subcategories at a later
date.
EPA has decided to delay establishing these MACT standards for
chloroform and for other chlorinated HAPs for dissolving grade
bleaching operations until promulgation of effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for those operations, for the following
reasons. With respect to the MACT standard for chloroform, first, as
explained above and in the March 8 notice, the control technology basis
for the effluent limitations guidelines and standards and the MACT
requirements will be the same. Second, at present, the Agency is unsure
what level of chlorine substitution and hypochlorite use is achievable
for dissolving grade mills. Thus, although EPA has a reasonably good
idea what the technology basis of MACT and effluent limitations
guidelines and standards is likely to be for dissolving grade mills,
the precise level of the standards remains to be determined.
Consequently, at present, EPA is unable to establish what the MACT
floor would be for chloroform emissions from bleaching systems at these
mills, and there is no conceivable beyond-the-floor technology to
consider. EPA will make these determinations based on data being
developed, and then promulgate for these mills effluent limitations
guidelines and standards and, concurrently, MACT standards based on
those effluent limitations guidelines and standards. Covered mills
would therefore be required to comply with the MACT standards
reflecting performance of the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards no later than three years after the effective date of those
standards, pursuant to CAA section 112(i)(3)(A).
The basis for delaying MACT requirements for chlorinated HAPs other
than chloroform (again, from dissolving-grade bleach operations only)
differs somewhat. As noted above, the technology basis for control of
these HAPs is use of a caustic scrubber. However, when plants
substitute chlorine dioxide for chlorine and eliminate hypochlorite (in
order to control chloroform emissions and discharges to water, as
explained above), a different scrubber will be needed that can
adequately control both the chlorine dioxide emissions for

[[Page 18529]]

worker safety reasons and the emissions of chlorinated, non-chloroform
HAPs. The Agency's concern (shared by the commenters who addressed this
question) is that immediate control of the non-chloroform chlorinated
HAPs could easily result in plants having to install and then replace a
caustic scrubber system in a few years due to promulgation of effluent
limitations guidelines and standards and MACT requirements for
chloroform. This result would be an inappropriate utilization of scarce
pollution control resources.
8. Test Methods
At proposal, the Agency proposed to require that Methods 308 and
26A be used to test for compliance with the provisions of the NESHAP.
Method 308 is used to measure methanol in the vent stream. Method 308
had not been validated using Method 301 at the time the NESHAP was
proposed. Method 26A is used to measure chlorine in vent streams.
At proposal, commenters objected to the rule referencing an
unvalidated test method (Method 308). The commenters also contended
that Method 26A should not be used for measuring chlorine in the
bleaching system because chlorine dioxide, which is expected to be
present in bleaching system vents, is listed as a possible interferant
in Method 26A. The commenters suggested using a modified Method 26A
developed by the pulp and paper industry.
Since proposal, Method 308 was revised to incorporate suggestions
made and data provided by representatives of the pulp and paper
industry.
Since proposal, Method 308 has also been validated using Method 301
validation criteria. The validation was conducted by the Atmospheric
Research and Environmental Analysis Laboratory in EPA's Office of
Research and Development. The results of the validation were reported
in the January 1995 issue of the Journal of the Air and Waste
Management Association. The Agency has also evaluated the commenters'
claims regarding Method 26A. The Agency agrees that chlorine dioxide is
a potential positive interferant to the method (i.e., concentration
measurement could potentially be higher than actual emissions). The
final rule includes modifications to Method 26A (based on an NCASI
method) to eliminate potential problems with chlorine dioxide
interference.
In March 1997, industry informed EPA that it had not used Method
305 to obtain the methanol steam stripper performance data (which was
used as the basis for the proposed pulping process condensate
standards). For the liquid sampling analysis, NCASI used a direct
aqueous injection gas chromatography/flame ionization detection (GC/
FID) method described in NCASI Technical Bulletin No. 684, Appendix I.
Consequently, the industry contends that Method 305 should not be
specified in the final rule for determining compliance with the pulping
process condensate standards. However, the NCASI test method has not
been validated using EPA Method 301 procedures and it is unlikely that
the test method validation would be completed before promulgation of
the MACT standard.
The Agency has considered industry's argument and has decided to
proceed with specifying Method 305 in the final rule to demonstrate
compliance with the pulping process condensate standards. However, if
the Agency approves the Method 301 validation procedures for NCASI's
GC/FID test method, this method will be referenced as either an
alternative or a replacement for Method 305 (for determining methanol
concentration only) with a supplemental Federal Register notice. EPA
believes that this course of action will adequately address the
industry's concerns. This decision was reached since the Method 301
validation procedures for NCASI's GC/FID method would likely be
completed before kraft mills would have to demonstrate compliance with
the pulping process condensate standards.
9. Backup Control Devices and Downtime
The proposal would have required emission limits for the NESHAP to
be met at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. Allowance for control device or collection system downtime
was not specified in the proposed rule, and the need for backup control
devices was not addressed.
Commenters asserted that EPA should recognize that control
technologies on which the proposed rule was based are not designed to
operate 100 percent of the time. Therefore, commenters requested
downtime allowances to account for safety related venting and periods
when the control device is inoperable. Otherwise, the commenters
asserted that costly backup control devices would be necessary to
achieve compliance with the NESHAP at all times. They further contended
that the environmental benefit for the additional cost associated with
the backup controls would be minimal. Commenters recommended a one
percent downtime for the LVHC system, four percent for the HVLC system,
and ten percent for steam stripper systems. Commenters contended that
while most of the LVHC systems had backup controls, very few of the
HVLC systems had backup controls. Several commenters added that the
Part 63 General Provisions do not address safety venting and downtime
necessary for trouble-shooting. Another commenter contended that the
Part 63 General Provisions already allow significant emissions and
should not be further weakened.
Since proposal, EPA has re-evaluated the need to incorporate
downtime or excess emission allowances for LVHC, HVLC, and steam
stripper systems into the final rule. Based on data submitted by the
pulp and paper industry, EPA has concluded that some allowance for
excess emissions is part of the MACT floor level of control. For the
final rule, EPA established appropriate excess emission allowances to
approximate the level of backup control that exists at the best-
performing mills and the associated period of time during which no
control device is available. The excess emission allowances in the
final rule include periods when the control device is inoperable and
when the operating parameter values established during the initial
performance test cannot be maintained at the appropriate level.
Based on an analysis of the public comments and the available data
regarding excess emissions and the level of backup control in the
industry, EPA has determined that an appropriate excess emissions
allowance for LVHC systems would be one percent of the operating hours
on a semi-annual basis for the control devices used to reduce HAP
emissions. The best-performing mills achieve a one percent downtime in
their LVHC system control devices. For control devices used to reduce
emissions from HVLC systems, EPA has concluded that an appropriate
excess emissions allowance would be four percent. The best-performing
mills achieve a four percent downtime in the control devices used to
reduce emissions from their HVLC system to account for flow balancing
problems and unpredictable pressure changes inherent in HVLC systems.
For control devices used to control emissions from both LVHC and HVLC
systems, the Agency has determined that a four percent excess emissions
allowance is appropriate. This decision was made because the control
device would be used for the HVLC system, which has the higher
emissions allowance. For LVHC and HVLC system control devices, the
excess emissions allowances do not include scheduled

[[Page 18530]]

maintenance activities that are discussed in the Part 63 General
Provisions. The allowances address normal operating variations in the
LVHC and HVLC system control devices for which the equipment is
designed. The variations would not be considered startup, shutdown, or
malfunction under the Part 63 General Provisions (Air Docket A-92-40,
IV-D1-103, IV-D1-110, IV-D1-115, IV-E-85, and IV-E-88).
The appropriate excess emissions allowance for steam stripper
systems was determined to be 10 percent. The allowance accounts for
stripper tray damage or plugging, efficiency losses in the stripper due
to contamination of condensate with fiber or black liquor, steam supply
downtime, and combustion control device downtime. This downtime
allowance includes all periods when the stripper systems are inoperable
including scheduled maintenance, malfunctions, startups, and shutdowns.
The startup, shutdown, malfunction allowances are included in the
stripper allowances because information was not available to
differentiate these emissions from normal stripper operating emissions.
Regarding the commenters' discussion of whether the startup,
shutdown, or malfunction provisions of the General Provisions would
cover maintenance and troubleshooting downtime, EPA has taken public
comment and is currently revising the requirements of the General
Provisions. Among the changes to the language, EPA intends to
incorporate safety-related venting requirements into the General
Provisions. However, scheduled maintenance activities are not
considered by EPA to qualify for excess emissions allowances. The
start-up, shutdown, and malfunction plan specified in the General
Provisions should address the periods of excess emissions that are
caused by unforeseen or unexpected events.
10. Equipment Enclosures, Closed-Vent Systems, and Control Equipment,
and Condensate Conveyance System
a. Requirements for Closed-Vent Systems. At proposal, the Agency
required specific standards and monitoring requirements for closed-vent
systems. The standards required: (1) Maintaining a negative pressure at
each opening, (2) ensuring enclosure openings that were closed during
the performance test be closed during normal operation, (3) designing
and operating closed-vent systems to have no detectable leaks, (4)
installing flow indicators for bypass lines, and (5) securing bypass
line valves. Monitoring requirements included visual inspections of
seal/closure mechanisms and closed-vent systems, and demonstrations of
no detectable leaks in the closed-vent system.
Commenters to the proposed NESHAP contended that visual inspections
were not necessary due to durability of the materials used by this
industry to construct the collection system. In addition, commenters
contended that leak detections were not necessary since systems are
typically operated at negative pressure. The commenters also opposed
requirements for seals and locks on bypass lines because the bypass
lines are installed for purposes of personnel safety, equipment
protection, and to prevent explosions.
The Agency evaluated the comments and has decided to make the
following changes to the closed-vent system requirements. The Agency
agreed with the commenters that most closed-vent systems will be under
negative pressure. Any leaks, therefore, would pull air into the
collection system rather than release HAPs to the atmosphere.
Therefore, the Agency revised the requirement for demonstration of no
detectable emissions to apply only to portions of the closed-vent
system operated under positive pressure. The Agency also agreed that
requiring a lock and key-type seal on bypass lines would be
overburdensome and could potentially pose a safety hazard. The
intention of the requirements was to prevent circumvention of the
control device by venting directly to the atmosphere. The Agency
believes that this assurance can be achieved using car seals or seals
that could easily be broken, to indicate when a valve has been turned.
Proper recordkeeping is also necessary to demonstrate proper operation.
Therefore, the Agency revised the bypass line requirements to allow the
use of car seals but require log entries recording valve position, flow
rate, and other parameters. The Agency has modified the enclosure
requirements to allow for short-term openings for pulp sampling and
maintenance.
The final rule retains the visual monitoring requirements. The
requirements are necessary to ensure proper operation of collection
systems and can be conducted at a reasonable cost.
b. Concentration Limit for Combustion Devices and Design
Incinerator Operating Parameters. At proposal, the NESHAP would have
required vent streams to be controlled in a combustion device that
achieves 98 percent reduction of HAPs or outlet HAP emission
concentrations of 20 ppmv corrected to three percent oxygen.
Alternatively, mills could comply with the control requirements by
routing vent streams to a design incinerator operating at 1,600 deg.F
and a residence time of 0.75 seconds, or to a boiler, lime kiln, or
recovery furnace.
Commenters on the proposed rule objected to the 20 ppmv limit at a
three percent oxygen correction factor. Some commenters claimed that
incinerator exhaust streams in the pulp and paper industry have an
oxygen content in excess of 10 percent. Therefore, if the outlet
concentration was corrected to three percent oxygen, the concentration
level would not be achievable. Some commenters recommended increasing
the correction factor to 10 percent oxygen.
The 20 ppmv limit represents the performance that is achieved on
low concentration streams by a well designed combustion device. This
limit was based on previous EPA studies (Air Docket A-79-32, II-B-31).
The three percent oxygen correction factor at proposal was based on
stream characteristics of other industries, such as the synthetic
organic chemical manufacturing industry. The three percent correction
factor has been used on many previous standards for controlling organic
pollutants. EPA re-evaluated the three percent correction factor to
ensure that it is appropriate for the pulp and paper industry. Test
data supplied by the industry confirmed their comments that the oxygen
content of the incinerator flue gas is typically greater than ten
percent at pulp and paper mills. Based on the industry data and the
thermodynamic models, EPA changed the oxygen correction factor to ten
percent (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-19). Therefore, the final rule allows
combustion devices to be in compliance if they reduce HAP
concentrations to 20 ppmv at ten percent oxygen. Information supplied
by the pulp and paper industry indicates that many of the existing
incinerators meet this limit.
Commenters on the proposed rule objected that the requirements for
the design incinerator were too stringent and that equivalent control
could be achieved at lower temperatures. Many commenters requested that
the Agency allow incinerators meeting the operating conditions in the
kraft NSPS of 1,200 oF and 0.5 seconds residence time to be
used for the NESHAP.
EPA has decided not to change the proposed design incinerator
operating parameters for the NESHAP because the parameters are
necessary to meet the MACT floor. EPA would first like to clarify that
the final rule does not limit owners or operators of incinerators to
operate at the specified temperatures and residence times. Any control
device

[[Page 18531]]

that is demonstrated to achieve 98 percent destruction of HAPs will
comply with the rule. Any thermal oxidizer which reduces HAP emissions
to a concentration of 20 ppmv at ten percent oxygen will also comply
with the rule. The 98 percent destruction requirement represents the
control level achieved by well-operated combustion devices. The 20 ppmv
limit represents the performance achieved by well-operated combustion
devices on low concentration vent streams.
Second, EPA has made this part of the rule as flexible as possible
while still achieving a level of control reflecting MACT. In the
December 17, 1993 proposal and in this final rule, EPA developed
compliance alternatives in order to reduce the compliance testing
burden. The compliance alternatives (i.e., operating thermal oxidizers
at a temperature of 1,600 deg.F and a residence time of 0.75 seconds)
were developed to ensure that the thermal oxidizers perform at a level
that would meet the destruction efficiency requirements. The operating
parameters are based on previous Agency studies that show that these
conditions are necessary to achieve 98 percent destruction of HAPs.
However, the NSPS operating parameters (1,200 deg.F and 0.5 seconds
residence time) do not destroy HAPs to this extent.
The purpose of the kraft NSPS was to reduce emissions of TRS
compounds. EPA has evaluated the temperature and residence time
required by the NSPS to determine whether the NSPS temperature and
residence time are sufficient to achieve 98 percent reduction of HAPs.
EPA's analysis indicates that while the NSPS requirements are
sufficient to achieve 98 percent destruction of TRS compounds, kinetic
calculations for methanol (the majority of HAP in pulping vent gases)
show that the NSPS criteria will not achieve 98 percent reduction of
HAPs (Air Docket A-92-40, IV-B-18). Additionally, EPA evaluated
incinerator performance data submitted by industry (Air Docket A-92-40,
IV-J-33). The data indicated that the NSPS operating parameters were
not sufficient for achieving 98 percent destruction of methanol. This
conclusion was reached by EPA since the operating conditions (i.e.,
temperature and residence time) of the incinerators that achieved 98
percent methanol destruction were greater than the levels specified in
the kraft NSPS. Therefore, the NSPS specifications will not meet the
requirements of MACT for new and existing sources.
c. Condensate Collection System. In the December 17, 1993 proposal,
EPA proposed to require pulping process condensate collection systems
to be designed and operated without leaks. EPA proposed that all tanks,
containers, and surface impoundments storing applicable condensate
streams were required to be enclosed and all vent emissions must be
routed to a control device by means of a closed-vent system. A
submerged fill pipe would have been required on containers and tanks
storing an applicable condensate stream or any stream containing HAP
removed from a condensate stream. All drain systems that received or
managed applicable condensate streams would have been required to be
enclosed with no detectable leaks and any HAP emissions from vents were
required to be routed to a control device. Several commenters on the
proposed pulp and paper NESHAP contended that the proposed requirements
were overly burdensome and, in some cases, unnecessary.
After the pulp and paper NESHAP was proposed, the Agency
promulgated a separate rulemaking in 40 CFR Part 63, Subpart RR
(National Emission Standards for Individual Drain Systems). This rule
established emission control, inspection and monitoring, and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for individual drain systems.
The individual drain system requirements specify that air emissions
from collection systems must be controlled using covers or seals, hard-
piping, or venting of individual drain systems through a closed-vent
system to a control device or a combination of these control options.
The emission control techniques specified in the individual drain
system standard (i.e., covers/seals and vent combustion) are common
techniques that are applicable to a variety of wastewater collection
systems, regardless of the type of process that produced the wastewater
streams.
EPA compared the collection system requirements contained in the
proposed pulp and paper NESHAP with the individual drain system
requirements in subpart RR. Since the subpart RR requirements are
consistent with the intent of the proposed standards, EPA concluded
that the requirements of subpart RR constitute MACT for the pulp and
paper industry. The control costs presented in the ``Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Industry-Background Information for Promulgated Air Emission
Standards, Manufacturing Processes at Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, Semi-
Chemical, Mechanical, and Secondary and Non-wood Fiber Mills, Final
EIS''(EPA-453/R-93-050b) were based on industry estimates for hard-
piping systems. The Agency has concluded that these costs would be the
same or greater than would be needed for complying with the
requirements of subpart RR.
The final pulp and paper NESHAP references 40 CFR Subpart RR for
the standards for individual drain systems for the pulping process
condensate closed collection system. The Subpart RR standards provide
uniform language that simplifies compliance and enforcement.
The final rule requires tanks to be controlled as at proposal, but
containers and surface impoundments are not required to be controlled.
Public comments indicated that containers are not used in the pulp and
paper industry. The Agency's intention in the proposed rule was not to
require surface impoundments to be controlled, except when used as part
of the condensate collection system. After further review of this
issue, the Agency has determined that mills do not use and are unlikely
to use surface impoundments as part of their closed collection system
for condensate streams and therefore that the language on control of
surface impoundments does not need to appear in the rule.
11. Interaction With Other Rules
a. Prevention of Significant Deterioration/New Source Review (PSD/
NSR). To comply with the MACT portion of the pulp and paper cluster
rule, mills will route vent gases from specified pulping and condensate
emission points to a combustion control device for destruction. The
incineration of these gases at kraft mills has the potential to
generate sulfur dioxide (SO2) and, to a lesser degree,
nitrogen oxides (NOX). The emission increases of
SO2 and NOX may be of such magnitude to trigger
the need for preconstruction permits under the nonattainment NSR or PSD
program (hereinafter referred to as major NSR).
Industry and some States have commented extensively that in
developing the rule, EPA did not take into account the impacts that
would be incurred in triggering major NSR. Commenters indicated that
major NSR would: (1) Cost the pulp and paper industry significantly
more for permitting and implementation of additional SO2 or
NOX controls than predicted by EPA; (2) impose a large
permitting review burden on State air quality offices; and (3) present
difficulties for mills to meet the proposed NESHAP compliance schedule
of 3 years due to the time required to obtain a preconstruction permit.
Industry commenters have stated that the pollution control project

