[[pp. 18553-18602]] 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 (Rules and Regulations)]
[Page 18553-18602]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ap98-20]

[[pp. 18553-18602]] 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

[[Continued from page 18552]]

[[Page 18553]]

secondary wastewater treatment system as characterized by the average
of the best 50 percent of the existing mills in the subcategory.
(3) Option Selected, Pollutants Regulated, and Costs. EPA is
promulgating NSPS for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory for toxic and nonconventional pollutants based on the NSPS
option equivalent to BAT Option B. EPA has determined that Option B
technology represents the best demonstrated control technology,
process, operating method, or other alternative available at this time.
The toxic and nonconventional pollutants regulated by NSPS are the same
as those regulated by BAT. For further discussion of the NSPS model
technology, the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
EPA rejected as possible NSPS technologies the technologies that
have not been demonstrated to achieve full market pulp specifications.
EPA knows of two ECF bleach lines using ozone-based bleaching in the
U.S. One line uses an OZEoDD bleach sequence to bleach
hardwood to 83 GE brightness (less than 82 ISO). The other line uses an
OZEoD bleach sequence to bleach softwood to 84 ISO, somewhat
less than full market brightness. EPA collected data from this line
that confirm that OZEoD bleaching results in much lower
water use and pollutant loadings than either Option A or Option B.
Because of this level of performance, EPA strongly encourages further
development of ozone-based bleaching sequences--as part of either ECF
or TCF sequences. It is possible that lines using ozone-based bleaching
sequences will achieve the AOX limits promulgated as part of the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, which is described in
Section IX of this Notice.
With respect to TCF bleaching processes, several non-U.S. mills
have reported the production of TCF softwood kraft pulp at full market
brightness. However, EPA's data are not sufficient to confirm that TCF
bleaching processes are technically demonstrated for the full range of
market products currently served by the kraft process. EPA is also
unable to define a segment of the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory for which TCF bleaching processes are known to be
technically feasible and thus could be the basis for NSPS. EPA believes
that progress being made in developing TCF bleaching processes is
substantial, however, and that additional data may demonstrate that TCF
processes are indeed available for the full range of market products.
To this end, elsewhere in today's Federal Register Notice, EPA is
inviting additional data and comment on the full range of market
specifications currently being achieved for TCF kraft pulp (e.g.,
brightness, strength, and cleanliness). EPA will evaluate whether the
performance of this technology will result in greater removals than the
performance of the NSPS technology option being selected today.
Depending on these findings, EPA will determine whether to propose
revisions to NSPS based upon TCF and, if appropriate, flow reduction
technologies.
In addition to NSPS relating to the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program, which is discussed below in this section, EPA is
also promulgating alternative NSPS for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda mills voluntarily choosing to use TCF technologies. See 40 CFR
430.25(b)(2).
For the conventional pollutants BOD5 and TSS, EPA is
basing NSPS upon the best available demonstrated performance of a
secondary wastewater treatment system as characterized by the average
of the best 50 percent of the existing mills in the subcategory. EPA
has determined that the performance of the single best mill does not
account for all sources of process-related variability in conventional
pollutant generation and treatability expected in the entire
subcategory, including raw materials (i.e., furnish), process
operations, and final products. In selecting the final NSPS technology
basis for conventional pollutants, EPA found it necessary to consider
the secondary wastewater treatment performance of the best 50 percent
of the existing mills in this subcategory in order to ensure that the
resulting standards reflect the full range of processes and raw
materials to produce the full range of products covered by this
subcategory. For further discussion, see the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487, and DCN 14497, Vol. I and II.
EPA is not revising NSPS for pH for subpart B; however, for the
convenience of the permit writer, EPA has recodified the 1982 NSPS for
pH as part of the table of newly promulgated NSPS for toxic, non-
conventional, and other conventional pollutants. See 40 CFR 430.25(b).
In selecting its model NSPS technologies, EPA considered all of the
factors specified in CWA section 306, including the cost of achieving
effluent reductions. The incremental capital cost of complying with the
selected NSPS for all pollutants, as compared to the costs of complying
with standards based on the next best technology, BAT Option A, is only
0.5 to 2.0 percent of the total capital cost of constructing either a
new source fiber line at an existing mill or a new greenfield mill.
Moreover, the process technologies that form the basis for NSPS result
in lower pollutant loadings requiring biological treatment. Loadings of
BOD5 from a bleach line employing NSPS will be approximately
30 percent lower than loadings from a conventional bleach line.
Compared to the cost of treating wastewater from a conventional bleach
line to meet current BPT/BCT effluent limitations guidelines, the cost
of treating wastewater from a NSPS bleach line to meet NSPS for
conventional pollutants will be the same or lower. Finally, as of mid-
1995 there are 14 existing mills representing approximately 16 percent
of the bleached papergrade kraft production that employ the Option B
technology. For these reasons, EPA concludes that the costs of
complying with NSPS for toxic, non-conventional or conventional
pollutants do not present a barrier to entry. See the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. See also Section VIII and
Chapter 6 of the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649.
The Agency also considered energy requirements and other non-water
quality environmental impacts for the selected NSPS option. EPA
concluded that increased chemical recovery and reduced energy
consumption and operating costs would occur for this option. EPA also
concluded that non-water quality environmental impacts were only
marginally different than for the selected BAT technology option and
are acceptable. Thus, EPA concluded that none of the statutory factors
justified selecting a different NSPS model technology than the one
chosen. See Section VII. See also the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487.
EPA is also promulgating NSPS as part of the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program with standards set at the Tier II and
Tier III levels. See 40 CFR 430.25(c). For a discussion of this
program, see Section IX. A new source may choose to enroll in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program at the Tier II or Tier
III NSPS level and therefore to commit to achieve those standards at
the time it commences operation. Alternatively, a new source may choose
to commence operation at the compulsory NSPS level and then later
enroll in the Incentives Program at the Tier II or Tier III level as an
existing source, or enroll in the Incentives Program once Tier II or
Tier III limitations are achieved.
Finally, EPA notes that the previously promulgated NSPS for the
biocides pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol

[[Page 18554]]

continue to apply to all new sources. See 40 CFR 430.25(d).
(4) Limitations and Point of Compliance Monitoring. EPA is
promulgating NSPS for dioxin, furan, chloroform, the 12 chlorinated
phenolic pollutants, and AOX for Subpart B at the levels set forth in
Tables VI-5 and VI-6 for BAT Option B. See 40 CFR 430.25(b)(1). For a
discussion of EPA's development of those standards (presented in the
context of possible BAT limitations derived from Option B
technologies), see Section VI.B.5.a(4). The numerical values of today's
NSPS for BOD5 and TSS for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory have been revised from those provided in the July notice.
For a discussion of these changes, see the Statistical Support
Document, DCN 14496. The final NSPS for BOD5, TSS and pH are
presented in Table VI-7 below.

Table VI-7.--New Source Performance Standards for Conventional Pollutants for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NSPS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Continuous dischargers Non-
-------------------------------- continuous
dischargers
Pollutant or pollutant property Maximum for Monthly ---------------
any 1 day (kg/ average (kg/ Annual average
kkg) kkg) (kg/kkg)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................................................ 4.52 2.41 1.73
TSS............................................................. 8.47 3.86 2.72
pH.............................................................. (\1\) (\1\) (\1\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

EPA is requiring mills to demonstrate compliance with the NSPS for
dioxin, furan, chloroform and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants
inside the discharger's facility at the point where the wastewater
containing those pollutants leaves the bleach plant. See 40 CFR
430.25(e). EPA bases this decision on the reasons discussed in Section
VI.B.5.a(6) for BAT limitations. EPA is not specifying a point of
compliance monitoring for AOX, BOD5, TSS, pH, or the
biocides.
c. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) and
Pretreatment Standards for New Sources (PSNS). (1) Background. EPA
proposed the same technology option for PSES as it did for BAT. This
proposed option would have set PSES for the same pollutants controlled
by BAT. For new indirect discharging facilities, EPA proposed that PSNS
be set equal to NSPS for the toxic and nonconventional pollutants. At
proposal, EPA also discussed three options for implementing the
pretreatment standards. See 58 FR at 66123-25. EPA also solicited
comment on whether pretreatment standards for BOD5 and TSS
were warranted to ensure that pass-through of these and other
pollutants (e.g., AOX) did not occur.
(2) Pass-through Analysis for PSES and PSNS. EPA promulgates
pretreatment standards for pollutants that pass through or interfere
with POTWs. EPA performed a pass-through analysis as part of this
rulemaking, which is summarized below. See also the Supplemental
Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. EPA has determined for
subpart B mills that dioxin, furan, chloroform, the 12 chlorinated
phenolic pollutants, and AOX pass through POTWs. Therefore, the Agency
is promulgating PSES and PSNS for these pollutants. See 40 CFR
430.26(a)(1) and 430.27(a)(1).
EPA's record shows that both direct discharging mills and POTWs
accepting wastewaters from pulp and paper mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory operate secondary biological
treatment systems. The indirect discharging mills in this subcategory
contribute the majority of the pollutant loading and up to 90 percent
of the flow to these POTWs. (EPA refers to these POTWs as ``industrial
POTWs.'') EPA has reviewed data available in the record for
BOD5 and TSS, among other pollutants, and has determined
that the biological treatment systems at these POTWs are comparable to
the biological treatment systems operated by direct discharging mills
in subpart B. See the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN
14487.
EPA reviewed all available data in the record to conduct a pass-
through analysis. EPA compared the percent of removals achieved by
subpart B mills implementing the BAT technologies to the percent of the
same pollutants removed by the industrial POTWs receiving effluent from
subpart B mills. EPA's record shows that dioxin and furan are not
removed by biological treatment systems and so are not removed by the
POTW. Therefore, these pollutants pass through untreated and are
discharged to receiving streams, where dioxin and furan bioaccumulate
in aquatic organisms. EPA bases this conclusion on data reported in the
``104-Mill Study,'' which EPA undertook in cooperation with industry in
1988/89. That study shows that direct discharging bleached papergrade
kraft and soda mills operating secondary biological treatment systems
(without the addition of bleach plant process controls) discharge
dioxin and furan in detectable quantities. When mills in that
subcategory later implemented bleach plant process changes and controls
comparable to the model BAT technologies considered in promulgating
today's BAT effluent limitations guidelines, the data show that dioxin
and furan discharges dropped below the minimum level at which those
pollutants can be reliably measured. This was the case even where there
was no concurrent change to the secondary biological treatment systems.
(Indeed, EPA's candidate BAT technologies assume secondary biological
treatment systems operating at the 1989 level). Because, as discussed
above, the industrial POTWs receiving effluent from bleached papergrade
kraft and soda mills operate biological treatment systems that are
comparable to those operated by direct discharging mills in the ``104-
Mill Study,'' EPA concluded that subpart B mills implementing the
selected in-plant BAT model technology achieve substantially greater
reductions of dioxin and furan than industrial POTWs can achieve from
effluent not subject to BAT-level process controls. EPA finds that in
the absence of PSES equivalent to BAT levels of control, dioxin and
furan would pass through POTWs. EPA also believes that the presence of
these pollutants in the POTWs' secondary

[[Page 18555]]

sludge could possibly interfere with their sludge disposal options.
For chloroform, EPA also evaluated the removal efficiencies
achieved by POTWs by comparing the removals achieved by direct
discharging mills using BAT process technologies to the removals
achieved by POTWs receiving effluent from subpart B mills. The record
shows that, without the BAT process changes, a very high percentage of
chloroform volatilizes from collection, conveyance, and aeration
systems. EPA has consistently refused in these circumstances to regard
such transfers of pollutants from wastewater to air as treatment. See,
e.g., 59 FR 50638, 50665 (Sept. 28, 1993) (pesticides chemicals
guidelines); 58 FR 36872, 36886-88 (July 9, 1993)(organic chemicals,
plastics, and synthetic fibers guidelines). Therefore, because of this
volatilization of chloroform in the absence of bleach plant process
changes, the quantity of chloroform actually available to be removed by
the POTWs' secondary treatment works is less than the quantity of that
pollutant removed by the direct discharger employing BAT. Accordingly,
EPA concludes that there is pass-through of chloroform in the absence
of pretreatment standards for this pollutant, as well as unacceptable
non-water quality environmental impacts from air emissions. For a
detailed discussion of chloroform volatilization, see Section 8.8 of
the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487, and the Air
Docket, No. A-92-40, Item IV-A-8.
EPA's determination that the chlorinated phenolic pollutants pass
through the POTW is based on data in the record showing that the
selected BAT process technology option (Option A) reduces all 12 of the
chlorinated phenolic pollutants to concentrations less than minimum
levels for these pollutants in bleach plant wastewaters, prior to end-
of-pipe biological wastewater treatment systems. While biological
wastewater treatment systems comparable to POTW treatment systems have
been found to remove a portion of these chlorinated phenolic
pollutants, the removals achieved are less than the removals achieved
by the BAT process changes alone. Therefore, because overall
chlorinated phenolic pollutant removals with implementation of the
model BAT technologies are substantially greater than removals achieved
by POTWs, chlorinated phenolic pollutants pass through POTWs.
EPA has also determined that AOX passes through. EPA bases this
conclusion on its review of all available data regarding removals of
AOX achieved by industrial POTWs that receive a majority of their flow
or a majority of their BOD5 or TSS loadings from indirect
dischargers covered by subpart B. Although the data show that the
performance of these POTWs in removing AOX is comparable to the
performance of end-of-pipe biological treatment systems operated by
direct dischargers in this subcategory, the data also show that direct
dischargers meeting limitations based on the model BAT technology
consistently achieve far greater AOX removals than biological treatment
alone can achieve (e.g., at a POTW). (See the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487.) Therefore, in the absence of
pretreatment standards analogous to BAT, the affected POTWs receiving
pulp and paper wastewaters cannot achieve the same overall removals of
AOX as achieved by direct dischargers complying with the BAT
limitations for AOX. The same is also true when considering removals
achieved by new sources complying with NSPS. Therefore, contrary to the
preliminary finding in the July 1996 Notice, EPA concludes that AOX
passes through POTWs and is setting pretreatment standards for AOX for
new and existing indirect discharging mills. See 40 CFR 430.26(a) and
430.27(a).
The pretreatment standards promulgated today for AOX are equivalent
to the AOX loadings present in the bleach plant wastewaters of mills
employing the BAT/NSPS technologies prior to biological treatment
systems at direct discharging mills. EPA expects that removals achieved
by indirect dischargers employing the PSES or PSNS model technology, in
combination with removals achieved by biological treatment systems at
POTWs, will be comparable to the removals achieved by direct
dischargers complying with BAT limitations or NSPS.
In reviewing the information available in the record for the
pollutants BOD5 and TSS, EPA concluded that pollutant
reductions attained by direct dischargers' biological wastewater
treatment systems and by POTWs accepting similar wastewaters are
comparable and that pass-through of these pollutants does not occur. As
a result, EPA is not promulgating national PSES or PSNS for
BOD5 and TSS for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory. Other regulatory authorities may determine, based on a
site-specific review of treatment system performance, that locally
imposed limits are necessary to prevent the POTW from violating its
NPDES permit. See 40 CFR 403.5.
(3) Options Considered. In this final rule, EPA considered the same
process technology options and best management practices for PSES and
PSNS as it did for BAT and NSPS. In a change from the proposal, EPA did
not consider for PSES/PSNS the biological treatment technology that
forms part of the candidate BAT and NSPS technologies. Since proposal,
EPA has made new findings with respect to the pass-through of
BOD5 and TSS. EPA has also received comments indicating that
the lack of sufficient land for the installation of biological
treatment at some indirect dischargers makes such systems infeasible
and unavailable. This finding, combined with EPA's finding that
biological wastewater treatment systems at POTWs treating pulp and
paper wastewaters are comparable to the biological wastewater treatment
systems operated by direct discharging mills in subpart B, has lead EPA
to conclude that biological wastewater treatment should not be included
as part of the PSES or PSNS candidate technologies.
(4) Effluent Reductions. As discussed in Section VI.B.5.a.(3)
above, after proposal EPA recalculated the effluent reductions
attributable to its PSES technology options using a new baseline of
mid-1995. See the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN
14487.
Table VI-8 shows the estimated baseline and the reduction from
baseline expected if the presented options were implemented by all the
existing indirect discharging mills in the subcategory (i.e., those
mills to which PSES will apply).

Table VI-8.--Baseline Discharges and Estimated Reductions of Pollutants for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
Mills for Technology Options Considereda
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated Estimated
Pollutant parameter Units Baseline reductions: reductions: Reductions:
discharge Option A Option B TCF
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-TCDD................... g/yr................... 1.25 0.92 1.00 1.25

[[Page 18556]]

2,3,7,8-TCDF................... g/yr................... 9.47 8.94 9.04 9.47
Chloroform..................... kkg/yr................. 4.89 4.28 4.28 4.89
12 Chlorinated phenolic kkg/yr................. 3.58 2.81 2.97 3.58
pollutants.
AOX............................ kkg/yr................. 3,010 2,100 2,600 3,010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 of the analytical method.

(5) PSES/PSNS Option Selection. EPA is promulgating PSES and PSNS
for dioxin, furan, chloroform, 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and
AOX based on the process technologies that form the bases for BAT and
NSPS, respectively.
The Agency considered the age, size, processes, other engineering
factors, and non-water quality environmental impacts pertinent to
Subpart B mills in developing PSES/PSNS. None of these factors provided
any basis for establishing different PSES/PSNS. EPA has no data to
suggest that the combination of technologies upon which today's PSES/
PSNS are based results in unacceptable non-water quality environmental
impacts.
Because the costs of the selected BAT and PSES model technologies
are attributable solely to process changes, the costs for an existing
indirect-discharging bleached papergrade kraft and soda mill to comply
with PSES are comparable to a similar direct-discharging bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mill. See Section VI.B.5.a(2). As discussed
in Section VI.B.5.a(5), EPA found PSES based on BAT Option A to be
economically achievable. Similarly, EPA considered the cost of the PSNS
technology for new mills (based on BAT Option B) and determined that
such costs do not present a barrier to entry, as reflected in the
barrier to entry discussion for NSPS in Section VI.B.5.b(3).
The rationale for choosing BAT Option A as the basis for PSES is
set forth in Section VI.B.5.a(5). The rationale for selecting NSPS
Option B as PSNS is the same as that provided in Section VI.B.5.b for
selecting that model technology as the basis for NSPS for this
subcategory. Although for the reasons set forth in those sections EPA
is not selecting TCF bleaching processes as the model technology for
PSES or PSNS, EPA nevertheless is promulgating voluntary alternative
pretreatment standards based on TCF bleaching processes in order to
encourage mills to use those processes when possible. See 40 CFR
430.26(a)(2) and 430.27(a)(2).
The pretreatment standards for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory also include best management practices. See 40 CFR
430.03. These regulations are described in Section VI.B.7. For a
discussion of the pass through of pollutants controlled by BMPs, see
Section VI.B.7. In addition, the previously promulgated PSES and PSNS
for former subparts G, H, I and P for the biocides pentachlorophenol
and trichlorophenol continue to apply unless the discharger certifies
that it does not use those compounds as biocides. See 40 CFR 430.26(b)
and 430.27(b).
(6) Limitations. With the exception of AOX, the limitations
promulgated as PSES for Subpart B are identical to those promulgated as
BAT limitations for this subpart. See 40 CFR 430.26(a)(1). For a
discussion of the development of those pretreatment standards see
Section VI.B.5.a(4).
EPA found that while end-of-pipe biological treatment systems at
industrial POTWs and at direct dischargers achieve comparable removals
of AOX, the total AOX removals achieved by direct discharging mills are
greater because of the process changes that are part of the model BAT/
PSES technologies. Therefore, EPA has established AOX pretreatment
standards based on the performance of process changes alone (biological
treatment is not a component of PSES/PSNS). EPA has developed AOX
limits for PSES based on bleach plant data for eight mills that employ
the process technologies incorporated in Option A. These pretreatment
standards are presented in Table VI-9.

Table VI-9.--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory PSES AOX
Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Monthly
maximum average
Pollutant parameter limitation limitation
(kg/kkg) (kg/kkg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOX............................................. 2.64 1.41
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similarly, with the exception of AOX, the PSNS promulgated for
Subpart B for toxic and nonconventional pollutants are identical to the
NSPS promulgated for this subpart. See 40 CFR 430.27(a)(1). For a
discussion of the development of those pretreatment standards, see
Section VI.B.5.a(4). EPA has developed AOX limits for PSNS based on
bleach plant data for six mills that employ the process technologies
incorporated in Option B. These pretreatment standards are presented in
Table VI-10.

Table VI-10.--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory PSNS AOX
Limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daily Monthly
maximum average
Pollutant parameter limitation limitation
(kg/kkg) (kg/kkg)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AOX............................................. 1.16 0.814
------------------------------------------------------------------------

(7) Point of Compliance Monitoring. For many of the same reasons
set forth in Section VI.B.5.a(6) above in connection with EPA's
decision to specify an in-plant point of compliance monitoring for many
of the BAT parameters, EPA is requiring indirect discharging mills
subject to Subpart B to demonstrate compliance with pretreatment
standards for dioxin, furan, chloroform, the chlorinated phenolic
pollutants, and AOX at the bleach plant. See 40 CFR 430.26(c) and
430.27(c). As is the case for direct dischargers, data for indirect
discharging mills show that standards imposed at the point of discharge
to the POTW would make it impractical for the permitting authority to
assure that

[[Page 18557]]

the indirect discharger is achieving removal of the pollutants as
required by the pretreatment standards. Moreover, EPA is concerned that
dioxin and furan, even when present in nondetectable amounts at the
point of discharge to the POTW, could pass through the POTW and
accumulate in the biosolids, thus possibly interfering with the
beneficial reuse of that biosolids material. The extent to which sludge
can be beneficially reused is the subject of a separate ongoing
rulemaking under CWA Section 405. Finally, under EPA's regulations,
indirect dischargers are prohibited from substituting dilution for
treatment, except where dilution is expressly authorized by the
applicable pretreatment standard. See 40 CFR 403.6(d). (That is not the
case here.) This prohibition theoretically could be enforced on a
pollutant-by-pollutant, case-by-case basis. However, EPA is concerned
that such a solution to the effluent's detection and dilution problems
may impose an unnecessary financial and technical burden on POTWs.
At the time of proposal, EPA proposed that compliance with PSES/
PSNS AOX limitations would be demonstrated at the point of discharge to
the POTW. Since biological treatment is no longer part of the model
technology for PSES/PSNS, AOX limitations based upon the performance of
the PSES/PSNS technology are more appropriately set, and compliance
demonstrated, at the bleach plant, prior to mixing with other
wastestreams. This will reduce the burden on the pretreatment authority
in implementing the PSES/PSNS limitations, as no additional allowance
will need to be factored into the AOX limitations that would apply due
to sources of AOX beyond the bleach plant. In this respect, the
decision to establish in-plant points of compliance monitoring for all
PSES/PSNS regulated parameters also furthers the goals of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act. For all of these reasons, EPA is establishing in-
plant points of compliance monitoring for PSES/PSNS on a nationwide
level.
6. Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
a. Segmentation of the Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory. In this
final rule, EPA is dividing the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory into
three segments to better reflect product considerations, the variation
in manufacturing processes, and the demonstration of pollution
prevention process changes within the category for the purpose of
establishing BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS. EPA's reasons for doing so are
discussed in the July 1996 Notice, 61 FR at 36844-45, and in paragraphs
b(1)-(2) below. EPA is promulgating final effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for each segment. The three segments are:
(1) Production of pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills that
use an acidic cooking liquor of calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite,
unless those mills are specialty grade sulfite mills. See 40 CFR
430.51(c)(1). Mills in this segment are ``calcium-, magne- sium-, or
sodium-based sulfite mills;''
(2) Production of pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills that
use an acidic cooking liquor of ammonium sulfite, unless those mills
are specialty grade sulfite mills. See 40 CFR 430.51(c)(2). Mills in
this segment are ``ammonium-based sulfite mills;'' and
(3) Production of pulp and paper at specialty grade sulfite mills,
or ``specialty grade sulfite mills.'' Specialty grade sulfite mills are
those mills where a significant portion of production is characterized
by pulp with a high percentage of alpha cellulose and high brightness
sufficient to produce end products such as plastic molding compounds,
saturating and laminating products, and photographic papers. EPA
considers a significant portion of production to be 25 percent or more.
The specialty grade segment also includes those mills where a major
portion of production is 91 ISO brightness and above. EPA considers a
major portion of production to be 50 percent or more.
See 40 CFR 430.51(c)(3). In order to determine whether a sulfite
mill belongs in the specialty grade segment, permitting authorities
should consider the expected production mix over the full permit term.
For mills that are converting to production in the specialty grade
segment, EPA expects these mills will be subject to these limits prior
to the time that these mills achieve the production mixes described
above.
b. BAT. (1) Options Considered. EPA had proposed BAT effluent
limitations for AOX and COD for the entire Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory based on totally chlorine-free bleaching processes. Totally
chlorine-free (TCF) bleaching processes are bleaching operations that
are performed without the use of chlorine, sodium or calcium
hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, chlorine monoxide, or any other
chlorine-containing compound. After concluding that the proposed
technology was not demonstrated for the full range of products produced
by mills using ammonium sulfite cooking liquor or for specialty grade
products, EPA segmented the subcategory and considered other BAT
options as set forth below. EPA also included for all segments the
performance of existing secondary biological wastewater treatment as
part of the basis for nonconventional and conventional pollutant
effluent limitations and NSPS. For a more detailed discussion of these
options, see the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN
14487.
(i) Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-Based Sulfite Mills. The
technology option considered for papergrade sulfite products made by
this segment was TCF bleaching, as proposed. See 58 FR at 66114-15.
Existing TCF mills in this segment produce the same products they had
been able to produce using elemental chlorine-free (ECF) bleaching
processes, at up to 91 ISO brightness. Therefore, EPA did not consider
ECF bleaching as a technology option for this segment, because, while
technically available and economically achievable, it was not the best
such technology for this segment.
(ii) Ammonium-Based Sulfite Mills. The technology options
considered for this segment were TCF bleaching and ECF bleaching. ECF
bleaching is any process for bleaching pulps that does not employ
elemental chlorine or hypochlorite. There are numerous variations of
ECF bleaching processes. The ECF process considered for the ammonium-
based segment includes peroxide-enhanced extraction.
(iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Mills. The technology bases
considered for this segment were TCF bleaching and ECF bleaching. The
ECF process considered for the specialty grade segment includes oxygen-
and peroxide-enhanced extraction.
(2) Selection of BAT Technologies. In evaluating and selecting BAT
technologies for the segments in this subcategory, EPA considered the
age, size, processes, other engineering factors, and non-water quality
environmental impacts pertinent to Subpart E mills. None of these
factors provided a basis for selecting different BAT technologies. For
each segment, EPA selected the best technology available to produce the
products in each segment. Each of the selected BAT technologies is
economically achievable and has no unacceptable adverse non-water
quality environmental impacts. See the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487. The reasons discussed below also
support EPA's decision to select the BAT model technology for each
segment as the basis for PSES for that segment.
(i) Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-Based Sulfite Mills. As
proposed, EPA has concluded that TCF bleaching is the

[[Page 18558]]

appropriate technology basis for BAT limitations for the calcium-,
magnesium-, or sodium-based segment of the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory. (The following discussion also applies to PSES.) For this
segment, TCF technology consists of oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced
extraction, followed by peroxide bleaching, and with all chlorine-
containing compounds eliminated (e.g., elemental chlorine,
hypochlorite, chlorine monoxide, etc.). Although still TCF, the
bleaching sequence is a change from proposal, when TCF bleaching was
based on an oxygen stage with peroxide addition, followed by a peroxide
bleaching stage. This change to the TCF bleaching sequence reflects the
more common approach to TCF bleaching within this segment of the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory and also reflects the technology basis
of the mill from which TCF performance data have been collected. EPA
also included pulp cleaning to ensure that existing product quality
specifications would continue to be achieved. EPA has selected this
technology because it is technically available and economically
achievable for mills in this segment.
In evaluating the technical availability of TCF processes for this
segment, EPA developed a database of mills in the United States and
Europe that produce pulp using TCF bleaching technology. There is at
least one mill in the United States and 13 in Europe using acid cooking
liquors of calcium, magnesium, or sodium sulfite that are using TCF
bleaching processes. Among them, these mills produce a full range of
paper products at up to 91 ISO brightness using TCF bleaching. These
mills are able to produce the same products using TCF technology that
they produced prior to converting to TCF, with no negative impact on
product quality. EPA has incorporated pulp cleaners as an element of
TCF technology to ensure that pulp quality requirements are maintained.
See the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. For
these reasons, EPA concluded that TCF bleaching is technically
available for the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based segment. See
the record at section 21.2.1. (As noted above, EPA has established a
separate segment for specialty grade sulfite mills using these cooking
liquors.)
In order to evaluate the economic achievability of TCF bleaching
for this segment, EPA considered the costs that existing mills would
incur to convert to TCF processes. However, costs for secondary
biological treatment systems have not been included because these
systems already are in place at direct discharging mills. (This is true
for the other papergrade sulfite segments as well.) As part of that
analysis, EPA also included the costs of complying with today's BMP
regulations. Because of the small size of this segment, EPA is not
disclosing here the estimated capital costs, operation and maintenance
costs, or post-tax annualized costs for this segment in order to
protect confidential business information. However, EPA has determined
that no mills are projected to close and no firms are projected to fail
as a result of today's BAT limitations and PSES for this segment. This
result obtains both when the impacts of today's BAT/PSES are considered
together with the impacts of compliance with the MACT I costs, and when
they are considered alone. Therefore, EPA has concluded that TCF
bleaching is economically achievable for the calcium-, magnesium-, or
sodium-based sulfite pulp segment. See DCN 14376 and DCN 14388 (both
CBI).
For these reasons, EPA has selected the model TCF bleaching
processes described above as the basis for BAT limitations and PSES for
the calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based sulfite pulp segment.
(ii) Ammonium-Based Sulfite Mills. EPA had proposed BAT based on
TCF bleaching technology for all mills in the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory, including those mills using ammonium-based acidic cooking
liquor. EPA received comments and data challenging the applicability of
TCF bleaching to ammonium-based sulfite mills. After reviewing these
comments and data, EPA concluded that TCF bleaching is not demonstrated
and may not be feasible for the full range of products produced by
ammonium-based sulfite mills in the United States. See DCN 14497, Vol.
I. (The following discussion also applies to PSES for this segment.)
This conclusion is based primarily on the greater difficulty in
bleaching ammonium-based sulfite pulps (especially those pulps derived
from softwood) without the use of chlorine-containing compounds
compared to other sulfite pulps, and the inability to maintain product
specifications for certain products within this segment using TCF
bleaching. TCF bleaching has not been demonstrated for products with a
high percentage of ammonium-based sulfite pulp that also require low
dirt count and high strength. Laboratory scale data submitted by a firm
producing such products indicate that such products can be produced
with elemental chlorine-free (ECF) technologies. See DCN 14497, Vol. I,
DCN 14494, and DCN 14118 in the record at Section 21.11.3.
Therefore, for papergrade sulfite mills using an acidic cooking
liquor of ammonium sulfite, EPA is promulgating BAT limitations and
PSES based on an ECF bleaching technology. The technology basis for BAT
limitations for this segment is use of dioxin- and furan-precursor-free
defoamers, complete (100 percent) substitution of chlorine dioxide for
elemental chlorine, peroxide-enhanced extraction, and elimination of
hypochlorite. ECF bleaching also includes high shear mixing to ensure
adequate mixing of pulp and bleaching chemicals. This technology basis
reflects the results of laboratory trials showing the ability to
produce the full range of products manufactured by mills in the
ammonium segment, with acceptable final product characteristics. See
the record at section 30.11, DCN 14497, Vol. I, and DCN 14494. (The
only exception is specialty grade sulfite mills using ammonium cooking
liquors.)
EPA is also promulgating voluntary alternative BAT limitations and
PSES based on TCF bleaching processes in order to encourage mills to
use this technology whenever it is consistent with their product mix.
See 40 CFR 430.54(a)(2) and 430.56(a)(2). Alternative TCF limitations
are also available for new sources in this segment.
In addition to finding that the ECF bleaching process described
above is technically available for the ammonium-based segment, EPA has
also determined that it is economically achievable. In order to
evaluate the economic achievability of ECF bleaching for this segment,
EPA considered the costs that existing mills would incur to convert to
the ECF process under consideration. As part of that analysis, EPA also
included the costs of complying with today's BMP regulations. Because
of the small size of this segment, EPA is not disclosing here the
estimated capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, or post-tax
annualized costs for this segment in order to protect confidential
business information. However, EPA has determined that no mills are
projected to close and no firms are projected to fail as a result of
today's BAT limitations and PSES for this segment. This result obtains
both when the impacts of today's BAT/PSES are considered together with
the impacts of compliance with the MACT I costs, and when they are
considered alone. Therefore, EPA has concluded that ECF bleaching is
economically achievable for the ammonium-based segment. See DCN 14376
and DCN 14388 (both CBI).

