Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area

• You are here: EPA Home
• Federal Register
• FR Years
• FR Months
• FR Days
• FR Documents
• [[pp. 18603-18652]] National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

[[pp. 18603-18652]] National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

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 18603-18652]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr15ap98-21]

[[pp. 18603-18652]] 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 18602]]

[[Page 18603]]

processes they will need to meet their long-term Advanced Technology
objectives. Therefore, EPA has decided to promulgate all of the
Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations today in order to provide
mills with an opportunity to push their environmental performance
beyond the minimum prescribed by the baseline BAT and on toward the
statutory goal of zero discharge. Promulgating the various Voluntary
Advanced Technology Tiers today rather than in five-year increments
also provides some predictability regarding the progress expected of
Advanced Technology mills over time. EPA hopes that this predictability
will encourage greater participation in the program and thus lead to
superior effluent quality. Finally, promulgating all three Tiers of
Advanced Technology BAT Limitations today makes sense because it
reflects EPA's regulatory approach for promoting successively greater
environmental achievements for this industry, and because companies
willing to commit to achieve the increased environmental controls will
be able to avoid the uncertainties inherent in a succession of later
rulemakings.
    EPA has the authority to promulgate the three Tiers of Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT limitations today even though their ultimate
performance requirements will not be attained until a future date. EPA
has the authority under CWA section 304(b)(2) and 304(m) to revise the
baseline BAT limitations for the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda
subcategory whenever the Administrator deems it is appropriate. Thus,
EPA would be free in 5, 10 or 15 years to codify the Voluntary Advanced
Technology limitations as BAT. However, by then, mills potentially
interested in pursuing Advanced Technologies would already have been
required to meet baseline BAT limitations, perhaps using technologies
not fully compatible with more advanced processes. The costs of
retrofitting, or in some cases replacing, newly installed process
technologies to achieve more stringent limits might prevent EPA from
finding that these technologies are economically achievable. In
addition, participating mills would lose a long-term planning horizon,
which is very important because of the significant capital outlays
involved. As a result, EPA was concerned that failure to promulgate
these Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations today might
compromise future pollution prevention opportunities. EPA is authorized
to consider those opportunities when promulgating BAT limitations. EPA
therefore believes it is appropriate to consider these barriers to
pollution prevention as factors relevant to the definition of BAT
limitations and the timing of their promulgation, see CWA section
304(b)(2)(B); especially since failure to promulgate a Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program at this time might impede
reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating
discharges of all pollutants. See CWA section 301(b)(2).
    An important component of this incentives program is the element of
choice. Direct discharging mills subject to Subpart B may choose
whether to enroll in the program and, once enrolled, may choose the
Tier, or performance level, that they will achieve. In order to codify
this structure, EPA has promulgated three sets of Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT limitations for bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills
and two sets of NSPS in addition to the baseline BAT and NSPS. In
effect, EPA has divided Subpart B into segments based on the types of
bleach plant processes mills choose to employ. EPA has considerable
authority to establish segments within an industrial subcategory for
the purpose of promulgating BAT limitations unique to those mills. Much
like mill-specific variances based on fundamentally different factors,
segments reflect EPA's authority to take into account the diversity
within each industry. See Chemical Mrfs. Ass'n v. NRDC, 470 U.S. 116,
130, 105 S.Ct 1102, 1110 (1985). Thus, segmentation, like variances, is
not an exception to the standard-setting process, but rather a more
fine-tuned application of it. Id.
    For BAT, EPA has essentially established four segments for the
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory (and, similarly, three
segments for NSPS). One segment codifies the baseline BAT limitations;
the other three segments codify Tiers I, II and III of the Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT Incentives Program. EPA defined the Advanced
Technology segments to reflect the various types of process changes and
control techniques that mills might employ to achieve environmental
performance beyond the baseline BAT level. The Advanced Technology
segments also reflect the cost of achieving progressively greater
environmental effluent reductions. Any one of those factors is
sufficient under CWA section 304(b)(2) to justify a segment for
affected mills. Each mill in Subpart B must comply with the baseline
BAT limitations unless it designates itself as an Advanced Technology
mill, in which case it must meet the BAT limitations corresponding to
the Tier--and segment--it chooses.
    Although EPA has identified an array of process changes that, if
employed, could distinguish one Subpart B mill from another and has
based its Advanced Technology limitations on those potential changes,
EPA has made the Advanced Technology segments voluntary. This is
because the decision whether Advanced Technology process changes are
technically feasible and economically achievable for a particular mill
depends on many factors unique to that mill that EPA, on the record
available today, cannot readily discern or forecast. Among the more
significant factors appear to be the mill's current bleaching sequence,
the physical configuration of equipment, the age of equipment (and,
thus, end-of-life issues), the available capacity in chlorine dioxide
generation and in the recovery boiler, and whether the mill uses
hardwood or softwood. See DCN 14488. See also Paper Task Force,
Technical Supplement White Papers, Record section 20.2.8, DCN 14794,
DCN 14795, and DCN 14796.
    EPA also has important policy reasons for making the Advanced
Technology BAT limitations voluntary, both in terms of the decision to
participate and in terms of the level of environmental performance to
be achieved. As discussed in greater detail above, EPA believes that
mills willing and able to employ technologies and processes superior to
the ``baseline'' promulgated as BAT--and willing to guarantee that
effort in the form of enforceable technology-based permit limitations--
should have the opportunity to do so. By giving mills a choice to
exceed baseline compliance levels, EPA implements CWA section
301(b)(2)'s direction that BAT limitations ``result in reasonable
further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge
of all pollutants,'' to the extent consistent with EPA's findings of
economic achievability, among other factors. By allowing mills to
choose between baseline BAT limitations and Voluntary Advanced
Technology BAT limitations at the outset, EPA also wants to encourage
mills to consider all possible process configurations before investing
in the baseline BAT technology. Thus, by codifying multiple expressions
of BAT, EPA has established a regulatory mechanism that allows mills to
choose greater environmental performance than EPA could require on this
record and also authorizes permit writers to