[[Page 18532]]

(PCP) exemption allowed under the current PSD policy provides
inadequate relief from these potential impacts and recommended
including specific language in the pulp and paper rule exempting MACT
compliance projects from NSR/PSD.
In a July 1, 1994 guidance memorandum issued by EPA (available on
the Technology Transfer Network; see ``Pollution Control Projects and
New Source Review (NSR) Applicability'' from John S. Seitz, Director,
OAQPS to EPA Regional Air Division Directors), EPA provided guidance
for permitting authorities on the approvability of PCP exclusions for
source categories other than electric utilities. In the guidance, EPA
indicated that add-on controls and fuel switches to less polluting
fuels qualify for an exclusion from major NSR. To be eligible to be
excluded from otherwise applicable major NSR requirements, a PCP must
on balance be ``environmentally beneficial,'' and the permitting
authority must ensure that the project will not cause or contribute to
a violation of a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) or PSD
increment, or adversely affect visibility or other air quality related
values (AQRV) in a Class I area, and that off-setting reductions are
secured in the case of a project which would result in a significant
increase of a non-attainment pollutant. The permitting authority can
make these determinations outside of the major NSR process. The 1994
guidance did not void or create an exclusion from any applicable minor
source preconstruction review requirements in an approved State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Any minor NSR permitting requirements in a
SIP would continue to apply, regardless of any exclusion from major NSR
that might be approved for a source under the PCP exclusion policy.
In the July 1, 1994 guidance memorandum, EPA specifically
identified the combustion of organic toxic pollutants as an example of
an add-on control that could be considered a PCP and an appropriate
candidate for a case-by-case exclusion from major NSR. For the purposes
of the pulp and paper MACT rule, EPA considers that combustion for the
control of HAP emissions from pulping systems and condensate control
systems to be a PCP, because the combustion controls are being
installed to comply with MACT and will reduce emissions of hazardous
organic air pollutants. EPA also considers the reduction of these
pollutants to represent an environmental benefit. However, EPA
recognizes that the incidental formation of SO2 and
NOX due to the destruction of HAPs will occur. Consistent
with the 1994 guidance, the permitting authority should confirm that,
in each case, the resultant emissions increase would not cause or
contribute to a violation of a NAAQS, PSD increment, or adversely
affect an AQRV.
The EPA believes that the current guidance on pollution control
projects adequately provides for the exclusion from major NSR of air
pollution control projects in the pulp and paper industry resulting
from today's rule. Such projects would be covered under minor source
regulations in the applicable state implementation plan (SIP), and
permitting authorities would be expected to provide adequate safeguards
against NAAQS and increment violations and adverse impacts on air
quality related values in Federal Class I areas. Only in those cases
where potential adverse impacts cannot be resolved through the minor
NSR programs or other mechanisms would major NSR apply.
The EPA recognizes that, where there is a potential for an adverse
impact, some small percentage of mills located near Class I PSD areas
might be subject to major NSR, i.e., the permitting authority
determines that the impact or potential impact cannot be adequately
addressed by its minor NSR program or other SIP measures. If this
occurs, there is a question whether MACT and NSR compliance can both be
done within the respective rule deadlines. EPA believes, however, that
the eight year compliance deadline provided in the final MACT rule for
HVLC kraft pulping sources substantially mitigates the potential
scheduling problem. The equipment with the eight year compliance
deadline are the primary sources of the additional SO2 and
NOX emissions. The additional time should be sufficient to
resolve any preconstruction permitting issues.
While the Agency believes that eight years is sufficient for kraft
mills with HVLC systems to meet permitting requirements, industry has
raised concerns that there could be a potential problem for a few mills
in Class I attainment areas that are required to comply with the final
rule in three years. The PCP exemption and extended compliance schedule
may not resolve all NSR conflicts for every mill. Although too
speculative to warrant disposition in this rule, EPA is alert to this
potential problem and will attempt to create implementation flexibility
on a case-by-case basis should a problem actually occur.
Commenters requested that the PCP exclusion also be expanded to
actions undertaken at mills that enroll in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology (AT) Incentives Program in the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards portion of today's rule. In the July 23, 1996
notice on changes to the NSR Program (61 FR 38250), EPA solicited
comments on the appropriate scope of the PCP exclusion. EPA also
solicited comments in the July 15, 1996 supplemental pulp and paper
effluent guidelines notice (61 FR 36857) on whether advanced water
pollution control technologies implemented by the pulp and paper
industry should be eligible for an exclusion from major NSR and if so,
whether the exclusion should be implemented under the provisions of the
PCP exclusion under the NSR proposed regulations. In the context of
these notices, EPA received several comments in favor of extending the
PCP exclusion to multi-media activities, such as those that would be
undertaken for the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program but
received little information on appropriate criteria for determining the
relative benefits of reduced water pollution to potential coincident
increases in air pollution.
The Agency believes that, depending on the control technologies
selected by a mill, the potential exists for an overall environmental
benefit to result from control strategies implemented under the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. However, unlike the
MACT rule in today's action, where the controls that would be installed
to reduce hazardous air pollutants are fairly well known and the
potential pollutant tradeoffs within the same environmental media are
fairly well understood, the Agency is less certain about the controls
that might be installed to comply with this Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program and the potential pollutant tradeoffs
that may occur across environmental media. Therefore, while the Agency
is continuing to consider extending this PCP status to activities
undertaken to implement the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program, the Agency is not extending that status in today's action
because the Agency currently lacks sufficient information to establish
a process and set of criteria by which a determination could be made as
to whether these advanced control technologies result in an overall
environmental benefit at individual mills that participate in this
program. The Agency intends to continue discussions with stakeholders
on a process and set of criteria by which a determination could be made
as to the appropriateness of extending the PCP exclusion to controls
installed at

[[Page 18533]]

individual mills to comply with the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program. Because the control technologies that could be
installed to implement the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program may vary significantly from one mill to another, mills that
want controls implemented within the context of the Voluntary Advanced
Technology effluent program to be considered PCP will likely need to
make a site-specific demonstration that such controls result in an
overall environmental benefit. When a mill would need to make such a
demonstration would depend upon that particular mill's compliance
timeline--dictated by the AT Incentives Tier to which they commit and
the time necessary to get applicable permits approved. While it is not
possible at this time to identify the criteria the Agency would use for
approving a PCP exclusion, the Agency would not consider projects which
result in any increases in emissions of highly toxic compounds to be an
acceptable candidate PCP. For example, the Agency believes it would not
be environmentally acceptable to give the PCP exclusion to an activity
which results in a chlorinated material being sent to a boiler that
would result in the release of a chlorinated toxic air pollutant. The
Agency also believes that the public should be provided an opportunity
to review and comment on mill-specific cases where a PCP exclusion is
being considered for these advanced water technologies, particularly if
there would be a potentially significant emissions increase of criteria
air pollutants such as SO2 or NOX.
Since mills must declare within one year of promulgation of the
cluster rules whether they will participate in the Voluntary AT
Incentives Program, the Agency is aware that mills would like to know
whether a mechanism exists whereby they may apply for a PCP exclusion
among the many factors that may influence their participation in this
incentives program. In order for the Agency to proceed further on this
issue, the Agency again is requesting that interested stakeholders
submit information on the types of control technologies that could be
installed under the Voluntary AT Incentives Program along with
information on the type and potential magnitude of collateral air
pollutant increases that may occur at mills. The Agency requests
information from stakeholders that could be useful for developing a
process by which mills would apply for the PCP exclusion and for
setting forth criteria for determining whether an activity performed
under the Voluntary AT Incentives Program qualifies for the PCP
exclusion. Given the potentially varying control strategies that could
be adopted by participating mills, the Agency also requests information
that may be useful in assessing whether generic guidance on when a PCP
exclusion may be appropriate should be set forth within the context of
the NSR Reform effort or whether NSR determinations should more
appropriately be made in the context of mill-specific applications. The
EPA needs this information within 60 days of the publishing of this
notice to evaluate the information and proceed with this issue in a
useful time period for mills to make their decisions on participation
in the Voluntary AT Incentives Program. Stakeholders should submit
information on this topic directly to Ms. Penny Lassiter, Emission
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711.
b. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)/Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces (BIF). One of the options for controlling emissions
from pulping process condensates is to steam strip HAPs, primarily
methanol, from kraft pulping process condensate streams. After the HAPs
are removed, the vent gas from the steam stripper is required to be
sent to a combustion device for destruction. Several commenters pointed
out that some mills may choose to concentrate the methanol in the steam
stripper vent gas, using a rectification column, and burn the
condensate as a fuel.
However, the concentrated methanol condensate that would be derived
from the steam stripper overheads may be identified as hazardous waste
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) because it
exhibits the ignitability characteristic. See 40 CFR 261.21. Boilers
burning such a hazardous waste fuel would ordinarily be required to
comply with emission standards set out in 40 CFR Part 266 Subpart H
(the so-called BIF regulation, i.e., standards for boilers and
industrial furnaces burning hazardous waste). Several commenters
recommended incorporating a ``clean fuels'' exclusion into the pulp and
paper NESHAP so that the condensate can be burned for energy recovery
without the combustion unit also being subject to the RCRA rules. The
``clean fuels'' exclusion is a recommendation from EPA's Solid Waste
Task Force to allow recovery of energy from waste-derived fuels that
are considered hazardous only because they exhibit the ignitability
characteristics and do not contain significant concentrations of HAP.
For background information see 61 FR at 17459-69 (April 19, 1996),
where EPA proposed such an exclusion based on similarity of waste-
derived fuels to certain fossil fuels.
The Agency proposed to exclude this practice from RCRA regulation
in the March 8, 1996 notice and solicited comments on this
determination (61 FR at 9396). All of the comments supported granting
this exemption. As stated in the notice, EPA does not believe that RCRA
regulation of the rectification and combustion of the condensate is
appropriate or necessary. The rectification practice would not increase
environmental risk, would reduce secondary environmental impacts, and
would provide a cost savings. Moreover, the burning of condensate will
not increase the potential environmental risk over the burning of the
steam stripper vent gases prior to condensation. (See generally 61 FR
at 9397.) Finally, consideration of risk would more appropriately be
handled as part of the section 112(f) residual risk determination
required for all sources after implementation of MACT standards. For
these reasons, EPA will exclude specific sources at kraft mills that
burn condensates derived from steam stripper overhead vent gases from
RCRA, including condensates from the steam stripper methanol
rectification process. The scope of this exclusion is limited to that
requested by commenters, combustion at the facility generating the
stream. (Limitation of the scope of the exclusion to on-site burning
also eliminates questions about whether RCRA regulation is needed to
assure proper tracking and transport of the material.)

B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

1. Subcategorization
The subcategorization scheme being promulgated today for effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the pulp, paper, and
paperboard industry replaces the subcategorization of this industry
that dates back to 1974. EPA's reasons for combining and reorganizing
the 26 old subcategories (formerly found in Parts 430 and 431) into 12
new subcategories are set forth below, in the proposal, see 58 FR at
66098-100, and in ``Selected Issues Concerning Subcategorization'' (DCN
14497, Volume 1).
In reorganizing Part 430 to comport with the new subcategorization
scheme, EPA has reprinted in their entirety the current effluent
limitations guidelines and standards applicable to the newly

[[Page 18534]]

formed subcategories. The only substantive changes to the current
effluent limitations guidelines and standards are the BAT limitations,
NSPS, PSES, PSNS, and best management practices being promulgated today
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory (subpart B) and
the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory (subpart E). In addition, EPA is
promulgating the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program
applicable to subpart B. EPA is making no changes to the BPT and BCT
limitations previously promulgated for what are now subparts B and E.
Similarly, EPA is retaining the NSPS promulgated in 1982 in new
Subparts B and E for new sources that commenced discharge that met the
1982 NSPS after June 15, 1988 but before June 15, 1998 provided that
the new source was constructed to meet those standards. EPA is also
retaining, without substantive revision, the new source pretreatment
standards previously promulgated for subparts B and E for facilities
constructed between June 15, 1988 and June 15, 1998.
These limitations and standards are recodified at subparts B and E
in the form of segments corresponding to the old subcategorization
scheme. (In re-codifying these limitations and standards, EPA has
simplified the text introducing the limitations tables, but has not
changed the former regulations' substance.) Direct discharging mills
currently subject to the 1982 NSPS remain subject to those standards
until the date ten years after the completion of construction of the
new source or during the period of depreciation or amortization of such
facility, whichever comes first. See CWA section 306(d). After such
time, the BAT limitations promulgated today apply for toxic and
nonconventional pollutants. Limitations on conventional pollutants will
be based on the formerly promulgated BPT/BCT limitations corresponding
to the BPT/BCT segment applicable to the discharger or on the 1982 NSPS
for conventional pollutants, whichever is more stringent.
EPA is making no substantive changes to the limitations and
standards applicable to any other subcategory. EPA will promulgate new
or revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards, as
appropriate, for the remaining subcategories at a later date. See Table
II-2. Until then, the previously promulgated effluent limitations
guidelines and standards remain in effect.
EPA is making one non-substantive revision in each subpart. Where
the existing regulation includes a narrative statement describing the
procedure to calculate the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for non-continuous dischargers, e.g., 40 CFR 430.13, 430.15,
430.62(a)-(d), 430.65 (1996 ed.), EPA has performed the calculations
and presented the results in tables. The resulting effluent limitations
and standards are the same; this procedure was done simply to
streamline the regulation and to make it easier to apply for the permit
writer.
In order to ensure that any facilities that would not have been
subject to the previous subparts will not inadvertently be subject to
limitations and standards set forth in the newly redesignated subparts,
EPA is using the applicability language of each previously promulgated
subpart to define the applicability of the newly redesignated subparts
that consolidate them. For example, rather than promulgate the
applicability statement proposed for subpart C, see 58 FR at 66199, EPA
has instead codified as a single applicability statement, the
applicability statements of former subparts A, D and V, which new
subpart C now comprises. See 40 CFR 430.30.
The Agency received comments that the groupings comprising the new
subcategories are unreasonable because they purportedly ignore
distinctions among facilities that affect their ability to implement
the technologies that form the basis of the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated for subparts B and E. Thus, some
commenters asserted, these facilities would be unable to meet the same
limits as other mills in the same new subcategory. EPA considered these
comments in detail where they involved mills subject to new effluent
limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today in order to
determine whether the groupings of the mills into subparts B and E were
appropriate. In response to these comments, EPA segmented subpart E.
See section VI.B.6.a. When EPA develops the final regulations for the
remaining subcategories, EPA similarly will consider if it is
appropriate to fine-tune these initial groupings to better respond to
material differences between facilities.
EPA also acknowledges that the subcategorization scheme promulgated
today was developed based on data received in the ``1990 National
Census of Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Manufacturing Facilities,'' and
that there have been changes in the industry since that data gathering
effort. Because the resubcategorization has no substantive effect on
any mill other than those with production in subparts B and E (for whom
revised effluent limitations guidelines and standards are promulgated
today), EPA believes that changes in the industry affecting the
remaining subparts are best addressed when EPA makes the decision
whether to revise the regulations for those subcategories.
a. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. The Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, for which regulations are
promulgated in this rulemaking at 40 CFR part 430 subpart B,
encompasses the former subparts G (market bleached kraft), H (BCT
bleached kraft), I (fine bleached kraft), and P (soda). EPA has
retained the applicability statements associated with those former
subparts. See 40 CFR 430.20. EPA intends for this merged subcategory to
apply to mills that chemically pulp wood fiber using a kraft method
with an alkaline sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide cooking liquor to
produce bleached papergrade pulp and/or bleached paper/paperboard. It
also applies to mills that chemically pulp wood fiber using a soda
method with an alkaline sodium hydroxide cooking liquor. Principal
products of bleached kraft wood pulp include papergrade kraft market
pulp, paperboard, coarse papers, tissue papers, uncoated free sheet,
and fine papers, which include business, writing, and printing papers.
Principal products of bleached soda wood pulp are fine papers, which
include printing, writing, and business papers, and market pulp.
b. Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. The Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory, for which regulations are promulgated in this rulemaking,
is defined as 40 CFR part 430 subpart E and encompasses former subpart
J (papergrade sulfite-blow pit wash) and subpart U (papergrade sulfite-
drum wash). EPA has retained the applicability statements associated
with those former subparts. See 40 CFR 430.50. EPA intends for this
merged subcategory to apply to mills that chemically pulp wood fiber
using a sulfite method, with or without brightening or bleaching, using
an acidic cooking liquor of calcium, magnesium, ammonium, or sodium
sulfites to produce bleached papergrade pulp and/or bleached paper/
paperboard. The provisions of this merged subpart apply regardless of
whether blow pit pulp washing techniques or vacuum or pressure drum
pulp washing techniques are used.
2. BPT/BCT for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory and
the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
a. Background. EPA proposed to revise effluent limitations for the
conventional pollutants biochemical