[[Page 18559]]

For the foregoing reasons, EPA has selected the model ECF bleaching
processes described above as the basis for BAT limitations and PSES for
the ammonium-based segment.
(iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Mills
EPA received comments and data indicating that key pulp and product
characteristics for specialty grade sulfite pulps have not been
achieved using TCF bleaching technologies. Firms producing specialty
grade pulps indicate that required product characteristics are
achievable using certain ECF bleaching technologies. See the record at
sections 19.1 and 21.11.6; DCN 25502; DCN 20071a8; DCN 14497, Vol. I;
and DCN 14494. As indicated in the July 1996 Notice, EPA has continued
to monitor research efforts of specialty grade pulp producers in the
field of pollution-preventing process changes. These research efforts
have progressed to the point where data are available at this time to
promulgate limitations for this segment for dioxin, furan, and
chlorinated phenolic pollutants. For specialty grade sulfite mills, the
technology basis for limitations is use of dioxin- and furan-precursor-
free defoamers, complete (100 percent) substitution of chlorine dioxide
for elemental chlorine, oxygen- and peroxide-enhanced extraction, and
elimination of hypochlorite. ECF bleaching also includes high shear
mixing to ensure adequate mixing of pulp and bleaching chemicals. This
technology basis reflects the results of laboratory trials showing the
ability to produce the full range of products manufactured by specialty
grade mills, with acceptable final product characteristics. (This
discussion also applies to PSES for this segment.)
EPA is also promulgating voluntary alternative BAT limitations
based on TCF bleaching processes in order to encourage mills to use
this technology whenever it is consistent with their product mix. See
40 CFR 430.54(a)(3) and 430.56(a)(3). Alternative TCF limitations are
also available for new sources in this segment.
In addition to finding that the ECF bleaching process described
above is technically available for the specialty grade segment, EPA has
also determined that it is economically achievable. In order to
evaluate the economic achievability of ECF bleaching for this segment,
EPA considered the costs that the one mill currently in this segment
would incur to convert to ECF processes. As part of that analysis, EPA
also included the costs of complying with today's BMP regulations.
Because of the small size of this segment, EPA is not disclosing here
the estimated capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, or post-
tax annualized costs for this segment in order to protect confidential
business information. However, EPA has determined that the sole
existing mill in this segment is not projected to close, nor is its
firm projected to fail, as a result of today's BAT limitations and PSES
for this segment. This result obtains both when the impacts of today's
BAT/PSES are considered together with the impacts of compliance with
the MACT I costs, and when they are considered alone. Therefore, EPA
has concluded that ECF bleaching is economically achievable for the
specialty grade segment. See DCN 14376 and DCN 14388 (both CBI).
For the foregoing reasons, EPA has selected the model ECF bleaching
process described above as the basis for BAT limitations and PSES for
the specialty grade segment.
(3) Pollutant Parameters Regulated for Each Segment. (i) Calcium-,
Magnesium-, or Sodium-Based Sulfite Mills. Because the Agency is
promulgating BAT effluent limitations for this segment based on TCF
bleaching technology, the maximum reduction in the discharge of
chlorinated pollutants from bleaching operations will be achieved. This
is because no chlorine or chlorine-containing bleaching chemicals are
used and, hence, no chlorinated pollutants are generated during
bleaching. For this reason, EPA is not setting effluent limitations for
dioxin, furan, chloroform, or the 12 specified chlorinated phenolic
pollutants for TCF bleaching. However, EPA is setting limitations on
AOX (expressed as a level below the Minimum Level identified in today's
analytical method for AOX) for mills in the calcium-, magnesium-, or
sodium-based sulfite pulp segment of the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory
in order to reflect the performance of TCF bleaching processes. See 40
CFR 430.54(a)(1). EPA is reserving promulgation of COD limitations for
this segment until such time that sufficient performance data are
available because the performance of the BAT technology basis on this
parameter cannot be accurately predicted from laboratory-scale data.
(ii) Ammonium-Based Sulfite Mills. EPA is promulgating effluent
limitations for dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants
for the ammonium-based segment. See 40 CFR 430.54(a)(2). EPA is
reserving promulgation of chloroform limitations, AOX limitations, and
COD limitations for this segment until such time that sufficient
performance data are available because the performance of the BAT
technology basis on these parameters cannot be accurately predicted
from laboratory-scale data. One mill is currently installing, on a full
scale, the promulgated BAT technology basis. EPA expects to have data
to develop chloroform, AOX, and COD limitations for this segment once
this installation is complete, the mill is operating the new equipment
in a routine manner, and appropriate samples are collected and
analyzed.
(iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Mills. EPA is promulgating effluent
limitations for dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants
for the specialty grade segment, based on laboratory scale data. See 40
CFR 430.54(a)(3). EPA is reserving promulgation of chloroform, AOX, and
COD limitations for this segment until such time that sufficient full
scale performance data are available because the performance of the BAT
technology basis on these parameters cannot be accurately predicted
from laboratory scale data.
(4) Costs. As discussed in the July 1996 Notice, EPA revised its
cost estimates for mills in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory by using
the revised bleaching sequences outlined in paragraph (2) above. EPA
also updated equipment cost curves and unit operating costs. See 61 FR
at 36845. The detailed basis of these revised cost estimates are
provided in the record.
The following cost estimates reflect the total costs that mills in
the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory are likely to incur as a result of
today's BAT limitations, PSES, and BMP regulations, and are the bases
for EPA's economic impact analyses discussed in paragraph (2) above.
For this subcategory, EPA's estimated capital costs are $73.8 million,
operation and maintenance costs are $7 million, and post-tax annualized
costs are $9.8 million. (The general and administrative costs discussed
in Section VIII.B.1.c are already included here.) See Section VIII for
additional discussion of costs and economic impacts.
(5) Effluent Reductions. EPA has updated the calculation of
effluent reductions for each papergrade sulfite mill, adjusting the
baseline to mid-1995. EPA used methodology similar to that used for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. As a result of the BAT
limitations and PSES promulgated today, EPA estimates that for the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory, discharges of dioxin and furan will be
reduced by seven grams to less than one gram per year. (EPA expects no
discharges of dioxin and furan from TCF bleaching.) Total discharges of
chlorinated phenolic pollutants will be

[[Page 18560]]

reduced by 1,770 kilograms to 240 kilograms per year. As a result of
the TCF limitations and PSES on mills in the calcium-, magnesium-, or
sodium-based sulfite segment and as an incidental result of
implementing the ECF model technology by direct and indirect
discharging mills in the other two segments, discharges of AOX will be
reduced by 4,010 metric tons to 370 metric tons per year. For a
discussion of the environmental benefits resulting from these
reductions, see Section VIII.G.2, and Chapter 8 of the Economic
Analysis, DCN 14649.
(6) Development of Limitations. All of the limitations and
standards promulgated today for Subpart E are expressed as ``ML.'' EPA based these
limitations on industry-developed laboratory data for ECF bleaching
trials supplied by an ammonium-based papergrade sulfite mill and the
results from full-scale sampling at a magnesium-based sulfite mill
using ECF bleaching technology. EPA was able to apply the data from the
magnesium-based sulfite mill to the ammonium-based segment because ECF
bleaching at magnesium-based mills will result in similar wastewater
characteristics as ECF bleaching at ammonium-based mills because ECF
bleaching chemistry is comparable between the two chemical bases. EPA
is reserving AOX, COD, and chloroform limitations for this segment.
(iii) Specialty Grade Sulfite Pulps. EPA is promulgating
limitations for dioxin, furan, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants.
These limitations are expressed as ``INF>5 discharge was
used to characterize the best demonstrated performance. EPA concluded
that data in the record is not representative of the performance that
can be achieved in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory as a whole. For
this reason, the new source performance standards for conventional
pollutants promulgated today for each segment of the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory are the same as those promulgated in the 1982 NSPS
regulation. See 47 FR 52006, 52036 (Nov. 18, 1982) (for former Subpart
O); 48 FR 13176, 13177 (Mar. 30, 1983) (for former Subpart J).
In selecting its NSPS technology, EPA considered all of the factors
specified in CWA section 306, including the cost of

[[Page 18561]]

achieving effluent reductions. The selected NSPS technologies are
presently being employed at mills in each segment of this subcategory.
Moreover, the cost of the NSPS technology is an insignificant fraction
of the capital cost of a new mill (less than one percent). Finally, EPA
has determined that the costs of including the selected NSPS
technologies at a new source are substantially less on a per-ton basis
than the costs of retrofitting existing mills. See Chapter 6 of the
Economic Analysis document (DCN 14649). Therefore, EPA has concluded
that such costs do not present a barrier to entry. The Agency also
considered energy requirements and other non-water quality
environmental impacts for the selected NSPS options and concluded that
these impacts were no greater than for the selected BAT technology
options and are acceptable. See the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487. EPA therefore concluded that the NSPS technology
bases selected for each segment of the papergrade sulfite segment
constitutes the best available demonstrated control technology for that
segment.
d. Pretreatment Standards. EPA is promulgating pretreatment
standards for new and existing sources for three segments of the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory based on the BAT and NSPS technologies
selected for each segment. In determining PSES, EPA considered the age,
size, processes, other engineering factors, and non-water quality
environmental impacts pertinent to Subpart E mills. None of these
factors provided a basis for selecting different PSES technologies. For
each segment, EPA selected the best technology available to produce the
products in each segment. Each of the selected PSES technologies is
economically achievable and has no unacceptable adverse non-water
quality impacts. With respect to PSNS for these segments, EPA concluded
that the selected technologies represent the best available
demonstrated control technologies that are capable of producing each
segment's products. EPA also concluded that there was no barrier to
entry for the reasons set forth in section VI.B.6.c. above for NSPS for
this subcategory.
In order to determine which pollutants to regulate under PSES and
PSNS, EPA used the same pass-through analysis it employed for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory described in section
VI.B.5.c(2) above. EPA concluded that dioxin, furan, and the 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants pass through or interfere with POTW
operations for the ammonium and specialty grade segments for the
reasons set forth in section VI.B.5.c(2) for Subpart B. This reasoning
applies because the BAT/PSES model technologies for Subparts B and E
are both based on ECF process technologies; the same is also true for
the NSPS/PSNS technologies (although in neither subpart does the model
pretreatment technology include secondary biological wastewater
treatment). Based on its pass-through determination, EPA is
promulgating national pretreatment standards for new and existing
sources for those pollutants for those segments. These standards are
expressed as ``ML.'' See 40 CFR 430.56(a)(1) and
430.57(a)(1).
With respect to COD in the
calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based segment, EPA has insufficient
data at this time upon which to make a pass-through determination or to
set pretreatment standards. Therefore, EPA will decide whether and how
to regulate COD for this segment when data become available.
The pretreatment standards for all segments of the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory also include best management practices. See 40 CFR
430.03. These requirements are described below in Section VI.B.7.
EPA is requiring mills to demonstrate compliance with PSES and PSNS
on dioxin, furan, and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants for the
ammonium-based sulfite and specialty grade sulfite segments inside the
discharger's facility at the point where the wastewater containing
those pollutants leaves the bleach plant. EPA bases this decision on
the reasons discussed in Section VI.B.5.a(6) for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory.
7. Best Management Practices
The regulations promulgated today include provisions requiring
mills with pulp production in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory (Subpart B) and the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory (Subpart
E) to implement BMPs to prevent or otherwise contain leaks and spills
of spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine and to control
intentional diversions of those materials. These BMPs apply to direct
and indirect discharging mills within these subcategories and are
intended to reduce mill wastewater loadings of non-chlorinated toxic
compounds and hazardous substances. For direct dischargers, EPA is
authorized to establish BMPs for those pollutants under CWA section
304(e). The same BMPs will also remove, as an incidental matter,
significant loadings of color and certain oxygen-demanding substances
in pulping liquors that are not readily degraded by biological
treatment. EPA also expects incidental reductions in conventional water
pollutants and certain air pollutants as a result of the BMPs. To the
extent these pollutants are present in the wastestreams subject to
section 304(e), EPA has authority under that section to regulate them.
In addition, EPA has independent authority under CWA sections 402(a)
and 501(a) and 40 CFR 122.44(k) to require direct dischargers to
implement BMPs for pollutants not subject to section 304(e). To impose
these BMPs on indirect dischargers, EPA relies on section 307 (b) and
(c). Finally, EPA is authorized to impose the BMP monitoring
requirements under section 308(a).
EPA has determined that these BMPs are necessary because the
materials controlled by these practices, if spilled or otherwise lost,
can interfere with wastewater treatment operations and lead to
increased discharges of toxic, nonconventional, and conventional
pollutants. The practices included in this rule are known to reduce the
amount of spent pulping liquor discharged to wastewater treatment

[[Page 18562]]

systems and to reduce the cost of process operation through increased
chemical recovery. The BMPs summarized below are discussed in detail in
the Technical Support Document for Best Management Practices for Spent
Pulping Liquor Management, Spill Prevention and Control, DCN 14489
(hereafter ``BMP Technical Support Document'').
Under this regulation, mills must implement the BMPs codified at
section 430.03(c). BMP requirements for new and existing direct
dischargers apply when incorporated as special conditions in NPDES
permits, consistent with CWA sections 304(e) and 402(a). BMP
requirements for new and existing indirect dischargers are pretreatment
standards; therefore, they are self-implementing. The BMPs are:
(1) Return of spilled or diverted spent pulping liquors, soap, and
turpentine to the pulping and recovery processes to the maximum extent
practicable as determined by the mill; recovery of such materials
outside the process; or discharge of spilled or diverted material at a
rate that does not disrupt the receiving wastewater treatment system;
(2) Inspection and repair programs to identify and repair leaking
equipment items;
(3) Operation of continuous, automatic spill detection systems that
the mill determines are necessary to detect and control leaks, spills,
and intentional diversions of spent pulping liquor, soap, and
turpentine. Examples of such systems are high level monitors and alarms
on storage tanks; process area conductivity (or pH) monitors and
alarms; and process area sewer, process wastewater, and wastewater
treatment plant conductivity (or pH) monitors and alarms;
(4) Employee training for those personnel responsible for
operating, maintaining, or supervising the operation and maintenance of
equipment items in spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine service;
(5) Preparation of brief reports that evaluate spills of spent
pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine that are not contained at the
immediate process area and intentional diversions of spent pulping
liquor, soap, or turpentine that are not contained at the immediate
process area, (this requirement takes effect on the date an OMB control
number is issued);
(6) A program to review any planned modifications to the pulping
and chemical recovery facilities and any construction activities in the
pulping and chemical recovery areas before these activities commence to
prevent leaks and spills during construction;
(7) Secondary containment for spent pulping liquor bulk storage
tanks. As an alternative, mills may substitute an annual tank integrity
testing program, if coupled with other containment or diversion
structures, in place of secondary containment;
(8) Secondary containment for turpentine bulk storage tanks;
(9) Curbing, diking, or other means of isolating soap and
turpentine processing and loading areas from the wastewater treatment
facilities; and
(10) Wastewater monitoring to detect leaks and spills, to track the
effectiveness of the BMPs, and to detect trends in spent pulping liquor
losses.
In addition, Sec. 430.03(d) requires each mill to prepare a BMP
Plan, based on a detailed engineering review of the mill's pulping and
recovery operations, that specifies: (1) The procedures and the
practices to be employed by the mill to meet the BMP requirements
listed above, as tailored to recognize site-specific conditions; (2)
the construction the mill determines is necessary to meet the BMP
requirements, including a schedule for such construction; and (3) the
monitoring program that will be used to meet the BMP requirements. This
requirement takes effect April 15, 1999 see 40 CFR 430.03(j)(1)(i), or
the date an OMB control number for this requirement is issued,
whichever is later. See 40 CFR 430.03(a)(2).
Each mill must also certify to the appropriate permitting or
pretreatment authority that it has prepared the Plan in accordance with
the BMP regulation. See 40 CFR 430.03(f). The mill is not required to
obtain approval of the BMP Plan by the permitting or pretreatment
authority. Id. The permitting or pretreatment authority at its
discretion, however, may conduct a review of the BMP Plan, BMP Plan
amendments, and BMP Plan implementation.
Finally, section 430.03(h) requires mills to establish action
levels (a measure of daily pollutant loading) that, when exceeded,
trigger investigative and corrective action (depending on the action
level exceeded) to reduce the wastewater treatment system influent mass
loading. This requirement takes effect April 15, 1999 see 40 CFR
430.03.(j)(1)(iii), or the date an OMB control number for this
requirement is issued, whichever is later. The purpose of the action
levels is to provide a framework for monitoring the performance and
effectiveness of BMPs on a continuing basis and to establish an early
warning system so that mills can detect trends in spent pulping liquor,
soap, and turpentine losses that might not be obvious from other
sources. Under the regulation, a mill has considerable flexibility to
choose its monitoring parameter. For more discussion of action levels,
see the BMP Technical Support Document, DCN 14489. EPA had considered
requiring all mills to employ specific statistical action levels. See
61 FR at 36847. EPA rejected this approach because it was concerned
that such action levels might fail to trigger appropriate investigative
and corrective actions for some mills, while being too restrictive for
other mills. Instead, EPA determined that authorizing mills to choose
their own monitoring parameters and to set their own action levels
better accounts for the variability in organic loadings at different
mills and differences in treatment plant effectiveness and evaporator
capacity, among other mill-specific factors. This flexibility thus
ensures that the action levels reflect the actual performance of mill-
specific BMPs and procedures. In this way, EPA believes the action
levels will better achieve the spill and leak control objectives of the
BMP requirements. Exceedances of the action levels will not constitute
violations of an NPDES permit or pretreatment standard. See 40 CFR
430.03(i)(3). However, a mill that fails to take corrective action as
soon as practicable in response to the exceedances will be violating
its NPDES permit or pretreatment standard. Id.
As set forth in Sec. 430.03(j), the following deadlines apply:
Existing indirect dischargers are required to prepare BMP Plans and
implement all BMPs that do not require the construction of containment
or diversion structures or the installation of monitoring and alarm
systems no later than April 15, 1999. Operation of any new or upgraded
continuous, automatic monitoring systems that the mill determines to be
necessary (other than those associated with construction of new
containment or diversion structures) must commence no later than April
17, 2000. The mill must complete construction and commence operation of
any spent pulping liquor, collection, containment, diversion, or other
facilities, including any associated continuous monitoring systems,
necessary to fully implement BMPs by April 16, 2001. Existing indirect
dischargers must establish the initial action levels by April 15, 1999,
and the revised action levels as soon as possible after fully
implementing the BMPs, but not later than January 15, 2002. The
requirements to develop the BMP Plan and to perform other record-
keeping and reporting requirements do not apply until OMB has approved
the associated

[[Page 18563]]

information collection request. See 40 CFR 430.03(a)(2).
NPDES permits must require existing direct discharging mills to
meet the same deadlines specified for existing indirect dischargers
which is calculated from the date of publication. See 40 CFR
430.03(j)(1). If the applicable deadline has passed at the time the
NPDES permit containing the BMP requirement is issued, the NPDES permit
must require immediate compliance with the BMP requirement. Id. EPA
believes this is appropriate because the record shows that mills can
implement the substantive requirements of the BMPs--which are well-
known within the industry today--without significant uncertainty or
difficulty. In addition, timely implementation will avert the adverse
environmental effects of uncontrolled leaks, spills, and intentional
diversions. Finally, the affected mills have been on notice for several
years that these requirements would likely be imposed and therefore
should not be prejudiced by prompt compliance obligations. EPA expects
that the compliance date for full implementation of the BMP
requirements will not extend beyond five years from the effective date
of the final rule because EPA expects NPDES permits for those mills to
be reissued on a timely basis. With the exception of the requirement to
establish action levels, which must occur not later than 12 months
after commencing discharge, new direct and indirect discharging mills
must prepare the BMP Plan and implement all BMPs upon commencing
discharge. See 40 CFR 430.03(j)(2).
EPA believes it is reasonable to require existing indirect
dischargers to establish revised action levels by January 15, 2002 and
to require all new sources to establish action levels no later than 12
months after commencing discharge. These requirements apply only after
full implementation of the required BMPs and reflect the amount of time
EPA believes is necessary for mills to collect monitoring data
regarding the effectiveness of these newly implemented practices and to
perform the statistical analysis to develop the required action levels.
Because the required action levels are intended to reflect normal mill
operating conditions using the BMPs, they cannot be established prior
to the implementation of the BMPs or, in the case of new sources, prior
to commencing discharge. For a discussion of EPA's basis for the other
deadlines in this rule, see the BMP Technical Support Document, DCN
14489.
The proposed regulations had included provisions for leak and spill
prevention, containment, and control through the use of BMPs. See 58 FR
at 66078. The comments received by EPA on the proposed rule and
subsequent Federal Register notices generally supported the use of
BMPs, but a number of comments challenged EPA's compliance cost
estimates and claimed that certain requirements were too prescriptive.
In particular, industry asserted:
The requirement to develop BMPs should be limited to spent
pulping liquor (e.g., kraft black liquor, sulfite red liquors) and
should exclude kraft green and white liquors and fresh sulfite pulping
liquors;
The proposed regulation was overly prescriptive in general
and, in particular, the requirement for secondary containment was
unnecessary to meet the objectives of the proposed regulation;
EPA underestimated the costs for implementing BMPs;
EPA lacks the authority to establish BMPs to control
pollutants that are not identified as toxic under CWA section 307(a) or
hazardous under CWA section 311; and
EPA lacks the authority to impose BMPs on indirect
dischargers.
In response to comments, EPA undertook several initiatives to
understand industry's concerns about the proposed BMP requirements; to
better understand the status of the industry with respect to pulping
liquor management and spill prevention and control; and to better
assess the BMP compliance costs. To supplement its understanding of
industry's spent pulping liquor management and spill prevention and
control practices, EPA visited more than 25 chemical pulp mills in the
United States and 15 mills in Canada and Europe following its 1993
proposal. These mills included bleached and unbleached kraft mills and
papergrade sulfite mills (see Docket Sections 21.5.1 and 21.5.3). EPA
also reviewed the results of the NCASI BMP questionnaire distributed to
the industry. Questionnaire responses were received from approximately
70 bleached and unbleached kraft, soda, and sulfite mills. Through this
NCASI questionnaire EPA received a substantial amount of additional
information about mill practices and costs for equipment, monitoring
systems, and facility modifications (see Docket Section 21.1.3). In
addition, EPA held detailed discussions with stakeholders regarding
options for BMPs and associated costs. Much of this information was
included in the Docket and made available to the public in conjunction
with the Notice of Data Availability published in the Federal Register
on July 5, 1995 (60 FR 34938). Additional information related to
development of the BMP requirements, including changes in the wording
and organization of the proposed rule, was discussed in the July 1996
Notice. See 61 FR at 36835.
Based on the information and data received since proposal, EPA
revised the scope of the BMP requirements to focus on control of spent
pulping liquor, turpentine, and soap. The BMP requirements were
restructured to allow greater flexibility in how BMPs are implemented
to address site-specific circumstances in achieving meaningful
prevention and control of leaks and spills. EPA also reorganized the
regulatory text from that presented in the record for the July 1996
Notice to provide greater ease of use by mill operators and permit
writers, and to clarify the intent of particular BMP requirements. The
most significant changes since proposal are discussed below.
In December 1993, EPA proposed BMPs for seven subcategories of the
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry (58 FR at 66078), all of which
chemically pulp wood and non-wood fibers. EPA still believes BMPs are
appropriate for each of these chemical pulping subcategories; however,
to be consistent with the effluent limitations guidelines and standards
promulgated in this final rule, the BMPs promulgated today are
applicable only to the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. EPA expects to promulgate BMPs for
the remaining five chemical pulping subcategories [(Subparts A
(Dissolving Kraft), C (Unbleached Kraft), D (Dissolving Sulfite), F
(Semi-chemical), and H (Non-wood Chemical Pulp)] as it promulgates new
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for these subcategories.
Until new regulations for Subparts A, C, D, F, and H are promulgated,
permit writers may wish to use the BMP regulations in this rule as a
guide to issuing permits containing BMPs based on best professional
judgment for mills with production covered by these other subparts. See
CWA Section 402(a)(1); 40 CFR 122.44(k). POTWs may need to impose BMPs
as local limits to facilities in these subcategories. See 40 CFR 403.5.
The BMP provisions in the proposed rule were structured to apply to
all pulping liquors. In response to comments, EPA has revised the scope
of the BMPs and for the final rule is limiting the BMP applicability to
spent pulping liquors, turpentine, and soap. EPA has determined that
spent pulping

[[Page 18564]]

liquors contain toxic components and that these materials, if
uncontrolled, pass through or interfere with the operation of POTWs and
may interfere with industrial wastewater treatment systems at mills
that discharge directly to surface waters. EPA has excluded green,
white and other intermediate pulping liquors (e.g., fresh sulfite
pulping liquors) from this BMP rule because the data in the record does
not indicate that these materials pass through wastewater treatment
systems. Turpentine and soap are included in the BMP rule because, if
spilled or lost, these materials can interfere with wastewater
treatment operations and lead to increased discharges of toxic,
nonconventional, and conventional pollutants.
In December 1993, EPA proposed to require mills to provide
secondary containment for all pulping liquor bulk storage tanks. EPA
has since determined that spill prevention can be adequately achieved
for spent pulping liquor bulk storage tanks by substituting annual tank
integrity testing and other containment or diversion structures (e.g.,
curbs and berms) in place of secondary containment. The final rule
provides flexibility for mills to choose either secondary containment
or annual tank integrity testing, coupled with other containment or
diversion structures, to comply with this requirement for spent pulping
liquor bulk storage tanks. See 40 CFR 430.03(c)(7). EPA determined that
secondary containment should be required at all times for turpentine
bulk storage tanks because of the extreme toxic effects a turpentine
spill would have on the biological treatment system, and because the
size of turpentine bulk storage tanks is such that secondary
containment is easily achieved. In fact, EPA has found that most mills
already provide secondary containment for their turpentine bulk storage
tanks. No secondary containment is required for soap bulk storage
tanks.
As discussed in the July 1996 Notice, EPA also proposed adding a
requirement to the BMP regulation that would require mills to implement
a monitoring program for the purpose of detecting leaks and spills,
tracking the effectiveness of the BMPs, and detecting trends in spent
pulping liquor losses. EPA proposed requiring mills to monitor
wastewater treatment system influent for a short-term measure of
organic content that can be completed on a daily basis (e.g., Chemical
Oxygen Demand (COD) or Total Organic Carbon (TOC)). EPA has promulgated
this requirement (see 40 CFR 430.03 (h) and (i)), but in response to
comments, EPA is also allowing mills to use an alternative parameter
related to spent pulping liquor losses that can be measured
continuously and averaged over 24 hours (e.g., specific conductivity or
color). See 40 CFR 430.03(h)(2)(i). In conjunction with this
monitoring, mills are required by today's regulation to establish
action levels (using the measure of daily pollutant loading) that, when
exceeded, trigger investigative and corrective action, as appropriate,
to reduce the wastewater treatment system influent mass loading. See 40
CFR 430.03(h).
The proposed rule would have required certification of the BMP plan
by a registered professional engineer (P.E.) and approval by the mill
manager. The intent of the proposed P.E. certification was to assure
preparation of a comprehensive BMP Plan that is tailored to the site-
specific circumstances at the mill. Industry commented that many mills
have no registered professional engineers on site. For mills without a
P.E. onsite, the proposed requirement would result in the plan being
certified by someone not involved with the mill on a daily basis, and
someone not responsible for its operation. EPA has determined that
requiring certification by a P.E. is unnecessarily prescriptive and may
have unintended results. The final regulation deletes the requirement
for certification by a registered P.E. and now requires the BMP Plan to
be reviewed by the senior technical manager at the mill and approved
and signed by the mill manager. See 40 CFR 430.03(f).
The regulation was proposed to be self-implementing for both direct
and indirect dischargers. EPA has revised the regulation to make it
clear that BMPs imposed on direct dischargers are not self-
implementing, but rather apply only when incorporated into NPDES
permits. See 40 CFR 430.03(j). This is consistent with CWA sections
304(e) and 402. The final regulation remains self-implementing for
indirect dischargers. Id.
The final regulation extends compliance schedules for plan
preparation and plan implementation to grant more time for the
preparation of the initial BMP Plan and installation of monitoring and
alarm systems. Based on information supplied by industry regarding the
time required in past efforts to develop spill prevention programs, EPA
determined that 12 months was reasonable to complete the development of
the BMP Plan and includes that deadline in the regulation. Similarly,
EPA determined that it is reasonable to require mills to commence
operation of any new monitoring systems no later than 24 months
following publication of the final rule. This compliance date provides
sufficient time between BMP Plan preparation and operation of new
monitoring systems (i.e., 12 months) to allow implementation of BMPs in
a rational and effective manner.
The final BMP regulation is less prescriptive than proposed with
regard to inspection, repair and log-keeping requirements. While many
of the elements included in the proposed rule remain, EPA determined
that the specificity of the language in the proposed regulation could
be redundant to existing practices in place at some mills and be
unnecessarily burdensome. EPA believes the language in the final rule
will achieve the same results as it intended in the proposed rule while
allowing mills to use existing maintenance and repair tracking systems
to fulfill the requirement. See 40 CFR 430.03(c).
As discussed in the July 1996 Notice, EPA used the information
obtained since proposal to revise its cost estimates for BMPs. See 61
FR at 36840. At proposal, EPA's estimated costs were based on the
reported total project costs for two older bleached kraft mills to
install spill prevention and control systems. After adjusting the costs
to reflect the size of a ``typical'' mill, EPA then assumed that these
costs reflected the average cost incurred by bleached papergrade kraft
and soda and papergrade sulfite mills to install BMPs. EPA then imputed
to some mills compliance costs less than that average cost depending on
the extent EPA judged they had implemented BMPs (see Technical Support
Document for Proposed Best Management Practices Programs: Pulping
Liquor Management, Spill Prevention and Control, November 1993. Docket
Section 17.4, DCN 08307).
EPA improved its estimates of industry-wide costs for compliance
with the BMP requirements in the final rule, compared to the cost
methodology used for the proposed regulation. These changes were
discussed in the July 1996 Notice and in the accompanying Draft
Technical Support Document for Best Management Practices Programs:
Spent Pulping Liquor Management, Spill Prevention and Control, May 1996
(DCN 13894). EPA's supplemental mill visits and the NCASI survey
responses have resulted in a more accurate status of the existing BMP
infrastructure and programs at mills. This information was used to
create model BMP mill requirements for each level of mill complexity
and to classify mills by complexity level. EPA then used data