[[Page 18604]]

memorialize that choice in the form of enforceable permit limits.
    Although applied here for the first time to codify a Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program, the notion of using
segmentation to determine applicable technology-based limitations is
not new. Indeed, effluent limitations guidelines and standards
routinely base applicability of technology-based limitations on a
discharger's particular process or treatment technologies. For example,
elsewhere in today's rule EPA is segmenting the Papergrade Sulfite
subcategory to reflect, among other things, the type of product the
mill produces. Thus, a papergrade sulfite mill choosing to produce
specialty products subjects itself to a different set of limitations
than other mills in its subcategory simply by making that business
decision. EPA also used segmentation to account for different treatment
configurations when it promulgated BAT for the organic chemicals,
plastics and synthetic fibers category. See 40 CFR 414.91, 414.101; 58
FR 36872, 36881-85 (July 9, 1993). In that rule, EPA established two
sets of BAT limitations for a subcategory of plants, one set applicable
to plants using end-of-pipe biological treatment and the other set
applicable to plants using some other treatment technology, including
in-plant waste management practices. In this rule, the Advanced
Technology segments are intended to anticipate a mill's business
decision to change its cooking, washing, bleaching, wastewater recycle,
and recovery processes to achieve greater pollutant reductions than EPA
can require as baseline BAT. Indeed, by establishing these segments,
EPA hopes to encourage many mills to choose Advanced Technologies,
especially those mills that would need to change their bleaching and
washing processes in any event to comply with the baseline BAT.
    EPA also notes that it could have accomplished the same result for
existing sources on a case-by-case basis through the Clean Water Act's
variance processes. See Chemical Mrfs. Ass'n v. NRDC, 470 U.S. at 130,
105 S.Ct at 1110. Advanced Technology mills could have sought
fundamentally different factors variances under CWA section 301(n); for
non-conventional pollutants, these mills could have pursued a variance
under section 301(c). Under either section, mills could have obtained
BAT effluent limitations that are more or less stringent than the
baseline BAT. See Chemical Mrfs. Ass'n v. NRDC, 470 U.S. at 116, 105
S.Ct at 1105-06 (FDF variances); EPA v. National Crushed Stone Ass'n,
449 U.S. 64, 79 n.18 (1980) (Sec. 301(c) variances). However, EPA
rejected implementing the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program through variances for several reasons. First, the Clean Water
Act and its legislative history indicate a clear Congressional
preference for the use of subcategories, rather than variances, to
address discernible differences among regulated entities. By requiring
applications for FDF variances to be based on information submitted
during the rulemaking process (unless the applicant lacked a reasonable
opportunity to make such submission), see section 301(n)(1)(B),
Congress stressed the need for companies to participate fully in the
guideline development process to assure that adequate information is
available to EPA to develop appropriate subcategories. See 131 Cong.
Rec. S 8013 (June 12, 1985) (Sen. Bentsen); see also 133 Cong. Rec. H
131, 136-37 (Jan. 7, 1987) (Rep. Howard) (provision assures that
effluent guidelines ``are as comprehensive as possible''); 133 Cong.
Rec. S 733, 739 (Jan. 14, 1987) (Sen. Mitchell) (EPA should accommodate
fundamental differences among facilities through the establishment of
subcategories). In this rulemaking, many commenters supplied vast
amounts of information concerning the special circumstances of
facilities aspiring to become minimum impact mills. As Congress
intended, EPA established the three Voluntary Advanced Technology
segments in response to that information rather than deferring
consideration of the issue to the post-rulemaking variance process.
    Second, as a matter of policy, EPA believes it is reasonable to
employ its subcategorization, rather than its variance, authority to
implement the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. By
establishing the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations by
rulemaking at the same time it codifies the baseline BAT limitations,
EPA intends to provide all direct discharging mills within Subpart B
the immediate opportunity to push beyond base level environmental
performance and also to provide with certainty regarding the stringency
and timing of the limits they would be expected to meet. In this way,
EPA hopes to encourage many mills to participate in the program. Use of
case-by-case variance procedures, in contrast, would introduce delay
and uncertainty into the process, which EPA believes would discourage
industry participation.
    In summary, EPA has discretion in determining whether to account
for industry characteristics through subcategorization or through the
variance process. Like variances, the Voluntary Advanced Technology
segments apply only to mills that on their own initiative seek
different BAT limitations. Unlike variances, however, the
subcategorization scheme promulgated by EPA assures consistent and
timely implementation of the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program, which EPA believes is critical to its success. Therefore, for
the reasons explained, EPA's decision to subcategorize Subpart B was
rational and within its discretion.
7. Time Frames for Achieving Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT
Limitations
    In order to promote the pollution prevention objectives of the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, EPA has determined
that existing mills choosing to participate in that program should
receive a reasonable amount of time to achieve the Advanced Tier
performance levels they select. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(ii). (These
performance levels are codified in this rule as ``stage 2'' BAT
limitations.) The extended timeframes discussed below are not available
for new sources enrolled in the Advanced Technology Incentives Program
because the Clean Water Act requires new sources to comply with
applicable NSPS upon commencing operation. CWA Section 306(e). However,
new sources interested in participating in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program after commencing operation may
nevertheless do so, for example, by achieving the baseline NSPS
requirements at the time discharges commence and later installing
additional technologies necessary to achieve the more stringent AOX and
flow requirements of Tiers II or III. Once limitations equivalent to
the selected advanced Tier performance levels are placed in the mill's
permit and the mill achieves those limits, it is eligible to receive
the regulatory and enforcement relief described as incentives in
Section IX.B. below.
    EPA has determined that reasonable dates by which existing sources
can achieve Advanced Technology performance requirements are [April 15,
2004] for Tier I, April 15, 2009 for Tier II, and April 15, 2014 for
Tier III. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(ii). As discussed in more detail
below, these dates assume an initial start-up year during which mills
subject to Subpart B would decide whether to enroll in the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program and develop a plan for complying
with the ultimate incentives

[[Page 18605]]