[[Page 18535]]

oxygen demand (BOD5) and total suspended solids (TSS) based
on the best practicable control technology currently available (BPT)
for all of the proposed subcategories, including Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite. As presented in the proposal, 58
FR at 66105, EPA highlighted several controversial issues concerning
the BPT limitations, their calculation, and their interpretation. EPA
also presented a rationale and methodology and identified related
controversies for establishing limitations based on the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).
b. BPT. In December 1993, the Agency proposed to revise BPT for
conventional pollutants for subparts B and E and specifically solicited
comment on that proposed decision. See 58 FR at 66105-06. In response,
EPA received comments claiming that EPA lacks the legal authority to
revise BPT once BPT effluent limitations guidelines have been
promulgated. EPA also received other comments asserting that the Clean
Water Act compels EPA to revise BPT. Although the Agency believes that
it has the statutory authority to revise BPT, the Agency also believes
that it has the discretion to determine whether to revise BPT effluent
limitations guidelines in particular circumstances. The question of
EPA's legal authority is not relevant here, however, because EPA has
decided, in the exercise of its discretion, that it is not appropriate
to revise BPT effluent limitations guidelines for conventional
pollutants for subparts B and E at this time. Instead the current BPT
effluent limitations guidelines for conventional pollutants will
continue to apply to these subcategories.
EPA bases this decision on its determination that the total cost of
applying the proposed BPT model technology is disproportionate in this
instance to the effluent reduction benefits to be achieved. See CWA
section 304(b)(1)(B). When setting BPT limitations, EPA is required
under section 304(b) to perform a limited cost-benefit balancing to
make sure that costs are not wholly out of proportion to the benefits
achieved. See, e.g., Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 590 F.2d 1011 (D.C.
Cir. 1978). It therefore follows that EPA is authorized to perform such
balancing when determining whether to revise existing BPT limitations.
Mills in subparts B and E have significantly reduced their loadings
of BOD5 and TSS since promulgation of the current BPT
effluent limitations guidelines in 1977. Although additional removals
could be achieved if BPT were revised, EPA has determined for subpart B
and, separately, for subpart E that the costs of achieving that
incremental improvement beyond either the current BOD5 and
TSS limitations or the current long term average for BOD5
and TSS are disproportionate to the benefits. A single mill might have
to spend as much as $17.4 million in order to upgrade to advanced
secondary treatment. See the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487. These expenditures are particularly significant
when one considers the cumulative costs of this rulemaking. Therefore,
EPA has decided not to revise BPT limitations for conventional
pollutants for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory at this time.
EPA's decision not to revise BPT limitations for subpart B at this
time is also informed by the Agency's long-term goal for this industry:
that the industry will continuously improve its environmental
performance primarily through sound capital planning and expenditures.
EPA has determined that this interplay between potentially more
stringent revised BPT limitations and the industry's long-term
environmental improvement is an appropriate factor to be considered in
this rulemaking with respect to BPT. See CWA section 304(b)(1)(B). It
is also consistent with the Clean Water Act's overarching objective,
which calls upon EPA to implement the statute's provisions with the
goal of eliminating the discharge of pollutants into the Nation's
waters. See CWA Section 101(a). In this rulemaking, EPA has determined
that the baseline regulatory requirements--effluent limitations
guidelines and standards and air emissions standards--are only one
component of the framework to achieve long-term environmental goals.
EPA believes that the mills of the future will approach closed loop
operations, thus achieving minimal impact on the aquatic environment.
To promote this, EPA is promulgating an incentives program to encourage
subpart B mills to implement pollution prevention leading to the mill
of the future. See Section IX.
EPA believes that near-term investments to achieve more stringent
BPT effluent limitations for conventional pollutants would divert
limited resources away from environmentally more preferable investments
in advanced pollution prevention technologies. Thus, EPA is concerned
that revising BPT effluent limitations guidelines at this time could
discourage mills from achieving even greater environmental results
through the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. Moreover,
EPA estimates that, even without revising BPT limitations for subpart
B, loadings of BOD5, for example, will decline by
approximately 20 percent when mills meet the baseline BAT limitations
and best management practices requirements promulgated today.
Incidental removals are even greater for subpart B mills implementing
more advanced technologies (e.g., loadings of BOD5 are
estimated to decline by approximately 30 percent at the Tier I level,
and EPA expects substantially greater reductions from Tiers II and
III). See Table IX-1. EPA also expects comparable TSS loading
reductions to occur. See the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program Technical Support Document, DCN 14488. In short, because
sufficient additional removals of conventional pollutants from subpart
B mills can be obtained without revising BPT at this time, EPA has
determined that, on balance, the incremental benefits attributable to
revised BPT limits do not justify the comparatively high costs
associated with achieving those limits. For these additional reasons,
EPA has decided not to revise BPT for conventional pollutants for mills
in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory at this time.
Finally, if additional removals of BOD5 and TSS are
needed to protect particular receiving waters, CWA section 301(b)(1)(C)
requires mills on a case-by-case basis to meet more stringent
limitations as necessary to achieve applicable water quality standards.
For the foregoing reasons, therefore, EPA has decided, in the
exercise of its discretion, that it is not appropriate to revise BPT
limitations for conventional pollutants for subparts B and E at this
time. Rather, the BPT effluent limitations guidelines promulgated for
former subparts G, H, I, and P (now Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory, subpart B) and former subparts J and U (now Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory, subpart E) remain in effect. These limitations are
recodified at subparts B and E in the form of segments corresponding to
the old subcategorization scheme. See 40 CFR 430.22 and 430.52.
c. BCT Methodology. In considering whether to promulgate revised
BCT limits for subparts B and E, EPA considered whether there are
technologies that achieve greater removals of conventional pollutants
than the current BPT effluent limitations guidelines, and whether those
technologies are cost-reasonable according to the BCT cost test. At

[[Page 18536]]

proposal, EPA presented two alternative methodologies for developing
BCT limitations. The first assumed that BPT limits would be revised in
the final rulemaking; the alternative analysis was based on the
assumption that BPT limits would not be revised. See 58 FR at 66106-07.
The principal difference between the two methodologies involved the BPT
baseline that EPA would use to compare the incremental removals and
costs associated with the candidate BCT technologies. Because the
Agency is not revising BPT, EPA used the second alternative to
determine whether to revise the current BCT limits for subparts B and
E.
d. BCT Technology Options Considered. For the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA identified two candidate BCT
technologies for the final rule. These were: (i) The technology
required to perform at the level achieved by the best 90 percent of
mills in the subcategory; and (ii) the technology required to perform
at the level achieved by the best 50 percent of mills in the
subcategory.
The Papergrade Sulfite subcategory was not divided into segments
for the purpose of conducting a BCT analysis because EPA found that
treatability of BOD5 and TSS in the wastewater generated by
the three segments does not differ. EPA identified one candidate BCT
technology for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. This was the
technology required to perform at the average level achieved by three
mills in the subcategory with at least 85 percent of their production
in the segment. Development of candidate BCT technology options based
on the best 90 and 50 percent of mills, which EPA used for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, is not appropriate for this
subcategory because there are only 11 mills in this subcategory and
only four of these have at least 85 percent of their production in the
subcategory. The wastewater treatment performance of three of these
mills was determined to reflect BCT level performance for the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. EPA did not consider the wastewater
treatment performance of the fourth mill to be representative of the
subcategory as a whole because it treats wastewater from liquor by-
products manufactured on site, and thus is unique among papergrade
sulfite mills.
e. Results of BCT Analysis. EPA evaluated the candidate BCT
technologies for both the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory and the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory and concluded that
none of the candidate options passed the BCT cost test. For more
details, see the Supplemental Technical Development Document, Section
12, DCN 14487. Therefore, at this time, the Agency is not promulgating
more stringent BCT effluent limitations guidelines for the newly
constituted subparts B and E. Rather, the BCT limitations promulgated
for former subparts G, H, I, and P (now Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory, subpart B) and former subparts J and U (now
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, subpart E) remain in effect. These
limitations are recodified at subparts B and E in the form of segments
corresponding to the old subcategorization scheme. See 40 CFR 430.23
and 430.53.
3. Pollutant Parameters for BAT/NSPS/PSES/PSNS
a. Dioxin, Furan, and Chlorinated Phenolic Pollutants. EPA is
promulgating effluent limitations guidelines and standards for 2,3,7,8-
TCDD (``dioxin''), 2,3,7,8-TCDF (``furan''), and 12 specific
chlorinated phenolic pollutants for subparts B and E (except for those
mills regulated by TCF limitations). For a discussion of EPA's
rationale for regulating these parameters, see the proposal, 58 FR at
66102-03 and the proposal Technical Development Document (EPA 821-R-93-
019). For a discussion of EPA's pass-through analysis regarding these
pollutants, see Section VI.B.5.c(2) and VI.B.6.d.
b. Volatile Compounds. EPA is promulgating effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for chloroform for subpart B. For a discussion
of EPA's rationale for regulating chloroform, see the proposal, 58 FR
at 66102 and the proposal Technical Development Document (EPA 821-R93-
019). EPA is not promulgating effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for chloroform for subpart E at this time. For a discussion
of EPA's pass-through analysis regarding chloroform, see Section
VI.B.5.c(2). For the reasons set forth below and in the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487, EPA is not promulgating
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the discharge of
acetone, methylene chloride, and methyl ethyl ketone (MEK). EPA
received no adverse comments in response to its preliminary
determination, presented in the July 1996 Notice of Availability, 61 FR
at 36839, not to regulate these pollutants.
EPA has reviewed data from both hardwood and softwood mills
employing a variety of bleaching processes in an effort to identify
factors that contribute to the formation of acetone, methylene
chloride, and MEK in the bleach plant. The bleaching processes
evaluated included bleaching using elemental chlorine, BAT Option A
(elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching using 100 percent chlorine
dioxide), BAT Option B (oxygen delignification plus ECF bleaching using
100 percent chlorine dioxide), ECF bleaching using ozone, and totally
chlorine-free bleaching. The ranges of loadings for each pollutant were
similar across the different bleaching technologies and for both
hardwood and softwood mills. The average loadings for these pollutants
do not exhibit a performance trend with regard to the bleaching
technologies.
In the EPA/Industry long-term study, methylene chloride was found
to be a sample- and laboratory-contaminant in certain cases. Among the
more recent data reviewed by EPA, methylene chloride was detected in
the bleach plant effluent at ten percent of the sampled mills. Where
detected, methylene chloride was present at low concentrations.
Therefore, because methylene chloride is infrequently detected, because
its formation processes are not fully understood, and because the cases
in which it is detected are often attributed to sample and laboratory
contamination, EPA has decided not to promulgate effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for methylene chloride in this rulemaking.
EPA had proposed limitations for acetone and MEK based on limited
data indicating that these parameters may be affected by the technology
options being considered. EPA has decided not to promulgate effluent
limitations guidelines or standards for these parameters because
additional data have shown that this is not the case. Moreover, EPA
believes that the limitations and new source performance standards
being promulgated today for adsorbable organic halides for subpart B
mills will ensure that mills will continue to operate their biological
wastewater systems at levels necessary to achieve very high removals of
these pollutants, thus obviating the need for separate limitations.
In view of the efficacy of biological wastewater treatment in
removing acetone and MEK and the fact that process changes have no
effect on the levels at which they are generated, EPA is not convinced
that these pollutants pass through POTWs. Therefore, EPA is also not
setting pretreatment standards for acetone or MEK for subpart B at this
time.
With respect to papergrade sulfite mills, EPA expects that, once
promulgated, the limitations and standards for AOX based on, among
other things, efficient biological

[[Page 18537]]

treatment, will ensure that treatment systems are operated at levels
necessary to obviate the need for separate limitations for acetone and
MEK. Therefore, EPA is deferring its decision on whether to regulate
acetone and MEK until that time.
c. Adsorbable Organic Halides (AOX). EPA is establishing BAT
limitations, NSPS, and pretreatment standards for the control of
adsorbable organic halide (AOX) discharges from mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. EPA is also establishing BAT
limitations, NSPS, and pretreatment standards to control AOX discharges
from mills in the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based segment of the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. For a discussion of EPA's pass through
analysis for AOX discharges from these mills, see Sections VI.B.5.c(2),
VI.B.6.d, and the Supplemental Technical Development Document, Section
8, DCN 14487. As discussed in more detail in those sections, EPA is not
setting effluent limitations guidelines and standards for AOX for other
mills in subpart E at this time.
AOX is a measure of the total chlorinated organic matter in
wastewaters. At pulp and paper mills, almost all of the AOX results
from bleaching processes. Even though dioxin and furan are no longer
measurable using today's analytical methods at the end of the pipe at
many mills, the potential for formation of these pollutants continues
to exist at pulp and paper mills as long as any chlorine-containing
compounds (including chlorine dioxide) are used in the bleaching
process. The record demonstrates a correlation between the presence of
AOX and the amount of chlorinated bleaching chemical used in relation
to the residual lignin in the pulp (expressed as the kappa factor). The
record further shows that there is a correlation between the kappa
factor and the formation of dioxin and furan. Therefore, EPA concluded
that reducing AOX loadings will have the effect of reducing the mass of
dioxin, furan, and other chlorinated organic pollutants discharged by
this industry. For further discussion of EPA's rationale for regulating
AOX, see the Supplemental Technical Development Document (DCN 14487)
and response to comments on justification for establishing limitations
for AOX (DCN 14497, Vol. I).
EPA's decision to regulate AOX is also based on the fact that AOX,
unlike most of the chlorinated organic compounds regulated today, is
comparatively inexpensive to monitor for and is easily quantified by
applicable analytical methods. Thus, while EPA could have decided to
control the formation of dioxin, furan, chloroform, and the 12
regulated chlorinated phenolic pollutants by requiring mills to monitor
for those pollutants on a daily basis, EPA also recognizes that testing
for those pollutants is expensive and time consuming. In contrast,
daily monitoring for AOX as required in today's rule is considerably
less expensive. See Section VI.B.8.b(4) and DCN 14487. Additionally,
under the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, enrolled
mills are eligible for reduced AOX monitoring. See Section IX.B.2 and
DCN 14488. Moreover, the presence of AOX can be readily measured in
mill effluent, in contrast to the presence of many of the chlorinated
organic compounds regulated in today's rule, which for the most part
are likely to be present at levels that cannot be reliably measured by
today's analytical methods. See Section VI.B.5.a(4). Thus, although EPA
is not required under the Clean Water Act to consider the environmental
or human health effects of its technology-based regulations, EPA has
also determined that regulating AOX as part of BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS
provides further assurance that human health and the environment will
be protected against the potential harm associated with dioxin, furan,
and the other chlorinated organic pollutants.
d. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). The proposed rule included end-of-
pipe BAT limitations and PSES for COD. EPA continues to believe that
COD limitations can be used to ensure the operation of processes that
minimize the discharge of all organic compounds, including toxic
organic compounds that are not readily biodegraded. However, the
limited data available at this time do not adequately characterize
other sources of COD that may be present at some complex mills,
although it appears that the COD contributed by these sources may be as
great as the COD contribution from the pulp mill and bleach plant areas
of the mill. These other sources of COD could include paper machines,
mechanical pulping, other on-site chemical pulping, and secondary fiber
processing (including deinking). See DCN 13958 and DCN 14495. Even if
sufficient data were now available to establish COD limitations and
standards for pulp mill operations in subparts B and E, EPA does not
have sufficient information at present to evaluate the other sources of
COD and the performance of control technologies to limit COD at those
sources in order to set national effluent limitations guidelines and
standards.
For this reason, EPA is not establishing final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for COD at this time. EPA does, however,
intend to promulgate COD limitations and NSPS for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories in a
later rulemaking. For this purpose, EPA will gather additional data to
characterize other sources of COD that may be present at complex mills
subject to subparts B or E. This effort will be undertaken concurrently
with data gathering to assess the need for establishing COD limits for
mills operating in other subcategories (Phase II rulemaking). EPA
believes that this data-gathering effort will facilitate setting limits
in permits for complex mills with other onsite process operations. EPA
will also decide as part of the Phase II rulemaking whether COD passes
through or interferes with the operation of POTWs and, therefore,
whether pretreatment standards for COD would be appropriate for
subparts B and E.
While EPA does not have sufficient data to issue national
technology-based regulations for COD at this time, EPA strongly urges
permitting authorities to consider including COD limitations in NPDES
permits for Subpart B and E mills on the basis of best professional
judgment. See 40 CFR 125.3(c)(3). Pretreatment authorities should
establish COD local limits if COD passes through or interferes with the
POTWs within the meaning of the general pretreatment regulations. See
40 CFR 403.5(c). EPA believes that permitting or pretreatment
authorities should address COD for the following reasons. Chronic
sublethal toxic effects have been found to result from the discharge of
treated effluent from bleached and unbleached kraft, mechanical, and
groundwood/sulfite pulp mills (see DCNs 3984, 13985, 13975, 13976,
13979, and 00012). These chronic toxic effects were measured as
increased liver mixed-function oxydase activity and symptoms of altered
reproductive capacity in fish (DCN 60002). This toxicity is associated
at least in part with families of non-chlorinated organic materials
that are measured by the existing COD analytical method. Some of these
materials, including several wood extractive constituents found in
pulping liquors, are refractory (i.e., resistant to rapid biological
degradation) and thus are not measurable by the five-day biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD5) analytical method.
In order to assist permitting or pretreatment authorities in
developing