[[Page 18565]]

provided by the industry in comments and the NCASI survey to develop
unit costs for major equipment items, facility modifications,
monitoring systems and BMP Plan preparation, rather than using the
total project costs reported by two mills as was done at proposal.
Finally, EPA incorporated the estimates of net operating and
maintenance costs of BMPs into the BAT/PSES cost model. The cost model
tracked the impacts of increased pulping liquor recovery on the
evaporators and chemical recovery system and determined the need for
equipment upgrades resulting from the combined effect of BAT/PSES
process changes and BMPs. The savings from reduced load on the
wastewater treatment system and increased recovery of fiber, chemicals
and energy were subtracted from the BMP operating costs (i.e.,
increased evaporation energy, tank integrity testing, operator
training, and O&M costs for new equipment).
EPA disagrees with comments asserting that EPA lacks authority to
establish BMPs for pollutants that are not identified as toxic under
CWA section 307(a) or hazardous under CWA section 311. First, the non-
toxic and non-hazardous pollutants controlled by these BMPs are found
in the same wastestreams bearing pollutants specifically identified as
toxic pollutants or hazardous substances under sections 307(a) and 311
and implementing regulations. Although reductions of these pollutants
are significant in environmental effect, their control is incidental to
the control of all the pollutants subject to section 304(e). Second,
EPA has independent authority under section 402(a)(1) to establish
NPDES permit conditions, including BMPs, for any pollutant when such
conditions are necessary to carry out the provisions of the statute.
See 40 CFR 122.44(k). This authority operates independently of section
304(e). Indeed, when Congress enacted section 304(e) specifically for
toxic pollutants and hazardous substances, it acknowledged that section
402(a)(1) already provided authority for imposing BMPs in NPDES
permits. See Statement of Sen. Muskie (Dec. 15, 1977), reprinted in
Legislative History of the Clean Water Act of 1977, at 453. EPA's
authority to establish permit conditions under section 402(a)(1) is
very broad. See NRDC v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1977).
EPA has determined that mills without an adequate BMP program, such as
that codified today, may experience undetected and uncontrolled leaks
and spills that could disrupt the efficiency of their treatment
systems, thus resulting in exceedances of the BAT limitations and NSPS
promulgated today for subparts B and E. Moreover, the BMPs control
pollutants that are not explicitly regulated under BAT and NSPS.
Therefore, EPA determined that BMPs applicable to all pollutants in a
mill's spent pulping liquor, turpentine, and soap were necessary in
order to carry out the purposes of the Clean Water Act and hence are
authorized under section 402(a)(1) and 40 CFR 122.44(k). Similarly, as
discussed below, BMPs are authorized as pretreatment standards for
pollutants in the spent pulping liquor, turpentine, and soap when they
pass through or interfere with POTW operations.
Some commenters also objected to EPA's decision to establish the
BMP program by regulation rather than deferring to the case-by-case
determinations of permit writers. EPA agrees that a requirement to
establish and implement BMPs of the type required by this rule could be
imposed on a case-by-case basis under CWA section 402(a)(1) and 40 CFR
122.44(k). However, EPA rejected this approach for a number of reasons.
First, section 304(e) expressly authorizes EPA to promulgate BMPs by
regulation on a categorical basis. The spent pulping liquors, soap, and
turpentine covered by these BMPs contain numerous toxic pollutants and
hazardous substances subject to section 304(e) and hence may be
controlled by regulation. Moreover, EPA determined that implementing
the BMP program by regulation is necessary to ensure that each pulp and
paper mill with pulp production in subparts B or E implements the type
of BMPs that EPA has determined are fundamental to an effective BMP
program for this industry. While the BMP regulation is intended to
provide considerable flexibility to mills in designing their BMP
programs, EPA has also determined that the various BMPs specified in
the regulation are necessary to assure uniform and fair application of
the requirements. Finally, EPA believes that the regulation represents
an appropriate and efficient use of its technical expertise and
resources that, when exercised at the national level, will relieve
permit writers of the burden of implementing this aspect of the Clean
Water Act on a case-by-case basis.
EPA also disagrees with comments asserting that EPA lacks authority
to impose BMPs on indirect discharges. These BMPs are pretreatment
standards under section 307(b) and (c). Pretreatment standards for new
and existing sources under section 307 are designed to prevent the
discharge of pollutants that pass through POTWs or that interfere with
or are otherwise incompatible with treatment processes or sludge
disposal methods at POTWs. To determine whether pollutants associated
with spent kraft and sulfite pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine that
are indirectly discharged by mills with pulp production in subparts B
or E interfere with POTW operations or pass through untreated, EPA
reviewed data collected from 1988 through 1992 at a POTW that receives
effluent from a bleached papergrade kraft mill. Prior to 1990-91, the
mill had virtually no facilities for control and collection of spent
pulping liquor leaks and spills. POTW discharge monitoring records show
the fully treated effluent exhibited consistent chronic toxicity to
Daphnia from April 1988 until June 1991. The data further show that the
toxic effects of the POTW's effluent have been reduced since
implementation by the mill of effective spent pulping liquor management
and spill prevention and control. These effluent toxicity effects can
be related to the wood extractive components that are measurable by COD
and are found in leaks and spills of spent kraft and sulfite pulping
liquors that interfere with the performance of biological treatment
systems and allow toxic pollutants to pass through inadequately
treated. Indeed, evidence of such interference and pass-through was
found in data from this mill and the POTW, which showed higher mass
effluent loadings for COD, TSS and BOD5 before the mill
implemented a BMP program. After the BMP program was implemented, mass
effluent loadings of these pollutants were reduced. Data for COD, in
particular, indicated that short-term interference of POTW operations
previously observed at higher COD levels was being mitigated. EPA also
bases its pass-through finding on an incident occurring in 1993 at a
different mill where an intentional diversion of spent pulping liquor
debilitated the mill's secondary treatment system and killed fish in
the receiving waters. These data led EPA to conclude that inadequate
management and control of leaks and spills of spent pulping liquor,
soap, and turpentine interfered with POTW operations and caused pass-
through of pollutants. Because direct discharging mills using these
BMPs achieve very high removals and because POTWs cannot achieve
similar removals in the absence of BMPs employed by the indirect
discharger, EPA has determined that pollutants in spent pulping liquor,
soap, and turpentine, in the absence of controls on leaks, spills, and
intentional diversions, can cause disruption and interference and do
indeed pass through

[[Page 18566]]

at POTWs. For this reason, EPA is including as part of its pretreatment
standards the requirement that indirect discharging mills implement
BMPs in accordance with this regulation.
8. Regulatory Implementation for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards
a. Applicability of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards.
Effluent limitations act as a primary mechanism to control discharges
of pollutants to waters of the United States. These limitations are
applied to individual mills through NPDES permits issued by EPA or
authorized States under section 402 of the CWA. In addition, the
pretreatment standards are directly applicable to indirect dischargers.
Once today's regulations become effective, the effluent limitations and
standards for the appropriate subcategory must be applied in all
Federal and State NPDES permits issued to direct dischargers affected
by this rule. See Section 301(b)(2), 402(a). This section describes the
applicability of these limitations and standards to process and other
wastewaters generated by the mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories, defines new sources subject
to today's NSPS and PSNS, defines non-continuous dischargers and the
applicable limitations, and describes the retention of the previously
promulgated limitations and standards.
(1) Applicability of Limitations to Process and Other Wastewaters.
The effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the pulp and
paper industry apply to discharges of process wastewaters directly
associated with the manufacturing of pulp and paper. See 40 CFR 430.00.
EPA proposed a definition of process wastewater as any water that,
during manufacturing or processing, comes into direct contact with or
results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate
product, finished product, byproduct, or waste product. The proposed
definition specifically included boiler blowdown; wastewaters from
water treatment and other utility operations; blowdown from high rate
(e.g., greater than 98 percent) recycled non-contact cooling water
systems to the extent they are mixed and co-treated with other process
wastewaters; and stormwaters from the immediate process areas to the
extent they are mixed and co-treated with other process wastewaters.
The proposed definition specifically provided that contaminated
groundwaters from on-site or off-site groundwater remediation projects
would not be process wastewaters. EPA proposed to require separate
permitting for the discharge of such groundwaters. The proposed
definition also specifically excluded certain process materials from
the definition of process wastewater. These process materials included:
Green liquor at any liquor solids level; white liquor at any liquor
solids level; black liquor at any liquor solids level resulting from
processing knots and screen rejects; black liquor after any degree of
concentration in the kraft or soda chemical recovery process;
reconstituted sulfite and semi-chemical pulping liquors prior to use;
any pulping liquor at any liquor solids level resulting from spills or
intentional diversions from the process; lime mud and magnesium oxide;
pulp stock; bleach chemical solutions prior to use; and papermaking
additives prior to use (e.g., alum, starch and size, clays and
coatings). The proposed regulation then would have prohibited the
discharge of these materials into POTWs or waters of the United States
without an NPDES permit or other authorization.
In this final rule, EPA is promulgating a definition of process
wastewater applicable to subparts B and E. In response to the comments
opposing the exclusion of these process materials, EPA revised the
proposed definition of process wastewaters to eliminate the exclusion
of the named process materials. See 40 CFR 430.01(m). The proposed
language would have effectively required ``closed cycle'' mills, which
was not EPA's intent. The exclusion of contaminated groundwater has
been retained. Because the quantity and quality of such groundwaters
are likely to be highly variable on a site-specific basis, the Agency
concluded that their discharge to surface waters should be regulated
separately from, or in addition to, process wastewaters on a case-by-
case basis. EPA also has included leachate wastewaters from landfills
owned and operated by mills generating wastes associated with
manufacturing or processing subject to subparts B and E, where these
leachate wastewaters are commingled with other process wastewaters.
These leachate wastewaters typically comprise a very small proportion
of the total volume received in end-of-pipe wastewater treatment
facilities. In cases where the volumes or pollutants found in leachate
wastewaters are of concern, permit writers may develop individual
permit limitations on a case-by-case basis. EPA's definition continues
to define process wastewater in terms of manufacturing or processing.
EPA has promulgated a subcategory-specific definition of process
wastewater in order to clarify the applicability of subparts B and E
and to assist permit writers and pretreatment authorities in developing
limitations and standards. The effluent limitations guidelines and
standards promulgated today do not apply to discharges that are not
associated with manufacturing or processing. Any mill wishing to
discharge such wastewaters would need to obtain authorization in an
NPDES permit or individual control mechanism administered by a POTW.
EPA's use of the term ``during manufacturing or processing'' should
not be taken to exclude wastewaters generated during routine
maintenance, including maintenance occurring during a scheduled
temporary mill shut-down. Maintenance wastewaters were not explicitly
excluded from the definition of process wastewater at proposal, nor are
they excluded from the definition promulgated today. Wastewaters
generated during routine maintenance are a result of pulp manufacturing
processes and as such are included in the definition of process
wastewater.
(2) Definition of New Source. In today's rule, EPA is promulgating
a definition of ``new source'' applicable to Part 430, subparts B and
E. See 40 CFR 430.01(j). This definition restates the definition set
forth in 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1), but with the additional reference to
certain process changes that, in and of themselves, would not cause a
mill to become a new source. See 40 CFR 430.01(j)(2). EPA intends that
permit writers will consult the specific ``new source'' criteria in
Part 430, rather than the more general criteria set forth in 40 CFR
122.29(b)(1) and 403 when determining whether pulp and paper mills
subject to subparts B or E are new sources. The other provisions of 40
CFR 122.29 continue to apply to these subparts, as do 40 CFR 122.2 and
40 CFR 403.3(k). The definition of ``new source'' in Part 430 does not
affect the definition of ``new source'' for purposes of the NESHAP
portion of these integrated rules.
EPA is aware that application of the definitions in Part 122 to
pulp and paper mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories has sometimes caused controversy,
leading to disagreement between the permitting authority and the
facility whether a particular change at the mill triggers NSPS or PSNS.
EPA is promulgating a definition of ``new source'' specifically for
subparts B and E in order to set forth the specific factors relevant to
a new source determination for covered mills and thus, EPA hopes, to
end the disputes regarding a mill's

[[Page 18567]]

new source status. Indeed, the decision to promulgate subcategory-
specific criteria in this rule is specifically contemplated by the
general criteria codified at 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1). EPA believes this
tailored definition is particularly important in view of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program EPA is also promulgating today
for subpart B mills. Through the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program, EPA is encouraging mills to install new process
technologies and even to redesign bleach plant operations in order to
achieve effluent reductions beyond those required at the baseline BAT
level. EPA does not want existing mills that voluntarily choose to
participate in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program to
be required to meet NSPS simply as a consequence of that election.
Therefore, by promulgating a definition of ``new source'' specifically
for subparts B and E, EPA hopes not only to clarify application of the
Part 122 definitions but also to provide certainty to subpart B mills
choosing to participate in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program that they will not inadvertently become a new source, which
would subject them to compulsory NSPS.
For the convenience of the permit writer, the definition of new
source being codified in part 430 restates the three criteria already
codified in Sec. 122.29(b)(1). The first criterion provides that a
source is a new source if it is constructed at a site at which no other
source is located. Section 430.01 (j)(1)(i); see 40 CFR
122.29(b)(1)(i). As applied to part 430, this criterion is intended to
ensure that a greenfield mill is characterized as a new source and
hence is subject to NSPS or PSNS.
The second criterion specified in today's definition of new source
incorporates the language of 40 CFR 122.29(b)(1)(ii) with two
additions. First, it provides that a fiber line that totally replaces
an existing fiber line is a new source (unless that fiber line is
enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program).
Second, it includes a list of modifications that would not trigger the
new source definition if made by subpart B or E mills. See 40 CFR
430.01(j)(1)(ii) and (2). This criterion provides essentially that a
fiber line that is modified to comply with baseline BAT effluent
limitations or that is totally rebuilt to comply with Advanced
Technology BAT limitations is not a new source. (A fiber line is a
series of operations employed to convert wood or other fibrous raw
material into pulp. If the final product is bleached pulp, the fiber
line encompasses pulping, de-knotting, brownstock washing, pulp
screening, centrifugal cleaning, and multiple bleaching and washing
stages.)
Among the changes specified in the regulation that alone do not
cause an existing fiber line at a mill to be considered a new source
are: Upgrades of existing pulping operations; upgrades or replacement
of pulp screening and washing operations; installation of extended
cooking and/or oxygen delignification systems or other post-digester,
pre-bleaching delignification systems; and bleach plant modifications
including changes in methods or amounts of chemical applications, new
chemical applications, installation of new bleaching towers to
facilitate replacement of sodium or calcium hypochlorite, and
installation of new pulp washing systems. 40 CFR 430.01(j)(2)(i)-(iv).
By expressly excluding these process modifications from the new source
definition, EPA thus allows a mill to implement the baseline BAT/PSES
technologies without triggering NSPS or PSNS. EPA believes that
interpreting process modifications that are designed to achieve
compliance with baseline BAT/PSES limitations as an existing source
modification is consistent with Congress' intentions in the Clean Water
Act concerning the respective roles of standards for existing and new
sources.
As discussed in more detail below in connection with the third new
source criterion, EPA believes it is appropriate to define a new fiber
line as a new source because the construction of the new fiber line
(whether to supplement or replace an existing fiber line) presents the
type of pollution prevention opportunities customarily represented by
NSPS. However, EPA believes it is also appropriate to treat the
replacement fiber line as an existing source if that fiber line is
enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. See
40 CFR 430.01(j)(2)(v). EPA has decided to do this because requiring
the new fiber line to meet baseline NSPS requirements would defeat the
purpose of the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program by
undercutting the more environmentally protective pollution prevention
opportunities and limitations associated with that program. In the
first place, Advanced Technology BAT limitations at the Tier II and
Tier III levels are more stringent than the baseline NSPS requirements;
EPA's definition of new source thus is intended to allow mills to
commit to greater pollutant reductions than EPA could otherwise compel
and to do so incrementally while maintaining use of the existing fiber
line in the interim. Similarly, the Advanced Technology BAT limitations
at the Tier I level promote pollution prevention opportunities not
necessarily assured by NSPS, even though the technology bases for NSPS
and Tier I are similar. EPA has established different limitations for
Tier I than for NSPS because the regulations are intended to achieve
different objectives. The new source performance standards for AOX are
more stringent because, as a statistical matter, EPA determined that
this performance level reflects the best demonstrated performance by
mills using the NSPS technology. The Tier I limitations for AOX, in
contrast, are intended to reflect a more inclusive performance level
that EPA believes existing mills employing extended delignification can
achieve, in order to encourage more mills to implement extended
delignification technologies. The Tier I limitations also require the
recycle of filtrates to the recovery systems and impose limitations on
the lignin content of unbleached pulp, which EPA hopes will promote the
use of particular pollution prevention technologies and, in turn,
encourage mills to look beyond Tier I to the Tier II and Tier III
levels. This goal contrasts with the objective of NSPS, which simply is
to compel mills to achieve certain discharge levels by any combination
of technologies the mill selects, and would be defeated if the
definition of new source would have the effect of moving Tier I mills
into NSPS. Therefore, EPA has decided that, on balance, imposing NSPS
on mills that replace fiber lines for the purpose of participating in
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program would discourage
rather than encourage the long-term goal of achieving even greater
environmental performance.
The third criterion appearing in the definition of new source in
Sec. 430.01(j)(1)(iii) is identical to the third criterion at
Sec. 122.29(b)(1)(iii), and provides that a source is a new source if
its processes are substantially independent of an existing source at
the same site. In determining whether processes are substantially
independent, the permitting or pretreatment authority is directed to
consider such factors as the extent to which the new facility is
integrated with the existing plant, and the extent to which the new
facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the
existing source. For example, if a mill operating in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory builds and operates an entirely
new fiber line that permanently

[[Page 18568]]

supplements the capacity of an existing fiber line (and also,
incidentally, increases the total quantity of pollutants discharged by
the mill), the new fiber line would be considered a new source subject
to NSPS.
EPA believes it is appropriate to subject a new fiber line that is
substantially independent of an existing fiber line to new source
performance standards because a mill designing that new fiber line has
pollution prevention opportunities akin to those available to
greenfield mills. For example, a mill would have the opportunity to
incorporate pollution prevention principles when designing a new fiber
line, including a new flow scheme and water balance. This new fiber
line would provide the opportunity to take advantage of pollution
prevention savings attributable to reduced chemical needs (and costs),
increased energy recovery, the possibility of improving yield, and
other operation and maintenance improvements.
EPA notes that a fiber line that is substantially independent of an
existing fiber line is a new source even if the new fiber line is
enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. EPA
believes that this is appropriate because the supplemental fiber line
increases both the mill's production capacity and its discharge of
pollution to the environment. However, the fiber line could qualify for
incentives if it is enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program for NSPS at the Tier II or Tier III level.
As reflected in the July 1996 Notice, 61 FR at 36848, EPA had
considered excluding from the definition of new source those mills that
renovated existing fiber lines but remained at existing production
levels. In response to comments, EPA has decided not to introduce
production levels as a factor in determining new source status. First,
taking production levels into account in determining whether an
existing source becomes a new source would be a departure from current
practice that EPA believes is not justified in this case. EPA believes
that the new source status of a subpart B or E mill should be
determined by the degree of process and production changes made at a
mill's fiber lines--such as the replacement of existing digesters and
bleach plants with new equipment--because those changes, not production
levels, present the real opportunities for pollution prevention
represented by NSPS or PSNS. Moreover, EPA agrees with comments stating
that mills subject to subpart B or E frequently undergo changes in
various degrees to increase production levels and that many of these
changes do not result in or from substantially independent facilities
or the total replacement of existing facilities. See DCN 25538 at 70-
72. Therefore, the mere fact that a mill increases its production
levels does not mean that it concurrently has the opportunity to
install the type of advanced pollution prevention technologies
represented by NSPS.
(3) Non-Continuous Discharger. EPA is changing the regulatory
language defining non-continuous dischargers as it applies to subparts
B and E. See 40 CFR 430.01(k)(2). EPA is also republishing, without
change, the current definition of non-continuous dischargers because it
continues to apply to the other subparts in part 430 and to the
determination of technology-based effluent limitations on conventional
pollutants for existing dischargers subject to subpart B or E. See 40
CFR 430.01(k)(1).
EPA had proposed a new definition that would have defined as a non-
continuous discharger a mill that stored wastewaters for periods of at
least 24 hours and that released that wastewater on a batch basis. In
the final definition applicable to subparts B and E, EPA is retaining
the storage component of the proposed (and existing) regulation but is
not specifying a minimum 24-hour storage period because EPA determined
that it had no particular significance for these subparts. However, as
indicated in the July 1996 Notice, 61 FR at 36842, EPA is adding
language defining as a non-continuous discharger a discharger that
releases stored wastewater on a variable flow or a pollutant loading
rate basis. Finally, in this new definition, EPA is clarifying that it
applies to storage or release of wastewaters required by the permitting
authority for the purpose of protecting receiving water quality, among
other purposes. See 40 CFR 430.01(k)(2). For subparts B and E only, EPA
also is eliminating the requirement in the existing regulation, at 40
CFR 430.01(c) (1996 ed.), for the NPDES authority to include maximum
day and maximum 30-day average concentration limitations consistent
with BPT, BCT, or NSPS limitations as appropriate. See 40 CFR
430.01(k). EPA will defer to the NPDES authority to establish maximum
day and maximum 30-day average limitations that are necessary to
protect receiving water quality. In later final rulemaking phases (see
section II, table II-2), EPA intends to adopt for remaining
subcategories the same definition for non-continuous dischargers as is
being promulgated today for subparts B and E.
(4) Retention of Previously Promulgated Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards. As discussed in more detail in Section
VI.B.2, EPA is not revising BPT or BCT effluent limitations for
conventional pollutants for subparts B and E. Therefore, EPA is
retaining the previously promulgated limitations for these pollutants
and subparts. See 40 CFR 430.22, 430.23, 430.52, 430.53.
EPA is also retaining previously promulgated NSPS for subparts B
and E because new sources that commenced operation prior to the
effective date of today's NSPS remain subject to the earlier standards
for ten years beginning on the date construction of the new source was
completed. CWA section 306(d); see 40 CFR 430.25(a), 430.55(a).
Finally, as discussed in more detail in Section VI.B.3.f, subparts
B and E include previously promulgated end-of-pipe effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol. EPA
is also retaining the accompanying provisions authorizing mills that do
not use those chemicals as biocides to certify this fact to the
permitting or pretreatment authority with the result that they would
not be subject to those limitations or standards. Id.
In addition to today's new regulations for subparts B and E, EPA is
recodifying the previously promulgated BPT, BCT, BAT, NSPS, PSES and
PSNS for the other subparts of the pulp, paper, and paperboard
category. These limitations regulate the discharges of BOD5,
TSS, zinc, and other analytes. Although EPA is reorganizing the former
subcategories in accordance with the new subcategory designations, EPA
is not changing these limitations and standards. See Section VI.B.1.
b. Determination of Effluent Limitations for Permits. (1)
Definition of Production and Production-Normalizing Parameters. The
Agency has based some of the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards promulgated today on pollutant concentrations. Others are
mass-based, that is, normalized on the basis of an appropriate measure
of production. Limitations and standards for AOX, chloroform,
BOD5, and TSS fall into this category.
This appropriate measure of production is known as the
``production-normalizing parameter.'' The current definition of
``production-normalizing parameter'' is annual off-the-machine
production (including off-the-machine coating, where applicable) of
pulp, paper, and/or paperboard, divided by the number of operating days
that year. Most paper and paperboard production is measured at the off-
the-

[[Page 18569]]

machine moisture content, while market pulp is measured as air-dry
metric tons (10 percent moisture). EPA is not changing this definition
of production as it applies to the effluent limitations and standards
for any subcategory in Part 430 other than subparts B and E. EPA is
also retaining the existing definition of production for the NSPS for
conventional pollutants being promulgated today for subpart B and
subpart E. See 40 CFR 430.01(n)(1).
However, EPA is codifying a new definition of production for the
AOX and chloroform limitations being promulgated today for subparts B
and E. See 40 CFR 430.01(n)(2). Under the new specialized definition,
the production-normalizing parameter to be used by permit writers in
calculating mass-based limitations for chloroform and AOX is air-dried
metric tons of brownstock pulp (10 percent moisture) entering the
bleach plant at the stage during which chlorine or chlorine-containing
compounds are first applied to the pulp. In the case of bleach plants
that use totally chlorine-free bleaching, the production-normalizing
parameter used to calculate mass-based limitations shall be air-dried
metric tons of brownstock pulp (10 percent moisture) entering the first
stage of the bleach plant from which wastewater is discharged. Id.
Production, in turn, is defined as the annual unbleached pulp
production that enters the bleach plant (at ten percent moisture)
divided by the number of operating days of the bleach plant. Id.
The Agency had proposed to change the current definition of
production in part 430 by adding the following statement: ``Production
in each of the foregoing cases shall be determined for each mill based
upon the highest annual production in the past five years divided by
the number of operating days that year.'' See 58 FR at 66189. EPA has
decided not to revise the definition to include a new time basis
because EPA is not revising the current BPT and BCT effluent
limitations guidelines at this time for subparts B and E. Codifying a
new time basis for determining production of AOX and chloroform would
have required permit writers to apply different time bases for
determining production for purposes of calculating BAT limitations and
limitations for conventional pollutants. In EPA's view, this would have
unduly complicated the permitting process. In addition, for NSPS,
introducing a time basis would be illogical because new sources do not
have five years of data from which to determine the one highest year.
(2) Determination of Permit Limitations for Multiple Subcategory
Mills. For facilities with multiple point source categories,
subcategories, and segments, the appropriate guidelines for each
category, subcategory (or subpart), and segment are used to determine a
single permit limit for each pollutant. Chapter 5 of the U.S. EPA NPDES
Permit Writers' Manual (EPA-833-B-96-003, December 1996) provides
guidance in determining permit limits in situations when the effluent
guidelines for one subcategory regulates a different set of pollutants
than the effluent guidelines applicable to another subcategory. For
mill subject to today's rule, this situation may arise in setting
permit limits for AOX when the mill has production in multiple
subcategories.
For pollutants regulated today at the bleach plant (i.e., dioxin,
furan, chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and chloroform, and, for
subpart B PSES/PSNS, AOX), EPA does not believe that multiple
guidelines will be relevant. The bleach plant is unlikely to be used
for more than one subcategory (or segment in subpart E), and thus, the
permit limit will be determined by the limitations and standards for a
single subcategory (or segment).
There may be instances where a pollutant is regulated under the
limitations and standards promulgated today and the permitting
authority also wishes to establish limits for that particular pollutant
have yet to be established. For example, the permitting authority might
need to use best professional judgment to determine end-of-pipe limits
for AOX for a mill with production not only in subpart B or E (for
which AOX limitations are being promulgated today) but also in another
subpart (for which no AOX limitations have been promulgated) that
generates AOX. In these instances, the permitting authority would use
best professional judgment to develop pollutant limits for wastestreams
and pollutants not covered by today's rulemaking and apply those limits
to determine a proper permit limitation for the mill.
Following promulgation of today's rules, EPA will develop and
publish additional guidance for the pulp and paper industry for
determining permit limitations for facilities with production in
multiple categories, subcategories, and segments.
c. Compliance With Effluent Limitations. (1) Compliance
Demonstration for In-Plant Limitations. The effluent limitations and
standards that the Agency is promulgating today for dioxin, furan,
chloroform, the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants and AOX will be
applied (depending on the subcategory and segment) to the total
discharge from each physical bleach line operated at the mill. At most
mills, wastewaters from acid and alkaline bleaching stages are
discharged to separate sewers. At some mills, however, bleach plant
wastewaters are discharged to a combined sewer containing both acid and
alkaline wastewaters.
For dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic compounds, compliance
with the effluent limitations and standards can be demonstrated by
collecting separate samples of the acid and alkaline discharges and
preparing a flow-proportioned composite of these samples, resulting in
one sample of bleach plant effluent for analysis. However, in
determining the limitations, EPA used data from acid and alkaline
bleach plant effluents that had been analyzed separately. (EPA also
used data from combined sewers.) In a comment on Method 1653 (DCN 20095
A8), the commenter reported problems in achieving the Minimum Level in
Method 1653 for samples of composited acid and alkaline filtrates. If
necessary to achieve the Minimum Level, EPA recommends that the
facility test the effluents separately for reliable determination of
the chlorophenolics, TCDD, and TCDF.
For chloroform, however, separate samples and analyses of all
bleach plant filtrates discharged separately are required to prevent
the loss of chloroform through air stripping as the samples are
collected, measured, and composited or through chemical reaction when
the acid and alkaline samples are combined. If separate acid and
alkaline sewers do not exist, compliance samples must be collected from
the point closest to the bleach plant that is or can be made physically
accessible.
(2) Compliance with ML Limitations. In today's rulemaking for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA is establishing
limitations and standards for 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants and
dioxin, and alternative TCF limitations and standards for AOX, that are
expressed as less than the Minimum Level (``ML.'' See 40 CFR 430.54, 430.55, 430.56, 430.57.
Henceforth, this discussion refers to these limitations and standards
as ``ML limitations''. The ``ML'' is an abbreviation for the Minimum
Level identified today in Sec. 430.01(i) for the analytical methods
that EPA used to determine the level of

[[Page 18570]]

pollution reduction achievable for these pollutants through the use of
BAT, NSPS, PSES and PSNS technologies for these subparts. (Section
VI.B.5.a(4) provides a detailed discussion about ML limitations.) EPA
intends for mills subject to ML limitations to have pollutant
discharges with concentrations less than the Minimum Levels of the
analytical methods specified today in Sec. 430.01(i).
Compliance with the ML limitation for an analyte can only be
demonstrated by using the method specified in Sec. 430.01(i) for that
analyte, or other methods approved in 40 CFR Part 136 that have Minimum
Levels equal to or less than the minimum level specified today in
Sec. 430.01(i). Mills are not authorized under this rule to demonstrate
compliance with an ML limitation codified today by using an analytical
method with a minimum level above the Minimum Level specified in
Sec. 430.01(i).
The Minimum Level specified for each method is the lowest level at
which calibration is performed. See 40 CFR 430.01(i). Laboratories
calibrate their equipment by using standards (i.e., samples at several
known concentrations of each analyte). Calibration is necessary because
laboratory equipment does not measure concentrations directly. Rather,
the equipment generates signals or responses from analytical
instruments that must be converted to concentration values. The
calibration process establishes a relationship between the signals and
the known concentration values of the standards. This relationship is
then used to convert signals for samples with unknown concentrations.
In the calibration process, one of the standards will have a
concentration value at the Minimum Level for each analyte. Because the
minimum levels are the lowest levels for which laboratories calibrate
their equipment, measurements below the Minimum Level are to be
reported as being ``less than Minimum Level,'' or ``ML.'' In some cases, however, the laboratories
report these values as if the values were quantified. For example, if
the Minimum Level specified in Sec. 430.01(i) is 10 ppq, the laboratory
might report a measurement that is 4 ppq. Such reported values might
occur in two situations. In the first situation, the laboratory could
have used the method specified in Sec. 430.01(i), but referred to the
measurement as ``detected'' although it was less than the Minimum
Level. The second situation could occur in the future as the analytical
methods become more sensitive than the methods specified in
Sec. 430.01(i). Using such future methods could conceivably allow
laboratories to reliably measure values less than today's minimum
levels. Such measurements resulting from either situation would be
considered to demonstrate compliance with the ML limitations, because
these measurements are less than the method ML specified in
Sec. 430.01(i).
When monitoring for compliance with this final rule, a sample-
specific Minimum Level greater than the method Minimum Level will not
demonstrate compliance with an ML limitation. Such sample-specific
Minimum Levels may result from sample volume shortages, breakage or
other problems in the laboratory, or from failure to properly remove
analytical interferences from the sample. EPA believes that all of
these situations can be avoided by careful adherence to sample
collection and laboratory analysis procedures. For example, in the
Agency's long-term variability study, some of the one-liter jars that
were sent to laboratories for analysis were not filled to capacity. In
this example, adjustments to the Minimum Levels could have been avoided
if a sufficient volume of sample had been collected by filling the one-
liter jars to capacity, or by using larger or extra jars. Mill
personnel should collect sufficient volume to allow for analysis of the
entire sample volume specified in the method and for dilutions, re-
analyses, or other problems that may occur. In addition, it is often
possible for the laboratory to adjust for extraction of smaller sample
volumes by further concentrating the resulting extracts prior to
analysis.
Table VI-11 provides some examples demonstrating compliance with
the ML limitations. In these examples, the method ML specified in
Sec. 430.01 is 10 ppq.