BAT limitations. The remaining additional time, calculated as 5 years
for Tier I, 10 years for Tier II, and 15 years for Tier III,
corresponds to the time EPA believes a mill would need in order to
arrange its financing and to develop, install, test, and implement the
chosen Advanced Technologies at full scale to comply with the ultimate
tier limits.
    EPA regards five years as a reasonable time frame to achieve the
Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations corresponding to Tier I
(including the bleach plant BAT effluent limitations). When spread over
five years, the capital costs of those technologies become more
manageable (although they are still significantly higher than the
capital costs associated with the baseline BAT). In addition, the five
year period gives mills increased flexibility to schedule the
significant capital investment within the mill's normal capital
investment cycle, i.e., to purchase and install the necessary equipment
when capital is available. Therefore, EPA believes the five year period
will enable mills to participate in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program that otherwise might not have the financial
resources to make the necessary capital investment.
    EPA regards ten years as a reasonable timeframe to achieve the
Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations corresponding to Tier II
because the development and implementation of technologies to reduce
bleach plant flow to 10 m\3\/kkg pose technical and economic
difficulties that EPA believes would take mills up to ten years to
resolve. (Once flow levels are reduced, EPA expects that mills also
will be able to achieve the Tier II AOX limitations.) Recycling a
substantial portion of pulping and evaporator condensates and bleach
plant filtrates, with the attendant complexities of total mill water,
chemical, and energy balances, requires considerable time before it can
be implemented successfully at mill-scale. For example, when bleach
plant filtrates are recycled, problems with scale and corrosion can
take many months to over a year to develop and be observed. Once
identified, fully correcting such problems can take significant
additional time because of the time lag between action and observed
effect in nearly closed systems. In addition to problems with scale and
corrosion, mills pursuing Tier II performance levels may have to solve
challenges associated with reusing condensates, such as for bleached
pulp washing. There are a few mills currently doing this, but not broad
operating experience. Consequently, EPA expects that Tier II mills will
need to invest considerable time and effort to research and develop
solutions to those technical problems. In addition to these technical
challenges, significant capital costs may be involved in achieving Tier
II limits, notably as a result of upgrading full pulping and bleaching
lines and associated evaporator equipment. Providing an extended
timeframe that allows a mill to make such capital expenditures on a
schedule consistent with its planned investment cycle can make such
large investments economically achievable. For example, one U.S. mill
currently approaching the Tier II flow and AOX levels installed many of
the relevant technologies in stages over what probably will be a ten-
year period, with the last three years used for testing and fine-tuning
its reduced flow processes. Yet even this mill still needs to address
the technical challenges of further reducing condensate discharge flow
before it is fully able to achieve the Tier II BAT limits. That mill
needed ten years to plan its multi-hundred million dollar renovation
and pollution prevention investment, to arrange appropriate financing,
to install supporting technologies at appropriate intervals and to
research, develop, test, and refine its innovative flow-reducing
processes. EPA believes that this mill's experience is representative
of what other Tier II mills may encounter as they work to achieve the
Tier II limitations. See the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program Technical Support Document (DCN 14488) for additional examples
of why the ten-year timeframe is appropriate. Based on these
experiences, EPA believes that the package of technologies underlying
the Tier II Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations will not be
technically and economically achievable for mills aspiring to those
performance levels until April 15, 2009. However, EPA believes that
mills will be able to achieve the baseline BAT limitations by April 15,
2004, and enforceable interim milestones reflecting intermediate levels
of flow reduction (determined on a case-by-case basis) in a period
shorter than eleven years.
    EPA regards 15 years as a reasonable timeframe to achieve the
Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations corresponding to Tier
III. As for Tier II, flow reduction again is the most difficult and
time-consuming task. However, because reducing flow for pulping and
evaporator condensates and bleach plant filtrates to 5 m\3\/kkg or even
lower approaches a closed mill configuration, even more technically
difficult and time-consuming tasks must be successfully completed,
necessitating five additional years beyond the Tier II timeframe. For
example, mills would probably need to install ``kidney'' technologies
to remove metals and chlorides in order to control system scaling and
corrosion problems while maintaining product quality and minimizing
cross-media impacts. Successful completion of these tasks at individual
mills may involve research, extensive process development, and mill
trials. The types of corrosion and scaling problems EPA anticipates
could take over a year of nearly closed-loop operation to identify and
several more years of experimental modifications to mill operations to
solve. Extensive time is required for such modifications because of the
time lag in nearly closed-mill systems from changing process conditions
and observing the steady state impact on hydraulic systems, liquor
systems, and associated mill equipment. Mills may also need to embark
on process development and mill trials to achieve treated condensate
quality that is sufficient to extensively reuse condensates, as well as
to reestablish complex mill water and energy balances. For these
reasons, EPA believes that 15 years is a reasonable amount of time for
a Tier III mill to perfect existing technologies or invent or develop
new ones as necessary to achieve the Tier III performance levels.
However, EPA believes that all mills will be able to achieve the
baseline BAT limitations by [April 15, 2004], and enforceable interim
milestones reflecting intermediate levels of flow reduction (determined
on a case-by-case basis) in a period shorter than 15 years.
    In short, EPA believes that the additional 5, 10 and 15 year
periods provided by the rule are necessary to foster investment,
research, development, and mill trials of Advanced Technologies
envisioned by the specified performance levels. EPA further believes
that, by the dates specified in the rule, technologies necessary to
achieve those performance levels will indeed be available. See DCN
14488.
    EPA has concluded that it is reasonable to measure the extended
time periods from the publication date of the Cluster Rules rather than
from the date a participating mill's NPDES permit is issued, with the
addition of one year at the beginning to afford mills a meaningful
opportunity to consider participating in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program. EPA recognizes that the decision whether
to commit to the Advanced Technology goals cannot be undertaken
lightly. This is especially so in view of the significant

[[Page 18606]]