[[Page 18538]]

COD limitations, EPA describes below various processes that mills can
use to control COD. The major sources of COD (which includes slowly
biodegradable and non-biodegradable organic material) at a pulp mill
are the pulp mill and bleach plant areas. Pulping sources of COD
include digester condensates and spent pulping liquor. Open screening
processes can be a major source of COD discharges. Spent pulping liquor
can also be lost from the process through process spills and equipment
leaks. Bleach plant filtrates, the recovery area, leaks from turpentine
processing areas at softwood mills, and pulp dryers are examples of
other sources of COD at pulp mills.
The process changes that form the basis of the effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated today include processes that can
reduce discharges of primarily non-chlorinated organic compounds. These
as yet unidentified refractory organic compounds have been correlated
with chronic sublethal aquatic toxicity from pulp mill effluents. By
recovering much of the non-chlorinated organic compounds prior to
bleaching, discharges of chlorinated organic compounds also are
reduced. For example, improved brownstock washing, which is part of the
model technology basis for today's regulations, can be operated (for
the purposes of achieving COD limitations) to minimize black liquor
carryover to the bleach plant and thus reduce the formation of AOX and
toxic chlorinated compounds. Another process technology effective at
reducing organic discharges associated with pulping liquors is for a
mill to return all water from pulp screening to the process, termed a
closed screen room.
EPA intends for the best management practices promulgated today for
Subparts B and E to lead mills to retain spent pulping liquors in the
process, to the maximum extent practicable, through preventing leaks
and spills and through capturing those leaks and spills that do occur
and returning the organic material to the recovery system. The BMPs are
also intended to lead mills to collect intentional diversions of spent
pulping liquors and return those materials to the process. However, the
BMP regulations do not require that the contained leaked and spilled
material be recovered in the process, nor are intentional diversions
required to be returned to the process. In the absence of COD
limitations, significant quantities of this organic material could be
metered to the wastewater treatment system. As a result, while the BMP
program will effectively prevent releases of pulping liquors (and soap
and turpentine) that would upset or otherwise interfere with the
operation of the wastewater treatment system, refractory organic
material believed to cause chronic toxic effects could still be
discharged at levels greater than the levels achievable through
optimized process technologies and effective end--of-pipe treatment.
For this additional reason, EPA believes that COD limitations
established on a best professional judgment basis would be appropriate.
The COD data considered by EPA are presented in the support
document, Analysis of Data for COD Limitations, DCN 13958, for this
rule. This support document also presents EPA's estimates (based on
data available today) of the ranges of COD effluent load believed to be
contributed by other mill operations, which EPA is supplying as limited
guidance to permitting and pretreatment authorities. EPA urges
permitting authorities to include--and exercise--reopener clauses in
NPDES permits for mills subject to Subpart B or E in order to impose or
revise COD effluent limitations once effluent limitations guidelines
for COD are promulgated.
e. Color and Other Pollutants. EPA proposed BAT limitations and
PSES for color for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory
only. Commenters asserted that EPA should not establish effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for color because it is a concern
more appropriately addressed in individual permits based on applicable
water quality standards. EPA agrees with this comment. The potential
for significant aesthetic or aquatic impacts from color discharges is
driven by highly site-specific conditions and is best dealt with on a
case-by-case basis through individual NPDES permits or, when
appropriate, through local limits. Therefore, the Agency is not
promulgating technology-based limitations or standards for color. See
DCN 14497, Vol. I.
EPA did not propose effluent limitations for four pollutants,
including biphenyl, carbon disulfide, dimethyl sulfone, and mercury,
and indicated in the Technical Development Document (at Section 7.3.5)
that these four pollutants were remaining under consideration for
regulation. Based on limited data available to date, EPA has decided
not to establish effluent limitations and standards for these
pollutants. EPA has reached this decision because these pollutants are
not found consistently in effluents and thus they are not directly
related to pulping and bleaching processes serving as the basis for BAT
and NSPS. EPA notes that where mercury was found to be present, the
concentrations at which it was found suggests that a possible source of
this pollutant may be contaminants of purchased chemicals. However, the
Agency did not obtain any information or data which would either
clearly identify the source or sources of mercury or the other
pollutants, or provide a basis for identifying applicable control
technologies or establishing effluent limitations. Therefore, EPA is
not developing effluent limitations and standards. Individual mills may
still receive water quality based effluent limitations (Section
301(b)(1)(C)) for any of these pollutants where necessary to protect
local water quality.
f. Biocides. EPA is retaining the current effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for the biocides pentachlorophenol and
trichlorophenol for former subparts G, H, I, and P (now Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, subpart B) and former subparts J
and U (now Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, subpart E). These
limitations and standards are recodified at subparts B and E. See 40
CFR 430.24(d), 430.25(d), 430.26(b), 430.27(b), 430.54(b), 430.55(c),
430.56(b), 430.57(b). For subpart B, the limitations and standards are
presented in the form of segments corresponding to the old
subcategorization scheme. (EPA did not need to track the old
subcategorization scheme for subpart E because the limitations and
standards for former subparts J and U were the same.) EPA is not
codifying any minimum monitoring frequency for these pollutants. See 40
CFR 430.02. In addition, unless the permitting or pretreatment
authority decides otherwise, EPA expects that mills would demonstrate
compliance with these limitations at the end of the pipe.
As before, the regulations continue to provide that a discharger is
not required to meet the biocides limitations or standards if it
certifies to the permitting or pretreatment authority that it is not
using these compounds as biocides. See, e.g., 40 CFR 430.24(d). (These
certification provisions have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 2040-0033. See 40 CFR 9.1.) EPA notes,
however, that mills using chlorine-containing compounds in their
bleaching processes are required to meet separate limitations or
standards for pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, and 2,4,6-
trichlorophenol in connection with the new effluent limitations and
standards promulgated today for subparts B and E regardless whether
these compounds are

[[Page 18539]]

also used as biocides. See, e.g., 40 CFR 430.24(a)(1). (Those compounds
are included within the list of the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants
discussed in Section VI.B.3.a.) EPA is requiring dischargers to
demonstrate compliance with these limitations and standards by
monitoring for those pollutants at the point where the wastewater
containing those pollutants leaves the bleach plant. See, e.g., 40 CFR
430.24(e).
EPA believes it is appropriate to codify separate limitations and
standards for those pollutants, even though in very rare cases a mill
may be required to comply with both sets. First, although for the same
pollutants the two sets of limitations arise from different chemical
applications in different parts of the mill. As biocides,
pentachlorophenol or trichlorophenol could be used virtually anywhere
in a mill's industrial process, but were typically used as slimicides
in whitewater recirculation systems. In the limitations and standards
promulgated today, however, pentachlorophenol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol
and 2,4,6-trichlorophenol are being regulated because they are found in
bleach plant wastewater when chlorine-containing compounds are used for
bleaching. Second, EPA expects these pollutants to be reduced to
quantities below the minimum level of the applicable analytical method
as a result of bleach plant process changes, which is not the case when
they are used as biocides. Thus the different limitations and standards
found in subparts B and E for these pollutants respond to different
situations and reflect different model process technologies. Finally,
EPA believes that mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory or the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory generally do not use
pentachlorophenol or trichlorophenol as biocides today. See the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. Therefore, EPA
expects that each mill will be able to certify that it is not using the
compounds as biocides and therefore will not be subject to the
biocides-related limitations.
4. Analytical Methods
In this rule, EPA is promulgating Method 1650 for the analysis of
AOX and Method 1653 for the analysis of certain chlorinated phenolic
compounds.
a. Authority. The analytical methods in this final rule are
promulgated under the authority of CWA sections 301, 304(h), 307, 308,
and 501(a). Section 301 of the Act prohibits the discharge of any
pollutant into navigable waters unless the discharge complies with an
NPDES permit issued under section 402 of the Act. Section 301 also
specifies levels of pollutant reductions to be achieved by certain
dates. Section 304(h) of the Act requires the EPA Administrator to
``promulgate guidelines establishing test procedures for the analysis
of pollutants that shall include the factors which must be provided in
any certification pursuant to section 401 of this Act or permit
applications pursuant to section 402 of this Act.'' These test
procedures for the analysis of pollutants also assist in the
implementation of Section 301. Section 501(a) of the Act authorizes the
Administrator to prescribe such regulations as are necessary to carry
out her function under this Act.
The Administrator has also made these test procedures (methods)
applicable to monitoring and reporting of NPDES permits (40 CFR part
122, Secs. 122.21, 122.41, 122.44, and 123.25), and implementation of
the pretreatment standards issued under section 307 of CWA (40 CFR part
403, Secs. 403.10 and 403.12). Section 308 provides authority for
information gathering.
b. Background and History. In the December 17, 1993 proposal, EPA
referenced a compendium entitled ``Analytical Methods for the
Determination of Pollutants in Pulp and Paper Industry Wastewater.''
This compendium contained methods that had not been promulgated at 40
CFR part 136, but would be applicable for monitoring compliance with
the limitations and standards proposed for part 430 at that time. The
compendium included methods for the analysis of CDDs and CDFs (i.e.,
dioxin and furans), AOX, chlorinated phenolics, and color. These
methods were proposed for promulgation at 40 CFR part 430 to support
the proposed regulation and were included in the docket for the
proposed pulp and paper rule.
EPA received more than 200 individual comments and suggestions
concerning the proposed analytical methods. Some of these were comments
on the methods not being promulgated today. Many of the comments and
suggestions were technically detailed, ranging from suggestions on
changing the integration time in Method 1650 (for AOX) to reducing the
spike levels for labeled compounds used in Method 1653 (for chlorinated
phenolics). Other comments raised questions about EPA's approach to
technical issues and policies regarding the handling of analytical
data. EPA has included a summary of the detailed comments and specific
responses to those comments in the record for today's rule.
On July 15, 1996, EPA published a notice of availability that,
among other things, summarized the changes the Agency intended to make
to the proposed or promulgated analytical methods and stated that
detailed revisions to the methods would be added to the record at a
later date. See 61 FR at 36848-49. In promulgating today's rule, EPA
has implemented the changes identified in the July 1996 Notice. These
changes are summarized below and detailed in the response to comments
provided in the record.
c. Analytical Methods Promulgated Today. EPA has revised the
analytical methods compendium entitled ``Analytical Methods for the
Determination of Pollutants in Pulp and Paper Industry Wastewater'' to
incorporate revisions to the methods made since proposal. This
compendium (EPA-821-B-97-001, August 1997) contains the analytical
methods to be used for monitoring compliance with the limitations and
standards promulgated today for subparts B and E. The compendium
includes Method 1650 for the determination of AOX and Method 1653 for
the determination of chlorinated phenolics. These two analytical
methods are being promulgated today as appendices to 40 CFR part 430.
They have not yet been promulgated at 40 CFR part 136.
(1) Method 1650: AOX by Adsorption and Coulometric Titration
Method 1650 can be used to measure AOX in water and wastewater. AOX
is a measure of halogenated organic compounds that adsorb onto granular
activated carbon (GAC). The method involves adsorption of the organic
halides (chlorine, bromine, iodine) in water onto GAC, removal of
inorganic halides by washing, combustion of the organic halides (along
with the GAC) to form hydrogen halides, and titration of the hydrogen
halides with silver ions in a microcoulometer. The results are reported
as organic chlorine even though other halides may be present because
chlorine is the halide of concern in pulp and paper wastewaters. EPA
studies have demonstrated a Method Detection Limit (MDL) of 6.6
g/L. Based on this MDL and on calibration of the
microcoulometer, the minimum level (ML) in Method 1650 has been
determined to be 20 g/L. The minimum level and other
performance attributes for this method have been validated in single
laboratory method validation studies and by use in data gathering for
today's final rule. All laboratories that used Method 1650 in the data
gathering effort calibrated their instruments at the ML.