Table VI-11.--Examples Demonstrating Compliance With ML Limitations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is concentration reported Value reported by
as ``detected'' or ``non- laboratory (ML in these Does the sample Explanation for compliance
detected'' in the sample? examples is 10 ppq) demonstrate compliance? determination
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Detected................... 4 ppq...................... Yes....................... 4 ppq is less than the ML
specified in Sec.
430.01.
Detected................... 10 ppq..................... No........................ Compliance is demonstrated
only with measurements
less than the ML
specified in Sec.
430.01.
Detected................... 11 ppq..................... No........................ The measured value is
greater than the ML
specified in Sec.
430.01.
Non-detected............... 5 ppq is less than the ML
of 10 ppq specified in
Sec. 430.01.
Non-detected............... 11 ppq.................... No........................ The sample-specific ML
must be less than the ML
of 10 ppq specified in
Sec. 430.01.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(3) AOX at Calcium-, Magnesium-, or Sodium-Based Sulfite Mills. The
AOX limitation for calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based papergrade
sulfite mills is expressed as less than the Minimum Level (ML) of the
analytical method. As discussed in section VI.B.6, this AOX limitation
is based on transfer of data collected at the bleach plant effluent to
the end-of-pipe for BAT. EPA received comments asserting that this
transfer of data does not account for potential sources of AOX other
than the bleach plant. Examples of these potential sources of AOX
include the release of AOX from purchased pulp used in papermaking, the
use of chlorinated compounds for control of biological growth on paper
machines, chlorine use in water treatment, and bleaching colored broke
in the stock preparation area. Hypochlorite is also used in deinking
processes to strip color from post-consumer waste.
AOX contributions from deinking operations are not covered by this
rule and would be addressed in developing appropriate permit
limitations as described in VI.B.8.b(2) above. AOX contributions due to
chlorine use in treating process water supplies are not taken into
account in the development of limitations and standards for the
calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based

[[Page 18571]]

sulfite pulp segment. In cases where other sources of AOX, such as
paper machines, make the end-of-pipe AOX limitations in this rule
impractical or infeasible for the purpose of assessing the contribution
of AOX from bleach plant sources, the AOX limitation may be imposed on
internal waste streams (i.e., bleach plant effluent) before mixing with
other waste streams containing AOX. See 40 CFR 122.45(h).
(4) Minimum Monitoring Frequencies. (a) Rationale for Establishing
Minimum Monitoring Frequencies. EPA proposed specific minimum
monitoring frequencies for pollutants in bleach plant and end-of-pipe
effluent discharges. See 58 FR at 66189. Although EPA proposed minimum
monitoring requirements for BOD5 and TSS limitations
established as part of NSPS, EPA is not specifying such requirements in
the final rule because permit authorities have ample experience
regulating these pollutants and can determine the appropriate
monitoring frequencies. See Section VI.A.3 for a discussion of
BOD5 monitoring requirements under today's air rule. See
also Section VI.B.7 for a discussion of monitoring requirements
associated with BMPs.
The final rule specifies minimum monitoring frequencies for AOX,
dioxin, furan, chloroform, and chlorinated phenolic pollutants for non-
TCF mills because of the nature and composition of the discharges from
non-TCF bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite
mills. See 40 CFR 430.02 (a) and (b). Wastewaters from these mills have
been found to contain chlorinated organic compounds that are highly
toxic and bioaccumulative (e.g., dioxin, furan, and chlorinated
phenolic pollutants). Process-related variability in generating these
pollutants is clearly reflected in available data. Therefore, given the
environmental significance of these pollutants, minimum monitoring is
both necessary and appropriate to ensure that data are available to
permitting authorities to have an adequate basis to verify compliance
with the technology-based effluent limitations and standards. In
contrast to discharges of BOD5 and TSS, receiving water
effects from discharges of these chlorinated pollutants are not as
easily detected, are not as well understood, and do not manifest
themselves in a manner that enables a mill to quickly become aware of
and react to releases that may be harmful to the environment.
The monitoring requirements imposed in 40 CFR 430.02 will not take
effect until EPA has obtained approval of these information collection
requirements from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. For monitoring
requirements applicable to direct dischargers, EPA will seek to amend
the NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report ICR No. 229, OMB approval number
2040-0004, prior to its expiration on May 31, 1998. For indirect
dischargers, EPA will seek to add specified monitoring requirements for
indirect dischargers to the National Pretreatment Program ICR No. 2,
OMB approval number 2040-0009, when it expires on October 31, 1999. EPA
will not seek to amend this ICR prior to its expiration date because
the monitoring requirements for indirect dischargers do not become
effective until April 16, 2001 for existing indirect dischargers, and
EPA anticipates no new indirect dischargers commencing discharge prior
to the ICR expiration date.
(b) Duration of Minimum Monitoring Frequency. The final rule
includes minimum monitoring frequency requirements for demonstrating
compliance with limitations and standards for dioxin, furan,
chloroform, the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and AOX for non-TCF
mills. See 40 CFR 430.02(a). Permitting and pretreatment authorities
retain authority to specify more frequent monitoring on a case-by-case
basis and must specify AOX monitoring frequency for TCF mills on a best
professional judgment basis. The minimum monitoring frequencies are
applicable to mills in Subparts B and E for a duration of five years
after inclusion in NPDES permits for direct dischargers. See 40 CFR
430.02(b). For existing indirect dischargers, the minimum monitoring
requirements apply until April 17, 2006 which reflects a five-year
monitoring period following the termination of the three-year
compliance period authorized by CWA Section 307(b)(1). Id. For new
indirect dischargers, the five year minimum monitoring period commences
upon operation. Id.
EPA has determined the minimum monitoring frequencies established
by this rule are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today, particularly
considering the degree of change that is expected to occur to pulping
and bleaching processes as this rule is implemented. In establishing
the minimum monitoring frequencies for the regulated pollutants, the
Agency has struck a balance between the cost of the monitoring regimen
and the need to ensure that sufficient data are consistently available
to permitting authorities to provide an adequate basis to verify
compliance with the effluent limitations and standards and to mills to
quickly become aware of and react to releases that may be harmful to
the environment.
The Agency has selected a minimum monitoring frequency of once per
month for dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40
CFR 430.02(a). These pollutants are the most toxic and bioaccumulative
among those regulated yet also are the most costly to analyze (total
cost of approximately $1,325 per sample; $825 per sample for dioxin,
furan, and $500 per sample for all 12 chlorinated phenolic analytes).
EPA expects that 12 data points for each pollutant per year, together
with daily end-of-pipe AOX data and information on process conditions
from detailed mill logs (e.g., unbleached pulp kappa numbers, bleach
plant kappa factors, bleached pulp brightness, etc.) that are
reviewable upon request, will yield a meaningful basis for establishing
compliance with the promulgated limitations through long-term trends
and short-term variability in dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic
pollutant discharge loading patterns.
The Agency has selected a minimum monitoring frequency of once per
week for chloroform. See 40 CFR 430.02(a). This minimum monitoring
frequency has been selected because data available indicate there can
be considerable temporal variability of this pollutant in bleach plant
wastewaters. Therefore, more data are required to adequately assess
compliance with the promulgated limitations and standards on both a
long-term and short-term basis. While the cost for laboratory analysis
of chloroform (approximately $270 per sample) is much lower than for
dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic pollutants, chloroform sampling
requirements are more extensive and rigorous (e.g., sampling of all
bleach plant filtrates using special equipment and containers to
prevent volatilization). Weekly data (52 data points) and information
on process conditions from detailed mill logs that are reviewable upon
request are expected to yield an adequate basis for establishing long-
term compliance trends in chloroform discharge loadings and developing
process control strategies to ensure the short-term compliance in
chloroform discharge loadings.
The Agency has selected a minimum monitoring frequency of once
every day for AOX for non-TCF mills. See 40 CFR 430.02(a). This minimum
monitoring frequency has been selected because there can be
considerable daily variability in chlorinated organic discharge
loadings to receiving streams

[[Page 18572]]

reflecting both bleach plant discharge patterns and secondary
biological treatment system performance that is readily measured at
reasonable cost. At this time, AOX analysis costs $120 per sample. This
cost is likely to decrease after this regulation is promulgated with
increased capacity at commercial laboratories and analytical
laboratories on-site at many mills. While this bulk parameter measures
all chlorinated organic constituents in wastewater and not individual
pollutants, daily monitoring will provide an essentially continuous
data stream on a quick turnaround basis to mill operating personnel and
permit compliance authorities to assess and control process
technologies and manage the performance of end-of-pipe biological
treatment systems.
The minimum monitoring frequencies in this rule as described above
will provide sufficient information to evaluate mill compliance with
the promulgated limitations over the long term and allow permitting and
pretreatment authorities to judge whether a different frequency of
monitoring is warranted after the initial compulsory period of minimum
monitoring has been completed. These data will prove useful to
permitting authorities and also to mill operators in developing a
robust mill-specific compliance data base with which to analyze the
effects of mill processes on effluent trends. The five-year duration of
the minimum monitoring requirements is consistent with permit issuance
cycles, will ease administrative burdens on operators and permitting
authorities, and will provide data useful for establishing appropriate
monitoring requirements during future permit renewals.
Following completion of the compulsory five-year monitoring period
set forth by this rule, the permitting or pretreatment authority has
discretion to adjust monitoring requirements as deemed appropriate on a
case-by-case basis. For those mills consistently demonstrating
reductions superior to those required merely to comply with their
permit requirements, EPA believes that it may be appropriate to allow
less frequent monitoring to reduce the regulatory burden. EPA expects
the permitting or pretreatment authority also to consider the mill's
compliance and enforcement history in determining monitoring
frequencies. This avenue for relief provides incentives for voluntary
reductions of pollutant discharges through such means as reuse and
recycling. EPA also expects permitting and pretreatment authorities to
consider whether poor performance, compliance or enforcement history,
or other site-specific factors indicate a need to impose more frequent
monitoring than that specified in this rule.
EPA has issued interim guidance for performance-based reductions of
NPDES permit monitoring frequencies, which may be useful for permit
writers and pretreatment authorities in determining alternative
monitoring frequencies at the close of the compulsory five-year period
imposed by this rule. (See Interim Guidance for Performance-Based
Reductions of NPDES Permit Monitoring Frequencies, April 1996, EPA-833-
B-96-001). This document provides guidance to permit writers on
implementing EPA's NPDES regulations regarding appropriate monitoring
in permits and describes the conditions under which reduced monitoring
would be justified. Pretreatment control authorities also may find this
guidance useful in setting monitoring frequencies for industrial users
of POTWs. The current guidance applicable to all industrial point
sources is dated April 19, 1996, and is subject to revision.
(c) Certification for TCF Bleaching. Mills certifying in their
permit application process that all bleaching processes are totally
chlorine-free are exempted from the minimum monitoring frequencies
established in this rule, provided that analytical data routinely
submitted as part of the permit application confirm the absence of
chlorinated compounds. See 40 CFR 430.02. EPA believes it is
appropriate to exclude TCF mills from the minimum monitoring
frequencies for chlorinated compounds since any process change that
introduces chlorinated compounds to the bleaching process requires
notification to the permitting authority and would result in reopening
the permit for modification. See, e.g., 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3),
122.21(g)(7), and 122.41(l).
(d) ECF Certification in Lieu of Monitoring. In response to
comments, EPA has considered whether certification of ECF bleaching
processes can be used in lieu of monitoring. Because of the effect that
operation and control of pulping and bleach plant processes have on
generation of chlorinated pollutants, EPA has determined that the
information available at this time does not demonstrate that ECF
certification alone is sufficient to ensure compliance with the
regulations promulgated today. Therefore, this rule does not allow
certification of ECF bleaching to replace monitoring. (See DCN 14497,
Vol. I, and section VI.B.5 of this preamble for a discussion of factors
affecting chlorinated pollutant generation.)
Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, however, EPA is proposing to
allow mills to demonstrate compliance with chloroform limitations by
certifying that they use ECF bleaching processes and that these
processes are operated in a manner consistent with certain process and
related factors. In this notice, EPA also is seeking additional
chloroform data, along with corresponding process data, to determine
whether an ECF certification process for chloroform should require
certification of certain process factors; for example, factors relating
to residual lignin content, chemical application rates, and other
process variables.
d. Intake Credits, Upsets, and Bypasses. An intake credit is an
adjustment made to an effluent limitation to reflect the presence of a
pollutant in the discharger's intake water beyond what is removed by an
installed technology that would otherwise meet the technology-based
effluent limitation or standard. EPA's regulations concerning intake
credits are set forth at 40 CFR 122.45 and 40 CFR 403.15.
A ``bypass'' is an intentional diversion of waste streams from any
portion of a treatment facility. An ``upset'' is an exceptional
incident in which there is unintentional non-compliance with
technology-based permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond
the reasonable control of the permittee. EPA's regulations concerning
bypasses and upsets are set forth at 40 CFR 122.41 (m) and (n).
e. Variances and Modifications to Permits. (1) Variances.
Dischargers subject to the BAT and PSES limitations promulgated in
these final regulations may apply for a Fundamentally Different Factors
(FDF) variance under the provisions of section 301(n) of the CWA. The
FDF variance considers those facility-specific factors that a permittee
believes to be uniquely different from the factors considered by EPA in
developing an effluent guideline to determine whether the effluent
guidelines limitations should be inapplicable to the permittee's
facility. An FDF variance is based only on information submitted to EPA
during the rulemaking establishing the effluent limitations, or on
information the applicant did not have a reasonable opportunity to
submit during the rulemaking process. See CWA section 301(n)(1)(B). If
fundamentally different factors are determined to exist, the
alternative effluent limitations for the petitioner must be no less
stringent than those justified by the fundamental difference. See CWA
section 301(n)(1)(C). The alternative effluent

[[Page 18573]]

limitation must not result in non-water quality environmental impacts
significantly greater than those accepted by EPA in promulgating the
effluent limitations guidelines or pretreatment standards. See CWA
section 301(n)(1)(D). FDF variance requests, along with all supporting
information and data, must be received by the permitting authority
within 180 days after publication of the final effluent limitations
guideline or standard. See CWA section 301(n)(a). The specific
regulations covering FDF variance requirements and administration are
found at 40 CFR 122.21(m)(1), 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart D, and 40 CFR
403.13.
Dischargers may also apply for a variance from the BAT limitations
on non-conventional pollutants in these final regulations under CWA
section 301(c) (for economic reasons) and 301(g) (for water quality
reasons). Regulations for the administration of these variances are
specified in 40 CFR 122.21(m)(2).
New sources subject to NSPS or PSNS are not eligible for variances.
See E.I. DuPont v. Train, 430 U.S. 112 (1977).
(2) Permit Modifications. It may be necessary to modify a permit at
some point after it has been issued. In a permit modification, only the
conditions subject to change are reconsidered. All other permit
conditions remain in effect unchanged. A permit modification may be
triggered in several ways, such as when the regulatory agency inspects
the facility and finds a need for the modification, or when information
submitted by the permittee suggests a need for a modification. Any
interested person may request that a permit modification be made. There
are two classifications of modifications: major and minor. From a
procedural standpoint, they differ primarily with respect to the public
notice requirements. Major modifications require public notice while
minor modifications do not. See 40 CFR 122.63. Virtually all
modifications that result in less stringent conditions are treated as a
major modification, with provisions for public notice and comment.
Conditions that would necessitate a major modification of a permit are
described in 40 CFR 122.62. Minor modifications are generally non-
substantive changes. The conditions for minor modification are
described in 40 CFR 122.63.

VII. Environmental Impacts

This section of the preamble describes the environmental impacts of
the air and water regulations being promulgated today, and the
environmental impacts of the MACT II regulations being proposed today.
These impacts are described in terms of reductions in air pollution
emissions expected as a result of the final MACT I and proposed MACT II
rules, as well as the reduction in water pollution (effluent)
discharges expected as a result of today's effluent limitations
guidelines and standards for Subparts B and E. (In this section, all
references to MACT I include MACT III unless expressly noted.) The
emissions and effluent reductions described in this section generate
the quantified and monetized benefits described in Section VIII of this
preamble. This section also discusses the non-water quality
environmental impacts of the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards promulgated today, including air emissions, energy
requirements, solid waste generation, water use, and wood consumption.
Sections II.B.2 and VII.A describe air and water pollution control
technologies for each subcategory regulated today: Kraft, Soda,
Sulfite, and Semi-chemical mills that are subject to MACT I and MACT
III standards; and bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade
sulfite mills that are subject to effluent limitations guidelines and
standards. EPA estimates that the application of these technologies by
the 155 mills regulated by today's air rules, including 96 of those
mills also regulated by today's water rules, will substantially reduce
air emissions and water pollution discharges, as described in Section
VII.B.

A. Summary of Sources and Level of Control

Table VII-1 shows a summary of sources and technology bases/level
of control for the final BAT/PSES effluent limitations guidelines and
standards, and the final MACT I standards. The summary of sources and
level of control for MACT II are discussed in the preamble for the
proposed MACT standards elsewhere in today's Federal Register.

[[Page 18574]]

Table VII-1.--Final Cluster Rules--Sources and Technology Bases/Level of Control
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Toxic and nonconventional pollutant effluent control (BAT, PSES, and BMP technology bases) by subcategory Hazardous air pollutant emission control (MACT I and III levels of control)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- by subcategory
Papergrade sulfite -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------ Best Management Secondary and
Bleached papergrade kraft and Calcium, Practices (BMP), Soda and semi- nonwood fiber, and
soda magnesium, and Ammonium sulfite Specialty grade (Subparts B and E) Kraft chemical Sulfite mechanical wood
sodium sulfite fiber
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Selected BAT/PSES Spent Pulping
Liquor Spill
Prevention and
Control.
(2)Control LVHC System Vents See Bleach Plant
Block Below.
ECF: 100% Substitution of TCF: Oxygen- and ECF: 100% ECF: 100% .................. Control Selected Control Pulp Control Pulp
Chlorine with Chlorine Dioxide; peroxide-enhanced Substitution of Substitution of HVLC Vents and Washing System Washing System
effective brownstock washing; extraction; Chlorine with Chlorine with Named High HAP Vents at New Vents, and
elimination of hypochlorite; peroxide Chlorine Dioxide; Chlorine Dioxide; Concentrated Sources. Control Liquor
oxygen-and peroxide-enhanced bleaching; peroxide-enhanced oxygen- and Condensate and Acid Tank
extraction; closed brown-stock elimination of extraction; peroxide-enhanced Streams. Vents at New
screening; and other processes all chlorine- elimination of extraction; Sources.
discussed at Section containing hypo-chlorite; elimination of
VI.B.5.a(1). compounds; and and use of dioxin- hypochlorite; and
improved pulp and furan- use of dioxin and
cleaning. precursor-free furan precursor-
defoamers. free defoamers.

(3)Bleach Plant: Control
Chlorinated HAP from Vents at
Stages That Use Chlorinated
Bleaching Chemicals, and
Control Chloroform Emissions by
Complying with BAT codified at
40 CFR 430.24(a) and (e) and 40
CFR 430.54(a) and (c) or by
100% substitution of chlorine
with chlorine dioxide and
elimination of hypochlorite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Air Emissions and Water Effluent Reductions

1. Air Emissions Reductions
The reductions described in this section are derived from estimated
air emissions reductions at all 155 pulp and paper mills in the CAA
kraft, soda, sulfite and semichemical subcategories that are subject to
MACT I and MACT II standards. These mills include the 96 mills subject
to the effluent limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today.
All references in this section to MACT I air emissions refer to the
expected effects of implementing both the air and water portion of the
final Cluster Rules.
Implementation of the MACT portion of the Cluster Rules is expected
to significantly decrease HAP emissions. Table VII-2 presents the
environmental impacts of the Final Cluster Rules (BAT, PSES, BMPs, and
MACT I) and the Final Cluster Rules in combination with the MACT II
proposed standards.
The air emission impacts presented in Table VII-2 are calculated
based on mill-specific processes and emission control information,
emission factors, and control levels summarized in Table VII-1. A more
detailed discussion of the calculation of the environmental impacts for
the final MACT standards is presented in Chapter 20 of the Background
Information Document described in Section XI of this preamble. A
detailed discussion of the environmental impacts of the proposed MACT
II is contained in the docket for the proposed MACT II standard. As
shown in Table VII-2, these final Cluster Rules not only reduce HAP
emissions from all CAA and CWA subcategories regulated, but they also
result in decreases of volatile organic compounds and total reduced
sulfur using industry data updated to 1996. Emissions of particulate
and carbon monoxide are estimated to increase under the final rules,
but are expected to decrease when combined with the proposed MACT II
standards. Emissions of sulfur dioxides, and, to a lesser degree,
nitrogen oxides are estimated to increase. Sulfur dioxide emissions are
generated primarily from the combustion of sulfur-containing compounds,
such as TRS, in the vent streams at kraft mills. The increases in
carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxide, and particulate matter air emissions
are primarily from the combustion of air vents in the pulping area and
increased energy to produce additional steam for steam strippers and
chlorine dioxide for the bleaching system. However, these emission
increase estimates are likely overstated because they do not account
for the fact that some mills in sensitive areas for sulfur dioxide
already have sulfur dioxide controls in place or may choose alternative
controls available in the final MACT rule that mitigate these

[[Page 18575]]

increases. The health effects and benefits of these emission reductions
and increases are discussed in Section VIII.G.1 of this notice.

Table VII-2.--Air Emission Impacts of Pulp and Paper Rules (All CAA Subcategories)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air emission reductions (Mg/
year)
Baseline air ---------------------------------
Air pollutants emissions (Mg/ Final cluster
year) Final cluster rules and
rules proposed MACT
II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Air Pollutants...................................... 240,000 139,000 142,000
Volatile Organic Compounds.................................... 900,000 409,000 440,000
Total Reduced Sulfur.......................................... 150,000 79,000 79,000
Particulate................................................... aNA b(83) 24,000
Carbon Monoxide............................................... NA (8,700) 49,000
Nitrogen Oxides............................................... NA (5,200) (5,700)
Sulfur Dioxides............................................... NA (94,500) (94,400)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Industry process data was not collected to calculate emissions for these pollutants increases and decreases
for these pollutants reflected in columns to the right are increases or decreases of these pollutants caused
by projected installation of MACT control equipment and secondary air emission impacts of BAT, PSES, and BMPs.
b Values in ( ) are estimated emission increases over baseline air emissions.

2. Water Pollutant Reductions
Table VII-3 shows the estimated baseline (as of mid-1995) and the
reductions from baseline expected from the BMP requirements being
promulgated today for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. (Hereafter, references to BAT/PSES
impacts include impacts associated with today's BMP requirements.)
Calculation of these pollutant reductions is discussed in Sections
VI.B.5.a(3) and VI.B.6.b(5). For a discussion of the estimated effluent
reduction benefits associated with the BAT limitations promulgated for
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, see Section IX. A.6 and Table
IX-1.

Table VII-3.--Estimated Pollutant Reductions From Baseline for BAT/PSES
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Estimated
Baseline reductions: Baseline reductions:
Pollutant parameter Units discharge Final BAT/ discharge Final BAT/
for BPK PSES for for PS mills PSES for PS
mills BPK mills mills
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-TCDD........................ g/yr................ 15 11 0.78 0.65
2,3,7,8-TCDF........................ g/yr................ 115 107 6.7 6.4
Chloroform.......................... kkg/yr.............. 48 40 5.4 5.2
Chlorinated Phenolics............... kkg/yr.............. 55 45 2.0 1.8
AOX................................. kkg/yr.............. 36,300 24,200 4,380 4,010
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BPK--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory.
PS--Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.
g--grams.
kkg--metric ton (1,000 kilograms or 1 megagram (Mg)).

The air quality impacts shown in Table VII-2 and the water
pollutant effluent reductions shown above are used in the following
section to estimate reduced human health and environmental risk
attributable to today's rules. These estimates also form the basis for
estimating monetized benefits in the following section.

C. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards (BAT, PSES, and BMPs)

Sections 304(b)(2)(B) and 306(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act
require EPA to consider the non-water quality environmental impacts of
effluent limitations guidelines and standards. To address these
statutory requirements, EPA analyzed the air emissions, energy
requirements, solid waste generation impacts, and other environmental
impacts of the compulsory BAT, PSES, and BMPs being promulgated today
for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite
subcategories. The results of this analysis are presented below. In
performing the analysis, EPA assumed that each mill in the regulated
subcategory would install the model technologies upon which today's
limitations and standards are based.
1. Air Emissions
The air emissions reductions of BAT, PSES, BMPs, and MACT I, in
combination, are presented in Section VII.B.1 above. This section
presents the estimated air emission impacts of BAT, PSES, and BMPs on
the 86 mills with production in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory and the 11 mills with production in the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory. (One mill has co-located operations in both subcategories
that separately contribute to the number of mills in each subcategory.)
The control technologies that form the basis of effluent guidelines
and standards promulgated today involve changes in the processes used
to produce bleached pulp. These changes affect the rate at which air
pollutants, including HAPs, are emitted from the pulping and bleaching
processes that are subsequently controlled by MACT I. As shown in Table
VII-4, the process changes at bleached papergrade kraft

[[Page 18576]]

and soda and papergrade sulfite facilities subject to BAT, PSES, and
BMPs decrease the emissions of some HAPs but have little impact on
others. For example, the elimination of chlorine and hypochlorite from
bleaching processes, part of the basis for BAT and PSES, will reduce
the emission of chloroform in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory by 66 percent [but will have a much smaller impact on the
emission of methanol.] The application of the BAT, PSES, and BMPs
promulgated today for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory will reduce the emission of total HAPs from the sources
controlled by MACT I from 149,000 Mg/year to 139,000 Mg/yr (7 percent
reduction) without taking into account further reductions achieved by
MACT I controls.

Table VII-4.--Impact of BAT, PSES, and BMP: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite Mills Air
Emissions From Sources Subject to Control by MACT I
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bleached papergrade Papergrade sulfite (all
kraft and soda [Mg/year] segments) [Mg/year]
---------------------------------------------------
Air pollutants Emission Emission
Baseline reductions Baseline reductions
emissions from BAT/ emissions from BAT/
PSES/BMPs PSES/BMPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Hazardous Air Pollutants.............................. 149,000 10,000 5,190 1,930
Chloroform.................................................. 9,510 6,060 13 8
Volatile Organic Compounds.................................. 569,000 11,000 6,020 2,270
Total Reduced Sulfur........................................ 100,000 1,300 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The process changes that form the basis of BAT, PSES, and BMP's
increase by approximately 1.5 percent the amount of spent pulping
liquor combusted by bleached papergrade kraft mills and papergrade
sulfite mills. See the Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN
14487. HAPs and criteria air pollutants (volatile organic compounds,
particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur
dioxides) are generated from combustion of spent pulping liquor by
bleached papergrade kraft and sulfite mills. As a result, as shown in
Tables VII-5a and VII-5b, the emission of total HAPs from spent pulping
liquor combustion sources (i.e., recovery boilers) will increase by 1.1
percent at bleached papergrade kraft and soda facilities and 1.9
percent at papergrade sulfite facilities above the 1995 baseline.
However, the net increase in HAP emissions from these combustion
sources (235 Mg/yr) represents 1.1 percent of the HAP emissions from
all sources subject to control by MACT I, II, and III. Although BAT,
PSES, and BMPs result in a small increase in HAP emissions from
recovery boilers, the combined effect of the Cluster Rules (including
proposed MACT II) is a net decrease of 60 percent in total HAP
emissions from all controlled sources. See Table VII-2.

Table VII-5a.--Impact of BAT, PSES, and BMP: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Air Emissions From Recovery
Boilers at Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Mills Subject to Proposed MACT II [Mg/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission
1995 increases MACT II Net change
baseline from BAT/ emission after MACT
emission PSES/BMPs reductions IIa
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Air Pollutants................................... 19,900 220 25 195
Volatile Organic Compounds................................. 19,500 213 0 213
Total Reduced Sulfur....................................... 2,650 27 0 27
Particulate Matter......................................... 31,400 360 12,900 (12,540)
Carbon Monoxide............................................ 124,000 1,440 0 1,440
Nitrogen Oxides............................................ 36,100 423 0 423
Sulfur Dioxides............................................ 67,800 784 0 784
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Parentheses indicate emissions decreases below baseline.

Table VII-5b.--Impact of BAT, PSES, AND BMP: Air Emissions From Recovery Boilers at Papergrade Sulfite Mills
Subject to Proposed MACT II [Mg/year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emission
1995 increases MACT II Net change
baseline from BAT/ emission after MACT
emission PSES/BMPs reductions II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous Air Pollutants................................... 2,110 40 N/S 40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N/S--Not Significant.

[[Page 18577]]

Increases in the emission of criteria pollutants are also listed in
Table VII-5a. The emission of total criteria air pollutants from spent
pulping liquor combustion sources (i.e., recovery boilers) at mills in
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory will increase by 1.2
percent as a result of BAT, PSES, and BMPs and will be only slightly
mitigated by MACT II controls. The increases in nitrogen oxides (423
Mg/yr), sulfur dioxides (784 Mg/yr), and carbon monoxide (1440 Mg/yr)
emissions are minor relative to nationwide emissions, which are 19.8
million Mg/yr for nitrogen oxides, 16.6 million Mg/yr for sulfur
dioxides, and 83.6 million Mg/yr for carbon monoxide (OAQPS, 1995).
EPA concludes that the technologies that form the basis of BAT,
PSES, and BMPs for bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade
sulfite mills pose no significant adverse impacts to and indeed have
some benefits for air quality. EPA bases this determination on the
following:

--Total HAP emissions from the sources subject to control by MACT I and
proposed MACT II from kraft and sulfite pulping and bleaching processes
decrease as a result of BAT, PSES, and BMPs;
--HAP emissions would increase by less than one percent from bleached
kraft combustion sources and increase by less than two percent from
papergrade sulfite combustion sources; and
--The increase in criteria air pollutants for the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories is minor relative
to current national industrial emissions.

EPA examined the effect of BAT combined with BMPs on the generation
of CO2 by considering the overall mill carbon balance and
the energy balance. Anthropogenic generation of water vapor is
minuscule relative to atmospheric recycling and is normally ignored in
greenhouse gas analysis. Therefore, water vapor is ignored here. EPA
concluded that neither option would have an impact on the total
emission of greenhouse gasses from mills due to pulping processing.
There, EPA concludes that the increased CO2 emissions
attributable to BAT pose no significant adverse non-water quality
environmental impact.
2. Energy Impacts
The impacts of BAT, PSES, and BMPs on the energy use of the 86
mills with production in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory and the 11 mills with production in the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory are summarized in Table VII-6. The process changes that
form the basis of the regulations promulgated today are estimated to
result in an increased energy requirement of 3.70 trillion Btu/yr in
oil equivalent at the 96 affected pulp and paper mills. This represents
a 0.82 percent increase from the current total Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategories energy consumption (papergrade sulfite
total energy consumption is minor relative to bleached papergrade
kraft) of 499.4 trillion Btu/yr in oil equivalent (DCN 14510). The
increased energy use is due to the increased off-site chemical
manufacturing electrical demand (met by off-site electric generating
stations) and on-site electrical demand (also met by off-site electric
generating stations, and commonly referred to as ``purchased energy'').
These increased demands are partially offset by the decreased steam
demand (met by on-site power boilers and recovery furnaces). Oil
equivalent is used to express the combined effects of changes in
thermal energy and electric power. It is based on the assumption that
marginal changes in electric power demand caused by the regulation will
be supplied by conventional condensing-type oil-fired power stations.
See DCN 14487.