capital costs involved and in view of possible uncertainties regarding
the availability of appropriate cost-effective technologies and a
mill's ability to maintain product quality. Accordingly, EPA expects
the decision would need to be made at the corporate rather than the
facility level, which would probably require corporate-wide
consideration of the firm's financial health, its environmental
objectives and future marketing strategies, and its overall long-term
plans. Because EPA believes that many firms in Subpart B have been
pondering these strategic questions since publication of the proposed
rule in December 1993 and the notice regarding a possible incentives
program in July 1996, EPA has concluded that one year is sufficient to
allow firms to make a decision whether to participate in the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program. If a mill's permit expires and
is reissued before April 15, 1999, the permitting authority should
incorporate Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations into that
permit at the mill's request. If the mill has not yet decided whether
to participate in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program,
the permit writer should incorporate BAT limitations based on the BAT
baseline and should include a reopener clause so that the permit can be
modified as necessary to reflect the mill's decision to participate in
the incentives program. In order to afford that mill a full year to
decide whether to enroll in the incentives program, EPA believes it
would be appropriate for the permitting authority to issue a compliance
order expiring April 15, 1999 so that the mill would not be required to
comply with the baseline BAT limitations until after the election date
has passed.
    Some commenters suggested that EPA measure the Advanced Technology
time periods from the date the first permit reflecting Voluntary
Advanced Technology BAT limitations is issued. EPA rejected that
approach and instead is measuring the time periods from the publication
date of this rule (plus one year) for the following reasons. First,
these timeframes reflect EPA's conclusions regarding the amount of time
that mills would need in order to achieve the various Voluntary
Advanced Technology Tier performance levels, once they have committed
to those goals. As discussed in more detail above, EPA based these
conclusions on record information concerning the availability of
technologies and capital, among other factors. These factors have
nothing to do with the permitting cycle. Second, as a matter of policy,
EPA wants to promote implementation of advanced technologies as soon as
possible; if EPA were to measure the Advanced Technology time periods
from the date of permit re-issuance, achievement of the ultimate Tier I
performance requirements and the interim baseline BAT limitations for
Tiers II and III, for example, could be deferred at some mills by as
much as ten years from the date of promulgation. Third, EPA was
concerned that tying the Advanced Technology time periods to highly
variable permit issuance dates would mean that mills with later permits
would realize a competitive advantage over similarly situated mills
that, merely because of their particular permit cycle, would need to
achieve the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations sooner. Such
inequities--whether perceived or real--could discourage some mills from
participating in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program.
Finally, mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory
have been on notice since at least 1993 that EPA was considering basing
some portion of its Cluster Rules on extended delignification
technologies. (In its 1993 proposal, EPA proposed to base BAT
limitations on a process that included oxygen delignification and 100
percent substitution of chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine.) In
some cases, that proposal has already influenced investment decisions
at some mills.
    EPA acknowledges that a mill choosing not to participate in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program could seek a
compliance schedule in an enforcement order that, depending on the date
its permit was reissued, could allow that mill to achieve BAT limits
(including a less stringent AOX limit) at a later date than Tier I
Advanced Technology mills would be required to achieve a more stringent
AOX limit and reduced kappa numbers and pulping area filtrate
recycling. While EPA agrees with comments characterizing this as unfair
to those facilities making the significant commitment to install
Advanced Technologies, EPA believes that the likelihood of such
inequities is small for the following reasons. First, EPA has
determined that this is likely to happen in comparatively few cases.
More than 80 percent of the permits issued to mills in the Bleached
Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory will expire before 2000. See
Record section 21.8.1, DCN 14652. Consequently, EPA believes that most
Advanced Technology mills will receive more time to achieve Tier I
limits than other mills would receive to achieve baseline BAT limits,
even with an enforcement compliance schedule. Second, when EPA is the
permitting authority, EPA will exercise its enforcement discretion to
refrain from issuing enforcement compliance schedules after April 15,
1999 to mills not participating in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program. This means that a mill not participating in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program would be expected to
comply with its baseline BAT limits by the date its permit containing
those limits is issued, or by [April 15, 1999], whichever is later. EPA
will also publish guidance urging State enforcement authorities to do
the same. By limiting the discretionary enforcement-related compliance
schedules available to baseline BAT mills, EPA hopes that the
additional time periods specified for Advanced Technology mills will
become a more meaningful incentive and perhaps may persuade some mills
to participate in the incentives program rather than comply immediately
with the baseline BAT limitations.
8. Legal Authority to Promulgate a Package of Progressively More
Stringent Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations
    As described in more detail above, the Advanced Technology BAT
guidelines for each Tier consists of a range of successively more
stringent limitations and permit conditions that represent a mill's
progress toward the Tier's ultimate Advanced Technology performance
requirements. Based on its analysis of today's advanced and, in some
cases, innovative technologies and its judgment regarding the
historically rapid advance of pollution prevention processes in this
industry, EPA has determined that those performance requirements are
achievable, as a technical matter, by the dates specified in each Tier,
and that none of the other statutory factors in CWA Section
304(b)(2)(B) justify selecting different technology bases for Advanced
Technology BAT. EPA has also determined that those Advanced Technology
performance requirements are within the economic capability of mills
choosing today to meet them and hence are economically achievable for
those mills. EPA bases that determination primarily on two factors.
First, no mill is compelled to enroll in the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program; accordingly, EPA assumes that mills that
choose to enroll--and voluntarily subject themselves to a progression
of

[[Page 18607]]