[[Page 18540]]

Since proposal, EPA has made changes to Method 1650 to improve the
ease of use and the reliability of this method. These changes are
reflected in the version of Method 1650 being promulgated today and
they largely reflect comments and suggestions made following proposal
of the method. In response to comments, EPA made several changes to
Method 1650, including: adjustment of the breakthrough specification to
25 percent based on recent data; allowance of a 100- or 25-mL
adsorption volume, provided the sensitivity requirements in the method
are met; provision of greater flexibility in allowable glassware sizes;
use of 100-mL volumes of standards for calibration and other purposes
to conserve reagents; use of only 2-mm columns to make the column
procedure more reproducible; adjustment of the QC acceptance criteria
based on an industry interlaboratory method validation study; and the
addition of a minimum integration time of 10 minutes to assure that all
AOX is measured. In addition, the format of the method has been
modified to reflect the standardized format recommended by EPA's
Environmental Monitoring Management Council (EMMC). For a more detailed
discussion of the changes made to Method 1650 since proposal, see DCN
14497, Vol. VII.
EPA disagreed with several comments on EPA's proposed Method 1650
and therefore did not make the changes suggested by commenters. In
particular, EPA disagrees that the method detection limit (MDL) should
be increased to 20 g/L to allow for blank contamination. In
EPA's view, blank contamination can be controlled to levels well below
20 g/L. EPA also disagrees that it should eliminate Section
8.1.2 of the proposed method. (Section 8.1.2 contained provisions for
flexibility.) EPA has received a large number of requests that
analytical methods be ``performance-based,'' and has attempted to
implement the means for allowing changes in Section 8.1.2 (Section
9.1.2 in the version of Method 1650 being promulgated today). Under
Section 8.1.2, the laboratory can make minor modifications to Method
1650 provided that the laboratory performs all quality control (QC)
tests and meets all QC acceptance criteria. In addition, contrary to a
suggestion from a commenter, EPA has not included examples of cell
maintenance in Method 1650 because EPA believes that analysts who
maintain the coulometric cell must be familiar with the cell
maintenance procedures provided by the instrument manufacturer. For
more information on these issues, see DCN 14497, Vol. VII.
(2) Method 1653: Chlorophenolics by In-Situ Derivatization and
Isotope Dilution GC/MS
Method 1653 can be used to measure chlorinated phenolic compounds
in water and wastewater amenable to in situ acetylation, extraction,
and determination by HRGC combined with low-resolution mass
spectrometry (LRMS). In this method, chlorophenolics are derivatized in
situ to form acetic acid phenolates that are extracted with hexane,
concentrated, and injected into the HRGC/LRMS where separation and
detection occurs.
EPA studies have demonstrated MDLs of 0.09-1.39 g/L for
chlorophenolics in water. Based on these MDLs and on calibration of the
GCMS instrument, minimum levels have been determined for the 12
chlorinated phenolics in today's rule. These minimum levels of 2.5 or
5.0 g/L depend on the specific compound and have been
validated in single laboratory validation studies and by use in data
gathering for today's final rule. All laboratories that used Method
1653 in the data gathering effort calibrated their instruments at the
ML.
Since proposal, EPA has made changes to Method 1653 to improve the
reliability of the method and to lower costs of measurements. These
changes are incorporated into the version of the method being
promulgated today; they largely reflect comments and suggestions made
following proposal of the method.
In response to comments, EPA made several specific changes to
Method 1653, the most significant of which are as follows: lowering the
spike level of the labeled compounds to reduce interferences with trace
levels of the analytes of interest and to lower the cost of labeled
compounds; specifying more appropriate solvents for the analytical
standards containing labeled and native analytes; requiring
laboratories to add the labeled compounds to the sample prior to pH
adjustment; restating the quality control acceptance criteria for
recovery in terms of percent instead of concentration; and reducing
method flexibility in certain critical areas. In addition, as with
Method 1650, the method has been revised into the standardized EMMC
format.
EPA disagreed with several comments on EPA's proposed Method 1653
and therefore did not make changes suggested by commenters. EPA
received comments that Method 1653 has not been validated adequately.
EPA disagrees. Method 1653 has been validated in multiple single-
laboratory method validation studies and extensively validated in field
studies for this final rule. EPA believes that these extensive studies
are more than adequate to validate Method 1653 for use in data
gathering to support this final rule and for use in monitoring under
this final rule. EPA also disagrees with comments that Method 1653 is
inadequate for chlorocatechols. EPA believes that Method 1653 provides
more reliable data for catechols and the other chlorophenolics than any
other method available, and the commenter provided no suggestions for
how Method 1653 could be improved for determination of chlorocatechols.
EPA has, therefore, kept chlorocatechols in Method 1653. EPA also
disagrees with comments that initial precision and recovery (IPR) and
ongoing precision and recovery (OPR) tests should be replaced with
initial calibration (ICAL) and calibration verification (VER) tests.
(The ICAL and IPR are different in both form and function. The
calibration test is for calibrating the analytical system while the IPR
test is conducted to check performance. The OPR and VER tests are the
same; only the terminology is different. EPA has retained use of the
OPR terminology to be consistent with other methods.) EPA also
disagrees with comments that use of labeled compounds is not worth the
benefit and that all phenols and guaiacols should be quantitated
against 3,4,5-trichlorophenol. EPA believes that data gathered to
support today's final rule and in other studies demonstrate that
isotope dilution provides the most precise and accurate measurement of
chlorophenolics and other compounds determined by gas chromatography/
mass spectrometry. EPA also received comments urging EPA not to allow
modifications to the method. However, EPA also received a large number
of requests that analytical methods be ``performance-based,'' and has
attempted to implement the means for allowing changes to improve
detection and quantitation or to lower costs of measurements. Limited
changes may be made, except where specifically prohibited in Method
1653, provided that the performance tests are repeated and the results
produced by the change are equivalent or superior to results produced
with the unmodified method. EPA has also decided to retain the mention
of field duplicates in the method in the event that a laboratory or
discharger desires to measure sampling precision. Finally, EPA has not
added the requirement that laboratories should be forced to overcome
emulsions. EPA believes that nearly all emulsions can be overcome and
provides specific steps in

[[Page 18541]]

the method that the laboratory must take to break the emulsion.
However, EPA does not wish to impose such a requirement on laboratories
in the event that a future sample is encountered that produces an
emulsion that cannot be broken. If all efforts to break the emulsion
fail, Method 1653 allows the use of a dilute aliquot. For more
discussion, see Comment Response Document, Vol. VII, DCN 14497.
d. Other Methods. In addition to the methods promulgated today, the
effluent limitations guidelines and standards also call for the use of
Method 1613 (for 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and
2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF)) and any of the approved methods
for chloroform to monitor compliance. These methods are discussed
below.
(1) Method 1613: CDDs and CDFs by HRGC/HRMS
Method 1613 uses isotope dilution and high-resolution gas
chromatography combined with high-resolution mass spectrometry (HRGC/
HRMS) for separation and detection of 17 tetra-through octa-substituted
dibenzo-p-dioxin and dibenzofuran isomers and congeners that are
chlorinated at the 2, 3, 7, and 8 positions. Separate procedures are
available for the determination of these analytes in water and solid
matrices. In the procedure, a 1-L sample is passed through a 0.45-
glass fiber filter. The filter is extracted with toluene in a
Soxhlet/Dean-Stark (SDS) extractor. The aqueous filtrate is extracted
with methylene chloride in a separatory funnel. Extracts from the SDS
and separatory funnel extractions are combined and concentrated. To
remove interferences, the combined, concentrated extract is cleaned up
using various combinations of acid and base washes, acidic and basic
silica gel, gel permeation chromatography (GPC), high-performance
liquid chromatography (HPLC), and activated carbon. The cleaned up
extract is concentrated to 20 L and a 1-2 L aliquot
is injected into the HRGC/HRMS.
The MDL determined for TCDD is 4.4 part-per-quadrillion (ppq).
Minimum levels for Method 1613 are 10 ppq for TCDD and TCDF. These MLs
have been validated through an interlaboratory study and by use in the
analysis of mill effluents.
EPA recently promulgated Method 1613 for the determination of CDDs
and CDFs at 40 CFR 136, Appendix A in a final rule published on
September 15, 1997 (62 FR 48394). Of the 17 congeners that may be
measured with this method, only TCDD and TCDF are regulated under this
final rule. Method 1613 was first proposed for general use in
compliance monitoring and for other purposes at 40 CFR part 136 on
February 7, 1991 (56 FR 5090) and was proposed for use in pulp and
paper industry wastewaters at 40 CFR part 430 on December 17, 1993 (58
FR 66078). EPA received extensive comments and suggestions on both
proposals of Method 1613; in several cases, the same set of comments
was submitted. EPA updated the final Method 1613 based on suggestions
and comments received on the original proposal (56 FR 5090) and on the
proposal of Method 1613 for use at 40 CFR part 430 (58 FR 66078). In
the docket supporting promulgation of Method 1613, EPA provided a
listing of detailed comments received on both proposals of Method 1613,
along with detailed responses to all of those comments. Because Method
1613 was promulgated in a final rule prior to promulgation of today's
final rule, and because EPA received comments and provided responses in
support of that final rule, EPA is not promulgating Method 1613 as part
of today's final rule. See the final rule promulgating Method 1613 (62
FR 48394) for all information concerning that method.
(2) Method 1624: Volatiles by Purge-and-Trap and Isotope Dilution GC/MS
Method 1624 is used for the determination of volatile pollutants in
water and wastewater. It employs a gas chromatograph coupled to a mass
spectrometer (GC/MS) to separate and quantify volatile pollutants.
Detected pollutants are quantified by isotope dilution. Samples of
water or solids suspended in water are purged of volatile organic
pollutants by a stream of inert gas into the gaseous phase where they
are concentrated onto a trap. Subsequent heating of the trap introduces
the concentrated volatile organics into a GC/MS for separation and
quantification.
With no interferences present, minimum levels of 10-50 g/L
can be achieved, depending on the specific pollutant. For chloroform,
the minimum level is 10 g/L. This minimum level has been
validated by use.
When EPA initially proposed today's rule, it proposed to regulate
four volatile organic pollutants. Method 1624, Revision C was proposed
for monitoring the presence of these pollutants in effluent discharges.
Revision C contained updates and improvements to Method 1624, Revision
B, which was promulgated October 26, 1984 (49 FR 43234).
In today's final rule, EPA is regulating only one of the originally
proposed volatile pollutants (chloroform); this pollutant can be
measured by already-approved EPA Methods 601, 624, and 1624B and
Standard Methods 6210B and 6230B. Therefore, EPA has not included
Method 1624C in today's final rule and has not formally addressed
comments concerning Method 1624C. EPA will consider comments on Method
1624C when this version of the method is promulgated for general use at
40 CFR 136 or when the method is further revised.
(3) Other Issues Concerning Analytical Methods Promulgated in Today's
Final Rule
The overall comments received from the regulated industry and
others provide suggestions for method improvement but, in some cases,
question EPA's approach to technical issues in the methods and the
handling of data. For example, commenters suggested that quality
control tests be performed at the minimum level (ML), that a 3-point
calibration should be used for labeled compounds in isotope dilution
methods, and that additional QC tests should be required. Commenters
also stated that all methods must be subjected to interlaboratory
validation, and that the compliance monitoring detection limit (CMDL)
and compliance monitoring quantitation limit (CMQL) should be used in
place of EPA's method detection limit (MDL) and ML, respectively. EPA
responded to these suggestions by providing specific reasons why they
are inconsistent with the provisions in other methods, are more
extensive than required to assure reliable results, or that they would
not substantively alter the conclusions of studies and data gathering
used to support this final rule. The detailed responses to these issues
are in the record for this rule.
5. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
a. BAT. (1) Technology Options Considered.
(a) Options Proposed. The Agency considered many combinations of
pollution prevention technologies as regulatory options to reduce the
discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants from bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills. These options are discussed in the
proposal and the Notice of Availability published on July 15, 1996. See
58 FR at 66109-11 and 61 FR at 36838-39, 36848. Five different options
were presented in the proposal.
The Agency proposed BAT effluent limitations guidelines based on an
option that included the use of oxygen delignification or extended
cooking

[[Page 18542]]

with elimination of hypochlorite and complete (100 percent)
substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine as the key
process technologies. Complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine and elimination of hypochlorite is known as
elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching. EPA's definition of ECF
bleaching includes high shear mixing to ensure adequate mixing of pulp
and bleaching chemicals, as well as other technology elements.
EPA proposed this option because it believed, based on the record
at the time, that this combination of technologies was both available
and economically achievable and that no other available and
economically achievable option resulted in greater effluent reductions.
See 58 FR at 66110. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA identified this
technology option as Option B. See 61 FR at 36838.
EPA also considered at proposal another option based on
conventional pulping--complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine, but without the use of oxygen delignification or
extended cooking (i.e., conventional pulping). See 58 FR at 66111. At
the time of proposal, EPA was unable to fully analyze this alternative
because very limited performance data were available from mills using
this technology. Therefore, EPA solicited further data and comments on
this option, Id. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA published preliminary
findings regarding this option, which it identified as Option A. See 61
FR at 36838-42.
The Agency also considered a totally chlorine-free (TCF) option for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory at proposal. See 58
FR at 66109. TCF bleaching processes are pulp bleaching operations that
are performed without the use of chlorine, sodium hypochlorite, calcium
hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, chlorine monoxide, or any other
chlorine-containing compound. EPA concluded that TCF was not an
available pollution prevention technology at the time of proposal
because of limited worldwide experience with this process and a lack of
data for TCF bleaching of softwood to full market brightness. To
encourage continuing innovation in the development of processes to
reduce or eliminate the discharge of pollutants from the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, however, EPA proposed
alternative BAT limits for mills adopting TCF processes.
In the July 1996 Notice, EPA also described an incentives program
that it was considering for Subpart B mills in order to promote more
widespread use of advanced pollution prevention technologies. See 61 FR
at 36849-58. As part of this voluntary program, EPA proposed to
establish up to three sets of alternative BAT limitations that would
complement the compulsory baseline BAT requirements. EPA identified the
proposed alternative BAT limitations as Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III
BAT limitations. See 61 FR at 36850. EPA considered basing Tier I
limits on BAT Option B technology (if Option A were chosen as the basis
for the baseline BAT limitations). The Tier II and Tier III
limitations, in turn, would be based on technologies and processes that
EPA expected to achieve substantial reductions in pulping area
condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach plant wastewater flow.
(b) Final ECF Options Evaluated. For this final rule, EPA
considered two ECF technology options--Option A and Option B--as the
basis for BAT effluent limitations. Option A consists of conventional
pulping followed by complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine, as well as the following nine elements:
(i) Adequate chip thickness control;
(ii) Closed brownstock pulp screen room operation, such that
screening filtrates are returned to the recovery cycle;
(iii) Use of dioxin- and furan-precursor-free defoamers (i.e.,
water-based defoamers or defoamers made with precursor-free oils);
(iv) Effective brownstock washing, i.e., washing that achieves a
soda loss of less than or equal to 10 kg Na2SO4
per ADMT of pulp (equivalent to approximately 99 percent recovery of
pulping chemicals from the pulp);
(v) Elimination of hypochlorite, i.e., replacement of hypochlorite
with equivalent bleaching power in the form of additions of peroxide
and/or oxygen to the first extraction stage and/or additional chlorine
dioxide in final brightening stages;
(vi) Oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced extraction, which allows
elimination of hypochlorite and/or use of a lower kappa factor in the
first bleaching stage;
(vii) Use of strategies to minimize kappa factor and dioxin- and
furan-precursors in brownstock pulp;
(viii) High shear mixing during bleaching to ensure adequate mixing
of pulp and bleaching chemicals; and
(ix) Efficient biological wastewater treatment, achieving removal
of approximately 90 percent or more of influent BOD5. These
elements are discussed in detail in the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487. Option B is identical to Option A,
with the addition of extended delignification (oxygen delignification
and/or extended cooking). EPA also considered a TCF option, see
subsection (c) immediately below, and, in the context of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program, three sets of voluntary
alternative BAT limitations. See Section IX.A.
In a slight change from the definition of the proposed BAT option,
EPA has defined Option B not only in terms of the presence of extended
delignification technology (i.e., oxygen delignification or extended
cooking) but also by the pre-bleaching kappa number achieved by
extended delignification. Kappa number is the measure of lignin content
in unbleached pulp and is commonly used by the industry. Many
researchers have shown (and EPA has confirmed) strong correlations
between the kappa number of the pulp entering the first stage of
bleaching and the bleach plant effluent loads of AOX and COD. See DCN
14497, Vol. I. EPA concluded that merely employing extended
delignification technologies, without reducing the unbleached pulp
kappa number, is not sufficient to achieve the low effluent loadings of
AOX and COD characteristic of Option B. Therefore, EPA has redefined
Option B as ECF with extended delignification resulting in a kappa
number at or below 20 for softwoods and below 13 for hardwoods (see the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487). EPA found that
these kappa numbers are achievable by virtually all mills that
currently have installed and are effectively operating extended
delignification technology.
As part of the nine elements common to both Option A and Option B,
EPA has included strategies for minimizing kappa factor and dioxin- and
furan-precursors in brownstock pulp. These strategies are part of
Options A and B because EPA has determined that they minimize the
generation of dioxin, furan, and AOX and, hence, are part of the model
process sequence to achieve those limitations. See 61 FR at 36848 and
the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
Kappa factor, also known as active chlorine multiple, is the ratio
of chlorine bleaching power to the pulp kappa number. (The kappa factor
is different from the kappa number discussed above.) The kappa factor
used on a particular bleach line depends on the fiber furnish, final
product specifications, pre-bleaching processes employed, and
optimization of bleaching costs. At the mills whose data were used to
characterize Option A performance, kappa factors for softwood