Table VII-6.--Energy Impacts of Bat, PSES, and BMP: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite
Mills
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bleached Papergrade
Energy impacts Units papergrade sulfite (all Combined
Kraft segments) total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On-Site Electricity Demand*........... Trillion Btu/yr in oil (2.37) (0.0381) (2.41)
equivalent.
Off-Site Electricity Demand*.......... Trillion Btu/yr in oil 10.0 (1.05) 8.95
equivalent.
Steam Demand.......................... Trillion Btu/yr in oil (2.88) (0.010) (2.89)
equivalent.
Total Energy Demand**................. Trillion Btu/yr in oil 4.78 (1.08) 3.70
equivalent.
Total Energy Equivalent............... Number of Households***....... 46,100 (10,400) 35,700
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate energy savings.
* Assumes an overall electrical generating efficiency of 25 percent. (DCN 14797).
* * Totals do not equal the sum of each line item due to rounding. Refer to Section 11 of the Supplemental
Technical Development Document which presents detailed energy estimates.
* * * Assumes 103.6 million Btu/household/yr (Energy Information Administration (DOE) 1993).

The manufacture of sodium chlorate, the raw material used at pulp
mills to manufacture chlorine dioxide, requires much more electrical
energy than the manufacture of chlorine or other commonly used
bleaching chemicals. As a result, off-site electrical demand increases
by 8.95 trillion Btu/yr (2.61 million MWhr/yr) because of the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today. EPA estimates
of changes in energy demand as mills install advanced technologies can
be found in DCN 14488.
The total increase in energy demand resulting from this rule is
equivalent to the energy required for 35,700 households. Compared to
the most recent data for total national energy consumption, the rule
represents a 0.004 percent increase in energy demand. EPA concludes
that the technologies that form the basis of BAT, PSES, and BMPs for
bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite mills do not
pose significant adverse impacts in nation-wide energy demand.
3. Incidental BOD5 Removal and Sludge
The process changes that form the basis for BAT, PSES, and BMP
increase by approximately 1.5 percent the amount of spent pulping
liquor collected and combusted by bleached papergrade kraft and soda
mills. Spent pulping liquor is a significant source of BOD5
loadings at these mills. The collection and combustion of this spent
pulping liquor results in an approximately 20 percent decrease in
BOD5 load into treatment. (EPA expects that papergrade
sulfite mills will have similar trends, but lacks data to calculate
residuals.)
Sludge is generated as a byproduct of the wastewater treatment
systems used at pulp and paper mills. Primary sludge

[[Page 18578]]

(i.e., solids removed during physical wastewater treatment processes
such as sedimentation prior to biological treatment) is high in wood
fiber and volatile solids. Secondary sludge is the product of
biological treatment in which microorganisms consume organic matter
(BOD5) in the wastewater. Secondary sludge is a gelatinous
mixture of bacterial and fungal organisms. Because of the reduction in
BOD5 load into treatment, the combined application of BAT
limitations, PSES, and BMPs promulgated today will decrease sludge
generation by 35,900 kkg/yr (39,600 short tons/yr), which represents a
2 percent reduction from the mid-1995 baseline for subpart B and E
mills.
Sludge generated at bleached papergrade kraft and soda and
papergrade sulfite mills may contain dioxin and furan if these
pollutants contaminate the wastewater treated at these mills. At
proposal, the Agency estimated that the mills in these two
subcategories generated 177 g/yr TEQ dioxin and furan in their
wastewater treatment sludge. Since the proposal, industry has
significantly reduced the level of dioxin and furan in its wastewater.
The Agency estimates that the dioxin and furan content of the sludge
has decreased similarly, to approximately 50 g/yr TEQ. See the
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
The process changes that form the basis of the BAT limitations and
PSES promulgated today limit the concentration of dioxin and furan
allowed to be discharged to the wastewater treatment system. As a
result, the Agency estimates that when fully implemented, the combined
application of BAT limitations and PSES will reduce the present sludge
loading of dioxin and furan TEQ by 43 g/yr, approximately an 85 percent
reduction from current levels. The period of time before individual
mills have reached this level will vary somewhat depending on the
compliance schedule incorporated in the permit and the type of
treatment system in place at each mill. See the Supplemental Technical
Development Document, DCN 14487.
EPA concludes that the technologies that form the basis of BAT,
PSES, and BMPs for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories are beneficial from the standpoint of
solid waste generation. The technologies both reduce the quantity of
solid waste generated and also improve its quality by reducing the
pollutant loading in the sludge generated.
4. Other Environmental Impacts
Wood consumption at the bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills
will be reduced by up to 0.3 percent by the final BAT limitations and
PSES promulgated today. The wood savings results from a reduction in
losses of useful fiber associated with the recovery of liquor spills
and improvements in brownstock washing and screening of pulp. EPA
estimates no change in wood consumption at mills in the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory.
The control technologies that form the basis of the effluent
limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today will reduce
bleached papergrade kraft and soda mill effluent wastewater flows. The
greatest reductions would be realized in mills presently discharging
the highest flows. In 1995, the average bleached kraft mill discharged
approximately 95 m\3\/metric ton effluent (23,000 gallons/metric ton).
For a 1,000 metric ton/day mill, the average effluent flow is similar
to that from a city of 250,000 people. The effluent limitations
guidelines and standards will reduce total effluent flow in two ways:
(1) Closure of brownstock screening systems, and (2) BMPs. At a mill
with open screening, closure could reduce total effluent flow by 25
percent. BMP implementation could result in further effluent flow
decreases of two percent. EPA estimates a small reduction in wastewater
effluent flow from mills in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.
EPA concludes that the technologies that form the basis of BAT,
PSES, and BMPs for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories are beneficial from the standpoint of
wood use and wastewater generation, and will not produce significant
adverse non-water quality environmental impacts.

D. Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of New Source Performance
Standards and Pretreatment Standards for New Source (NSPS and PSNS)

EPA analyzed the projected non-water quality environmental impacts
of BAT for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory for BAT,
PSES, and BMPs based on complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for
chlorine and other technology elements. This section presents the non-
water quality environmental impacts of a second technology
configuration (NSPS and PSNS) which is equivalent to BAT, PSES, and
BMPs with the addition of extended delignification (oxygen
delignification or extended cooking) on a new 1000 tpd bleached
papergrade kraft fiber line.
Table VII-7 presents the non-water quality environmental impacts of
the selected technology basis for NSPS and PSNS, compared to
conventional pulping and bleaching technology. These estimates are
based on the same calculational methodology described under BAT and
PSES, applied to a 1000 tpd model mill. Based on these estimates, EPA
concludes that the process technologies that form the basis for NSPS
and PSNS for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory pose no
significant adverse non-water quality environmental impacts.

Table VII-7.--Non-Water Quality Environmental Impacts of NSPS/PSNS for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1000 tpd fiber line
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wood Consumption....................... No Difference.
Effluent Flow.......................... Moderate Decrease.\1\
BOD to Treatment....................... Decrease by 11,300 kg/day.
Sludge Generation...................... Decrease by 890 kg/day.
Carbon Dioxide......................... Decrease by 21,700 Mg/year.
Energy Impacts:
Total Electricity Demand........... Decrease by 222,600 million BTU/
year in oil equivalent.
Total Steam Demand................. Increase by 60,180 million BTU/
year in oil equivalent.
Total Energy Demand................ Decrease by 162,400 million BTU/
year in oil equivalent.
Air Emissions:
Hazardous Air Pollutants........... Increase by 407 Mg/year.
Chloroform......................... No Difference.
Volatile Organic Compounds......... Increase by 707 Mg/year.

[[Page 18579]]

Total Reduced Sulfur............... Increase by 28 Mg/year.
Particulate Matter................. Decrease by 12 kg/year.
Carbon Monoxide.................... Decrease by 3 Mg/year.
Nitrogen Oxides.................... Decrease by 28 Mg/year.
Sulfur Dioxides.................... Decrease by 56 Mg/year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 See Section 11.4.1.3 of the Supplemental Technical Development
Document, DCN 14487.

NSPS and PSNS that EPA is promulgating today for the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory are equivalent to BAT and PSES. Therefore, the NSPS
and PSNS present no additional non-water quality environmental impacts.

VIII. Analysis of Costs, Economic Impacts, and Benefits

A. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts

This section presents a summary of EPA's evaluation of the costs,
economic impacts, and benefits of the Cluster Rules. A more detailed
analysis is contained in the Economic Analysis for the National
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Category:
Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards: Pulp,
Paper, and Paperboard Category--Phase 1 (DCN 14649; hereafter, the
Economic Analysis).
Today's action is a significant departure from prior EPA
rulemakings in that, for one industry, EPA is considering the
ramifications of implementing two major environmental statutes with
respect to pollution control, industrial technology and operations,
environmental impacts, costs, and economic impacts. As noted in Section
II of this preamble, today's rulemaking establishes regulations that
implement elements of both the CAA and CWA. The objective of this
economic analysis is to provide the most accurate portrayal possible of
the aggregate costs that the industry will face by implementing these
regulations, as well as the economic, financial, and social impacts
that EPA estimates will result from these costs. The economic impacts
of the combined, or joint, costs of the final CWA (BAT, NSPS, PSES,
PSNS, and BMP) requirements and the final and proposed CAA requirements
(MACT I, MACT III, and proposed MACT II) are different than the impacts
that would result from the costs of the CWA or CAA requirements
considered separately. While EPA presents separately the CWA and CAA
compliance costs and the economic impacts of those costs in this
section, the Agency believes the most accurate estimation of the
economic impacts that the pulp and paper industry will experience is
derived by considering total (combined) compliance costs of both the
CAA and CWA rules. Under the CWA, EPA considered the economic impacts
of each option by subcategory, combining indirect and direct
dischargers. EPA combined these groups because there are no differences
between direct and indirect dischargers in each subcategory with
respect to characteristics of wastewater generated or the model process
technologies considered.
The compliance costs described in this section are EPA's best
estimates of the actual costs facilities will incur to comply with the
promulgated and proposed rules.
The total annualized and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs
differ somewhat from the engineering cost estimates shown in Section
VI. The annual O&M costs shown in this section include a general and
administrative cost of four percent of capital costs, which makes these
O&M costs significantly higher than the engineering O&M cost estimates
shown in Section VI. The annualized costs shown in Section VIII are
both pre-tax and post-tax. Pre-tax costs, because they capture total
economic losses to society, are considered the social costs of the rule
and are used for examining cost-effectiveness (Sections VIII.D.4 and
VIII.F.1) and for comparing the costs and benefits of the rule (Section
VIII.H). Post-tax costs, which represent the projected costs to a firm
after tax shields for depreciation and other factors are accounted for,
are used in the economic achievability determination under the Clean
Water Act to evaluate facility closures, firm failures, and related
impacts. Post-tax costs are used in Sections VIII.A, VIII.B, VIII.C,
VIII.E, VIII.J, and most of Sections VIII.D and VIII.F.
EPA's financial and economic analyses reflect as accurately as
possible the information that pulp and paper industry managers will
consider in making financial decisions. The economic impacts described
in this section (such as facility closures, job losses, and reduced
shipments) result from the total costs that a facility will bear
(including environmental compliance costs) compared to the facility's
expected revenues. EPA also evaluated the aggregate costs for all
facilities borne by each company to determine if each company will be
in jeopardy of bankruptcy as a result of aggregate compliance costs.
In this section, EPA also describes the qualitative, quantitative,
and monetized benefits of environmental improvements expected to result
from compliance with these rules, and compares these benefits to the
costs of the rules. EPA identified 158 mills at proposal with kraft,
soda, sulfite or semi-chemical pulping processes. Of these, EPA now
projects that 155 mills will bear costs under the final MACT I and 149
mills will bear costs under the proposed MACT II (six mills do not
practice chemical recovery). These numbers could change over time as
mills change processes or close operations.
EPA separately evaluated the compliance costs and economic impacts
of: (1) MACT I for the 155 mills that pulp wood using kraft, soda,
sulfite, or semi-chemical pulping processes; (2) combined final MACT I
and proposed MACT II for those mills; and (3) proposed MACT II for
combustion sources at the 149 mills. Although all of the regulatory
options and alternatives under consideration for MACT II are evaluated
in the EA, only the economic impacts related to the proposed regulatory
alternative are presented here. EPA estimates that there will be no
economic impacts associated with the MACT III regulations, which are
promulgated for mills that practice mechanical, secondary fiber, or
non-wood pulping or that produce paper or paperboard from purchased
pulp, because EPA believes that compliance with MACT III requirements
will neither impose costs nor result in additional emissions
reductions. For this reason, Section VIII presents no

[[Page 18580]]

further analysis of the MACT III regulations.
EPA separately evaluated the impacts of the BAT, PSES, NSPS, PSNS,
and BMP requirements for the 86 mills currently in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory and the 11 mills currently in
three segments of the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. (One mill is in
both CWA subcategories.) Both direct and indirect discharging mills are
subject to BMPs. Hereafter, EPA's reference to BAT/PSES costs includes
the costs of complying with the final BMP requirements.
EPA also evaluated the costs and impacts for the combination of
MACT I and BAT/PSES for the 96 bleached papergrade kraft and soda and
papergrade sulfite mills that are affected by both rules. EPA also
provides an estimate of the economic impacts when the proposed MACT II
costs are combined with the MACT I and BAT/PSES costs for these 96
mills. Finally, the economic impacts and costs for all 155 kraft, soda,
sulfite, and semi-chemical mills affected by air and/or water
regulations are reported.
EPA also evaluated the impacts of NSPS or PSNS costs for new
sources, both singly and in combination with MACT I and proposed MACT
II costs.
EPA evaluated economic achievability based on the relative
magnitude of compliance costs (in the form of total annualized costs)
and the resulting potential facility closures, potential job losses,
firm failures (potential bankruptcies), reduced value of shipments,
balance of trade effects, and indirect effects (reduced regional and
national output and employment which reflect the fact that impacts on
the pulp and paper industry will resonate throughout the economy).
Table VIII-1 presents a summary of annualized costs and projected mill
closures for the various rules and rule combinations. The level of
detail for reporting results in the preamble (and in the EA) is
sometimes constrained in order to protect confidential business
information. For that reason facility closures and job losses, for
example, are not identified for certain combinations of rules. All of
the results are contained in the confidential portion of the rulemaking
record.

Table VIII-1.--Summary: Costs and Economic Impacts of CAA and CWA Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT I and MACT I, BAT/ MACT I, BAT/
Costs and impacts MACT I MACT II BAT/PSES BAT/PSES PSES and PSES and
(final) (proposed) (final) (final) MACT II MACT II
(all mills) (all mills) (BPK&PS) (BPK&PS) (BPK&PS) (all mills)
------------------------------------------------------------------\1\-------------------------------------------
Pre-Tax Annualized Costs ($ MM)
\2\.............................. 125 32 263 351 366 420
Post-Tax Annualized Costs($ MM)... 82 23 172 229 240 277
Mill Closures..................... 0 0 1 2 3 3
Firm Failures..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BPK: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory PS: Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.
\2\ Pre-Tax costs are not used in determining economic achievability.

MACT Costs: Total annualized MACT I costs for 155 facilities in all
subcategories regulated today are $82 million (all annualized costs
presented in Section VIII are post-tax costs in 1995 dollars, except
where noted). These costs differ from the engineering MACT control cost
estimates presented in Section VI, as noted above and in Section
VIII.B.1.c. Total annualized proposed MACT II costs for all
subcategories that EPA proposes to regulate are $23 million. No mill
closures, job losses, or firm failures are projected when either MACT I
or proposed MACT II costs are analyzed individually. When the costs for
final MACT I and proposed MACT II are combined, the (post-tax)
annualized costs are $105 million and result in one estimated mill
closure and losses of up to 700 jobs. No firm failures are predicted as
a result of the combined costs of MACT I and MACT II.
BAT/PSES Costs: EPA estimated economic impacts for three BAT/PSES
options (Option A, Option B, and TCF) for all bleached papergrade kraft
and soda mills. Section VI.B.5.a(1) of this preamble contains a
description of each option. The naming conventions of Option A, Option
B, and TCF, which EPA introduced in that section, are also used here.
EPA selected Option A as the technology basis for BAT/PSES for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory (see Section
VI.B.5.a(5)). For the 11 mills in three segments of the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory, the Agency estimated the economic impacts of one
technology for each segment. EPA selected those technologies as the
bases for BAT/PSES for this subcategory (see Sections VI.B.6.b and d).
EPA presents a summary of the economic impacts of the selected BAT/PSES
technology bases immediately below. A summary of the economic impacts
for the rejected BAT/PSES options in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory is presented in Section VIII.F.
Total annualized costs for the selected BAT/PSES for the 96 mills
in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite
subcategories are $172 million. One mill closure is predicted for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory as a result of
compliance costs. Estimates of job losses are not presented in order to
protect confidential business information. EPA estimates no closures
for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory as a result of compliance costs.
EPA estimates that no firm failures will result from BAT/PSES in these
subcategories. Based on current information, EPA projects that there
may be some new sources, most likely new fiber lines at existing pulp
and paper mills. EPA has identified the per plant NSPS/PSNS costs for
the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategories. EPA did not have sufficient information to reliably
project the likely number of new sources (see Section VIII.D). EPA also
expects that many replacement fiber lines constructed at Subpart B
mills will be enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program and will therefore be existing sources rather than new sources.
40 CFR 430.01(j)(2). EPA also conducted a barrier to entry analysis for
new sources, discussed below.
Combined Costs: The combined annualized costs for MACT I and BAT/
PSES, affecting 96 bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade
sulfite mills, are $229 million. As a result of these costs, two mills
in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory are projected to
close with an associated loss of 900 jobs. See Table VIII-3. No

[[Page 18581]]

mills are projected to close in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory as a
result of compliance costs. No firm failures are predicted.
The combined annualized costs for the proposed and final rules
(MACT I, BAT/PSES, and proposed MACT II) affecting the 96 bleached
papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite mills are $240
million. With these combined costs, three mills are projected to close.
The associated job losses increase with the additional projected
closure, but the estimate is not reported here in order to protect
confidential business information. No firm failures are expected to
result from the combined costs of MACT I, BAT/PSES, and proposed MACT
II for these mills.
The annualized costs for the proposed and final rules (MACT I, BAT/
PSES, and MACT II) applicable to all 155 kraft, soda, sulfite, and
semi-chemical mills are $277 million. With these combined costs for all
rules and all 155 mills, the impacts are unchanged; i.e., three mills
are projected to close, job losses exceed 900, and no firm failures are
expected.

B. Overview of Economic Analysis

1. Revisions in Analysis From Proposal
a. Subcategories. Based on the subcategorization described in
Sections II.C.1, VI.A and VI.B.1, EPA estimated impacts for four CAA
subcategories--Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, and Semi-Chemical Process--and two
CWA subcategories--Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda. The economic analysis addresses 155 mills in the CAA
subcategories and 96 mills in the CWA subcategories. The 96 CWA mills
are a subset of the 155 CAA mills.
b. Options. (1) Air Emissions Standards. The selected technology
bases for the MACT I & III standards are discussed fully in Section
II.B.2 of this preamble. Regulatory options and alternatives for MACT
II are discussed in Section IV.F of the preamble to the proposed MACT
II standards, which appears elsewhere in today's Federal Register, and
in the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649). EPA's economic analysis presents
results for eight regulatory alternatives. The summary presented here
pertains only to the final MACT I standard and proposed MACT II
standard.
(2) Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards. For the BAT/PSES
analyses for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA's
economic analysis addresses three technology options. The summary
presented in this section of the preamble focuses on Option A, the
selected BAT/PSES option, but a brief discussion of the impacts for the
rejected options appears below in Section VIII.F. For the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory, EPA's economic analysis (and the summary presented
here) analyzes only the technologies selected as the bases for the BAT/
PSES for each segment. This is because EPA identified no technically
available options for the three papergrade sulfite segments other than
those considered and selected.
NSPS/PSNS costs for new sources are presented in Section VIII.D.
c. Methodology. The methodologies used by EPA to evaluate economic
impacts at the time of proposal are fully discussed in the Economic
Impact and Regulatory Flexibility Analysis of the Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and NESHAP for the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard
Industry (EPA-821-R-93-021, November, 1993). Revisions to these
methodologies are discussed below and more fully in Chapters 3 and 4 of
the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649).
As discussed or referenced in the July 15, 1996 Notice, EPA revised
components of the economic methodology to account for recent changes
that have occurred in the pulp and paper industry, including: (1)
revision of the discount rate; (2) integration of market (price change)
effects into the financial closure model; (3) incorporation of new
industry cycle data into the forecasting methodology; (4) adjustment of
the starting year for the analysis to 1996; (5) incorporation of
updated mill ownership data in the firm failure model; and (6) a
revised method for calculating annual costs. See 61 FR at 36843-44.
Each of these methodology revisions is briefly discussed below.
At proposal, EPA used a facility-specific cost of capital (an
average of nine percent real cost of capital) derived from responses to
a 1989 industry survey) that reflected financing costs in 1989. Real
(inflation-adjusted) financing costs declined considerably between 1989
and 1995. For the final rule, EPA primarily used an inflation-adjusted
seven percent cost of capital or discount rate in the economic analysis
because this rate better reflects real industry financing costs from
1995 to 1997, and the Agency does not have accurate information on
current facility-specific financing costs. Additionally, the Office of
Management and Budget recommends a seven percent discount rate to
evaluate the social costs of federal regulations. In Chapter 6 of the
Economic Analysis (DCN 14649), EPA presents a sensitivity analysis of
results using alternative discount rates.
At proposal, EPA used both a financial model and a comprehensive
market model to assess economic effects. Much of the information in the
market model was derived from the 1989 survey. A number of substantial
changes have occurred in pulp and paper markets since 1989 that the
market model does not reflect. EPA decided not to update the market
model (which estimated price increases), because an update would have
required a new survey of every mill and all product lines, which would
have been unnecessarily costly and burdensome to mill operators. EPA
was also concerned that the amount of time required for conducting and
analyzing a second survey would unnecessarily delay the final rule.
This would further extend the industry's inability to plan and make
capital investments with certainty regarding regulatory requirements.
Instead, EPA modified the financial model to incorporate product supply
and demand elasticities, which are estimates of changes in demand or
supply in response to price changes. The summary of results presented
in this preamble does not reflect the effects of price increases,
because such changes did not materially affect EPA decisions. Chapter 6
of the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649) presents all of the results.
The last year of price information available at proposal was 1988.
Between 1988 and 1995, the pulp and paper industry completed a full
industry revenue cycle, with revenues peaking in 1988, falling through
1992, and reaching historic heights in 1995. For the final rule, this
newer information was incorporated into the forecasting methods for the
financial closure model, which assumes this seven-year cycle (a six-
year cycle was used at proposal) of falling and rising prices will
continue into the future. Additionally, the starting year for the
analysis was adjusted to 1996 (from 1989, which was used at proposal).
To identify potential firm failures (i.e., bankruptcies) using the
Altman's Z financial ratio analysis, EPA obtained updated financial
information, including mill ownership data, for publicly held
companies. Because updated information for privately held companies was
not available from public sources, EPA did not evaluate possible
failures among private firms. To include these companies would have
required a new industry survey.
A facility-level financial analysis that was conducted at proposal
was discontinued because EPA was also unable to update facility-level
financial information without a new survey. The facility-level analysis
is not a

[[Page 18582]]

component of the Altman's Z analysis, on which EPA has relied to
identify firm failures for this final rule. While providing some useful
information, the facility financial analysis was not used to identify
firm-level bankruptcies at proposal and did not provide the basis at
proposal for making determinations of economic achievability.
As noted in Section VIII.A., EPA considers general and
administrative as well as variable annual costs in the cost
annualization calculation. At proposal, general and administrative
costs (GAC) had been calculated as 4 percent of capital costs plus 60
percent of variable annual costs. Subsequent analysis indicated that
the engineering estimates for effluent control already included the 60
percent of variable annual costs. To remove this double-counting, GAC
is now calculated as four percent of capital costs for effluent control
(see DCN 14086). GAC is added after the engineering estimates prior to
cost annualization; this explains the differences between engineering
and economic estimates of operating and maintenance costs.
All of the previously discussed revisions were made in an effort to
conduct an economic analysis of the air and water regulations that is
more representative of current economic conditions in the pulp and
paper industry and that provides more accurate economic impact results.

C. Costs and Economic Impacts for Air Emissions Standards

Table VIII-2 presents the engineering control cost estimates for
MACT I and for the regulatory alternative proposed for MACT II: $755
million in total capital costs and $172 million in annualized costs. A
more detailed discussion of the control costs for the final MACT
standard, including emission reductions and cost-effectiveness, is
provided in Chapter 20 of the Background Information Document. Table
VIII-2 also presents the capital costs and pre-tax and post-tax
annualized costs used in the economic analysis. EPA has determined that
the MACT III standards will impose no costs; therefore, none is
presented here or in Table VIII-2.
As noted in Section VIII.A. and Chapter 5 of the Economic Analysis,
the engineering control cost estimates of the cost of MACT regulations
differ from the costs used in EPA's economic impact analysis of those
standards. The economic analysis also differentiates between pre-tax
annualized costs and post-tax annualized costs as discussed in Section
VIII.A.

Table VIII-2.--Estimates of the Cost of Air Regulations
[Millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT control cost Economic analysis MACT cost estimates
estimates --------------------------------------
Regulation -------------------------- Annualized costs
Capital Annualized Capital -------------------------
costs cost cost Pre-tax Post-tax
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT I......................................... $496 $130 $501 $125 $82
MACT II........................................ 259 42 258 32 23
Total Air...................................... 755 172 759 157 105
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the economic analysis, EPA predicts no firm failures, mill
closures, or associated job losses as a result of the costs of the MACT
rules considered individually. When the costs of the MACT rules are
combined, EPA projects one mill closure with up to 700 job losses. No
firm failures are anticipated for the combined MACT rules.

D. Costs and Economic Impacts for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards

1. BPT and BCT
As explained in Section VI.B.2, EPA is exercising its discretion
not to revise BPT limitations for conventional pollutants at this time
for Subparts B and E. In addition, candidate BCT technologies do not
pass the two-part BCT cost reasonableness test. Therefore, EPA is not
revising the current BCT limitations for Subparts B and E mills; as a
result, these mills will incur no incremental BPT or BCT costs.
2. Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory
a. BAT/PSES. For the selected BAT/PSES (Option A), capital costs
are $966 million, O&M costs are $151 million, and annualized costs are
$162 million. When considering these costs alone, the economic analysis
predicts closure of one mill as a result of this rule and no firm
failures. Other economic impacts (e.g., job losses) are reported in the
CBI portion of the rulemaking record.
b. NSPS and PSNS. EPA considered the cost of NSPS and PSNS
technology for new source mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory. EPA expects few new source mills or fiber lines to be
constructed that will be subject to NSPS/PSNS. Even if new source mills
or fiber lines are constructed that are subject to NSPS/PSNS, EPA
estimates that the selected NSPS/PSNS would not present a barrier to
entry. EPA estimated the average incremental capital costs of NSPS/PSNS
compliance (compared to Option A technology) to be approximately 0.50
to 2.0 percent of the capital cost of constructing a new source mill or
fiber line and concluded that this cost was not sufficient to present a
barrier to entry for proposed entrants, particularly considering the
lower operating costs of Option B.
3. Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory
a. BAT/PSES. As explained in Section VI.B.6.a, EPA is dividing the
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory into three segments. For BAT/PSES for
all three segments combined, capital costs are $73.8 million, O&M costs
are $7 million, and annualized costs are $9.8 million. No mills are
projected to close as a result of these compliance costs, and no firms
are projected to fail. There is no expected loss of jobs, shipments, or
exports.
b. NSPS/PSNS. EPA considered the costs of NSPS/PSNS for new source
mills in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. Because NSPS/PSNS equals
BAT/PSES, EPA concluded that such costs were not sufficient to present
a barrier to entry. First, the cost of the NSPS/PSNS technology is an
insignificant fraction of the capital cost of a new source mill or
fiber line (less than one percent). Also, the costs of including the
selected NSPS/PSNS technology at a new source mill are substantially
less on a per ton basis than the costs of retrofitting existing mills.
Moreover, the increased chemical recovery and reduced operating costs
for the NSPS/PSNS option allow firms to

[[Page 18583]]

recover the capital cost associated with the NSPS/PSNS technology.
4. Cost-Effectiveness
EPA uses a cost-effectiveness ratio of dollars per toxic pound
equivalent removed (see Economic Analysis (DCN 14649), Chapter 5) to
evaluate the relative efficiency of a technology option in removing
toxic pollutants. The results reported below are expressed in 1981
dollars, as prescribed by EPA's cost-effectiveness methodology (DCN
14649). For the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, the
cost-effectiveness ratio for both BAT and PSES is $14 per toxic pound
equivalent removed. The cost-effectiveness ratios for the Papergrade
Sulfite subcategory are $13 per toxic pound equivalent removed for BAT
and $45 per toxic pound equivalent for PSES. EPA considers the selected
technology bases for the BAT/PSES limits for both subcategories to be
cost-effective.

E. Costs and Impacts for the Integrated Rules

EPA estimates that 155 kraft, soda, sulfite, and semi-chemical
mills will incur costs to comply with the CAA rules; 96 bleached
papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite mills will incur costs
to comply with the CWA rule, and the same 96 mills will incur both CAA
and CWA rule costs. Table VIII-3 is a summary of the expected costs and
impacts for various combinations of CAA and CWA rules. The losses of
jobs, shipments, exports, and indirect effects reported in Table VIII-3
are the impacts derived from mill closures. Some results are not
disclosed where confidentiality might be compromised.

Table VIII-3.--Costs and Economic Impacts of CAA and CWA Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT I, BAT/ MACT I, BAT/
Costs and Impacts MACT I MACT II BAT/PSES MACT I & PSES & MACT PSES & MACT
(final) (proposed) (BPK&PS)\1\ BAT/PSES II (BPK&PS) II (155
(96 mills) (96 mills) mills)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Costs ($MM)............... 501 258 1,039 1,394 1,524 1,799
Post-Tax Annualized Costs ($MM)... 82 23 172 229 240 277
Mill Closures..................... 0 0 1 2 3 3
Firm Failures..................... 0 0 0 0 0 0
Job Losses (from mill closures)... 0 0 400 900 1,700 1,700
Decreased Shipments ($MM)......... 0 0 150 273 479 479
Decreased Exports ($MM)........... 0 0 19 19 22 22
Direct and Indirect Effects ($MM). ........... ........... 430 795 1,393 1,393
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BPK: Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory.
PS: Papergrade Sulfite subcategory.