successively more stringent, enforceable permit limits--do so with the
knowledge that they have the economic as well as technical ability to
meet those limits. Second, the experience of other mills that
voluntarily undertook major pollution prevention projects informs EPA
that the ambitious performance requirements are indeed achievable for
participating mills if the incremental improvements are staggered over
time.
    This incremental approach is authorized by CWA section
301(b)(2)(A), which expressly requires BAT to result in reasonable
further progress toward the national goal of eliminating pollutant
discharges. EPA believes that each of the steps comprising the three
tiers of Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations moves
participating mills toward that national goal. Once a mill enrolls in
the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program, it accepts and
must begin immediately to implement a BAT package consisting of
successively more stringent permit limits and conditions. Although
environmental improvements are realized only incrementally, the mill is
subject to the total set of limits--including the ultimate performance
requirements--as soon as its Advanced Technology permit is written
based on the first increment of that BAT package. Thus, the mill is
continuously subject to and must comply immediately with the Advanced
Technology BAT package as it progressively unfolds, including each
interim BAT limitation or permit condition representing that progress.
    EPA's promulgation of BAT as a package of progressively more
stringent limitations and conditions is also consistent with the use of
BAT as a ``beacon to show what is possible.'' Kennecott v. EPA, 780
F.2d 445, 448 (4th Cir. 1985). Thus, while the compulsory BAT in this
rule functions as the ``base level'' for the subcategory as a whole,
see E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U.S. 112, 129 (1977),
EPA expects the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations to drive
technologies and mills beyond that base level toward achievement of the
goals of the Clean Water Act. By holding out the Advanced Technologies
as beacons of progress, EPA believes that today's rule will encourage
more mills to strive toward EPA's pollution prevention and reduced flow
objectives than might otherwise do so if EPA promulgated nothing more
than a ``base level'' BAT. Moreover, by codifying progressively more
stringent limitations in today's Advanced Technology BAT package, EPA
promotes a form of technological progress that is consistent with
Congressional intent that BAT should aspire to ``increasingly higher
levels of control.'' See, e.g., Statement of Sen. Muskie (Oct. 4,
1972), reprinted in A Legislative History of the Water Pollution
Control Act Amendments of 1972 (``1972 Leg. Hist.''), at 170. It is
also consistent with the overall goals of the Act. See CWA Section
101(a). Agencies have considerable discretion to interpret their
statutes to promote Congressional objectives. `` `[T]he breadth of
agency discretion is, if anything, at zenith when the action * * *
relates primarily to * * * the fashioning of policies, remedies and
sanctions, including enforcement and voluntary compliance programs[,]
in order to arrive at maximum effectuation of Congressional
objectives.' '' U.S. Steelworkers of America v. Marshall, 647 F.2d
1189, 1230-31 n.64 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (upholding OSHA rule staggering
lead requirements over 10 years) (quoting Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v.
FPC, 379 F.2d 153, 159 (D.C. Cir. 1967)), cert. denied, 453 U.S. 9113
(1981). In this case, the codification of progressively more stringent
BAT limitations advances not only the general goal of the Clean Water
Act, but also the explicit goal of the BAT program. See Chevron,
U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 843-44 (1984).
    Moving toward the elimination of pollutant discharges in stages is
also consistent with overarching structure of the effluent limitations
guidelines program. Congress originally envisioned that the sequence of
attaining BPT limits in 1977 and BAT limits in 1983 would result in
``levels of control which approach and achieve the elimination of the
discharge of pollutants.'' Statement of Sen. Muskie (Oct. 4, 1972),
reprinted in 1972 Legislative History, at 170. This two-step approach
produced dramatic improvements in water quality, but did not achieve
the elimination of pollutant discharges. Therefore, EPA periodically
revisits and revises its effluent limitations guidelines with the
intention each time of making further progress toward the national
goal. (This is the sixth effluent limitations guideline promulgated for
the pulp and paper industry, and the fourth applicable to bleached
papergrade kraft and soda mills.) Achieving these incremental
improvements through successive rulemakings carries a substantial cost,
however. The effluent guideline rulemaking process is highly complex,
in large part because of the massive record compiled to inform the
Agency's decisions and because of the substantial costs associated with
achieving each additional increment of environmental improvement. By
promulgating these Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations today
as a package of incremental environmental improvements, EPA hopes to
achieve the goals that Congress envisioned for the BAT program at
considerably less cost: one rulemaking that looks both at the present
and well into the future. Mills willing to surpass today's compulsory
BAT requirements have a framework to anticipate what could be
tomorrow's subcategory-wide BAT and to make today's environmental,
financial and engineering judgments accordingly. Thus, the three-tiered
incentives program itself represents reasonable further progress toward
the goal of eliminating pollutant discharges. At the same time, within
each Tier, mills must make incremental improvements that also represent
reasonable further progress toward that national goal. In short, each
BAT increment, whether in the form of the Tiers themselves or the
progressively more stringent limitations comprising them, gives
contemporary meaning to the staging process originally envisioned by
Congress as the means to achieve the goal of eliminating discharge of
pollutants to the Nation's waters.
    Finally, like other agencies, EPA has inherent authority to phase
in regulatory requirements in appropriate cases. EPA has employed this
authority in other contexts. For example, EPA recently phased in, over
two years, TSCA rules pertaining to lead-based paint activities. See 40
CFR 746.239 and 61 FR 45788, 45803 (Aug. 29, 1996). Similarly, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration phased in, over 10 years,
a series of progressively more stringent lead-related controls. See 29
CFR 1910.1025 (1979 ed.). Indeed, in upholding that rule, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit noted that ``the extremely remote
deadline at which the [sources] are to meet the final [permissible
exposure limits] is perhaps the single most important factor supporting
the feasibility of the standard.'' United Steelworkers of America v.
Marshall, 647 F.2d at 1278.
    EPA is aware that CWA sections 301(b)(2)(C) & (D) require BAT
limits to be achieved ``in no case later than three years after the
date such limits are promulgated under section 304(b), and in no case
later than March 31, 1989.'' (Section 301(b)(2)(F), which refers to BAT
limitations for nonconventional pollutants, also contains the March 31,
1989 date, but uses as its starting point the date the limitations are
``established.'') This language does not speak to the precise question
EPA confronts here: whether EPA can

[[Page 18608]]

promulgate Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations that are
phased in over time, so that a direct discharger at all times is
subject to and must comply immediately with the particular BAT
limitations applicable to them at any given point in time. Section
301(b)(2) provides no clear direction. EPA therefore is charged with
making a reasonable interpretation of the statute to fill the gap. See
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. at 843-44. EPA believes that
subjecting mills who voluntarily enroll in the Voluntary Advance
Technology Incentives Program to progressively more stringent BAT
limitations over time best serves Congress' intent of pushing mills to
achieve reasonable further progress toward eliminating all pollutant
discharges. It also ensures that mills achieve these superior
performance requirements at a pace that makes technical and economic
sense. Finally, by phasing in these highly stringent--but elected--
controls, EPA hopes to encourage more mills to surpass the BAT
baseline, with the result that the environment realizes a far greater
improvement than EPA could expect to see without this phased approach.
For these reasons, EPA believes it is entitled to deference in its
decision to promulgate Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limits in this
manner.
    Several commenters supported the idea of phasing in compliance with
BAT limitations for the purpose of minimizing short-term economic
impacts on mills, but urged EPA to adopt this approach to set baseline
BAT limits based on the model Tier I Advanced Technology (i.e., BAT
Option B). In other words, these commenters argued that more stringent
baseline BAT limits based on the Tier I technology would be
economically achievable for the entire subcategory because affected
mills would have five years to achieve full compliance. As noted above,
EPA agrees that The Advanced Technologies that are not economically
achievable at present can become economically achievable for individual
mills that voluntarily participate as time passes. Indeed, Congress
recognized as much in requiring EPA to review its effluent guidelines
and to revise them as appropriate. See CWA section 304(b). However, EPA
disagrees that it currently has sufficient basis on the record
available today to compel all mills in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft
and Soda subcategory to meet the more stringent limits five years from
now. In this rulemaking, the economic achievability of those more
stringent (Tier I) limits is determined by the voluntary investment
decisions of the affected mills; because of the voluntary nature of the
Advanced Technology Incentives Program, it is the mills, not EPA, that
determine that particular Advanced Technologies are available and
economically achievable for them within the time frames provided in
this program. In order for EPA to impose Advanced Technology limits on
the entire subcategory as the commenter suggests, EPA would need to
find adequate support in the rulemaking record today that compulsory
BAT limits will be economically achievable for their entire subcategory
five years from now. EPA cannot make that determination based on the
information available today. At best, EPA could only speculate whether
some or all of the mills projected to sustain the most severe economic
impacts if BAT Option B is selected would be able to avoid those
impacts if compliance with that BAT is deferred. EPA does not believe
that this type of speculation is a sufficient basis for compelling
compliance with BAT limits that are not economically achievable today
for the subcategory as a whole. Moreover, when EPA estimated the
effects of deferring compliance, subcategory-wide, for five years in
response to these comments, EPA concluded that the projected impacts
were such that, even then, BAT Option B would not be economically
achievable for the subcategory as a whole. See Section VI.B.5.a(5). For
these reasons, EPA concludes that it does not have a sufficient record
basis today to make Tier I (or BAT Option B) limitations the compulsory
baseline BAT even if such limits would not be effective until 2002. See
DCN 14392, and CBI documents DCN 14390 and DCN 14391.
    EPA could have accomplished the same results in this rulemaking
simply by deferring the effective dates of the ultimate Advanced
Technology performance objectives until the dates specified in the rule
for achievement of the ``stage 2'' limitations. EPA has the legal
authority to defer the effective dates of the ``stage 2'' portion of
the Advanced Technology BAT limitations in this manner. Subject to the
minimum delays imposed by the APA, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(d), and the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C.
Sec. 801, EPA has inherent authority to determine the effective date of
a rule and to defer the effective date in appropriate cases. See ASG
Industries, Inc. v. Consumer Products Safety Comm'n, 593 F.2d 1323,
1335 (D.C. Cir. 1979). Nothing in the Clean Water Act limits this
authority with respect to BAT effluent limitations guidelines. In
contrast to section 306(b)(1)(B), where Congress explicitly stated that
new source performance standards, ``or revisions thereof, shall become
effective upon promulgation,'' the CWA is silent regarding the
effective date of BAT effluent limitations guidelines. Having failed to
prescribe when BAT guidelines become effective, Congress therefore has
delegated to the Agency the authority to choose the appropriate
effective date of the BAT effluent guideline limitations it
promulgates, so long as the Agency's choice is consistent with the
goals and purposes of the Act. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467
U.S. at 843-44, 861. Under this approach, the ``stage 1'' limitations
would be effective immediately, and the ``stage 2'' limitations would
become effective by the dates specified in the regulation.