[[Page 18543]]

furnish averaged 0.17 and all were less than 0.2. At the mills whose
data were used to characterize Option B performance, kappa factors for
softwood furnish averaged 0.23, with all but one at less than 0.21.
Well-operated and maintained mills using comparable kappa factors will
be capable of achieving limitations corresponding to Option A or B,
respectively. Based on certain site-specific factors, such as furnish,
some mills will be capable of achieving today's limitations with higher
kappa factors. There are numerous strategies a mill can employ to
minimize its kappa factor. See the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487.
In addition, there are numerous strategies a mill can employ to
minimize precursors of dioxin and furan contained in brownstock pulp.
These strategies include, but are not limited to, improved brownstock
washing, improved screening to produce cleaner pulp, eliminating
compression wood (knots) from brownstock pulp, and using only
precursor-free condensates in brownstock washers. The strategy or
strategies appropriate for the production of a given pulp depend on the
raw material (wood species and the form it takes, i.e., chips, waste
wood, or sawdust), process equipment, and the specifications of the
final pulp product (brightness, cleanliness, strength, absorbency, and
others). For a discussion of these strategies, see the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
(c) Totally Chlorine-Free (TCF) Bleaching Option Evaluated. The
Agency received many comments that it should continue to investigate
TCF bleaching because dioxin and furan are not generated at any level
with TCF bleaching, thus assuring that these pollutants are not
released to the environment. The Agency conducted two sampling programs
at the one U.S. mill that produces TCF bleached kraft softwood pulp.
EPA collected samples of bleach plant filtrates but could not collect
samples of treated effluent because the mill does not employ secondary
treatment. The Agency also conducted a sampling program at a Nordic
mill that produces hardwood and softwood kraft pulp on two bleach lines
that alternate between ECF and TCF bleaching. Samples collected at this
mill could not be used to characterize treated TCF bleaching effluents
because they are combined with ECF bleaching effluents for treatment.
Both of the sampled TCF softwood fiber lines employed oxygen
delignification followed by multiple stages of peroxide bleaching. The
Nordic mill also uses extended cooking, and was able to reduce the
lignin content of unbleached pulp to a very low kappa number of four.
At the time of sampling, this mill bleached pulp to a brightness of 83
ISO. The U.S. mill's unbleached pulp kappa number was between seven and
ten. Bleached pulp brightness was approximately 79 during the first
sampling episode at the U.S. mill, but by the time of the second
sampling episode, the mill had improved its process to achieve a pulp
brightness of 83 ISO.
At both mills, chloroform or chlorinated phenolic pollutants were
not detected in samples collected by EPA. At the U.S. mill, dioxin,
furan, and AOX were not detected above the analytical minimum level
during sampling fully representative of TCF operations. The average
bleach plant AOX loading measured by EPA at the Nordic mill was 0.002
kg/ADMT (compared to a long-term average of 0.51 kg/ADMT for Option A).
EPA's dioxin sampling results for the Nordic mill were surprising.
Dioxin was detected at a concentration just above the minimum level in
one sample of combined bleach plant filtrate, when the mill was
bleaching without the use of chlorine or any chlorinated compounds.
Furan was not detected. EPA believes the dioxin results were unique to
the operation of this mill and does not conclude that TCF bleaching
generates dioxin.
Neither of the two sampled mills produced softwood pulp at full
market brightness. In the last three years, however, several non-U.S.
mills have reported the production of TCF softwood kraft pulp at full
market brightness. EPA's data are insufficient to confirm that TCF
processes are technically available for the full range of market
products currently served by ECF processes. See DCN 14497, Vol. I.
Further, EPA's data are insufficient to define a segment of the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory where TCF processing is
known to be technically feasible and thus could be the basis of
compulsory BAT limitations. Despite these impediments, EPA believes
that the progress being made in TCF process development is substantial,
and that additional data may demonstrate that TCF processes are indeed
available for the full range of market products. For this reason, EPA
also evaluated the performance of TCF mills in order to establish
alternative limitations for mills that voluntarily choose to employ TCF
processes. See Section VI.B.5.a(4).
(2) Costs of Technology Options Considered. The Agency estimated
the cost for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory to
achieve each of the technology options considered today. These
estimated costs are summarized in this section and are discussed in
more detail in several technical support documents. (See the BAT Cost
Model Support Document, DCN 13953; Memorandum: Costing Revisions Made
Since Publication of July 15, 1996 Notice of Data Availability, DCN
14493; Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487; Analysis
of Impacts of BAT Options on the Kraft Recovery Cycle, DCN 14490;
Effect of Oxygen Delignification on Yield of the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft Pulp Manufacturing Process, DCN 14491; and the Technical Support
Document for Best Management Practices for Spent Pulping Liquors
Management, Spill Prevention, and Control, DCN 14489.) (For a
discussion of the costs associated with the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program BAT technologies, see the Technical
Support Document, DCN 14488.) All cost estimates in this section are
expressed in 1995 dollars. The cost components reported in this section
are engineering estimates of the cost of purchasing and installing
equipment and the annual operating and maintenance costs associated
with that equipment. See Section VIII of this preamble for a discussion
of the costs used in the economic impact analysis.
Because EPA considers efficient biological wastewater treatment to
be current industry practice, EPA has not included its costs in the
estimates of costs of BAT. See the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487. As discussed in Section VI.B.5.c. below, for PSES
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA evaluated
the same process change technology options that it evaluated for BAT,
with the exception of biological wastewater treatment. As a result, EPA
used the same cost model to estimate the costs of PSES and BAT. Set
forth below are the total costs for all mills in the subcategory
(direct and indirect dischargers) to complete the process changes that
are the technology bases for the options considered for BAT and PSES.
The costs of complying with today's BMP requirements are also included.
(i) Additional Data Gathering and Analysis Since Proposal. EPA
updated its database of mill process information by reviewing comments
on the proposed rule and the July 15, 1996 Notice, by examining
information from publicly available sources as well as information
gathered by AF&PA and NCASI, and by contacting mills directly. The
Agency revised the cost estimates it made at

[[Page 18544]]

proposal in many ways but retained two major assumptions: (1) Mills
would continue to make the same quantities and grades of pulp; and (2)
mills already using the technology bases for the BAT technology options
generally would incur only monitoring costs to comply with regulations
based on those options. See the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487.
EPA received comments that it severely underestimated the costs of
its proposed option (now identified as Option B). Commenters contended
that this underestimate derived in large part from EPA's underestimate
of the increase in load of black liquor solids that will be routed to
the recovery system after installation of oxygen delignification,
closing screen rooms, improving brownstock washing, and recovering
additional pulping liquors through a best management practices (BMP)
program. In addition to underestimating the increase in load,
commenters claimed that EPA also underestimated the costs for recovery
boilers to accommodate the increased load. Commenters asserted that
most mills are recovery boiler-limited and, to employ the proposed BAT,
would have to install new recovery boilers at a very high cost.
In response to these and other comments on the proposed rule, EPA
and NCASI undertook several data gathering efforts aimed specifically
at obtaining information to improve EPA's cost estimates. In late 1994,
NCASI distributed a survey to collect information about recovery
furnace capacity and a second survey about the implementation and cost
of pulping liquor spill prevention and control programs (i.e., BMPs).
Based on this and other information, EPA concluded that there is no
foreseeable set of circumstances where implementation of either Option
A or B would force a mill to replace or even rebuild an existing
recovery boiler. Therefore, EPA strongly disagrees with comments that
it severely underestimated the costs of what is now known as Option B.
Based on data reported in the NCASI survey, almost 60 percent of the
recovery boilers operated by the industry have sufficient capacity to
accommodate the increased loads that would result from implementing
either Option A or B, in combination with the BMP program promulgated
today. At most of the remaining 40 percent of the recovery boilers, any
increased thermal load can be accommodated through improved boiler
operation requiring no capital expenditures, by increasing pulp yield
by using anthraquinone, or by reducing the caloric value of the black
liquor burned in the boiler by using oxygen-black liquor oxidation. EPA
estimates that only one boiler operated by a bleached papergrade kraft
and soda mill would need to be upgraded regardless which option is
selected as the technology basis for today's rule. The cost of the
upgrade is small in comparison to the cost of building or replacing a
boiler. See the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487,
and Analysis of Impacts of BAT Options on the Kraft Recovery Cycle, DCN
14490.
For the purposes of estimating the costs of Option B, EPA estimated
costs for implementation of oxygen delignification (OD) based on the
record as a whole that shows that OD does not have an impact on yield
of bleached pulp. Although some stakeholders asserted that EPA's yield
estimates were in error, the entire record on yield supports EPA's
basis for estimating the cost of BAT Option B. Some commenters asserted
that EPA overestimated the costs for Option B presented in the July
1996 Notice by failing to account for the increase in yield that would
result from implementation of OD. Industry commenters asserted that OD
would result in reduced bleached pulp yields. In response to these
comments, EPA reviewed all available literature reports and contacted
companies operating mills with OD systems. Although some laboratory and
modeling analyses indicate that OD following a modified kraft cooking
could increase yields by one to two percent, EPA found no documentation
that full-scale OD systems are being operated in this manner. One of
the two U.S. companies that operate more mills with OD systems than any
other has found no statistical difference in yield measured at the end
of the bleach plant with the installation of OD. The other company
offered no specific data on yield, but has seen no substantial impact
on recovery boilers, indicating that no appreciable change in yield has
been experienced. See DCN 14491.
EPA also collected additional information about the costs of
process equipment and updated its information about the costs of
chemicals, wood, energy, and labor (record sections 21.1.2 to 21.1.6).
EPA used this information to revise the cost model spreadsheet. See the
Memorandum: Costing Revisions Made Since Publication of July 15, 1996
Notice of Data Availability, DCN 14493, and BAT Cost Model Support
Document, DCN 13953. These changes are discussed immediately below.
(ii) Major Changes Since Proposal. Among other changes since
proposal, EPA's cost estimates for Option B now include the costs for
new or incremental increases in OD systems for mills unable to achieve
the kappa numbers used to characterize the Option B technology. In its
July 1996 Notice, EPA described this change and additional changes to
the cost model. See 61 FR at 36840-41 and BAT Cost Model Support
Document, DCN 13953.
In response to comments on the July 1996 Notice, EPA corrected
mill-specific information and made additional changes to the cost
model. See the Memorandum: Costing Revisions Made Since Publication of
July 15, 1996 Notice of Availability, DCN 14493. Among those changes
was a correction of errors in the costs of caustic and hydrogen
peroxide that resulted from a unit conversion error (this error carried
through the proposal and the Notice cost estimates). As a result of the
changes, including the correction made to the cost of caustic and
hydrogen peroxide, the net engineering operating and maintenance (O&M)
costs for Option B for all mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory increased from the savings of $7 million/year
presented in the July 1996 Notice, to the $2 million/year increased
costs estimated today. See the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487.
For the purpose of estimating the cost of the regulations, EPA
excluded the costs of process changes that were either completed or
under construction as of mid-1995. EPA incorrectly stated in the July
1996 Notice that costs for process changes committed to but not yet
under construction as of mid-1995 were also excluded from the cost of
this regulation. These latter costs have been included. See the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
(iii) Final Cost Estimates of the Options Considered. EPA's final
cost estimates for Option A and B for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory (BAT, PSES, and BMPs) follow in Table VI-1.

Table VI-1.--Total Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Capital and Engineering O&M Costs for BAT, PSES and BMPs
[1995 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final cost
estimates
--------------------
Option
A Option B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital ($ million)................................ 966 2,130

[[Page 18545]]

Engineering O&M ($ million/yr)..................... 113 2.02
------------------------------------------------------------------------

For both Option A and Option B, EPA excluded costs for the use of
dioxin- and furan-precursor-free defoamers, adequate wood chip size
control, and efficient biological wastewater treatment in its estimates
of the costs of the final BAT technology options. These processes
represent current industry practice. See the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487. However, EPA's estimate of the costs
of BAT also includes a general allowance for increased technical
supervision and process engineering that could be used, in part, to
design and implement a chip quality control program or to improve
operation of existing biological wastewater treatment. In addition, any
mill not currently using dioxin- and furan-precursor-free defoamers can
use them without incurring significant costs. See the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. EPA evaluated the costs of
retrofitting U.S. bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills to TCF
bleaching to provide perspective on the likelihood of TCF processes
being found to be economically achievable once they are shown to be
technically available. EPA investigated the costs of two TCF bleach
sequences. These bleach sequences included all common elements that are
part of Option A and Option B (adequate chip thickness control, closed
brownstock pulp screen room operation, use of dioxin- and furan-
precursor-free defoamers, effective brownstock washing, elimination of
hypochlorite, oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced extraction, use of
strategies to minimize kappa factor and dioxin- and furan-precursors in
brown stock pulp, high-shear mixing during bleaching, and efficient
biological wastewater treatment). The bleaching sequences also include
medium-consistency oxygen delignification. One TCF bleach sequence was
based on peroxide bleaching (OQPP) and the other was based on ozone and
peroxide bleaching (OZEopQPZP). EPA's final cost estimates
for TCF bleach sequences for the total Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory (BAT, PSES, and BMPs) are as follows. See the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.

Table VI-2.--Total Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
Capital and Engineering O&M Costs of TCF Options for BAT, PSES, and BMP
[1995 dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated costs
-----------------------
Peroxide-
TCF Ozone-TCF
(OQPP) (OZEopQPZP)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital ($ million)............................. 3,090 5,630
Engineering O&M ($million/yr)................... 660 849
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) Effluent Reductions Associated with Technology Options
Considered. The Agency estimated the effluent reductions for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory that will result from
the BAT options it analyzed. These estimated reductions are summarized
in this section and are discussed in more detail in the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
As discussed in the July 1996 Notice, EPA recalculated the effluent
reduction benefits using a new baseline of mid-1995. See 61 FR at
36840. In addition, EPA revised and simplified the methodology used to
estimate that baseline (using a model mill approach). Id. EPA also used
a second approach to estimate the effluent loads of dioxin and furan
using data for individual mills as compiled in the NCASI 1994 Dioxin
Profile (see DCN 13764). The baseline calculation methodology
revisions, along with details of the effluent reduction calculations,
are described in record section 22.6.
As explained in DCN 14487, after July 1996, EPA again recalculated
the effluent reductions. The baseline remains mid-1995. As before, EPA
used one-half of the minimum level specified in 40 CFR 430.01(i) or
one-half of the reported detection limits to estimate effluent
discharge loadings when pollutant concentrations were below minimum
levels. EPA considers this a reasonable approach for estimating mass
loads because the actual concentration of the sample is too small to
measure by current analytical methods, but is between zero and the
detection limit. Furthermore, ECF processes use and generate
chlorinated compounds, so EPA expects that chlorinated compounds were
present (i.e., with a concentration value greater than zero) in the
samples. Thus, EPA believes that it is appropriate to substitute a
value at the midpoint between zero and the detection limit (i.e., the
upper bound of the concentration in the sample) for ECF mills. The
methodology was modified slightly for mills that use TCF bleaching
sequences. Because chlorinated compounds are not used and are not
generated by TCF processes, EPA assumed that TCF mills would discharge
zero kilograms per year of AOX and the individual chlorinated
pollutants rather than an amount equivalent to one-half the minimum
level or detection limit multiplied by an appropriate production-
normalized flow rate.
EPA's revised baselines, which were again found to be comparable to
NCASI's industry-wide estimates for dioxin and furan, were used to
calculate effluent reductions summarized in Table VI-3. The table shows
the estimated baseline and the reduction from baseline expected if the
option were implemented by all the existing direct discharging mills in
the subcategory (i.e., those mills to which BAT will apply). The
slightly greater removals of the bleach plant pollutants by Option B
are a result of the reduced bleach plant flow found at mills employing
Option B technology.

Table VI-3.--Baseline Discharges and Estimated Reductions of Pollutants for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Mills Complying With BAT Technology Options Considered a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mid-1995 Estimated Estimated Estimated
Pollutant parameter Units baseline reductions: reductions: reductions:
discharge option A option B TCF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-TCDD................... g/yr 14.0 9.88 10.8 14.0
2,3,7,8-TCDF................... g/yr 105 98.0 99.5 105
Chloroform..................... kkg/yr 43.6 35.5 35.5 43.6

[[Page 18546]]

12 Chlorinated phenolic kkg/yr 51.7 42.3 44.1 51.7
pollutants.
AOX............................ kkg/yr 33,300 22,100 27,900 33,300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The TCF calculations assumed that chlorinated pollutants will not be present. For all other calculations, EPA
assumed that pollutants reported as ``not detected'' were present in a concentration equivalent to one-half
the minimum level specified in 40 CFR 430.01(i) or one-half of the reported detection limit.