While no mills are predicted to close due to MACT I costs alone,
and one mill in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory is
predicted to close due to BAT/PSES costs alone, EPA estimates that two
mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory may close
as a result of the combined costs imposed by these rules. The two
predicted closures represent approximately 2.3 percent of the 86
bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills and 1.3 percent of all 155
kraft, sulfite, soda, and semi-chemical mills affected by this
rulemaking. As a result of these two closures, 900 jobs could be lost.
These jobs represent 0.9 percent of the jobs in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory. These costs generate a maximum estimated
price increase of 1.5 percent for any product (pulp, paper or
paperboard). Estimated losses in the value of shipments are
approximately $273 million, or 0.8 percent of bleached papergrade kraft
and soda shipments, while losses in the value of bleached papergrade
kraft and soda exports are approximately $19 million, or 0.5 percent of
subcategory exports.
No mills are projected to close in the CWA Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory, or the CAA soda, sulfite, or semi-chemical subcategories
as a result of either the promulgated CAA or CWA regulations or a
combination of both.
EPA examined the indirect effects of the final regulations (MACT I,
MACT III and BAT/PSES) on employment and output using a national-level
input-output model developed by the U.S. Department of Commerce. The
model provides multipliers that enable EPA to estimate national-level
impacts based on the loss of employment and output from closing mills.
Total projected effects on the U.S. economy of the combined MACT I and
BAT/PSES are approximately 5,700 jobs lost and $795 million in lost
economic output. While some local communities could experience some
economic dislocation as a result of closures, overall national impacts
would be insignificant. For comparison, the 1995 U.S. gross domestic
product was $7.3 trillion. The loss is approximately one-tenth of 1
percent of the gross domestic product for 1995. EPA also evaluated
regional (county-level) economic impacts when determining the economic
achievability of the regulation. For the final MACT I and BAT/PSES, in
the two counties where mills are projected to close, the unemployment
rate would increase by 0.4 percent and 0.7 percent respectively.
In response to public comments, EPA also estimated the economic
impacts associated with the combined costs of promulgated and proposed
rules. When the MACT I, BAT/PSES, and MACT II costs are considered
jointly, EPA projects an additional mill closure with 800 additional
jobs lost and further decreases of $206 million in shipments and $3
million in exports. The total projected effects of the combined MACT 1,
BAT/PSES, and MACT II costs are approximately 10,000 jobs lost and $1.4
billion in lost economic output.

F. Costs and Impacts of Rejected BAT/PSES Options for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory

1. Summary of Results
Table VIII-4 presents costs and impacts for two options (Option B
and TCF) that EPA evaluated, but did not select, as the basis for BAT/
PSES for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory. EPA's
rationale for selecting Option A for BAT/PSES for this subcategory is
presented in Section VI.B.5.a(5). Table VIII-4 presents results in
three ways: considering CWA costs and impacts alone; considering the
costs and impacts of the rejected BAT/PSES options and MACT I; and
considering

[[Page 18584]]

the costs and impacts of the rejected BAT/PSES options, MACT I, and
MACT II.

Table VIII-4.--Costs and Economic Impacts of Rejected BAT/PSES Options for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda Subcategory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option B
Costs & Impacts Option B TCF (BAT/ Option B TCF + (BAT/ (BAT/PSES) TCF, (BAT/
(BAT/PSES) PSES) (BAT/PSES)+ PSES) MACT MACT I & PSES) MACT
MACT I I MACT II I & MACT II
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Costs ($MM)............... 2,100 3,100 2,600 3,600 2,700 3,700
Post-Tax Annualized Costs ($MM)... 216 688 292 764 300 772
Mill Closures..................... 2 7 4 9 ND\1\ 9
Firm Failures..................... (\3\) (\3\) (\3\) (\3\) (\3\) (\3\)
Job Losses (from mill closures)... 900 7,100 4,800 10,200 ND 10,200
Decreased Shipments ($MM)......... 273 2,300 1,300 3,200 ND 3,200
Decreased Exports ($MM)........... 19 308 24 310 ND 310
Direct and Indirect Effects ($MM). 795 NR 3,850 NR ND NR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ND: not disclosed to protect confidential business information.
\2\ NR: not reported.
\3\ 1 or more.

Option B: The BAT/PSES capital costs for Option B for the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory are estimated at $2.1 billion;
O&M costs are $87 million; and annualized costs are $216 million. These
costs result in two projected mill closures, with direct impacts of at
least 900 jobs lost, $273 million in decreased shipments, $19 million
in decreased exports, and one or more potential firm failures. The firm
failures may also result in thousands of additional jobs lost (see
Section VI.B.5.a(5) and Chapter 6 of the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649).
Indirect and direct economic loss (i.e., losses throughout the economy
as a result of the closed mills) would be approximately $795 million.
The mill closures are projected to increase county unemployment rates
for the affected counties by 0.4 percent and 0.7 percent, respectively.
EPA also calculated cost-effectiveness ratios for Option B for this
subcategory (for Option A results, see Section VIII.D.4, above). For
direct dischargers, the average and incremental (compared to Option A)
cost-effectiveness ratios are $15 per toxic pound-equivalent and $36
per toxic pound-equivalent, respectively (1981 dollars). For indirect
dischargers, the incremental cost-effectiveness (compared to Option A),
is $115 per toxic pound-equivalent.
Option B and MACT I: The combined capital costs for Option B and
MACT I for mills in this subcategory are estimated at $2.6 billion; O&M
costs are $154 million; and annualized costs are $292 million. MACT I
annualized costs are greater under Option B than under Option A due to
the additions of MACT controls for oxygen delignification equipment
installed to comply with Option B. With the combined costs of Option B
and MACT I, the number of projected mill closures increases to four,
and the estimated number of firm failures remains unchanged at one or
more. The four closures cause losses of approximately 4,800 jobs, $1.3
billion in shipments, and $24 million of exports. Direct and indirect
losses would total nearly $4 billion. The mill closures are also
projected to increase county unemployment rates; the range of increased
unemployment for the affected counties is from less than 0.5 percentage
points to nearly 10 percentage points (as a hypothetical example, from
a baseline county unemployment rate of 10 percent to 10.5 percent after
a closure in County X and from a baseline of 10 percent to 20 percent
after a closure in County Y).
Option B, MACT I, and MACT II: The combined capital costs for
Option B, MACT I, and proposed MACT II for mills in this subcategory
are estimated at $2.7 billion; O&M costs are $153 million; and
annualized costs are $300 million. With the combined costs of Option B,
MACT I, and MACT II, the number of projected mill closures increases
(number not disclosed), and the estimated number of firm failures
remains unchanged at one or more. The analysis projects additional
losses to jobs, shipments, and exports from the additional mill
closures (amounts not disclosed). Direct and indirect losses would also
increase, as would the unemployment rates in the counties in which the
mill closures are located.
TCF: The capital costs for retrofitting mills in this subcategory
for TCF technology are estimated at $3.1 billion for TCF based on
peroxide bleaching and $5.6 billion for TCF based on ozone and peroxide
bleaching, respectively. EPA evaluated mill closures for the TCF option
with the lower capital costs. O&M costs for this option are $783
million, and annualized costs are $688 million. (TCF annualized costs
appear lower than annual O&M costs because of tax shields.) EPA
estimates that these costs would result in seven mill closures, which
are associated with approximately 7,100 job losses. EPA did not conduct
a firm failure analysis or calculate combined direct and indirect
impacts for this option because the closures and job losses alone are
more than sufficient indication that the option is not economically
achievable. EPA estimates, however, that a greater number of firms
would be placed in financial jeopardy with the costs of this option,
compared to Option B, which EPA has already determined is not
economically achievable (See Section VI.B.5.a(5)).
TCF and MACT I: The combined capital costs for TCF and MACT I for
mills in this subcategory are estimated at $3.6 billion; O&M costs are
$851 million, and annualized costs are $764 million. EPA estimates that
these costs would result in nine mill closures and an associated loss
of 10,200 jobs, $3.2 billion in shipments, and $310 million in exports.
EPA conducted no additional economic analysis for this combination of
costs.
TCF, MACT I, and MACT II: The combined capital costs for TCF, MACT
I, and MACT II for mills in this subcategory are estimated at $3.7
billion; O&M costs are $849 million; and annualized costs are $772
million. With the combined costs of TCF, MACT I, and MACT II, EPA
estimates that the number of mill closures, job losses, and

[[Page 18585]]

other impacts remain unchanged. EPA conducted no additional economic
analysis for this combination of costs.
2. Implications of Results
The costs of either Option B or TCF are projected to cause one or
more firm failures (bankruptcies). This is true even when the BAT/PSES
costs are considered without the compliance costs associated with MACT
I and/or MACT II. Although EPA cannot determine the actual outcome of
the projected failures in terms of lost production, closed facilities,
and lost jobs, the level of displacement would almost certainly cause
detrimental impacts to the U.S. pulp and paper industry. Section
VI.B.5.a(5) discusses EPA's reaction to these projected impacts in
terms of regulatory decisions. See also Chapter 6 of the Economic
Analysis, DCN 14649. That discussion also includes the Agency's
findings that the rejected BAT/PSES options are not economically
achievable.

G. Benefits

In addition to costs and impacts, EPA also estimated the
environmental and human health benefits of implementing the CAA and CWA
requirements. Section VII of this preamble describes the estimated
reductions in air emissions and effluent discharges. The incremental
environmental improvements noted in Section VII.B. are derived compared
to a baseline of current emissions and discharges. Because current
emissions and discharges are a function of current technology, this is
the same baseline that was used to establish the costs of complying
with the rules. To the extent the total benefits of the rule can be
measured, costs can be directly compared to benefits.
EPA is confident that its estimation of compliance costs is a full
and accurate account of such costs; EPA is less confident that the
estimation of benefits is similarly complete. EPA is not currently able
to quantitatively evaluate all human and ecosystem benefits associated
with air and water quality improvements. EPA is even more limited in
its ability to assign monetary values to these benefits and therefore
to be able to compare them to costs in a standard cost-benefit
framework. A comparison of costs to only the limited monetized subset
of benefits severely underestimates the true benefits of environmental
quality improvement and compromises the validity of a cost-benefit
analysis. The economic benefit values described below and in the
Economic Analysis (DCN 14649) should be considered a limited subset of
the total benefits of these rules, and should be evaluated along with
descriptive assessments of benefits and the acknowledgment that even
these may fall short of the real-world benefits that will result from
the rule.
1. Air Quality Benefits
Section VII.B.1 of this preamble describes the emissions reductions
expected as a result of implementing MACT I and MACT II standards.
Implementation of the final MACT I standard is expected to reduce
emissions of HAPs, VOCs, and TRS, but increase emissions of PM,
SO2, CO, and NOX. The proposed alternative for
MACT II is expected to reduce emissions for HAPs, VOCs, PM, TRS, CO,
and SO2, while it is expected to create a slight increase in
NOx emissions. The technology bases for BAT/PSES have secondary impacts
on the level of air emissions. The combined effect of MACT I and MACT
II for all subcategories regulated under the CAA is to decrease
emissions for all of the above mentioned pollutants except
NOX and SO2. See Table VIII-5 below. EPA
performed an evaluation of the benefits associated with the air
regulations based on the emission reductions estimated in Section
VII.B.1. The net change in air benefits expected to result from the
changes in emissions will be a change in adverse health effects
associated with inhalation of the above pollutants as well as changes
in welfare effects such as improved visibility and crop yields, and
reduced materials soiling and corrosion. Chapter 4 of the EA presents a
detailed description of the methodology used to monetize the benefits.
a. Qualitative Description of Pollutant Effects. The air rules are
designed to reduce the emission of HAPs as defined in Section 112 of
the CAA. Several of these HAPs are classified as probable or possible
human carcinogens. Reducing the emissions of these pollutants is
expected to reduce the cancer risk of the exposed population. Other
HAPs are not classified as carcinogens; however, they have been shown
to cause other adverse health effects such as damage to the eye,
central nervous system, liver, kidney, and respiratory system when the
concentration of these emissions is above the health reference
benchmark for human exposure.
Total reduced sulfur (TRS) emissions cause the malodorous smell
often associated with areas near pulp and paper mills. The MACT
standards will reduce these effects significantly. Odorant stimulants
of the nasal receptors that are associated with TRS emissions have been
associated with marked respiratory and cardiovascular responses,
however, the association is not direct because the perception of the
odor does not necessarily cause toxic effects. The threshold for odor
detections may occur before the onset of toxic effects. However, the
absence of odor does not guarantee safety since some components of TRS
emissions can cause fatigue of the olfactory senses, so individuals may
not perceive an odor on some occasions when toxic effects can occur.
There are numerous anecdotal reports of adverse reactions related to
odors associated with TRS, including headaches, shortness of breath,
nasal irritation, and, in some cases, nausea and sinus congestion.
VOC and NOX emissions interact in the presence of
sunlight to create ground-level ozone. Recent scientific evidence shows
an association between elevated ozone concentrations and increases in
hospital admissions for a variety of respiratory illnesses and
indicates that ground-level ozone not only affects people with impaired
respiratory systems (such as asthmatics), but healthy adults and
children as well. Adverse welfare effects of ozone exposure include
damage to crops, tree seedlings, ornamentals (shrubs, grass, etc.), and
forested ecosystems. The reactions between VOCs and NOX to
form ozone depend on the balance in concentrations of each pollutant
found in the ambient air. For example, when the concentration of
NOX is high relative to the concentration of VOCs, VOC
reductions are effective in limiting ozone formation, while
NOX reductions in that situation are ineffective. The
integrated rule is expected to increase NOX emissions, but
decrease VOC emissions. The increase in NOX is not expected
to cause significant adverse health or environmental impacts because
the magnitude of this increase is much less than the magnitude of the
VOC emission reduction. The VOC reductions are expected to contribute
to the decrease in ozone concentrations.
The adverse human health effects associated with PM include:
premature mortality; aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular
disease (as indicated by increased hospital admissions and emergency
room visits, school absences, work loss days, and restricted activity
days); changes in lung function and increased respiratory symptoms;
alterations in lung tissue and structure; and altered respiratory tract
defense mechanisms. Populations at greater risk from exposure are:
individuals with respiratory disease and cardiovascular disease,
individuals with infectious disease, elderly individuals, asthmatic
individuals, and children. Reduced

[[Page 18586]]

welfare is associated with elevated concentrations of fine particles
which reduce visibility, damage materials, and cause soiling. The
integrated rule will decrease the adverse effects of PM.
CO is a colorless, odorless gas that is toxic to mammals. When
inhaled, it combines with hemoglobin, which reduces the oxygen-carrying
capacity of blood and results in less oxygen being transported to vital
organs of the body. This can have detrimental effects on the
cardiovascular, central nervous, and pulmonary systems. The reduction
of CO emissions will diminish these potential effects.
SO2 oxidizes in water to form both sulfurous and
sulfuric acids. When SO2 dissolves in the water of the
respiratory tract of humans, the resulting acidity is irritating to the
pulmonary tissues, causing nasal irritation and breathing difficulties
(especially to individuals with respiratory diseases such as asthma).
When SO2 dissolves in the atmosphere in rain, fog, or snow,
the acidity of the deposition can corrode various materials and cause
damage to both aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. SO2 can
also transform into PM2.5, the effects of which are
discussed above.
b. Monetized Air Quality Benefits. Table VIII-5 below presents both
the health and welfare benefits described in this section as well as
the emission reductions identified in Section VII.B.1 that are not
monetized but are considered in the evaluation of benefits.
The benefit transfer method is utilized to value a subset of the
pollutants discussed above (VOC, SO2, and PM). This method
relies on previous benefit studies that have been conducted for the
same pollutants that are impacted by the pulp and paper rulemaking.
These studies provide useful data that can be transferred across
contexts in order to approximate the benefits of the pulp and paper
emission reductions.

Table VIII-5.--Emissions Reductions and Annual Air Quality Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT I MACT II Combined
Pollutant ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decrease Decrease Value Decrease
(Mg) Value ($MM) (Mg) ($MM) (Mg) Value ($MM)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HAPs........................................................... 139,000 NE 2,600 NE 142,000 NE
TRS............................................................ 79,000 NE -- NE 79,000 NE
NOX............................................................ (5,200) NE (500) NE (5,700) NE
VOC............................................................ 409,000 24-1,055 32,600 2-84 441,000 26-1,139
PM............................................................. (83) (1) 24,000 300 24,000 299
CO............................................................. (8,700) NE 58,000 NE 49,000 NE
SO2............................................................ (94,500) (1,064)-0 30 0.1-0.3 (94,400) (1,064)-0.3
Total.......................................................... ............ (1,040)-1,054 ............ 302-384 ............ (739)-1,438
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE = not estimated.
Numbers in parentheses ( ) indicate emissions increases or negative benefits values.
Numbers in table rounded.

For VOCs, benefits are valued using estimates of a range of the
average benefit per Megagram (Mg) derived from a recent benefit
analysis conducted by EPA in the process of revising the ozone national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) (see docket no. A-95-58:
Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS
and proposed Regional Haze Rule; July 1997). EPA values a range of VOC
benefits reflecting (1) an assumption that the transfer of benefits
must correlate with the areas that violate the ozone standard, and (2)
an assumption that recognizes that reductions outside areas of
violation of the ozone standard can have a positive benefit. Therefore,
the range of values reflects the application of a range of values for
the average benefit per Mg as they are applied to (1) the subset of VOC
emission reductions in areas of violation, and (2) to all VOC emission
reductions expected to be achieved by the integrated rule. The true
value is likely to fall within this range. Using the range of values of
the average benefit per Mg for ozone, monetized annual VOC benefits of
MACT I emission reductions range from $24 million to $1,055 million.
The lower-end of this range reflects an assumption of zero mortality
effects associated with ozone exposure and assumes morbidity benefits
occur only in areas predicted to violate the ozone standard, while the
upper-end includes mortality estimates as are calculated for the upper-
end of the range of ozone benefits is included in the NAAQS RIA and
assumes morbidity benefits occur in all areas. For the proposed MACT II
alternative, total annual VOC benefits range in value from
approximately $2 million to $84 million. Therefore, total monetized VOC
benefits of the integrated rule are approximately $26 million to $1,139
million.
For PM, a benefit transfer estimate is obtained from a benefit
analysis of PM10 that was prepared to support the evaluation
of the revised PM NAAQS (see Appendix C of the Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS and proposed
Regional Haze Rule; July 1997). The average benefit per Mg derived from
this study is applied to all changes in emissions of PM that result
from the integrated rule. Using this value, the loss in total monetized
annual PM benefits associated with MACT I is approximately $1 million.
The proposed MACT II alternative achieves a positive benefit
approximately equal to $300 million. Thus the combined value of PM
benefits for the final and proposed pulp and paper air standards is
$299 million.
For SO2, the EPA transfers a benefit estimate from a
national SO2 strategy analysis conducted for the evaluation
of the revised PM NAAQS (see docket no. A-95-54: Regulatory Impact
Analysis for the Particulate Matter and Ozone NAAQS and proposed
Regional Haze Rule; July 1997). This analysis shows that benefit values
are higher in the eastern regions of the country when compared to the
western regions. Therefore, EPA derives a range of benefit per Mg
values for each segment of the country. In addition, EPA takes into
consideration the uncertainty inherent in the estimate of MACT I
SO2 emission increases that may result from the rulemaking.
Therefore for MACT I, EPA values all SO2 emission increases
to obtain a lower bound estimate of (negative) benefits and assumes
zero emission increases due to the likely effects of mitigating
behavior to obtain an upper bound estimate of zero

[[Page 18587]]

disbenefits. For MACT II, all emission reductions are valued. Using the
range of values for the average benefit per Mg for SO2 and
the assumptions for the changes in emissions, monetized annual
SO2 disbenefits of MACT I range from $1,064 million down to
$0. For the proposed MACT II alternative, total annual SO2
benefits are from approximately $0.1 to $0.3 million. Therefore, total
monetized SO2 benefits (disbenefits) of the integrated rule
are approximately ($1,064) million to $0.3 million.
Summing the monetized benefits and disbenefits for VOC, PM, and
SO2 emission changes provides a range of total annual
benefits (disbenefits) for MACT I of approximately ($1,040) million to
$1,054 million. Aggregate annual benefits attributed to MACT II range
in value from $302 million to $384 million. Combining the benefits of
the final and proposed air standards yields a range of total annual
benefits from approximately ($739) million to $1,438 million.
These benefits are incomplete due to EPA's inability to quantify
many benefit and disbenefit categories including individual health and
welfare endpoints as well as the benefits and disbenefits of
controlling entire pollutant categories. Pollutant categories that are
not monetized are HAPs, TRS, CO, and NOX.
c. Uncertainties Associated With Air Quality Benefits. Benefit per
Mg estimates used to monetize PM and VOC emission reductions are
uncertain because average benefit per Mg values do not take into
account location-specific information such as the population exposed.
The location-specific information is expected to have a significant
effect on the estimated benefits associated with these emission
reductions. Also, lack of information for several benefit categories
precludes a complete quantification of all benefit categories (or
disbenefits for pollutant increases).
2. Water Quality Benefits
This section describes environmental and human health benefits
expected as a result of implementing new BAT/PSES limits at 92 of the
96 mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade
Sulfite subcategories. (EPA estimated benefits for 92 mills because it
did not have effluent discharge information from 3 mills and did not
have receiving stream flow data for 1 mill). Because EPA was not able
to project the number of new sources, EPA attributes no benefits to the
final NSPS or PSNS regulations. Discharge of toxic, nonconventional,
and conventional pollutants into freshwater, estuarine, and marine
ecosystems may alter aquatic habitats, affect aquatic life, and
adversely impact human health. See Section VII.B.2. Chlorinated organic
compounds from chlorine bleaching, particularly 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran
(TCDF) are human carcinogens and human systemic toxicants and are toxic
to aquatic life. These pollutants are persistent, resistant to
biodegradation, and bioaccumulative in aquatic organisms. As of
December 1995, states have issued 19 dioxin/furan-related fish
consumption advisories near 18 papergrade sulfite and bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills (EPA, National Listing of Fish
Consumption Advisories, June 1996).
EPA's analysis of these environmental and human health risk
concerns and the water-related benefits resulting from the final
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for these two
subcategories is contained in the ``Water Quality Assessment of Final
Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategories of the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Industry'' (WQA) (DCN 14650).
a. Qualitative Description of Water-Related Benefits. The final BAT
limitations and PSES promulgated today for Subparts B and E will
benefit aquatic life by reducing the pulp and paper industry's
discharge of toxic and nonconventional pollutants, including a 91
percent reduction in TCDD and TCDF, a 69 percent reduction in AOX, an
83 percent reduction in chloroform, and an 82 percent reduction in
chlorinated phenolic pollutants compared to mid-1995 discharge levels.
Toxic and nonconventional pollutants will be reduced to levels below
those considered to impact biota in many receiving waters. Pollution
reduction numbers are provided in Section VII.B.2. Such impacts include
acute and chronic toxicity, sublethal effects on metabolic and
reproductive functions, and loss of prey organisms. Chemical
contamination of aquatic biota may also directly and indirectly impact
local pescivorous wildlife and birds.
b. Quantitative Estimates of Water-Related Benefits. EPA has
quantified human health and aquatic life benefits using a site-specific
analysis for baseline conditions and for the conditions that would
result from pollutant removals under the rule. The final BAT
limitations and PSES for Subparts B and E would result in a significant
reduction of dioxins and furans in fish tissues. As a result, the
largest quantifiable and monetizable water benefit is a reduction in
number of potential excess cancer cases from the consumption of
contaminated fish by recreational and subsistence anglers. The next
largest category of monetized benefits includes recreational fishing
benefits derived from lifting of all 19 existing dioxin/furan-related
fish consumption advisories in waters downstream from mills in the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite
subcategories. Removing fish consumption advisories would be expected
to increase the number of recreational anglers at sites where
advisories are lifted and to increase fishing enjoyment by existing
anglers. Three of the 19 receiving streams with dioxin/furan-related
fish consumption advisories also have advisories in place for other
contaminants (from other sources) that will not be affected by this
rule. No monetized benefits are expected to accrue for these streams at
this time. Quantified, non-monetized benefits include reduction in
exceedances of aquatic life and health-based ambient water quality
concentrations.
(1) Fish Consumption Cancer Risks and Non-cancer Hazards. Upper-
bound individual cancer risk, aggregate risk, and non-cancer hazards
from consuming contaminated fish are estimated for recreational,
subsistence, and Native American subsistence anglers. At proposal,
concentrations of carcinogenic and systemic toxicants in fish were
estimated using two site-specific models--a simple dilution model and
EPA's draft Dioxin Reassessment Evaluation model (DRE)(DCN 14650). For
the final rule, EPA used only the DRE model to estimate TCDD and TCDF
levels in fish below 92 mills discharging into 73 receiving streams, as
well as individual cancer risks and non-cancer hazards. Of these mills,
two in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory discharge
through the same pipe and therefore were treated as a single
discharger. As a result, a total of 91 discharges from 92 mills were
evaluated for the water quality assessment. EPA continues to use the
simple dilution model to evaluate other chlorinated organics (i.e.,
three carcinogens and four systemic toxicants). EPA believes the DRE
approach provides more reliable estimates of dioxin and furan fate and
transport in the environment for use in human health assessments. The
reasons for relying exclusively on the DRE for assessing impacts due to
dioxin and furan are explained in greater detail in

[[Page 18588]]

Chapters 4 and 8 of the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649).
EPA is also updating fish consumption rates used to estimate cancer
and non-cancer hazards. At proposal, EPA used 25 g/day for recreational
anglers, and 145 g/day for subsistence anglers. The revised estimates
are 21 g/day for recreational anglers and 48 g/day for subsistence
anglers, based on data provided by the nationally based ``Continuing
Survey of Food Intake by Individuals'' (CSFII), conducted by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture. EPA is also using an updated fish
consumption rate for Native American subsistence populations of 70 g/
day, based on two studies (CRIFTC, 1994; Wolfe and Walker, 1989, in
rulemaking record). This consumption rate represents an average fish
consumption rate for Native Americans. (See Environmental Justice
Analysis in Chapter 8 of the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649).
Projected individual cancer risks differ among the evaluated mills
and among recreational, subsistence, and Native American subsistence
fishermen due to the differences in consumption rates. TCDD and TCDF
contribute most of the estimated cancer risks. The final BAT/PSES for
the papergrade sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategories are projected to reduce average baseline individual
cancer risks up to about one order of magnitude for each affected
group--recreational, subsistence, and Native American subsistence
populations. At both baseline and post-compliance, Native American
subsistence populations are at about one order of magnitude higher risk
than recreational anglers and less than one order of magnitude higher
risk than subsistence fishermen in this assessment because of their
comparatively higher fish consumption rates.
At proposal, EPA estimated exposed recreational and subsistence
fishermen based on a comparison of creel survey results to licensed
anglers in counties adjoining pulp mill streams. Based on these
surveys, EPA estimated that 29 percent of county fishermen would use
affected stream reaches and therefore could be exposed to contaminated
fish. Since proposal, EPA has considered additional recreational angler
survey information and has determined that a range of 10 percent to 33
percent of adjacent county-licensed anglers provides effective upper
and lower bounds to the fishing effort expected on most affected stream
segments. EPA's benefit estimation methodology is described in Chapter
4 of the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649).
EPA estimated the reduced annual cancer cases for combined
recreational and subsistence angler populations as a result of the
final BAT/PSES for the Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda subcategories. The projected number of increased cancer cases
for this population under baseline conditions due to pulp and paper
discharges is 0.83 to 2.76 annual cancer cases. EPA estimates this
number would decline to 0.1 to 0.35 excess cancer cases per year after
implementation of the final BAT/PSES, thus eliminating approximately
0.73 to 2.41 annual cancer cases.
For Native American subsistence fishermen, EPA evaluated an upper
bound total risk at baseline and post-compliance with the selected BAT/
PSES. EPA assumed that the total population of the tribes with treaty-
ceded fishing rights near pulp and paper mills consumed an average of
70 g/person/day of TCDD/TCDF contaminated fish. The projected number of
increased cancer cases for this population under baseline conditions
due to pulp and paper discharges is 0.14 annual cancer cases. EPA
estimates this number would decline to 0.008 excess cancer cases per
year after implementation of the final BAT/PSES.
With respect to non-cancer benefits, EPA examined the current
discharge of four pollutants that have reference doses (RfDs) contained
in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). The four pollutants
are chloroform, pentachlorophenol, 2,3,4,6-tetrachlorophenol, and
2,4,5-trichlorophenol. The RfD represents an estimate, with uncertainty
spanning perhaps an order of magnitude, of daily exposure--expressed in
milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day (mg/kg/day)--that is
likely to be without an appreciable risk of deleterious effects to a
given population during a lifetime. (EPA notes that this analysis
considers only the contribution of Subpart B and E pulp and paper
current discharge effluent to the RfD; the contribution from other
sources (background level of exposure) is not evaluated.)
For the four pollutants with RfDs in IRIS, EPA used the simple
dilution model to determine fish tissue concentrations. EPA then
estimated whether human consumption of fish by recreational,
subsistence, and Native American subsistence populations exposed to the
pollutants below pulp and paper mills would exceed a chemical-specific
noncancer hazard quotient of 1.0. Hazard quotients are based on the
relationship between fish tissue concentrations, fish consumption, and
RfDs. If a hazard quotient exceeds 1.0, adverse effects might occur.
None of the four pollutants with RfDs in IRIS is estimated to exceed a
non-cancer hazard quotient of 1.0 under baseline or BAT/PSES conditions
for recreational, subsistence, or Native American subsistence anglers.
EPA did not use the reference dose (RfD) approach to evaluate
potential noncancer effects associated with dioxin/furan. The use of an
RfD for dioxin/furan presents special problems. If EPA were to
establish an RfD for dioxin/furan using the standard conventions of
uncertainty, the RfD value would likely be one to two orders of
magnitude below average background population exposure. As stated
above, the RfD is a level that is likely to be without an appreciable
risk; it is not an ``action level'' or exposure level where non-cancer
effects are predicted. Where the RfD is below background levels, and
where effects are not readily apparent at background levels, it is not
appropriate to use the RfD for quantifying benefits.
As an alternative to using the RfD, EPA evaluated potential
noncancer effects of dioxin/furan by comparing the modeled incremental
exposure of dioxin/furan from fish consumption (based on results from
the DRE model) to estimated ambient background levels (i.e., 120
picograms of toxic equivalents/day (pgTEQ/day)). EPA estimates that
adverse impacts associated with dioxin/furan exposures may occur at or
within one order of magnitude of average background exposures. As
exposures increase within and above this range, the probability and
severity of human noncancer effects most likely increases. EPA's
analysis shows that the estimated dioxin/furan exposure from pulp and
paper effluent at baseline exceeded estimated ambient background
exposure by an order of magnitude for two mills, with the size of the
exposed population ranging from 4,910 to 16,205 recreational and
subsistence anglers. The selected BAT/PSES are projected to reduce the
incremental exposure from fish consumption to a level that was not
significantly different from estimated ambient background exposure. The
size of the recreational and subsistence angler population exposed to
dioxin/furan doses exceeding one order of magnitude greater than the
background level would be zero under the selected BAT/PSES.
For Native American subsistence populations with treaty-ceded
fishing rights, the maximum dioxin/furan exposure under baseline
conditions is projected to be 803 pgTEQ/day. Under the selected BAT/
PSES, the maximum exposure is reduced to 39 pgTEQ/day,

[[Page 18589]]

which is less than estimated background levels for the United States.
(2) Impact of BAT/PSES Controls on Dioxin/Furan-Related Fish
Consumption Advisories. EPA estimates that all 19 dioxin/furan-related
fish consumption advisories in place downstream of papergrade sulfite
and bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills as of December 1995 would
be lifted some time after the rule is implemented. Recent evidence
indicates that dioxin/furan fish tissue concentrations decline within
several years of removing dioxin/furan discharges, which is more
rapidly than previously thought (see Chapter 9 of the Economic
Analysis, DCN 14649). EPA accounts for potential latent dioxin/furan
contributions from sediment to fish tissue by assuming a three-year lag
before cancers from fish tissue consumption are reduced or dioxin/
furan-related fish tissue advisories are lifted.
(3) Exceedances of Human Health-Based Ambient Water Quality
Concentrations (AWQCs). EPA also has compared the modeled in-stream
pollutant concentrations to human health water quality criteria or
other toxic effect values, which are referred to as health-based AWQCs.
Exceedances of health-based AWQCs indicate existing human health-based
water quality problems.
EPA has analyzed the health-based AWQCs for the ingestion of
organisms and the ingestion of water and organisms based on the simple
dilution model. EPA estimates that no mills exceed the health-based
AWQCs for ingestion of organisms only under baseline conditions or
under the final rule. With respect to the ingestion of water and
organisms, at baseline, three mills exceed AWQCs for two pollutants,
chloroform and pentachlorophenol (a total of four exceedances). Under
the rule, only one mill exceeds AWQCs (for pentachlorophenol).
EPA did not estimate exceedances of AWQCs for dioxin and furan
because the simple dilution model is not well-suited for use in
estimating human health effects associated with water column
concentrations of hydrophobic chemicals like dioxin and furan. EPA did
not use the DRE model for this analysis for dioxin/furan because
results of the DRE model would not be comparable with AWQCs.
(4) Aquatic Life Benefits. EPA used the simple dilution approach to
estimate exceedances of aquatic life AWQCs. This is a conservative
approach that assumes all pollutants (including dioxin and furan)
discharged to receiving streams are available to the biota. Although
hydrophobic chemicals such as dioxins and furans will be associated
primarily with suspended particulates and sediments, some
concentrations will also be found in the water column near the
discharge point. This is particularly true if discharges are assumed to
be continuous because even though the pollutants might eventually
become associated with suspended solids and sediment, they would also
be present in the water column in the vicinity of the discharge on an
ongoing basis prior to partitioning. Therefore, although it is
conservative, EPA believes that the simple dilution approach provides a
reasonable estimate of impacts to aquatic life.
EPA compared modeled in-stream concentrations of toxic discharges
to EPA's aquatic life AWQCs. EPA's modeling results show that receiving
water concentrations for up to four pollutants (of 15 pollutants with
chronic aquatic life AWQCs) at 19 mills exceed aquatic life criteria at
baseline discharge levels (up to 25 total exceedances). The final BAT/
PSES for the papergrade sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategories are projected to reduce these exceedances to one
pollutant (TCDD) at six mills (six total exceedances). On average, the
selected BAT/PSES will reduce color of effluent by approximately 2.5
percent compared to current discharges. This color reduction may have
some aquatic life or recreational benefits depending on the natural
color of the receiving water, but they are not quantifiable or
monetizable at this time.
c. Monetization of Water Quality Benefits. Monetized benefits of
the final BAT/PSES for mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories are presented in Table VIII-6. EPA
has monetized the human health benefits resulting from elimination of
0.73 to 2.41 cancer cases per year for the nation as a whole (see
Section VIII.F.2.b.(1)). The projected benefits range from $2 million
to $22 million.
EPA estimates the value to anglers of contaminant-free fisheries as
a result of lifting 16 of the 19 dioxin/furan-related fish consumption
advisories to be $2 million to $19 million. (Because these values are
based on a benefits transfer from a study of contamination of the Great
Lakes trout and salmon fishery, which may differ greatly from some of
the areas affected by this rule, these values provide only a general
sense of the magnitude of the benefits of the rule.) Because non-
dioxin/furan fish consumption advisories (PCBs and mercury) will remain
in place on three streams, EPA did not monetize the benefits of
removing the dioxin/furan fish consumption advisories on these streams.
EPA also estimates that recreational fishing would increase on the 16
streams by 115,000 angling days to 379,000 angling days post-
compliance. However, the monetary value of this increase is not
estimated because of the difficulty of determining the extent to which
this increased participation reflects a net increase in fishing
activity or merely a shift from other locations (see the Economic
Analysis, DCN 14649, Chapter 4).
Because of dioxin/furan removals due to compliance with BAT
limitations and PSES, sludge from pulp and paper mills may be disposed
of through land application, instead of more costly landfilling or
incineration. (Pursuant to a January 1994 Memorandum of Agreement
between EPA and the American Forest and Paper Association (AF&PA), a
maximum dioxin/furan concentration of 50 ppt is allowed for land
application of sludge or a sludge-derived product. See DCN 14399). Mill
sludge disposal costs could be expected to decline by $8 million to $16
million. EPA estimated these values based on the reduced tonnage of
expected dioxin/furan-contaminated sludge, which in turn was based on
the proportional reduction of dioxin/furan in effluent (see the
Economic Analysis, DCN 14649, Chapter 8).
Total monetized water-related benefits for all the above categories
range from $12 million to $57 million.
As noted previously, the above estimates do not include the
benefits that have been identified but not monetized, such as health
effects for Native American subsistence fishermen, reduction in AWQC
exceedances, reduction of projected non-cancer effects and improvements
in fish and wildlife habitat.