B. Incentives Available After Achievement of Advanced Technology BAT
Limitations and NSPS

1. Greater Certainty Regarding Permit Limits and Requirements
    Industry stakeholders have suggested to EPA that mills could be
encouraged to implement advanced technologies if they had a reasonable
assurance that all limitations and conditions in their permits would
remain constant over a specified period of time, once compliance with
the Advanced Technology limits and standards is achieved.
    Under this incentive, EPA will issue guidance to states regarding
the reissuance of NPDES permits held by mills that achieve all of their
Advanced Technology BAT limitations or NSPS. (EPA notes that new
sources that accept permit limitations based on, and commence operation
in compliance with, Tier II or Tier III NSPS automatically possess a
shield against more stringent standards of performance for ten years
from the completion of construction.)
    In its forthcoming guidance, EPA will address the timing of
reissuing Advanced Technology NPDES permits and the limitations those
reissued permits should contain. Regarding the reissuance of Advanced
Technology NPDES permits, EPA believes that permitting authorities
could reasonably conclude that an Advanced Technology NPDES permit held
by a mill meeting all of its Tier limits is a low priority for permit
reissuance, if there is no new water quality- or facility-related data
or information that would justify new or different limits. Under these
circumstances, EPA believes it would be reasonable for a permitting
authority to

[[Page 18609]]