The effluent reductions described and shown above are used in
Section VII to estimate reduced human health and environmental risk
attributable to today's rules. These estimates also form the basis for
estimating monetized benefits in Section VIII.
(4) Development of Limitations. The proposed BAT regulations
included limitations for dioxin, furan, 12 chlorinated phenolic
pollutants, acetone, chloroform, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and
methylene chloride (based on BAT process changes); and limitations for
color, COD, and AOX (based on BAT process changes and biological
wastewater treatment). In today's rule, EPA is promulgating limitations
for dioxin, furan, 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants, chloroform, and
AOX. See 40 CFR 430.24(a)(1). As discussed in Section VI.B.3. above,
EPA is not promulgating limitations for acetone, MEK, methylene
chloride, or color. EPA intends to promulgate effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for COD in a later rulemaking.
In addition to the new effluent limitations guidelines and
standards for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory
promulgated today and discussed immediately below, mills in this
subcategory continue to be subject to existing limitations and
standards for pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol (now denominated as
supplemental limitations and standards). These mills continue to have
the opportunity to be exempt from these supplemental limitations and
standards if they certify to the permitting or pretreatment authority
that they are not using these chemicals as biocides. See 40 CFR
430.24(d).
Except where noted, the following discussion of BAT limitations
also applies to EPA's procedures for setting NSPS, PSES, and PSNS for
Subpart B.
(a) Performance Data. EPA revised the proposed limitations and
standards based on data collected after proposal (see Pulp and Paper
Mill Data Available for BAT Limitations Development, DCN 13951) and
presented the revisions in the July 1996 Notice. See 61 FR at 36841-42.
Today's TCDF, chloroform, and AOX limitations and standards have been
further revised since the July 1996 Notice as a result of the selection
of data sets used for the long-term averages, variability factors, and
limitations. See DCN 14494, 14496, and Record Section 22.5. The
rationale for changes in the data set selections is provided
immediately below. See DCN 14487.
(i) Dioxin, Furan, and Chlorinated Phenolic Pollutants. For non-TCF
mills, EPA had proposed mass-based limitations and standards for furan;
in July 1996, EPA presented preliminary revised limitations and
standards that were concentration-based. EPA has determined that a
limitation on the concentration of furan is a more direct, and hence, a
more reasonable measurement of the presence of furan than a mass-based
limitation would be. When detected, furan typically is present in the
effluent of Subpart B mills that use ECF bleaching at levels at or only
slightly above the minimum level specified in the applicable analytical
method. In this case, the value of mass-based limitations and standards
are predominantly influenced by the variability in the bleach plant
effluent flow rate and thus may not be a consistent and reliable
measurement of the presence of furan. Since the July 1996 Notice, EPA
has used one additional data set to calculate the furan limitation;
this data set was from an Option B bleach line with a typical
unbleached kappa number of 20. Because of this change and because of
changes to assumptions used in the statistical analysis and changes to
the computer programs, see Section VI.B.5.a(4)(b), the value of the
furan limitations and standards has changed slightly from that
presented in the July 1996 Notice.
EPA has made no changes to the limitations for dioxin and the 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants presented in the July 1996 Notice. Upon
further review after the July 1996 Notice, EPA discovered that some
sample-specific minimum levels for some chlorinated phenolic pollutants
were incorrectly entered into the databases. These values have been
corrected. See DCN 14496, and Record Section 22.5.
EPA has determined that TCF bleaching processes do not result in
the generation of dioxin, furan, chloroform or chlorinated phenolic
pollutants. For this reason, EPA is not setting limitations for these
pollutants as part of the voluntary alternative BAT limitations and
standards promulgated today for mills that certify to the use of TCF
bleaching processes. See 40 CFR 430.24(a)(2).
(ii) AOX. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA presented preliminary
revised AOX BAT limitations and NSPS for non-TCF mills.
In the July 1996 Notice, EPA indicated that although it was
presenting revised limitations and standards it would continue to
analyze data from two mills representing the performance of BAT Option
A. These data were submitted to EPA by the industry without sufficient
time for the results to be reflected in the preliminary limitations and
standards presented in the July 1996 Notice.
Commenters encouraged EPA to use the newly acquired data for the
two Option A mills, but also questioned why certain other data in the
record were not used to develop the preliminary revised AOX limitations
and standards. EPA continued its analysis of the new data and obtained
new information about mill operations associated with the other data
addressed by comments. As a result, EPA added data from the two Option
A mills to the data used to characterize the performance of Option A
and added data from two other mills to the data used to characterize
the performance of Option B. EPA ultimately used data from six mills to
develop the AOX limitations for each option, including at least one
mill for each option for which long-term monitoring data (for about one
and a half years) were available. The mills used to represent each
option pulp

[[Page 18547]]

primarily softwood and most of them subsequently bleach the pulp to
high brightness (i.e., greater than 88 ISO). Tables presented in DCN
14494 show several statistics for each mill (reflecting the mill
characteristics during the sampling period), including furnish, kappa
number, kappa factor, brightness, type of wastewater treatment system,
and approximate AOX removal in the treatment system. For a discussion
of EPA's development of pretreatment standards for AOX, see section
VI.B.5.c(6).
Another factor that has contributed to revisions in today's AOX
limitations and standards is the adjustment for autocorrelation in the
data. See DCN 14496. EPA intended that this adjustment be made to the
preliminary AOX limitations presented in the July 1996 Notice; however,
comments on that notice stated correctly that this adjustment had been
excluded from the calculations. This oversight has been corrected in
the calculations of today's final AOX limitations and NSPS.
Since proposal, EPA has gathered additional data in order to
establish a final limitation for AOX for TCF bleaching processes. See
40 CFR 430.24(a)(2). EPA sampled at two mills with TCF bleaching
processes, one U.S. mill and one European mill. Analytical data from
sampling these two mills during periods representative of TCF processes
indicate that AOX concentrations were consistently below minimum levels
in bleach plant wastewaters. See DCN 14494 and DCN 14488. Therefore,
EPA has concluded that TCF bleaching processes are capable of achieving
concentrations less than the minimum level for AOX in process
wastewaters, whether measured at the bleach plant or after secondary
biological treatment, and is setting AOX limitations and standards
accordingly for TCF bleaching processes. See 40 CFR 430.24(a)(2).
(iii) Chloroform. EPA proposed a monthly average chloroform
limitation of 2.01 g/kkg based on sampling results from one mill that
used extended delignification and complete substitution of chlorine
dioxide for elemental chlorine, and that did not use hypochlorite
during bleaching. Data collected by EPA after proposal indicated that
bleach plant loads of chloroform did not differ between mills that used
conventional pulping (Option A) and extended delignification (Option
B), as long as bleaching was carried out without elemental chlorine or
hypochlorite. However, these data indicate that the type of pulp
washers used in a mill's bleach plant influence the partitioning of
chloroform between the air and effluent. Use of low air flow washers
results in less emission of chloroform to the air and greater loads of
chloroform in bleach plant effluent than use of high air flow washers.
See DCN 14494. In general, modern low air flow washers (such as
pressure diffusion) also use less water to accomplish equivalent
washing, i.e., they are more efficient than conventional vacuum drum
washers (high air flow washers). See DCN 14494, and DCN 14497, Vol. I.
Because of their efficient use of water and their potential to reduce
non-water quality environmental impacts, EPA encourages industry to use
modern low air flow washers. For this reason, EPA developed revised
chloroform limitations and standards using only data from mills that
use low air flow washers. In the July 1996 Notice, EPA presented a
revised bleach plant monthly average chloroform limitation of 2.80 g/
kkg. This limitation was developed using data from four mills that did
not use elemental chlorine or hypochlorite during bleaching, and that
used low air flow bleach plant washers.
EPA received comments that the revised chloroform limitations and
standards were not consistently achievable by mills with the process
technologies serving as the basis for Options A and B. As a result of
these comments, EPA re-evaluated the chloroform limitations and
standards presented in the July 1996 Notice.
EPA has revised the long-term average and variability factors used
to calculate the chloroform limitations and standards after considering
data from five mills that did not use elemental chlorine or
hypochlorite during bleaching and that used low air flow bleach plant
washers (data from four of these mills were used in the July 1996
Notice). In developing the long-term average, EPA used data from two
mills that bleach pulp to a high brightness (88 to 90 ISO). In
developing the variability factors, EPA also considered data from the
other three mills with low air flow washers to obtain a more realistic
estimate of variability associated with operating low air flow washers.
Two of these mills bleach pulp to a lower brightness (80 to 85 ISO).
EPA believes that the resulting limitations and standards can be met by
all well-operated and maintained ECF mills regardless of the type of
bleach plant washers used. (EPA's revised bleach plant monthly average
chloroform limitation is now 4.14 g/kkg.) The data in the record
indicate that it is highly unlikely that a mill employing elemental
chlorine or hypochlorite in its bleach plant could comply with the
chloroform limitations promulgated in this rule. See DCN 14494.
(iv) COD. As discussed in VI.B.3.d., EPA is reserving limitations
for COD at this time.
(b) Changes to Statistical Methodology. After the July 1996 Notice,
EPA performed a detailed review of the results of the statistical
analyses, the documentation of the statistical methodology, the
computer programs, and the data for all of the limitations and
standards. As a result of this review, EPA revised the assumptions
regarding statistical analysis of data to ensure that long-term
averages for TCDF and chloroform were greater than or equal to the
minimum level of the analytical methods. EPA made other revisions to
the statistical assumptions and the computer programs that resulted in
minor changes to the values of the limitations and standards. All of
these revisions are identified and described in the Statistical Support
Document for the Pulp and Paper Industry: Subpart B, DCN 14496. In the
record, EPA has also provided detailed responses to comments about the
statistical methodology. See DCN 14497, Vol. VI.
(c) Definition of Limitations and Standards Expressed at Less Than
the Minimum Level. In today's rulemaking, EPA is establishing
limitations and standards for Subparts B and E for 12 chlorinated
phenolic pollutants and dioxin that are expressed as less than the
minimum level (``ML.'') The
limitations and standards hereafter are referred to as ``ML
limitations.'' The ``ML'' is an abbreviation for the minimum level
identified in Sec. 430.01(i) of today's rule for the analytical methods
that EPA used to determine the level of pollution reduction achievable
through the use of BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS model technologies for the
12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants, dioxin, and, for alternative TCF
technologies, AOX. (For Subpart E, limitations and standards for furan
and AOX are also expressed as ``greek-m>g/L
3,4,5-trichlorocatechol............. 1653 5.0 g/L
3,4,6-trichlorocatechol............. 1653 5.0 g/L
3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol............. 1653 2.5 g/L
3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol............. 1653 2.5 g/L
4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol............. 1653 2.5 g/L
2,4,5-trichlorophenol............... 1653 2.5 g/L
2,4,6-trichlorophenol............... 1653 2.5 g/L
Tetrachlorocatechol................. 1653 5.0 g/L
Tetrachloroguaiacol................. 1653 5.0 g/L
2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol........... 1653 2.5 g/L
Pentachlorophenol................... 1653 5.0 g/L
AOX................................. 1650 20 g/L
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Limitations. Table VI-5 presents the final effluent limitations
for Options A and B for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory that are based on in-plant process changes. These
limitations are based on data obtained from bleach plant effluent prior
to mixing with other mill wastestreams.

Table VI-5.--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Limitations Comparison of Options A and B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily maximum limitation Monthly average
----------------------------------------------------- limitation
-------------------------
Option A Option B Option A Option B
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCDD (pg/L)...................... ML N/A N/A
TCDF (pg/L)...................... 31.9 31.9 N/A N/A
Chlorinated Phenolic Pollutants* ML N/A N/A
(g/L).
Chloroform (g/kkg)............... 6.92 6.92 4.14 4.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Trichlorosyringol, 2,4,5-trichlorophenol, 2,4,6-trichlorophenol, 3,4,5-trichlorocatechol, 3,4,5-
trichloroguaiacol, 3,4,6-trichlorocatechol, 3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol, 4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol,
tetrachlorocatechol, tetrachloroguaiacol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, and pentachlorophenol.
ML or Minimum level--the level at which the analytical system gives recognizable signals and an acceptable
calibration point. See 40 CFR 430.01(i).
N/A Not applicable.

EPA did not establish monthly average limitations and standards for
dioxin and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants because the daily
maximum limitations and standards for these pollutants are expressed as
less than the Minimum Level (ML.
EPA did not establish a monthly average limitation for furan
because a

[[Page 18549]]

monthly average limitation would be based on the assumption that a mill
would be required to monitor more frequently than once a month. For the
reasons set forth in Section VI.B.8.c(4)(b), EPA believes that one
monthly monitoring event is sufficient; however, if permitting or
pretreatment authorities choose to require more frequent monitoring for
furan, they may set monthly average limitations and standards based on
their best professional judgment. See, e.g., 40 CFR 430.24(a)(1),
footnote b. Today's rule requires mills to monitor for chloroform four
times per month (i.e., weekly); therefore, both daily maximum and
monthly average limitations are presented.
EPA has also calculated both daily maximum and monthly average
limitations for AOX based on Option A, Option B, and TCF bleaching
processes. These limitations are presented in Table VI-6. Today's rules
require AOX to be monitored every day during the month. See 40 CFR
430.02(a). Annual average limitations for AOX apply only to non-
continuous discharges. The alternative TCF effluent limitations apply
only to AOX and are expressed as ``ML
------------------------------------------------------------------------

In order for a fiber line to qualify for the voluntary alternative
TCF limitations, the discharger must certify to the permitting
authority, as part of its NPDES permit application, that the fiber line
bleaches pulp exclusively with TCF bleaching processes. See 40 CFR
430.24(a)(2). (A fiber line that swings between ECF and TCF bleaching
processes, for example, would not be eligible for these alternative
effluent limitations because dioxin and other chlorinated organic
pollutants will be generated at least some of the time and therefore
need to be controlled.) EPA decided not to promulgate an additional
requirement, as it had proposed, that would have required dischargers
to provide monitoring results for three composite bleach plant
wastewater samples for dioxin, furan, and the 12 chlorinated phenolic
pollutants and three grab samples for chloroform in order to qualify
for those limitations. See 58 FR at 66195. EPA believes that the
additional proposed requirement is unnecessary because EPA has no
reason to believe that a discharger would falsify its TCF certification
and because a discharger certifying to TCF processes at a particular
fiber line is required in any case to notify the permitting authority
if it converts the fiber line in whole or in part to bleaching
processes employing chlorine or chlorine-containing compounds. As a
result of this notification, the discharger's TCF-based permit limits
would need to be modified to reflect the new processes. See, e.g., 40
CFR 122.21(g)(3), 122.21(g)(7), and 122.41(l).
(5) Selection of BAT/PSES Technology Basis. After considering all
of the technology options described in the December 1993 proposal and
the July 1996 Notice in light of the factors specified in section
304(b)(2)(B) of the Clean Water Act, EPA has selected Option A as its
technology basis for the BAT limitations promulgated today for Subpart
B. For the reasons set forth below, EPA has also selected Option A as
its technology basis for the PSES promulgated today for Subpart B. (For
a discussion of PSES options, parameters, and EPA's pass-through
analysis, see Section VI.B.5.c.) The record establishes that Option A
is technically available. See the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487. As discussed in more detail below, EPA has also
concluded that it is economically achievable. Further, EPA has
determined, for the reasons set forth in Section VII, that Option A has
no unacceptable adverse non-water quality environmental impacts.
Finally, EPA determined that Option A achieves greater environmental
benefits than any other economically achievable technology considered
by EPA and, for that reason, also represents the best technology among
those considered.
EPA considered the age, size, processes, other engineering factors,
and non-water quality environmental impacts pertinent to mills in this
subcategory for the purpose of evaluating the BAT and PSES technology
options. None of these factors provides a basis for selecting different
technologies than EPA has chosen as the basis for today's BAT
limitations and PSES.
In order to evaluate economic achievability, EPA concluded that it
was appropriate to examine BAT/PSES in view of the MACT requirements
also being promulgated today for mills subject to subpart B. As a
general matter, when evaluating the economic impact of the candidate
BAT/PSES technologies, EPA generally looks at the industry as it exists
at the time the decision is made. In this industry, subpart B mills
will be subject to significant additional costs as a result of today's
MACT I rule. See Section VIII. Therefore, although EPA has not ascribed
MACT I costs to the BAT/PSES costs of today's rule, EPA is taking those
costs into account when considering the total impact of the various
BAT/PSES options on subpart B mills. This is particularly appropriate
here because EPA undertook this Cluster rulemaking in order to consider
at one time a range of air and water controls and their total economic
consequences, among other things. Thus, EPA believes that its BAT/PSES
analysis more accurately reflects the actual costs and economic impacts
that mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory will
experience. EPA also performed its economic achievability analysis
based on the impact of BAT/PSES costs without considering the impact of
the MACT I rule on subpart B mills. This analysis did not change EPA's
final conclusions. Additionally, in response to comments, and because
more information is now available regarding estimated costs, EPA also
considered the economic impacts of the MACT II requirements being
proposed at this time. The additional consideration of projected MACT
II costs also does not alter EPA's determination of economic
achievability in this instance.
EPA has determined that the selected BAT/PSES model technology
(Option A)