[[Page 18590]]

Table VIII-6.--Monetized Water Quality Benefits of Final BAT/PSES for
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite Mills
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final BAT/PSES
Benefit category (millions 1995$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-related Benefits
Human health (recreational fish consumption).... $2-$22
Recreational angling
``Contaminant-free'' fishery................ $2-$19
Increased participation..................... +
Reduced Sludge Disposal Costs................... $8-$16
Total Water-related Benefits.................. $12-$57
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Positive benefits expected but not estimated.

H. Comparison of Costs and Benefits

This section provides the individual and combined costs, economic
impacts, and benefits of the proposed and final CAA and CWA pulp and
paper regulations described in earlier sections. See Table VIII-7. The
costs and benefits of the CAA (MACT) rules apply to all 155 kraft,
soda, sulfite and semi-chemical mills subject to final or proposed MACT
requirements, while the costs and benefits for the final CWA (BAT/PSES)
regulations apply to the 96 mills in the Papergrade Sulfite and
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategories.
Using the pre-tax annualized cost estimates reported in Section
VIII.C, net monetized air-related benefits are estimated to range
between net costs of $1,165 million to net benefits of $929 million per
year for the final MACT I rule considered in combination with the pre-
tax annualized cost estimates for the final BAT/PSES. Pre-tax
annualized cost estimates are used as a proxy for the social costs of
the rules. Net benefits of the proposed regulatory alternative for MACT
II are $270 million to $352 million. Thus, the range of net benefits
(disbenefits) of the final and proposed air quality standards is ($896)
million to $1,281 million.
EPA did not estimate annual net benefits for the final BAT/PSES for
the Papergrade Sulfite and Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategories because so many categories of benefits are unmonetized
that the comparison would be misleading.

Table VIII-7.--Summary of Costs, Economic Impacts and Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACT I, MACT I,
MACT I and MACT II, MACT II,
MACT I MACT II Combined Final BAT/ final BAT/ and final and final
air rules PSES PSES (96 BAT/PSES BAT/PSES
mills) (96 mills) (155 mills)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Costs................................................ $501 $258 $759 $1,039 $1,394 $1,524 $1,799
Pre-Tax Annualized Costs *................................... $125 $32 $157 $263 $351 $366 $420
Monetized Annual Benefits.................................... ($1,040)-$1
,054 $302-$384 ($739)-$1,4
38 $12-$57 ($1,028)-$1
,111 NE ($727)-$1,4
95
Net Annual Benefits (Benefits-Costs)......................... ($1,165)-$9
29 $270-$352 ($896)-$1,2
81 NE NE NE NE
Projected Mill Closures...................................... 0 0 1 1 2 3 3
Potential Job Losses (due to mill closures).................. 0 0 ND ND 900 ND ND
Projected Firm Failures...................................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Pre-tax costs are greater than the post-tax annualized costs shown in Tables VIII-1 and VIII-3.
Net costs (where costs exceed benefits) are shown in parentheses.
NE = not estimated.
ND = not disclosed to protect confidentiality.
Figures in table reflect rounding.

I. Costs and Benefits of Rejected Options for the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda Subcategory--Option B and TCF

1. Air Benefits
As noted in Section VIII.F.1, the oxygen delignification technology
used as a component of Option B and TCF increases emissions of certain
pollutants and, hence compliance costs to meet MACT I standards; the
implementation of additional MACT controls, however, also increases
MACT-related removals. As a result, both MACT I costs and benefits
increase where oxygen delignification is utilized. (As noted above,
only VOC, PM, and SO2 benefits are monetized here.) However,
because the MACT I technologies control all of the increased emissions
associated with oxygen delignification, there is no increased net
benefit of the CWA and CAA technologies to ambient air quality. Rather,
the net monetized benefits of MACT I in combination with Option B or
TCF are equivalent to the monetized benefits of MACT I in combination
with the final BAT/PSES. Thus, MACT I benefits associated with reducing
VOCs under either Option B or TCF range from $29 million to $1,050
million. MACT II VOC reduction benefits range from $2 million to $84
million. Therefore, total monetized VOC benefits of the air quality
standards under either Option B or TCF are $31 million to $1,134
million. PM related disbenefits for MACT I are $1 million, while MACT
II PM benefits are $300 million for a total PM benefit of approximately
$299 million, for either Option B or TCF. SO2 related
disbenefits for MACT I are from $1,043 million down to $0, while MACT
II SO2 benefits are from $0.1 to $0.3 million.
Total monetized benefits (disbenefits) for MACT I are ($1,015)
million to $1,049 million under BAT/PSES Option

[[Page 18591]]

B or TCF (see the Economic Analysis, DCN 14649, Chapter 8). Aggregate
annual benefits attributed to MACT II range in value from $302 million
to $384 million. Combining the benefits of the final and proposed air
quality standards yields a range of total annual air quality benefits
(damages) from ($713) million to $1,433 million.
2. Water Benefits
The water quality benefits described in this section include
benefits for rejected BAT/PSES options for the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory in combination with benefits for the
selected BAT/PSES for the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory. (Benefits for
the two CWA subcategories were also combined in Section VIII.G.2 for
the selected BAT/PSES.) EPA estimated the human health benefits that
could be expected if either of the rejected BAT/PSES options for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory--Option B or TCF--were
implemented. For combined recreational and (non-Native American)
subsistence angler populations using the same fish consumption rates
EPA used for the selected BAT/PSES, Option B is projected to eliminate
approximately 0.75 to 2.50 annual cancer cases from the baseline of
0.83 to 2.76 annual cancer cases projected to result from the mills'
discharges at [mid-1995] levels, leaving a residual of 0.08 to 0.26
excess cancer cases per year. Here, as in Section VIII.G.2.b(1), excess
cancer cases refers to cancer cases attributable solely to pulp and
paper dioxin/furan discharges. This represents a reduction of 90
percent from baseline. The monetized value of this reduction is $2 to
$23 million. TCF is projected to result in a reduction from the mid-
1995 discharge baseline of 0.83 to 2.76 cases to 0.0 cases, which
increases the benefits from TCF by $0.1 million to $2.7 million,
compared to Option B. Because chlorine or chlorinated compounds are not
used for bleaching, no dioxin formation was attributed to the mills
under this option. Although some background dioxin cancer risk would
remain that is attributable to sources other than current pulp and
paper discharges, no residual cancer risk would remain from bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills.
For Native American subsistence fishermen, EPA evaluated cancer
risks at baseline and under Option B. To estimate the maximum potential
risk, EPA assumed that the entire population of the tribes with treaty-
ceded fishing rights near pulp and paper mills would consume an average
of 70g/person/day of TCDD/TCDF contaminated fish. With this level of
consumption, the projected increased number of cancer cases for this
population at baseline would be 0.14 cancer cases/year. EPA estimates
that this number would decline to 0.007 cancer cases/year if BAT/PSES
based on Option B were promulgated and to 0.0 cases/year if BAT/PSES
based on TCF were promulgated.
Both Option B and TCF would result in the removal of 19 dioxin/
furan-related fish consumption advisories on streams downstream from
bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills. EPA estimates that non-dioxin
advisories will remain on three of those streams. Therefore, here as in
Section VIII.G.2.c, EPA did not monetize the benefits of removing the
dioxin/furan fish consumption advisories on these streams. EPA
estimates the value to anglers of the 16 ``contaminant-free'' fisheries
as a result of removing these advisories to be $2 million to $19
million. EPA also estimates that recreational fishing would increase on
these 16 streams by an estimated 115,000 angling days to 379,000
angling days post-compliance. However, the monetary value of this
increase is not estimated because of the difficulty of determining the
extent to which this increased participation reflects a net increase in
fishing activity or merely a shift from other locations. These results
are the same as those presented for the selected BAT/PSES. Because of
dioxin removals, sludge disposal costs for both Option B and TCF could
be expected to decline by $8 million to $16 million (see the Economic
Analysis, DCN 14649, Chapter 8).
With respect to non-cancer human health benefits, none of the four
pollutants with RfDs is estimated to exceed a non-cancer hazard
quotient of 1.0 under baseline or under conditions associated with
rejected Option B for recreational, subsistence, or Native American
subsistence anglers. The same is true for the selected BAT/PSES.
Similarly, Option B would reduce projected health-based AWQC
exceedances to one facility for one pollutant (pentachlorophenol).
Under TCF, EPA estimates that there would be no exceedances of health-
based AWQCs. For dioxin, EPA estimates that Option B would reduce
incremental exposure from fish consumption to a level that is not
significantly different from ambient background exposure. Under TCF,
chlorine and chlorinated compounds are not used for bleaching, and
therefore no dioxin was attributed to mills under this option.
With respect to aquatic life benefits, EPA's modeling results show
that, for the four pollutants exceeding chronic aquatic life criteria
at 19 mills (up to 25 total exceedances), rejected Option B would
reduce these exceedences to one pollutant (TCDD) at three mills (three
total exceedences). TCF would reduce these exceedances to zero.
In addition to the benefits of reducing dioxin in fish, EPA
investigated other potential benefits associated with Option B and TCF,
including color, COD, AOX, and chronic sub-lethal toxicity.
Increased color in a receiving water can decrease light penetration
there, thus resulting in shifts of phytoplankton community structure to
undesirable species, reduced primary productivity (which can alter the
trophic structure of fish communities), and elevated receiving stream
temperatures. However, the actual impact on the receiving water of
reducing color in mill effluent is highly site-specific and depends in
particular on the natural color of the receiving water and other
factors. Therefore, the monetized benefits will also be site-specific,
to the extent that they can be determined at all. EPA is not
promulgating national technology-based limitations or standards for
color, but rather has determined that the potential aesthetic or
aquatic impacts are best addressed on a site-specific basis by the
permitting or pretreatment authority where necessary. See Section
VI.B.3.e. Indeed, EPA notes that about eight mills currently have
limitations for color in their NPDES permits, and an additional two
mills have current color monitoring requirements where stream water
quality requires such measures.
Lowering COD can protect the receiving water against oxygen
depletion and is likely to reduce non-chlorinated organic compounds
that cause chronic sub-lethal effects on aquatic life. Evidence
indicates that this toxicity is associated at least in part with
families of non-chlorinated organic materials. Several studies indicate
that, as wastewater COD is reduced, indices of these chronic toxicity
effects also are reduced. EPA is deferring regulation of COD to the
individual permitting process for the time being, although EPA intends
to promulgate effluent limitations guidelines and standards for COD for
Subpart B mills in the future. See Section VI.B.3.d.
Although a statistically significant relationship between AOX and
adverse environmental effects has not been established, EPA believes
that reduction of AOX (a valid measure of the total chlorinated organic
matter) will result in water quality benefits. See Section VI.B.3.c.
However, these cannot be quantified at this time.

[[Page 18592]]

Compared to current discharges, the incremental benefits associated
with OD (Option B) include: reduction of color (by 40 percent); COD (by
40 percent); AOX (by 84 percent); and chronic sub-lethal aquatic
toxicity. TCF would also reduce color discharges (by 40 percent), COD
(by 40 percent), AOX (by 96 percent) and chronic sub-lethal aquatic
toxicity. The water quality benefits of the rejected options are shown
in Table VIII-8.

Table VIII-8.--Monetized Water Quality Benefits of Rejected BAT/PSES
Options for Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda & Papergrade Sulfite
Mills
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Option B TCF
Benefit category (millions (millions
1995$) 1995$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-related Benefits
Human health (Recreational fish
consumption) $2-$23 $2-$25
Recreational angling
``Contaminant-free'' fishery.......... $2-$19 $2-$19
Increased participation............... + +
Reduced Sludge Disposal Costs............. $8-$16 $8-$16
Total Monetized Water-related Benefits.. $12-$58 $12-$60
------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ Positive benefits expected but not estimated.

Combined annual air and water benefits related to Option B for all
155 mills regulated by today's rule, including final MACT I, proposed
MACT II and BAT/PSES based on Option B, would total ($701) million to
$1,491 million. Combined annual air and water benefits related to TCF,
including final MACT I, proposed MACT II and BAT/PSES based on TCF
would total ($701) million to $1,493 million.

J. Benefit-Cost Comparison Using Case Studies

Many benefits are highly site-specific. At proposal, EPA estimated
the costs and benefits of the pulp and paper rule at three sites using
a case study approach. EPA has expanded the case study analysis to
incorporate additional sites. The case studies focus on water quality
benefits, resulting from installation of BAT/PSES technologies, with
air quality benefits modeled for case study mills as they are at the
national level (see Section VIII.G.1, above). The three case studies at
proposal were (1) the Penobscot River in Maine, (2) the Wisconsin River
in central Wisconsin, and (3) the lower Columbia River in Washington
and Oregon. In addition, a qualitative retrospective case study was
conducted of the Leaf River in Mississippi. These case studies were
selected to provide geographic representation of the impacts of the
proposed rule, taking data availability into consideration.
For the final rule, the three quantitative case studies were
updated to reflect EPA's revised analysis of costs, loadings, and human
health risks to sport anglers. In consideration of environmental
justice, EPA also evaluated health risks to Native American anglers in
the Penobscot and Columbia River case study areas.
The four new case studies of monetized benefits analyze: (4) the
Lower Tombigbee and Mobile River watersheds in Alabama, (5) the Pigeon
River in North Carolina, (6) the Samoa Peninsula in California, and (7)
the upper Columbia River in Washington State and British Columbia,
Canada. These new case studies provide EPA with the first real
empirical evidence of already-realized benefits that can be expected
from adoption of the final BAT/PSES limits. Although a portion of the
water-related benefits estimates in these newer case studies are based
on actual outcomes from installing pollution control equipment (i.e., a
retrospective analysis), estimates of the benefits of MACT standards in
these case studies are prospective, based on expected future benefits.
The case studies compare costs and benefits at specific bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills in these seven areas across the
country, some of which have not installed technologies comparable to
the bases for BAT/PSES and some of which have installed such
technologies, thereby allowing the retrospective assessment of BAT/PSES
costs and benefits. Where mills have installed BAT-like technologies,
capital investments may include: 70 percent to 100 percent
substitution; oxygen delignification plus 100 percent substitution;
and/or totally chlorine-free technologies.
EPA evaluated control cost estimates and air benefits for emission
controls necessary to meet the MACT I and II standards on a prospective
basis, assuming the level of controls currently existing at mills in
the case study areas as a baseline.
As with the national-level analysis, significant water-related
benefits are derived from removal of dioxin/furan from fish, and air-
related benefits from improved agriculture and health from reduced
ozone emissions. However, the case studies also address a wider range
of water-related benefits, including some site-specific recreational
benefits such as surfing, boating, white water rafting, non-consumptive
uses and non-use benefits that result from improved color in the
receiving water, improved odor and removal of health advisories. The
case studies provide a more complete picture of the range of water-
related benefits that may be expected from the rule, although a number
of identifiable benefits, including improvements in ecological
conditions and reductions of non-cancer health effects remain
unquantified and unmonetized.
Benefits and costs for the case studies are summarized and compared
in Table VIII-9. The monetized benefits range from two percent to 387
percent of BAT/PSES compliance costs. The case study results indicate
that monetized benefits may be of the same order of magnitude as costs
at individual sites.
From a water quality perspective, the case studies provide a cross-
section of mills and receiving waters nationwide, including fast- and
slow-moving streams, lakes and ocean waters.
Using receiving water and population characteristics, EPA
attributed benefits from the case study sites to all bleached
papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite mills. As a
sensitivity analysis, EPA used the water quality benefits from the case
studies to estimate the national level water quality benefits of the
integrated final and proposed rule for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda and Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. Based on the case
studies, monetized benefits from the water rules (Option A) would be
expected to range from $91 million to $451 million per year, or from 35

[[Page 18593]]

percent to 170 percent of water-related costs.
The case studies were not selected to be, and are not necessarily,
representative of national benefits with respect to air quality.

Table VIII-9.--Comparison of Potential Annual Benefits to Potential Annualized Costs for Seven Case Study Sites
[Millions of 1995 dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-related benefits b Total
Site Water-related ---------------------------------- Total monetized compliance
benefits MACT I MACT II benefits costs a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORIGINAL CASE STUDIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Penobscot River.................................................... $0.7-$2.3 ($9.5)-7.7 $0.1 ($8.7)-10.1 (c)
Wisconsin River.................................................... $0.1-$1.5 ($16.9)-15.6 $2.1 ($14.7)-19.2 $9.3
Lower Columbia River............................................... $1.5-$8.6 ($26.9)-56.2 $0.7 ($24.7)-65.5 $16.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEWER CASE STUDIES
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lower Tombigbee and Mobile Rivers.................................. $1.1-$12.0 ($136.8)-113.2 $81.7 ($54.0)-$206.9 $32.5
Pigeon River....................................................... $2.7-$8.7 ($5.8)-$5.7 $2.1 ($1.0)-$16.5 c $7.1
Samoa Peninsula.................................................... $0.1-$1.4 ($5.0)-10.1 $0.0 ($4.9)-$11.5 d $5.0
Upper Columbia River/Lake Roosevelt................................ $1.5-$11.6 NA NA $1.5-$11.6 $3.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The total compliance costs shown in this Table (for BAT/PSES, MACT I and proposed MACT II Option #1) differ from compliance costs used to determine
economic achievability. The cost estimates for the case studies were based on custom analysis of technology in-place corresponding to the case study
timeframes. In contrast, estimates used to determine economic achievability used a standard mid-1995 baseline for technology in-place
b Based on implementation of technologies consistent with Option A.
c Confidentiality agreements preclude disclosure of total costs for this site.
d This mill has indicated EPA's cost estimate is too high because EPA did not fully account for technology in-place.
NA = Not applicable.

IX. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements

A. The Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program

1. Introduction
EPA is promulgating BAT limitations today that will achieve
significant pollutant reductions using technologies within the economic
capability of the subcategory as a whole. At the same time, EPA wants
to encourage the widespread use and perfection of technologies such as
extended delignification and to promote the development of even more
advanced technologies, such as those aimed at reducing bleach plant
flow. EPA also wants to encourage the widespread use and perfection of
TCF processes. These technologies and processes have the ability to
surpass the environmental protection that would be provided by
compliance with the baseline BAT. Indeed, EPA's vision of long-term
environmental goals for the pulp and paper industry includes continuing
research and progress toward such environmental improvement. The Agency
believes that individual mills can be encouraged to make substantial
environmental progress beyond the base level compelled by law. This
industry's participation in the 33/50 program, its progress toward
reducing toxic discharges in advance of the proposed BAT revisions, its
joint initiative with the U.S. Department of Energy to reduce future
energy demands, and its development and implementation of the
Sustainable Forestry Initiative, among other voluntary environmental
undertakings, indicate that an incentives program may be widely
accepted and utilized by individual mills.
For this reason, EPA is establishing a Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program to encourage mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory to move beyond today's baseline
BAT technologies toward the ``mill of the future,'' which EPA believes
will have a minimum impact on the environment. EPA also intends the
program to serve as a pilot program for determining the effectiveness
of regulatory incentives as a means of stimulating development of
environmentally beneficial technologies. As a result of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program, EPA hopes to achieve within
sixteen years greater pollutant reductions than it could achieve solely
by establishing a technological floor. Indeed, the development of
increasingly more advanced bleach plant process technologies is a
critical step toward the Clean Water Act's ultimate goal of eliminating
the discharge of pollutants into the Nation's waters. See CWA Section
101(a)(1).
The BAT program under the Clean Water Act is widely and justifiably
applauded as a critical tool in forcing the development and
installation of environmentally beneficial technologies. The statute
demands progress toward the goal of eliminating the discharge of all
pollutants, CWA Section 301(b)(2)(A), but emphasizes that that progress
must be ``reasonable.'' Id. This Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program marries the twin objectives embodied in Section
301(b)(2)(A): compelling the industry to go as far as it reasonably can
go, through the achievement of limits that are technically and
economically achievable, while holding out through the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program an array of alternative effluent
limits that EPA believes will lead to zero discharge. The baseline BAT
limitations discharge EPA's statutory mandate: to promulgate
limitations based on the best available technology economically
achievable. The Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, in
turn, promotes EPA's statutory goal: to establish limitations that act
as a beacon to show what is possible.
EPA is codifying three tiers of Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
effluent limitations and two tiers of Voluntary Advanced Technology
NSPS, which together form the backbone of the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program for mills in the Bleached Papergrade
Kraft and Soda subcategory. The three BAT tiers are

[[Page 18594]]

labeled Tier I, Tier II and Tier III; the two NSPS tiers are labeled
Tier II and Tier III. Tier III is the most stringent of the tiers. Each
BAT tier is made up of an array of increasingly more stringent
enforceable effluent limitations, culminating in the ultimate
performance requirements for that particular tier. The NSPS tiers
consist entirely of the ultimate performance requirements for each
tier. In addition to the Voluntary Advanced Technology effluent
limitations and NSPS codified today, EPA has also assembled a number of
incentives relating to permitting and enforcement matters and public
recognition. EPA hopes these incentives will encourage many mills to
develop and install advanced and even innovative technologies that will
lead the industry as a whole toward the elimination of pollutant
discharges.
EPA believes it is appropriate as a matter of policy to offer mills
incentives to reach beyond the baseline BAT and NSPS process
technologies. Capital costs associated with the Tier I technology are
substantially greater than the capital costs of Option A, which is the
technology basis for the baseline BAT limits. Although over ten years a
mill employing Tier I technologies will likely save money in operating
costs, the capital outlay involved may discourage mills from doing more
than the regulatory minimum. For Tiers II and III, the costs and risks
are even more acute, when one considers the cost of research,
development, and full scale commercial trials of technologies in the
early stages of development and implementation, as well as the
associated uncertainties concerning possible product impacts. EPA is
interested in encouraging research, development and installation of
emerging technologies in order to motivate the development of these
technologies for broader commercial applications. As these technologies
become proven and their efficiencies publicized, EPA hopes that they
will become--in effect if not as a matter of law--the industry floor.
Thus, EPA believes it is in the public interest to encourage mills
today to develop environmentally beneficial technology and to reward
mills that are innovative and forward-looking in their use of new and
more environmentally effective technology despite its greater cost.
EPA received suggestions for an incentives program from a number of
stakeholders. From these and other stakeholder suggestions, EPA has
developed a program, presented below, that is intended to provide
incentives for further long term environmental improvements. EPA is
incorporating several types of incentives in this program. In addition,
because mill-specific factors, including product specifications and
existing equipment, will affect the technical approach taken and the
environmental goal attainable by an individual mill, EPA is
establishing several tiers of Advanced Technology performance
objectives, each with limitations and standards specific to the model
technology EPA is positing. In order to promote ambitious use of
Advanced Technologies, EPA is offering greater incentives for greater
reductions in pollutant discharge.
EPA recognizes that some mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and
Soda subcategory have already installed or have committed to install
Advanced Technologies that are achieving or have the potential to
achieve effluent limitations equivalent to the ultimate performance
requirements of one or more of the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentive Tiers. If these mills accept enforceable NPDES permit
limitations at one of the Tier levels, they will qualify for the
incentives program at that level. In some instances, therefore, the
incentives will actually serve as rewards for effluent reductions
already achieved.
2. Mechanics of the Incentives Program
The Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory will supplement the
otherwise compulsory baseline BAT and NSPS program. EPA emphasizes that
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program is entirely
voluntary; no mill in Subpart B is required to participate. Rather,
mills subject to the baseline BAT limits and NSPS contained in Subpart
B may enroll in the incentives program and thus subject themselves to
more stringent technology-based limitations corresponding to the
Incentives Tier they select. For example, a mill that determines that
it can achieve Tier II limits may designate itself as a BAT Tier II
mill. A mill with more than one fiber line subject to Subpart B may
choose to enroll all or some of its fiber lines in the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program. A mill wishing to experiment
with advanced or even innovative bleaching technologies also may choose
different Tiers for different fiber lines. After the mill enrolls in
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, the permit writer
must place the corresponding BAT limitations in the mill's permit.
Achievement of the Advanced Technology BAT limitations thereafter would
be compulsory for that mill. A mill that chooses not to participate in
the program will receive the baseline BAT limitations or NSPS;
similarly, a mill that chooses to enroll some but not all of its
Subpart B fiber lines in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program will receive baseline BAT limitations or NSPS for its non-
participating fiber lines.
EPA expects that an interested mill would formally enroll in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program prior to issuance of
its next NPDES discharge permit. Enrollment can be made by indicating
the mill's intent on its permit application or through separate
correspondence to the permitting authority as long as the signatory
requirements of 40 CFR 122.22 are met. However, as discussed in more
detail in Section IX.A.7 below, EPA assumes that most mills, for
practical purposes, will decide whether to participate in the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program in the next year in order to
assure that they will have the maximum amount of time to achieve the
various Tier limitations and to receive the additional compliance time
for MACT, established under these rules for mills enrolled in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. Any mill can
voluntarily enter at any tier appropriate to its individual
circumstances. Further, mills that enter either at Tier I or Tier II
may decide, after making such a commitment in permits but before
termination of the appropriate compliance period (i.e., not later than
six years after publication of these rules--Tier I, or not later than
11 years after publication of these rules--Tier II), to commit to the
requirements of a more stringent tier (i.e., Tier II or Tier III). Such
mills will be subject to the deadlines specified in the regulation for
the newly chosen tier.
Existing dischargers volunteering to participate in the incentives
program would receive BAT limitations that become progressively more
stringent over time. Although applied in stages, the limitations
represent a continuum of progress that a participating mill commits,
and is required, to achieve. At the first stage in the continuum are
limitations for the enrolled fiber line that reflect either a mill's
existing effluent quality or its current technology-based permit limits
for the BAT parameters, whichever are more stringent. See 40 CFR
430.24(b)(1). For the bleach plant parameters, such as dioxin, existing
effluent quality would be determined at the bleach plant, while
existing effluent quality for AOX would be determined at the end of the
pipe based on loadings attributable to that