conclude that that permit is a lower priority for reissuance because
the mill is voluntarily achieving reductions greater than otherwise
required by the baseline BAT and hence presents a lower risk to water
quality than other mills.
    In its guidance, however, EPA will emphasize that an Advanced
Technology NPDES permit should be administratively extended only if the
permitting authority had provided the public with notice (the last time
the permit was reissued) that it might choose to extend the permit
administratively when it expires. Thus, EPA expects the permitting
authority to notify the public as part of the preceding permitting
process of the circumstances under which it would regard the Advanced
Technology NPDES permit as a low priority for reissuance in the next
permitting cycle. For example, EPA expects the permitting authority to
inform the public that the permit probably would be administratively
extended if the permittee has achieved all of its Advanced Technology
limitations, if it has filed a timely permit application, and if the
permitting authority possesses no new water quality or facility-related
data that would justify new or different permit conditions and limits.
In addition, EPA expects that the permit eligible for an administrative
extension would contain BMPs and any water quality-based effluent
limits necessary to achieve applicable water quality standards. Thus,
EPA would not expect any adverse effect on the environment during the
period the permit is administratively extended, in the absence of
specific information indicating that more stringent water quality
effluent limits need to be imposed.
    The forthcoming guidance will also address the types of limitations
an Advanced Technology NPDES permit should contain when it is reissued
after achievement of the Tier limitations. As a threshold matter, the
permitting authority will need to determine if there is a need for new
or revised water quality-based effluent limitations. If there is none,
EPA encourages permitting authorities to promptly reissue the NPDES
permit with the existing water quality-based effluent limitations, if
any, and the appropriate limitations found in 40 CFR Part 430. In some
cases, the permitting authority may receive new facility- or watershed-
specific information indicating that load reductions and, consequently,
more stringent effluent limits on a pollutant in the mill's wastewater
are necessary to achieve applicable water quality standards for that
pollutant. Under these circumstances, EPA would urge states to develop
priorities for allocating the necessary load reductions in a way that
gives preference to Advanced Technology mills over all other Subpart B
mills, particularly where Advanced Technology mills contribute a small
portion of the total pollutant loads to the stream. Moreover, where
more than one Advanced Technology mill discharges in a watershed, these
priorities would further give preference first to Tier III mills, then
to Tier II, and finally to Tier I mills.
2. Reduced Effluent Monitoring
    EPA believes that reduced monitoring provisions are appropriate for
ECF and TCF mills participating in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program and is including them in the today's regulation for
mills that achieve Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations or
NSPS, as appropriate. See 40 CFR 430.02(c), (d) and (e). In EPA's view,
consistent and successful implementation of the Advanced Technologies
through ECF or TCF processes will make it increasingly less likely that
the pollutants controlled by the baseline BAT will be present in the
wastewater from Advanced Technology fiber lines in levels of concern.
Because of these reductions and because monitoring for these pollutants
tends to be costly, EPA believes it is reasonable to allow mills
achieving the Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations or NSPS
through ECF or TCF processes to monitor less frequently for those
pollutant parameters over time after establishing a reliable baseline
of consistent achievement of those Advanced Technology BAT limitations
or NSPS. See 40 CFR 430.02(c)-(e). To qualify for a monitoring
incentive, the mill must certify that the fiber line is TCF or Advanced
ECF either as part of their permit application or as part of a report
of progress on compliance with milestones established to achieve their
ultimate Tier limits. 40 CFR 430.02(c).
    No monitoring incentive is available for kappa number or flow
because no minimum monitoring frequencies are being established by this
regulation. EPA encourages permitting authorities to consider factors
such as the reliability of the Advanced Technology to consistently
achieve or exceed the applicable limitations and performance
variability in establishing monitoring frequencies for kappa number and
flow on a best professional judgment basis.
    The monitoring incentive for AOX applies only when the entire mill
is ECF or TCF. See 40 CFR 430.02(c) and (d). Since compliance with AOX
most likely will be determined at the end of the pipe, the monitoring
requirement would be governed by the fiber line for which most frequent
monitoring is required.
    EPA retains the authority to request or obtain specific information
that may be needed to determine compliance with the requirements of
this rule. Because monitoring relief is specified to be available by
the date compliance is required, even if the limits have not been
achieved, EPA anticipates that permitting authorities will exercise
their Section 308 authority to extend more frequent monitoring for
mills that do not achieve compliance with their limitations.
    EPA relies on section 308(a) of the Clean Water Act for authority
to promulgate this incentive. The reduced monitoring for this effluent
limitations guideline incentive program is being incorporated in the
Code of Federal Regulations, and is summarized as follows:
    a. For TCF fiber lines under Tiers I, II, and III, no monitoring
incentive is available because no existing TCF fiber line is subject to
minimum monitoring frequencies established by this rule. See 40 CFR
430.02(a). EPA anticipates that permitting authorities will consider
the monitoring for AOX being imposed on mills in comparable Tiers, and
the additional assurance of compliance that TCF process technologies
afford relative to AOX, in establishing monitoring frequencies on a
best professional judgment basis. For mills that use TCF processes part
of the time and ECF processes for the remainder, EPA would apply the
reduced monitoring incentive applicable to an ECF process. See 40 CFR
430.02(c), (d) and (e).
    b. For any fiber line enrolled under Tier I, II, or III for which
the mill certifies in its NPDES permit application or other
communication to the permitting authority that it employs exclusively
Advanced ECF technologies (i.e., extended delignification or other
technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance levels
specified in Section 430.24(b)(4)(i)), the minimum monitoring
requirements for dioxin, furan, chloroform and the 12 chlorinated
phenolic pollutants will be suspended after one year of monitoring
following achievement of those limitations and standards. See 40 CFR
430.02(c). (These limitations and standards must be achieved no later
than April 15, 2004. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3).) For AOX, a certifying
Advanced ECF mill also would be permitted to perform weekly instead of
daily monitoring for one year after achievement of the ultimate Tier
BAT limit or NSPS for that pollutant. See 40

[[Page 18610]]

CFR 430.02(d). Monitoring for AOX once per month would be permitted for
Tier I ECF mills for four years beyond the completion of that one year
period. See 40 CFR 430.02(e). Tier II ECF mills would be permitted to
monitor for AOX once per quarter for four years beyond the completion
of that one year period, and Tier III ECF mills would be permitted to
monitor for AOX once per year for four years beyond the completion of
that one year period. Id.
3. Reduced Inspections
    EPA will issue guidance to EPA Regional Offices indicating that
fiber lines enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program and achieving Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT limitations or
NSPS should be a lower priority than other NPDES facilities for routine
inspections under the CWA. Under this incentive, the guidance would
recommend that fiber lines achieving Tier I limits receive routine EPA
inspections not more than once every two years; fiber lines achieving
Tier II limits receive routine EPA inspections not more than twice
every five years; and fiber lines achieving Tier III limits receive
routine EPA inspections not more than once every five years. This
incentive reflects EPA's view that mills installing and operating
Advanced Technologies at levels to meet the appropriate tier effluent
limitations and standards are likely to be complying with the other
permit requirements applicable to that fiber line. Furthermore, the
substantial reductions in pollutants and wastewater volumes discharged,
particularly by mills achieving Tier II and Tier III limitations and
standards, will have commensurately reduced environmental impacts. EPA
already has redirected Federal NPDES inspections away from annual
inspections of all major dischargers to focus on high risk facilities
in priority watersheds. Targeted efforts in these priority watersheds
focus on such factors as facility compliance status and rates, location
and affected population, citizen complaints, etc. Nonetheless, under
this incentive, EPA reserves the authority to conduct multi-media
inspections without prior notice, and to inspect Advanced Technology
fiber lines for cause, whether or not there is an ongoing violation.
EPA also reserves its right to inspect an Advanced Technology mill in
connection with specific watershed or airshed concerns.
4. Public Recognition Programs
    EPA is pleased to have the opportunity to implement a program in
which it can recognize facilities for voluntary activities that achieve
further environmental improvements beyond those required by the
baseline BAT limitations and NSPS promulgated today. EPA's intention is
to provide for easily administered and meaningful public recognition
for mills that participate in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program. EPA will accord public recognition to mills when
they formally enroll in the Program, when they achieve major interim
milestones, and when they achieve the ultimate Tier performance
requirements. The applicable state permitting authority also may choose
to separately recognize a pulp and paper mill for its commitments and
achievements toward further environmental improvements. The following
paragraphs describe the steps for public recognition. EPA will issue
additional guidance to facilitate implementation of this incentive.
    a. Enrolling in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program. Once a mill has enrolled in the Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program, EPA will issue a letter to each facility
acknowledging its participation and identifying the tier limits (and
fiber line(s) as appropriate) to which the mill has committed. Each
year EPA will publish a Federal Register notice identifying mills that
have committed to the program within the previous year. The self-
selected Tier will be clearly identified, as will any other pertinent
information. The Federal Register notice will be made available on the
EPA Internet web site.
    b. Achievement of Milestones. Each time a mill achieves a major
milestone (particularly those which achieve reduction in effluent
pollutant loadings), EPA will recognize that mill in its annual Federal
Register notice. In order to qualify for this recognition, each mill
must notify its permitting authority and provide supporting monitoring
data or other relevant documentation. The permitting authority may
choose to visit the site for verification. EPA, in concert with the
relevant state NPDES programs, also will then ascertain the status of
Clean Water Act compliance and any other enforcement actions prior to
public recognition activities. Any criminal enforcement activities,
particularly convictions, also will be ascertained. This information on
compliance and enforcement status will be available for consideration
by EPA senior management prior to initiation of public recognition
activities. Relevant information on enforcement and compliance status
also may be shared as appropriate with senior management of state
permitting agencies that initiate separate public recognition
activities. Public recognition for achieving milestones will continue
until the date participating mills are required to achieve the ultimate
Tier performance requirements.
    c. Achievement of Voluntary Advanced Technologies BAT Limitations
or NSPS. Mills that achieve their Advanced Technology BAT Limitations
or NSPS will notify the permitting authority and submit supporting
monitoring data and other relevant documentation. The permitting
authority will verify that the Advanced Technology BAT Limitations or
NSPS have been achieved. The annual Federal Register notice will
identify these facilities as reaching their goal. EPA also will
participate in an award ceremony at an appropriate venue (e.g., TAPPI
Environmental Conference).
5. Reduced Penalties
    In recognition of the considerable capital expenditures that mills
participating in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program
will make to implement Advanced Technologies and to achieve pollutant
reductions superior to those achievable through the baseline BAT or
NSPS, EPA will encourage enforcement authorities to take into account
those investments as appropriate when assessing penalties against these
mills for violations relating to those Advanced Technologies. Existing
EPA settlement policies provide consideration of Advanced Technology
investments in this manner. In EPA's view, if a facility has installed
and is operating the Advanced Technology in good faith, reports
violations in a prompt manner to EPA or the State, and either corrects
the violations in a timely manner or agrees to and complies with
reasonable remedial measures concurred on by the primary enforcement
authority, then the enforcement authority would be justified in taking
the Advanced Technology investment into account in determining economic
benefit and in reducing the gravity portion of the penalty by up to 100
percent. Where the installation and operation of any Advanced
Technology was more expensive than the installation and operation of
the technology underlying the baseline BAT, the Advanced Technology
facilities would derive no economic benefit (i.e., zero BEN) from the
violation associated with the Advanced Technology. This would be the
case even when the Advanced Technology fails, as long as the design,
operation and installation are within