[[Page 18550]]

is economically achievable for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory as a whole for several reasons. When EPA considered the
effect of BAT/PSES compliance in light of the MACT I rule on subpart B
mills, EPA estimated that the selected BAT/PSES Option would cause two
mill closures, with related direct loss of 900 jobs and a $275 million
decrease in shipments, and no firm failures that are likely to result
in additional job loss. (See Section VIII.F and Table VIII-4 for other
economic impacts associated with the selected BAT/PSES option, with and
without MACT I compliance costs.) The number of closures (two) is less
than 3 percent of the affected mills (86) in the subcategory. The loss
of jobs associated with these closures is about one percent of
subcategory employment. EPA believes that, even with these projected
impacts, the selected BAT/PSES is economically achievable for this
subcategory as a whole. When the cost of the MACT I rule on subpart B
mills is not considered, the selected BAT/PSES would cause one mill
closure and no firm failures they are likely to result in additional
job loss. See Section VIII.E. For confidentiality reasons, related
losses of jobs and shipments cannot be disclosed in this Federal
Register notice, but are described in the CBI portion of the record.
EPA concluded that Option B is not economically achievable for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory as a whole. When EPA
considered the effect of BAT/PSES compliance in light of the MACT I
rule on subpart B mills, EPA estimated that Option B would cause four
mill closures, with a related direct loss of up to 4,800 jobs, and a
$1.3 billion decrease in shipments, and one or more firm failures that
are likely to result in additional job loss. (See Section VIII.F and
Table VIII-4 for other economic impacts associated with Option B with
and without MACT I compliance costs.) EPA estimates that when the cost
of the MACT I rule is not considered, Option B would cause two mill
closures, with a related direct loss of 900 jobs and a $275 million
decrease in shipments, and one or more firm failures. See Section
VIII.F.1.
While the increased number of closures and related job losses
associated with Option B are strong indicators of economic
unachievability, the potential firm failures (i.e., bankruptcies)
associated with this Option are particularly problematic. For each
option, EPA's bankruptcy analysis focuses on whether each affected
company can afford to make the collective investment required to
install the technology upon which the option is based for all of its
facilities. The substantially higher capital cost associated with
Option B results in the potential failure of one or more firms that
Option A does not cause. In most cases, requirements to raise capital
to upgrade each mill to meet Option B limitations and standards may
seriously jeopardize some companies' ability to cover interest on the
new investments as well as other costs. In other words, some companies
with insufficient cash or equity resources to cover the costs of these
upgrades may be in jeopardy of bankruptcy. It takes an event of
considerable magnitude to induce bankruptcy in a firm. The fact that
Option B, even when considered without regard for the impact of the
MACT I rule on this subpart, is projected to drive one or more firms
into bankruptcy indicates to EPA the significant magnitude of Option
B's capital requirements. In EPA's view, the overall effect of Option B
on those firms would be substantial. See Section VIII.F. For a more
detailed discussion of EPA's firm failure analysis, see the Economic
Analysis, Chapter 6 (DCN 14649).
The magnitude of the effects that may arise from large firm
bankruptcies is a substantial indicator of the economic unachievability
of Option B. The negative effects are indefinite and unquantifiable,
but EPA has reason to believe, based on the recent history of the
domestic pulp and paper industry, that they are likely to be
significant. The effects include, as examples, stock price turmoil,
reduced workforces, and foreign ownership of formerly American-owned
assets. Which impacts occur would depend on the responses of the
potentially affected firm(s) to the increased costs. Companies that
enter bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy are more likely to see their stock
prices fall, causing substantial loss of investor value and possibly
becoming the target of a hostile takeover by a domestic or foreign
company. Recent history of hostile or friendly takeovers shows that the
acquiring companies subsequently divested themselves of unproductive
assets, closed a number of mills and eliminated over 15,000 jobs,
affecting both smaller and larger communities, with the most
devastating consequences on the smaller communities. Some companies may
downsize some operations without closing any mills, thus potentially
causing job losses in communities that depend on the mills directly or
indirectly for their economic well-being. The potential job losses
associated with the likely firm failure(s) represent an unacceptably
large portion of the employment losses associated with this option for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. See DCN 14379,
14382, and 14388 (contained in CBI record). In addition, weaker
companies might be forced to sell off blocks of assets, or their
corporate existence might be endangered. Companies may choose to close
marginal plants to avoid the cost of upgrade or to sell off mills both
to avoid the costs of upgrade and to raise capital to upgrade the
remaining mills. Closed mills' equipment could be sold to overseas
companies, who could initiate low cost pulp or paper production and
gain market share from U.S. firms as a result. Foreign companies
acquiring U.S. mills might close or alter those mills to gain market
share (although such behavior is not necessarily economically
efficient). Substituting foreign for domestic production means an
additional loss of jobs and income for Americans. See Economic
Analysis, Chapter 6 (DCN 14649).
EPA also considered the effects of delaying the implementation of
Option B for five years. EPA acknowledges that the uncertainties of the
pulp and paper market and the financial circumstances of individual
firms make questionable the validity of any assumptions regarding the
relative effects of a five-year delay. EPA's evaluation of delaying the
implementation of Option B for five years involves consideration of
discounting Option B costs for five years, the expected industry price
and revenue cycle, and resulting aggregate costs, closures, and firm
failures. EPA has determined, due to expected effects of the industry
cycle, that deferring the costs of this technology for five years would
not appreciably reduce the economic impacts for this subcategory as a
whole compared to immediate compliance. See Economic Analysis, Chapter
6 (DCN 14649). For example, EPA found that under the most likely
scenario (in which the costs of complying with MACT I are taken into
account), the same number of mills (four) would be predicted to close
even if implementation of Option B were delayed for five years. Firm
failure predictions could not be made for five years hence because the
analysis is based on several financial components, each of which may
change dramatically and unpredictably in the interim.
Based on the above discussion, EPA concludes that only the selected
BAT/PSES technology option--Option A--is economically achievable today
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory as a whole. EPA
acknowledges that the number of

[[Page 18551]]

predicted closures attributable to Option B, when considered without
regard for the impact of the MACT I rule on subpart B mills, is the
same as the number of predicted closures under Option A when MACT I
impacts are considered. (This is also true for job losses and effects
on shipments.) However, EPA does not believe that these impacts alone
are a compelling decision basis for this rulemaking. Not only would
such an analysis fail to account for the real-world economic impacts of
the concurrent MACT I rulemaking, but the closures and related impacts
by themselves fail to express the total economic impacts EPA predicts
for Option B. For the reasons described above, EPA concludes that it is
appropriate to take into account the potential firm failures
attributable to Option B in this rulemaking. Further, EPA concludes
that it is appropriate in this rulemaking to base the economic
achievability determination on the total economic impacts (the closures
and the projected firm failures, coupled with predicted regional and
market impacts) of its BAT/PSES options on the industry. Those total
economic impacts constitute the principal and deciding difference
between the selected BAT/PSES technology basis and Option B. Based on
that conclusion, EPA has determined that only Option A is economically
achievable for subpart B as a whole, both when the impacts of
compliance with the MACT I rule are considered and when they are not.
EPA is also rejecting Option B because its capital costs are simply
too high when compared to Option A. Implementation of Option B would
result in capital costs that are more than $1 billion greater than
those associated with Option A. EPA believes that this consideration is
particularly relevant in this rulemaking for several reasons. First,
these Cluster Rules represent the fourth set of effluent limitations
guidelines and standards promulgated for subpart B mills. Since 1977,
the industry has incurred substantial capital costs to achieve its
current level of pollutant control and has achieved significant
pollutant loading reductions. This is also the first pulp and paper
regulation to employ process changes, rather than treatment
technologies, as the core of its model BAT/PSES technology. EPA is
authorized, in the exercise of its discretion, to consider these
factors as the Administrator deems appropriate in selecting BAT. See
CWA section 304(b)(2)(B). For all of these additional reasons, EPA has
concluded that Option B is not the best available technology
economically achievable for subpart B at this time.
EPA also evaluated the economic achievability of TCF process
technologies for subpart B mills. EPA concluded that the annualized
cost of retrofitting existing sources for TCF is substantially greater
than the annualized cost of Option B (regardless which bleaching
chemicals are used), with additional impacts ranging from seven
estimated closures and 7,100 job losses to the potential that a greater
number of firms would be placed in jeopardy of bankruptcy. See Section
VIII.F. (When this option is considered in light of MACT I compliance
costs, the economic impacts would be even greater. See id.) EPA,
therefore, concluded that TCF bleaching processes are not economically
achievable for the subcategory as a whole at this time. Nevertheless,
EPA is promulgating voluntary alternative BAT limitations and PSES
based on TCF bleaching processes in order to encourage mills to use
this technology whenever possible. See 40 CFR 430.24(a)(2),
430.26(a)(2).
EPA determined that Option A is the best technology because no
other option that was both available and economically achievable
resulted in greater reductions in effluent loadings for dioxin, furan
and other significant pollutants of concern. (See 58 FR at 66110 for
other options considered at proposal.) For a discussion of the effluent
reduction benefits associated with Option A, see Section VIII.G.
(6) Point of Compliance Monitoring. EPA is requiring mills in
subpart B to demonstrate compliance with BAT limitations for dioxin,
furan, chloroform, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants inside the
discharger's facility at the point where the wastewater containing
those pollutants leaves the bleach plant. EPA is authorized by the
Clean Water Act and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(i), 122.45(h),
and 125.3(e) to specify an in-plant point of compliance monitoring for
technology-based limitations. Hereafter, EPA refers to the BAT
limitations for which compliance must be demonstrated in-plant as ``in-
plant limitations.'' As set forth in more detail below, EPA is
establishing in-plant limitations on bleach plant effluent because
limitations imposed on those pollutants at the point of discharge are
impractical and infeasible as measures of the performance of process
technologies representing the technology-based levels of control.
Moreover, in-plant effluent limitations are consistent with the MACT
standards for chloroform, which independently require achievement of
BAT limitations on dioxin, furan, chloroform and the 12 chlorinated
phenolic compounds at the bleach plant (in addition to compliance with
AOX limitations) in order to ensure that the removals represented by
the MACT technology floor--complete substitution of chlorine dioxide
for elemental chlorine and elimination of hypochlorite--are attained.
Mills using the model BAT technology, described in section
VI.B.5.a(1), are able to achieve at the bleach plant concentrations of
dioxin and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants at levels below the
minimum levels of currently available analytical methods. Furan
concentrations, in turn, are very near the analytical minimum levels.
(At the end of the pipe, furan in many mills' effluent cannot be
detected by available analytical methods.)
Because only 10 to 40 percent of the wastewater discharged by mills
in subpart B originates in the bleach plant, (see the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487) the concentrations of
pollutants in the final effluent would be one-tenth to two-fifths of
their concentrations at the bleach plant. In the biological wastewater
treatment system, the pollutants may be present but in concentrations
below the applicable analytical minimum levels. When they are
discharged to receiving streams, however, dioxin and furan
bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms. Were EPA to allow compliance
monitoring of the final effluent, there would be no way to determine
whether the bleach plant effluent has been adequately controlled or
whether the effluent has simply been diluted below the analytical
minimum level by the other flows. Diluting pollutants in this manner
rather than preventing their discharge is inconsistent with achieving
the removals represented by the technology-based levels of control, and
hence with the purpose of the BAT limitations. It is also inconsistent
with the goals of the Clean Water Act in general. See sections 101(a)
and 301(b)(2)(A). While no mill is required to install EPA's model BAT
technology, establishing limitations at the bleach plant is the only
way EPA can ensure that none of these pollutants will be discharged at
concentrations greater than the levels achievable through
implementation of the best available technology. See E.I. du Pont de
Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 129 (1977).
With respect to the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants, EPA
acknowledges that these pollutants could be degraded by biological
treatment of the facility's combined wastewater. However, the

[[Page 18552]]

same process technologies necessary to address dioxin and furan also
reduce the levels of chlorinated phenolic pollutants to concentrations
below minimum levels at the bleach plant. Commenters have supplied no
data showing that the chlorinated phenolic pollutants should or indeed,
as a practical matter, could be segregated from the dioxin- or furan-
bearing wastestreams in order to utilize a mill's secondary treatment
system fully. Nor is there any assurance that BAT limitations for these
pollutants, if monitored at the end of the pipe, would be achieved by
treatment rather than simply by the effects of dilution. See 40 CFR
122.45(h). Thus, EPA believes that it is appropriate to require
compliance monitoring for the BAT limitations on the 12 chlorinated
phenolic pollutants at the point they most easily can be achieved and
measured--at the bleach plant.
In the case of chloroform, in-plant limits are authorized by 40 CFR
122.45(h) because they offset the effects of dilution, in this case,
the occurrence of uncontrolled volatilization. In other regulatory
contexts, EPA recognizes that dilution includes not only mixing a
pollutant of concern with other wastestreams, but also mixing it with
excess air in the form of uncontrolled volatilization. See 52 FR 25760,
25778-79 (July 8, 1987). Volatilization, like dilution, does nothing to
remove, destroy, or immobilize pollutants, and for this reason is not
in itself a form of treatment. id. at 25779. The policy reasons
supporting that principle in the hazardous waste context similarly
apply here.
Finally, EPA is setting effluent limitations at the bleach plant in
order to avert the non-water quality environmental impacts caused by
the volatilization of chloroform to the air and in order to be
consistent with its Clean Air Act determination that the MACT floor for
chloroform consists of bleach plant process modifications, i.e.,
complete chlorine dioxide substitution and elimination of hypochlorite
as bleaching agents. Specifically, EPA is requiring under the Clean Air
Act that chloroform emissions be controlled by complying with the BAT
requirements for all regulated pollutants. See 40 CFR 63.445(d).
Therefore, EPA has determined under its Clean Air Act authority that
bleach plant technologies--and bleach plant limitations on dioxin,
furan, chloroform and the 12 chlorinated phenolics--are necessary to
regulate air emissions of chloroform. The situation presented here is
very different from the situation EPA faced when promulgating effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the organic chemicals,
plastics and synthetic fibers industrial category in 1987. See 52 FR
42522, 42658-62 (Nov. 5, 1987). In that rulemaking, the issue before
EPA was whether to use in-plant limitations and standards to regulate
air emissions of certain volatile and semi-volatile pollutants; EPA
chose not to set in-plant requirements for that purpose because it
determined that the regulation of such emissions was best accomplished
in a Clean Air Act proceeding, which EPA was commencing at that time.
See 52 FR at 42560-62. In contrast, EPA in this rulemaking integrated
its decision-making under the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act
expressly to address these cross-media issues. Taking into account both
the air and water objectives of these Cluster Rules, EPA therefore
concludes that it is highly appropriate for EPA to set effluent
limitations under the Clean Water Act to correspond to and support its
concurrent regulation of air emissions under the Clean Air Act.
b. New Source Performance Standards. (1) Background. The Agency
proposed to revise NSPS for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory. New mills have the opportunity to incorporate the best
available demonstrated technologies, including process changes, in-
plant controls, and end-of-pipe treatment technologies.
(a) Definition of ``New Source''. EPA had proposed supplemental
definitions of the term ``new source,'' as provided in National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program
regulations found at 40 CFR 122.2 and 122.29, for the pulp and paper
industry only. See 58 FR at 66116-17. EPA is codifying a definition of
``new source'' in Part 430 for subparts B and E. See 40 CFR 430.01(j).
The new definition provides that new source performance standards are
triggered by new ``greenfield'' mills, complete replacements of entire
fiber lines (e.g., pulping and bleaching), or the construction of a new
source whose processes are substantially independent of an existing
source, such as a new fiber line built to supplement an existing fiber
line. Specifically excluded from the definition of new source are
existing mills that modify existing fiber lines for purposes of
complying with either BAT limitations or PSES, and existing mills that
replace entire fiber lines in order to comply with Advanced Technology
BAT limitations. For more details, see Section VI.B.8.a(2).
(b) Proposed NSPS. EPA proposed NSPS for toxic and nonconventional
pollutants for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory based
on the combination of both oxygen delignification and extended cooking
followed by 100 percent substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental
chlorine and elimination of hypochlorite (identified at proposal as
Option 5). The proposed technology bases for NSPS also included the
other elements described as part of BAT in VI.B.5.a(1). EPA also
proposed NSPS for BOD5 and TSS based on the single best
demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater treatment system. See 58
FR at 66116-18, 66197. To encourage continuing innovation in the
development of processes to reduce or eliminate the discharge of
pollutants from the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA
also proposed alternative NSPS limits for mills adopting TCF processes.
See 58 FR at 66111.
(2) Options Considered. In addition to the option proposed for
NSPS, EPA considered three other options for the technology basis of
NSPS for toxic and nonconventional pollutants. These options are
summarized below. For further discussion of these options, see the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. The first
alternative option is identical to BAT Option B, described above. This
revised NSPS option includes extended delignification (i.e., oxygen
delignification and/or extended cooking) to produce softwood pulps with
a kappa number of approximately equal to or less than 20 (approximately
13 for hardwoods), followed by complete (100 percent) substitution of
chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine and elimination of hypochlorite
for bleaching. EPA concluded that there are no performance differences
between the proposed NSPS option and this revised option. See the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
EPA also considered an ECF technology used at two U.S. mills
consisting of oxygen delignification followed by ozone bleaching,
enhanced extraction, and final chlorine dioxide brightening. This
technology is used to produce pulps of somewhat lower brightness than
market pulps. Finally, the Agency considered a TCF process technology
that one U.S. mill is currently using to produce pulps with brightness
up to 83 ISO.
For conventional pollutants, EPA considered the proposed NSPS
option based on the single best available demonstrated end-of-pipe
secondary wastewater treatment and a second option based on the best
available demonstrated performance of a

[[Continued on page 18553]]

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Category

Related Material

Local Navigation