[[Page 18595]]

fiber line. Id. The next stage in the continuum consists of enforceable
interim milestones. Under one set of milestones, existing dischargers
enrolled in Tiers II or III are required to meet interim BAT
limitations equivalent to the baseline BAT limitations by April 15,
2004. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3). (By that date, dischargers enrolled are
required to meet the baseline BAT limitations for all pollutants,
except for Tier I; the AOX limitation for mills enrolled in Tier I is
the ultimate performance requirement for Tier I. Id.) Under the second
set of milestones, existing dischargers enrolled in any tier are
required to meet enforceable requirements determined by the permitting
authority based on best professional judgment; these milestones would
be expressed as narrative or numeric conditions in the mill's NPDES
permit. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(2). EPA intends the milestones to reflect each
step in a mill's progress toward achievement of the Tier's ultimate
performance requirements. Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA is
proposing to require each participating mill to submit to its
permitting authority a plan detailing the steps it plans to take (with
corresponding dates) in order to meet its applicable BAT Tier
limitations. Under the proposed regulation, permit writers would be
authorized to use the information in the milestone plan as a basis for
setting milestone limitations. The final stage in the BAT continuum
represents the ultimate Advanced Technology performance levels for the
Tier selected. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). As noted above, the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program is also available for new
sources that elect to exceed baseline NSPS requirements. See 40 CFR
430.25(c). For new sources (as defined at 430.01(j)), the incentives
program begins at Tier II. The ultimate Tier II and Tier III
performance requirements constitute NSPS for such mills, with the
addition of standards for conventional pollutants at the baseline NSPS
level. See 40 CFR 430.25(c)(1) and (2). The NSPS Tier II and Tier III
performance requirements are the same as the ultimate BAT Tier II and
Tier III performance requirements for BAT. As required by CWA Section
306, new sources must comply with the applicable NSPS upon commencing
operation; therefore, the incremental approach of achieving
progressively more stringent performance levels discussed above for
existing sources would not apply to new sources enrolled in the
incentives program.
In addition to Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations and
NSPS, the NPDES permit of a mill enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program will need to contain all other permit
limitations and conditions otherwise applicable to the mill, including
any conventional pollutant limitations and standards, any water
quality-based effluent limitations required under CWA Section
301(b)(1)(C), and best management practices provisions, including those
promulgated today. Schedules for complying with those requirements, if
any, are determined by the applicable law; nothing in this incentives
program alters in any way those compliance deadlines.
Because mills enrolling in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program are subject to more stringent BAT limitations and
NSPS than EPA could otherwise compel through national effluent
limitations guidelines, EPA has assembled a package of rewards and
incentives for participating mills. The public recognition incentive is
available as soon as a mill accepts Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limitations in its NPDES permit. The reduced monitoring incentive
applicable to dioxin, furan, chloroform and the 12 chlorinated phenolic
pollutants is available as soon as participating mills achieve those
limitations. See 40 CFR 430.02(c). The reduced monitoring incentive
applicable to AOX is available only after the ultimate Advanced
Technology performance level for that pollutant is achieved. See 40 CFR
430.02(d) and (e). The remaining incentives, including greater permit
certainty, reduced inspections, and reduced penalties, are available
only after the mill achieves all of the ultimate Advanced Technology
performance levels.
EPA has decided not to make the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program available to indirect discharges at this time
because it would be much more difficult to administer than the baseline
PSES program and therefore would impose substantial burden on local
governments. Further, EPA does not believe that commitments by indirect
dischargers to reduce AOX or flow levels warrants any delay in
compliance with limitations on dioxin and furan due to POTW pass-
through and biosolids contamination concerns. Similarly, EPA has not
identified feasible technologies beyond BAT that can significantly
reduce pollutant discharges from mills in the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory at this time, and so is not able to develop an incentives
program for this subcategory. Moreover, stakeholders have offered no
specific suggestions or supporting information and data upon which EPA
reasonably could develop a program for the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory. However, EPA will consider developing incentive programs
for other subcategories as BAT limitations are promulgated for those
subcategories.
3. The Technology Bases for the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
Limitations and NSPS
In order to determine the appropriate Voluntary Advanced Technology
BAT limitations and NSPS, EPA first selected a model technology for
each Tier. For Tier I, which applies only to BAT, EPA determined that
the most appropriate technology was extended delignification with
complete substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine,
closing up wastewater discharges from the fiber line prior to
bleaching, and efficient biological wastewater treatment. EPA selected
this technology basis because it is available today (see discussion of
BAT Option B and NSPS technology in Section VI.B.5.(a) and (b)),
because it is economically achievable for mills voluntarily choosing to
implement it (see Section IX.A.6), and because it represents an
important step in the direction of a minimum impact mill.
The model technology for Tier II Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limitations and NSPS consists of extended delignification with complete
substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine, supplemented
with increased use of water conservation practices, water reuse
practices, bleach plant filtrate recycling practices, and efficient
biological wastewater treatment. EPA anticipates that Tier II mills
will maximize the capability of extended delignification technology,
thereby reducing the amount of chlorine dioxide used in bleaching. The
model Tier II mill also will have highly effective pulping liquor spill
prevention and control and will have evaporators that minimize the
amount of black liquor carryover, to allow for extensive condensate
reuse. EPA expects that Tier II mills also will employ a closed fiber
line prior to bleaching improved water reuse within the bleach plant,
and will recycle a portion of bleach plant filtrate back through the
fiber line to the recovery cycle. The Tier II Advanced Technology BAT
limitations and NSPS represent the performance demonstrated by mills
that minimize effluent flow and reduce the formation of chlorinated
organic compounds using these technologies and practices. Three mills
in the United States are approaching the reduced wastewater flow levels
equivalent to Tier II, which leads EPA

[[Page 18596]]

to conclude that flow reduction technologies are emerging. Although the
flow volume projected or reported by these mills excludes pulping area
or evaporator condensates, which EPA includes within its Tier II flow
limitation, EPA expects that over the next ten or eleven years
condensate reuse strategies and discharge flow reduction technologies
will mature to allow mills to achieve the pulping area condensate,
evaporator condensate and bleach plant wastewater flow level being
codified today as part of Tier II. For further discussion of EPA's
rationale for selecting this technology as the basis for Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT limitations and NSPS at the Tier II level, see
Section IX.A.6.
The model technology for the Tier III Voluntary Advanced Technology
BAT limitations and NSPS represents what EPA believes can be achieved
in 15 or 16 years by mills on the cutting edge of minimum effluent
technology. In EPA's view, such mills will fully reuse pulping area and
evaporator system condensates, have a closed fiber line prior to
bleaching, and recycle the majority of bleach plant filtrates back to
the recovery cycle. EPA expects that these mills will also operate
efficient biological treatment systems. To achieve this degree of mill
closure, in addition to the level of technology described under Tier
II, EPA expects the model Tier III mill will have ``kidney'' technology
to remove metals from bleach filtrate and chloride from the mill liquor
cycle, and may perform extensive steam stripping or other treatment of
condensates to allow for full reuse. Mills that choose to use ozone
delignification may avoid the need for a chloride removal system. EPA
also expects that the Tier III mills will have advanced process control
systems and negligible losses of black liquor through leaks and spills.
Finally, the model Tier III mill will likely have extended liquid
storage capacity as part of its water recycle and liquor management
systems to help maintain the good hydraulic balance required for low
discharge flow operation. While no U.S. mill today is achieving these
limitations, EPA believes that the continuing progress being made by
mills toward closed-loop processing will lead to greater innovation
regarding technologies and practices necessary to achieve the Tier III
limitations. For further discussion of EPA's rationale for selecting
this technology as the basis for Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limitations and NSPS at the Tier III level, see Section IX.A.6. For a
more detailed discussion of the technology bases for the Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT Limitations and NSPS, see Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program Technical Support Document (DCN 14488).
4. Pollutants Regulated by Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT and NSPS
Limitations
Except for TCF-based processes, each Advanced Technology tier
consists of limitations for dioxin, furan, chloroform, and 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants monitored at the bleach plant. EPA is
not codifying limits for these pollutants for TCF processes. As
discussed in more detail below, each Tier also includes AOX limitations
monitored at the end of the pipe and, depending on the Tier,
limitations on lignin content or wastewater flow. In addition, each BAT
Tier includes limitations on pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol
(when used as biocides), see 40 CFR 430.24(d), and each NSPS Tier
includes limitations on BOD5, TSS and pH, as well as
biocides. See 40 CFR 430.25(c) and (d).
EPA has chosen to use AOX as a performance standard for each of the
three Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT tiers because AOX is a measure
of progress in reducing the total chlorinated organic matter in
wastewaters resulting from the bleaching of pulps. In addition, the use
of AOX rather than other measures of organic matter (e.g.,
BOD5) will further encourage a pollution prevention approach
instead of end-of-pipe treatment technologies. The final rule
establishes minimum monitoring frequencies for AOX for each of the
Tiers, except for TCF fiber lines. See 40 CFR 430.02(d) and (e). For
TCF fiber lines, permit writers should determine the appropriate
monitoring frequency to assure continued compliance with the AOX
limitation.
In addition to the AOX criterion, EPA is establishing BAT
limitations requirements for Tier I that include kappa numbers measured
prior to bleaching and a narrative limitation calling for recycling of
all filtrates generated prior to the point at which that kappa number
is measured. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). The kappa number is a measure
of lignin content in unbleached pulp, and is routinely determined by
mills. EPA is not establishing minimum monitoring requirements for
kappa numbers in this regulation. Permit writers maintain the authority
to establish monitoring frequencies on a best professional judgment
basis.
By meeting the kappa number limitations, Tier I mills will achieve
substantial reductions in precursors for chlorinated organic pollutants
found in lignin beyond reductions achieved by mills with conventional
pulping processes. See DCN 14488. Some industry commenters suggested
that EPA simply specify qualifying Advanced Technologies and require
participating mills to employ one or more of those technologies in
order to receive incentives. EPA rejected this approach because it
would inhibit development of equivalent technologies that EPA cannot
foresee today and is inconsistent with the traditional performance-
based structure of technology-based effluent limitations under the
Clean Water Act. Nevertheless, EPA agrees with these commenters that
Tier I mills will in all likelihood employ extended delignification
technologies or other technologies that similarly reduce the kappa
number prior to bleaching; EPA, therefore, is requiring Tier I mills to
achieve specified kappa numbers that reflect the performance
capabilities of well-operated, extended delignification systems. In
addition, EPA's Tier I limits reflect EPA's expectation that Tier I
mills will be bleaching pulps with less lignin and, hence, will realize
significant reductions in the amount of unrecoverable bleaching
chemicals required to achieve their target brightness. By using less
bleaching chemical, Tier I mills will further reduce the formation and
discharge of chlorinated organic pollutants generated by bleaching
pulps with chlorine-containing compounds, including chlorine dioxide.
By recycling the pulping area filtrates, Tier I mills also will be
implementing an important building block for long-term flow reduction
goals, and eliminating an important source of weak black liquor
discharge that would otherwise go to the mill's wastewater treatment
plant. See DCN 14488.
By defining Tier I with parameter values (AOX, kappa numbers) and
recycle requirements as presented above, EPA intends to provide maximum
encouragement to as many mills as possible to achieve the performance
of at least the initial threshold of the Advanced Technology program.
Adopting threshold performance criteria that are too stringent could
discourage mills from making additional capital investments beyond
those necessary to achieve the baseline BAT. This could undermine one
goal of the incentives program, which is to achieve the greatest
environmental results possible consistent with mills' capital

[[Page 18597]]

investment cycles. Conversely, setting threshold criteria at levels
that could be met by some mills that comply only with the baseline BAT
limitations and that do not employ Advanced Technologies could serve as
a disincentive to invest in Advanced Technologies that achieve dramatic
reductions in pollutant loadings and flow. The kappa numbers defined
above for Tier I, while at the upper end of the range of values
achieved by extended delignification technologies, nonetheless appear
to separate mills that employ them from mills that would use
conventional pulping technologies to achieve the BAT limitations. See
DCN 14488.
EPA is setting the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations
and NSPS for Tier II and Tier III based on a different philosophy than
for Tier I. EPA believes that Tiers II and III should reflect a
movement toward the long-term goal of minimizing impacts of mills in
all environmental media through partially or fully closed loop
processes. For Tier II, EPA is setting an AOX limit based on a long-
term average (0.10 kg/kkg) that is currently being achieved by some of
the best mills in the industry. See DCN 14488. See 40 CFR
430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). For Tier III, EPA is setting an AOX
limit based on a long-term average (0.05 kg/kkg) that is being achieved
by only a very few mills, including one ECF mill. SeDCN 14488. Id. This
ECF mill achieved the AOX limit only with hardwood furnish; moreover,
it did so without the level of flow reduction anticipated for Tier III.
See DCN 14488. It is the Agency's judgment, based on trends in ECF
technology development to date, that with recycle of pulping and
evaporator condensates and bleach plant filtrates necessary to achieve
a wastewater flow of 5 m3/kkg, and removal of chlorides from
the liquor cycle, commensurate reductions in the mass of chlorinated
organic pollutants contained in wastewaters discharged also are likely
to occur. For this reason, it is EPA's judgment that the Tier III AOX
limit will be achievable by advanced ECF mills for both hardwood and
softwood furnishes as well as advanced TCF mills.
The Tier II and Tier III BAT limitations and NSPS also include
restrictions on wastewater flow and a requirement that all pulping-area
filtrates be recycled to chemical recovery prior to bleaching. See 40
CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). As discussed above for Tier I,
the filtrates recycle requirement is an important step toward long-term
flow reduction. Flow reduction and progress toward closed loop mill
operations, in turn, are very important long-term environmental goals
because pollutant releases to all environmental media would be
minimized.
While mills currently measure end-of-pipe flow at the point of
permitted discharges, Tier II and Tier III mills will be required to
establish and maintain flow measurement equipment to verify compliance
with the annual average reduced flow limits for those tiers for bleach
plant and pulping area and evaporator condensates. EPA is not
establishing minimum monitoring frequencies for flow in this
regulation. Permit writers maintain the authority to establish
monitoring frequencies on a best professional judgment basis. See 40
CFR 430.02.
Review of currently available data and literature indicates that
the numerical values for flow set forth to define Tiers II (10
m3/kkg) and III (5 m3/kkg) are appropriately
stringent reduced flow targets by comparison to current wastewater flow
for mills with extended delignification technologies. See DCN 14488.
EPA believes it is appropriate to include condensates as part of the
specified wastewater flow volume because technologies are available
today that allow for their recycle and reuse; use of these technologies
therefore ensures that the cumulative volume of wastewater flow is
reduced to the greatest extent possible. See DCN 14488. One technology
in particular is the ``clean condensate alternative,'' which is a
viable MACT compliance alternative. See 40 CFR 63.447. This alternative
facilitates the segregation, treatment, and reuse of condensates and
thus will assist mills in achieving the wastewater flow objectives.
Inclusion of pulping and evaporator condensates in these reduced flow
targets therefore is consistent with the ``clean condensate'' MACT
compliance alternative and will promote flow reduction through recycle
and reuse of the greatest possible volume of process wastewater.
EPA has the legal authority to establish Advanced Technology
effluent limitations for non-chemical parameters, such as lignin
content measurements and flow, and to do so where appropriate in
narrative form. For Tier I, these limitations take the form of kappa
numbers to measure lignin content in unbleached pulp and a narrative
requirement to recycle pulping area filtrates; for Tiers II and III,
they take the form of numerical limitations on process wastewater
flows, as well as the narrative requirement to recycle pulping area
filtrates. EPA has the authority to establish limits for lignin content
in unbleached pulp, for recycle of filtrates, and for reduced process
wastewater flows because each of these parameters functions as a
restriction on the quantities, rates or concentrations of chlorinated
organic pollutants and other pollutants in a mill's wastestream. See
CWA Section 502(11). Restrictions on lignin content of unbleached pulp,
measured as a kappa number, can be used to reduce the presence of
precursors for chlorinated organic pollutants in a mill's wastewater.
In addition, lignin itself is a material that includes polynuclear
aromatic hydrocarbons; a number of polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
are included in EPA's list of priority pollutants. See Appendix A to
Part 403 (reprinted after 40 CFR 423.17). Recycling pulping area
filtrates to the chemical recovery cycle prevents the discharge of weak
black liquor, which includes inorganic pulping chemicals and dissolved
wood substances. The dissolved wood substances include polynuclear
aromatic materials, degraded carbohydrates, low-molecular weight
organic acids, and wood extractives (resins and fatty acids). The
toxicity of the materials contained in black liquor is well documented;
see the BMP Technical Support Document (DCN 14489). Limits for process
wastewater flow, in this case pertaining to total pulping area and
evaporator condensate and bleach plant wastewater, move mills toward
closed loop operations. Reductions in flow will have the effect of
dramatically reducing mass loadings--and discharges--of non-chlorinated
organics such as lignin and a variety of chlorinated organics in
addition to dioxin, furan and the chlorinated phenolic pollutants
specifically regulated today. Because those pollutants are far too
numerous to measure individually (and some have not been specifically
isolated and identified), EPA determined that it was impracticable to
set mass-based limits for all of those pollutants. See DCN 14488. EPA
judged that establishing flow levels for Tiers II and III would be the
best way to control the discharge of these pollutants.
For the foregoing reasons, all of these Advanced Technology
performance objectives qualify as effluent limitations under CWA
section 502(11). As noted above, the filtrates recycle limitation is a
narrative limitation. Nothing in the definition of effluent limitation
in CWA section 502(11) or elsewhere in the CWA compels that
restrictions on the discharge of pollutants be expressed in numeric
form. See NRDC v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369, 1380 (D.C. Cir. 1977). In this
instance, EPA determined that the

[[Page 18598]]

restriction on filtrates (and hence the prevention of discharge of
toxic materials) could not be expressed as a numeric limitation and
therefore expressed that restriction in narrative form instead.
For further discussion of the effluent reductions and environmental
benefits associated with the Advanced Technology BAT limitations and
standards promulgated for these parameters, see DCN 14488.
5. Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations and NSPS
The Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations consist of three
separate components, which together comprise BAT for the particular
Tier. See 40 CFR 430.24(b). The first and third components consist of
numeric effluent limitations for the pollutants regulated by the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. The second component
consists of enforceable interim milestones. Under one set of
milestones, existing dischargers enrolled in Tiers II or III are
required to meet interim BAT limitations equivalent to the baseline BAT
limitations by April 15, 2004. Under the second set of milestones,
existing dischargers enrolled in any tier are required to meet
enforceable requirements that are developed on a best professional
judgment basis by the permitting authority; these milestones are
expressed in either narrative or numeric form. Taken together, these
three components constitute reasonable further progress toward the
national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants and for
this reason represent BAT.
The Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS consist of only one stage--
the ultimate performance objectives for the Tier in question, with the
addition of conventional limitations at the baseline NSPS level. See 40
CFR 430.25(c). This is because new sources, unlike existing sources
subject to BAT, must design and construct their facilities to achieve
NSPS upon commencing operation; sequencing limitations to achieve
continuing progress would be inconsistent with this statutory mandate.
a. ``Stage 1'' BAT Limitations. In the regulation, EPA has codified
the first set of numeric BAT effluent limitations as ``stage 1''
limitations to be applied in the absence of more stringent WQBELs. See
40 CFR 430.24(b)(1). Although expressed in this regulation in narrative
form, EPA intends that the permitting authority will express that
limitation in numeric form for each participating mill on a case-by-
case basis. The ``stage 1'' limitations thus will be numeric values on
dioxin, furan, chloroform, AOX, and 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants
that, for each pollutant, are equivalent to the more stringent of
either the technology-based limit on that pollutant in the mill's last
permit or the mill's current effluent quality with respect to that
pollutant. Id. Existing effluent quality for AOX would be determined at
the end of the pipe based on loadings attributable to that fiber line;
for all other pollutants covered by the Advanced Technology BAT
limitations, such as dioxin, existing effluent quality would be
determined at the point where the wastewater containing those
pollutants leaves the bleach plant. Id. These ``stage 1'' BAT limits
represent the first step in the Advanced Technology BAT continuum and
are enforceable against the participating mill as soon as they are
placed in the mill's NPDES permit.
The purpose of the ``stage 1'' BAT limits is to ensure that, at a
minimum, existing effluent quality is maintained while the mill moves
toward achieving the ultimate Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
performance requirements for the Tier selected by the mill. As Advanced
Technology permits are reissued for Tier II or Tier III mills, in
particular, new ``stage 1'' limitations must be established to reflect
the improving effluent quality of that mill. Id. Allowing a mill to
degrade its effluent quality during development and installation of
Advanced Technologies would be inconsistent with the statute's
direction that BAT limitations achieve reasonable further progress
toward the Clean Water Act's national goals. EPA's ``stage 1''
limitations, thus, are intended to capture continuously improving
effluent quality.
EPA had considered, but rejected, attempting to codify the ``stage
1'' limits in numeric form. First, EPA has no way on this record to
quantify and hence codify the existing effluent quality of each mill
that is potentially eligible to participate in this program. Nor would
such an attempt be wise, because EPA expects that mills considering
participating in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program
will continue to improve their effluent quality up to and beyond the
promulgation date of this regulation and, most likely, up to and beyond
the dates that their existing effluent quality is translated into
enforceable permit limits. Therefore, even if EPA could codify such
``stage 1'' limitations today, doing so would likely establish a less
stringent technological floor than the permitting authority would be
able to establish each time an Advanced Technology permit is issued
prior to achievement of the ultimate Advanced Technology performance
requirements.
Because the ``stage 1'' limitations reflect a level of technology
that the mill is already employing or that was previously determined to
be BAT for that mill, EPA has determined that the technology bases for
the ``stage 1'' limits are both technically available and economically
achievable. EPA has also determined that they would not impose any
adverse non-water quality environmental impacts. EPA has determined
that these ``stage 1'' limitations are the ``best'' available
technology economically achievable for mills participating in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program because they allow
those mills to focus their resources on the research, development,
testing, and installation of the technologies ultimately needed to
achieve the Advanced Technology performance levels. Thus, ``stage 1''
limitations reflect ``reasonable further progress toward the national
goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants,'' as called for by
CWA section 301(b)(2)(A). EPA also considered all of the other
statutory factors specified in CWA section 304(b)(2)(B) and concluded
that nothing in EPA's analysis of those factors justifies selecting a
different set of ``stage 1'' BAT limitations. For these reasons, EPA
determined that the ``stage 1'' BAT limitations promulgated today
represent the appropriate first rung of the Advanced Technology BAT
ladder that participating mills will have committed to ascend.
EPA did not set ``stage 1'' limits at the baseline BAT level
because baseline BAT limits are not a logical first step to meeting the
ultimate Advanced Technology BAT limitations for the reasons set forth
below. See DCN 14488. First, as a technical matter, mills subject to
such interim limits most likely would need to install more chlorine
dioxide generator capacity than they ultimately would use to achieve
the Advanced Technology performance requirements. (EPA believes most
Advanced Technology mills ultimately will employ complete substitution
of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine, preceded by extended
delignification processes--a sequence that calls for approximately 30
to 75 percent less chlorine dioxide than a mill would use to achieve
the baseline BAT requirements depending on the degree of extended
delignification used.) Second, as an economic matter, interim
limitations driving a mill to over-design its chlorine dioxide
generator would cause the mill to divert capital away

[[Page 18599]]

from the processes needed to achieve the ultimate Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT limitations. That diversion of resources undercuts one
of EPA's principal assumptions regarding the economic achievability of
the ultimate Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations: that mills
would be able to focus their capital and other resources entirely on
those superior performance levels. Thus, EPA was concerned that by
compelling achievement of baseline BAT limitations as ``stage 1''
limitations, EPA would unnecessarily inflate the overall cost of
achieving the ultimate Advanced Technology limitations. This would
likely cause some mills to conclude that they cannot sustain the
overall costs of achieving the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
limitations in an economically achievable manner. Other mills, in turn,
might decide to absorb the additional costs by diverting resources from
other environmentally beneficial projects that they might have
voluntarily undertaken. The Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to consider
non-water quality environmental impacts and other factors EPA deems
appropriate in setting BAT limitations. See CWA Section 304(b)(2)(B).
For these reasons, EPA believes that compelling achievement of the
baseline BAT limits in the first instance would have had the
contradictory and unintended effect of discouraging participation in
the program, with the result that fewer mills ultimately would be
motivated to achieve superior environmental performance. Finally, as
discussed in more detail below, EPA is requiring mills at the Tier II
and Tier III levels to achieve interim limitations equivalent to
baseline BAT by April 15, 2004. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3).
b. Interim Milestones. As the second component of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT for the three Incentives Tiers, EPA is
requiring the establishment of enforceable interim milestones. See 40
CFR 430.24(b) (2) and (3). EPA believes that interim milestones would
incrementally benefit the environment during the period prior to
achievement of the ultimate Advanced Technology performance levels and
will ensure that participating mills make reasonable progress toward
achieving the superior performance represented by the various Advanced
Technology BAT Tiers.
EPA is promulgating two sets of enforceable interim milestones. The
first set requires mills enrolled at the Tier II or the Tier III level
to achieve limitations equivalent to baseline BAT limitations by April
15, 2004. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3). (Mills enrolled at the Tier I level are
required to achieve those limitations as well as the ultimate Advanced
Technology limitations by that date. 40 CFR 430.24(b) (3) and (4).) EPA
believes that this is a reasonable requirement not only because it
ensures significant environmental progress consistent with CWA section
301(b)(2), but it also reflects the technology performance Tier II and
Tier III mills are likely to be achieving by that date. Mills enrolled
in Tier II and Tier III are expected to substantially modify pulping
and bleaching processes (e.g., install extended delignification, ECF,
or TCF bleaching) to comply with the Advanced Technology limitations.
EPA expects that all Tier II or Tier III mills will install extended
delignification and complete substitution (ECF) or TCF bleaching
processes well in advance of achieving their wastewater flow objectives
in order to allow sufficient time to design, install, test and adjust
their other flow-related processes. In EPA's judgment, process changes
sufficient to achieve baseline BAT limitations will occur by April 15,
2004. Once these processes are installed, the mill will be achieving or
exceeding the baseline BAT limitations being required by that date. See
DCN 14488.
EPA notes that mills required to achieve water quality-based or
other effluent limitations equivalent to one or more of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT limitations are still eligible to enroll in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program and to receive
incentives for achieving the remaining Voluntary Advanced Technology
limitations. However, the time for complying with water quality-based
or other equivalent effluent limitations would be determined by
applicable law, not by this Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program. Therefore, for example, if a mill's NPDES permit compels
immediate compliance with a dioxin limitation equivalent to the
Voluntary Advanced (BAT) Technology limitation on dioxin because of
water quality concerns or other requirements of state or federal law,
this six-year milestone would not be available for that dioxin
limitation. See CWA section 301(b)(1)(C).
The second set of enforceable interim milestones promulgated today
applies to all mills enrolled in the Advanced Technology Incentives
Program. Although today's rule leaves the type and frequency of these
milestones to the permit writer's best professional judgment, see 40
CFR 430.24(b)(2), milestones should include intermediate pollutant load
and wastewater flow reductions (for Tier II and Tier III mills) in
addition to research schedules, construction schedules, mill trial
schedules, or other milestones appropriate to the advanced technology
and the participating mill. Interim milestones should be tailored to
circumstances and process technologies at individual mills.
In order to facilitate the development of appropriate interim
milestones on a case-by-case basis, EPA proposes elsewhere in today's
Federal Register to require all mills enrolling in the incentives
program to submit plans detailing the strategy the mill will follow to
develop and implement the technology required to achieve the chosen
incentive tier, as well as the interim numeric limitations for Tiers II
and III. The plan should describe each envisioned new technology
component or process modification the mill will need to achieve the
Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limits. A master schedule should be
included in the plan showing the sequence of implementing the new
technologies and process modifications and identifying critical path
relationships within the sequence. For each individual technology or
process modification, a schedule should be provided that lists the
anticipated date that associated construction, installation, or process
changes will be initiated, the anticipated date that those steps will
be completed, and the anticipated date that the full Advanced
Technology process or individual component will be fully operational.
For those technologies or process modifications that are not
commercially available or demonstrated on a full scale basis at the
time the plan is developed, the plan should include a schedule for
research (if necessary), process development, and mill trials. The
schedule for research, process development, and mill trials should show
major milestone dates and the anticipated date the technology or
process change will be available for mill implementation. The plan also
would need to include contingency plans in the event that any of the
technologies or processes specified in the Milestones Plan need to be
adjusted or alternative approaches developed to ensure that the
ultimate tier limits are achieved by the dates in the master schedule.
EPA expects the permitting authority to use the information contained
in those plans, as well as its own best professional judgment, to
establish enforceable interim milestones applying all statutory
factors. EPA also expects permit writers to include reopener clauses in
the permits to adjust these milestones including dates to reflect the

[[Page 18600]]

results of research (if necessary), process development, and mill
trials.
Section 402(a) of the Clean Water Act authorizes permit writers to
establish permit conditions and limitations on the basis of best
professional judgment as necessary to achieve the objectives of the
Act. Although EPA is promulgating BAT limitations under CWA sections
301 and 304, EPA is not--nor could it today--codify the particular
process development, construction, and testing milestones that will
lead each participating mill to achieve the ultimate Voluntary Advanced
Technology performance requirements. Identifying those milestones is
best left to the judgment of the permit writer, who will have access to
far more mill-specific information than EPA has today.
c. ``Stage 2'' limitations. The third component of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT limitations consists of the ``stage 2''
limitations. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). These are the only standards
applicable to Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS and must be achieved
upon commencing operation. See 40 CFR 430.25(c). Also included in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS are standards for dioxin, furan,
chloroform, 12 chlorinated phenolic compounds, BOD5, TSS,
and pH at the baseline NSPS level. See 40 CFR 430.25(c)(1). In
addition, standards for pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol, when
used as biocides, are part of the Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS.
See 40 CFR 430.25(d).
These limitations and standards represent the ultimate performance
requirements for each Tier. The ``stage 2'' limitations are as follows:
(1) Tier I Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations (``stage
2''). For Tier I, the ultimate performance requirement for AOX is a
long-term average (LTA) of 0.26 kg/kkg, measured at the end of the
pipe. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). Under this Tier, Advanced Technology
fiber lines at participating mills must also achieve reduced lignin
content in unbleached pulps as measured by a kappa number of 20 for
softwoods and 13 for hardwoods and reported as an annual average. Id.
Finally, Tier I Advanced Technology fiber lines must recycle to
recovery systems all filtrates up to the point at which the unbleached
pulp kappa numbers are measured (e.g., brownstock into bleaching). Tier
I also includes limitations for dioxin, furan, chloroform and 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants, see 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3). Limitations
on these parameters are established at the baseline BAT levels because
application of Advanced Technologies does not appear on this record to
justify more stringent limitations.
(2) Tier II Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations (``stage
2'') and NSPS. For Tier II, the ultimate performance requirement for
AOX is an LTA of less than 0.10 kg/kkg, measured at the end of the
pipe. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). In addition, Tier II
Advanced Technology fiber lines must recycle to chemical recovery
systems all pulping-area filtrates prior to bleaching. Id. Finally,
Tier II Advanced Technology fiber lines must also achieve total pulping
area condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach plant wastewater
flow of 10 m\3\/kkg or less reported as an annual average. Id. Tier II
mills must also meet (or, in the case of existing dischargers, must
continue to meet) limitations for dioxin, furan, chloroform, and the 12
chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3) and
430.25(c)(1). Application of the Tier II Technologies does not appear
to justify more stringent limitations for these parameters.
(3) Tier III Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations (``stage
2'') and NSPS. For Tier III, the ultimate performance requirement for
AOX is an LTA of less than 0.05 kg/kkg, measured at the end of the
pipe. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). In addition, Tier
III Advanced Technology fiber lines must recycle to chemical recovery
systems all pulping-area filtrates prior to bleaching. Id. Finally,
Tier III Advanced Technology fiber lines must also achieve total
pulping area condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach plant
wastewater flow of 5 m\3\/kkg or less reported as an annual average.
Id. Tier III mills must also meet (or, in the case of existing
dischargers, must continue to meet) limitations for dioxin, furan,
chloroform, and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40 CFR
430.24(b)(3) and 430.25(c)(1). Application of the Tier III Technologies
does not appear to justify more stringent limitations for these
parameters.
d. Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations and NSPS for Mills
Employing TCF Processes. In order to encourage mills to employ Advanced
Technologies founded on TCF processes, EPA is opening today's
incentives program to fiber lines that employ or commit to employ such
processes. Existing dischargers that choose to employ TCF processes are
subject to the ``stage 1'' limitations, interim milestones (including
the baseline BAT limitations), and the ``stage 2'' limitations
applicable to the selected tier. 40 CFR 430.24(b) and 430.25(c). These
limitations are discussed above. However, recently gathered data from
TCF mills indicate that all TCF mills will be able to achieve the AOX
performance requirements at any Tier level because end-of-pipe AOX
levels are being reported at below minimum level. See DCN 14488.
Consequently, the AOX limitations for TCF fiber lines are expressed as
``INF>5
loads associated with the Advanced Technologies. The technology basis
of each of the Incentives Tiers will lead to overall decreases in
energy consumption, primarily because of replacement of chlorine
dioxide with oxygen-based delignification and bleaching chemicals. EPA
expects a slight increase in air emissions (

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

[[pp. 18553-18602]] 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