[[Page 18611]]

applicable engineering standards and operational procedures are within
industry norms. The decision whether to take such Advanced Technology
investments into account in determining economic benefit would be left
to the State's discretion when the State is the enforcing authority.
EPA will issue guidance to clarify application of this incentive.
    Mills also can take advantage of the recently issued audit policy
providing they meet the criteria specified in that policy. See 60 FR
66706 (Dec. 22, 1995).

X. Administrative Requirements and Related Government Acts or
Initiatives

A. Dockets

    The docket is an organized and complete file of all the information
submitted to or otherwise considered by EPA in the development of the
final regulations. The principal purposes of the docket are: (1) To
allow interested parties to readily identify and locate documents so
that they can intelligently and effectively participate in the
rulemaking process; and (2) to serve as the record in case of judicial
review, except for intra-agency review materials as provided for in
section 307(d)(7)(A).
1. Air Dockets
    Air Docket No. A-92-40 contains information considered by EPA in
development of the NESHAP for the chemical wood pulping mills. Air
Docket No. A-95-31 contains information considered in developing the
NESHAP for mechanical pulping processes, secondary fiber pulping
processes, and nonwood fiber pulping processes. The Air Dockets are
available for public inspection between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday except for Federal holidays, at the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation Docket and
Information Center (MC-6102), 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460;
telephone: (202) 260-7548. The dockets are located at the above address
in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). All comments received
during the public comment period on the 1993 proposed NESHAP are
contained in the Pulp and Paper Water Docket (see following paragraph
for location). Comments received on the March 8, 1996, supplemental
NESHAP notice at 61 FR 9383 are contained in Air Dockets A-92-40 and A-
95-31.
2. Water Docket
    The complete public record for the effluent limitations guidelines
and standards rulemaking, including EPA's responses to comments
received during the rulemaking, is available for review at EPA's Water
Docket, Room M2616, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460. For access
to Docket materials, call (202) 260-3027. The Docket staff requests
that interested parties call between 9:00 am and 3:30 pm for an
appointment before visiting the docket.
    The EPA regulations at 40 CFR Part 2 provide that a reasonable fee
may be charged for copying materials from the Air and Water Dockets.
    EPA notes that many documents in the record supporting these final
rules have been claimed as confidential business information (CBI) and,
therefore, are not included in the record that is available to the
public in the Air and Water Dockets. To support the rulemaking, EPA is
presenting certain information in aggregated form or is masking
facility identities to preserve confidentiality claims. Further, the
Agency has withheld from disclosure some data not claimed as
confidential business information because release of this information
could indirectly reveal information claimed to be confidential.

B. Executive Order 12866 and OMB Review

    Under Executive Order 12866, (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that ``is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.''
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that the Cluster Rules are a ``significant regulatory
action'' because they will have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review.
Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are
documented in the public record.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA)

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.,
as amended by SBREFA, EPA generally is required to conduct a regulatory
flexibility analysis describing the impact of the rule on small
entities. However, under section 605(b) of the RFA, EPA is not required
to prepare the regulatory flexibility analysis if EPA certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    Pursuant to section 605(b) of the RFA, the Agency certifies that
today's final CWA rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. In addition, EPA also finds that
the final CAA rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities, as defined,
include small businesses, small governments, and small organizations.
This rulemaking does not affect small organizations. For small
governments, these rules could directly affect administration or
operating costs, but are not expected to result in significant impacts
(see Section X.E.). Small businesses are the remaining class of small
entity affected by this rulemaking. For small businesses, EPA examined
the economic impacts of these rules in detail and the results of its
analysis are found in the ``Economic Analysis'' (see DCN 14649). The
following is a brief summary of the analysis.
    Today's CWA final rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, because of those companies
affected by the CWA rule, only four are ``a small business concern'' as
defined by SBA regulations. (The RFA, in general, requires use of SBA
definitions of small businesses; for this regulation, small businesses
are defined as firms employing no more than 750 workers.) EPA does not
believe this is a substantial number of small entities as that term is
used in the RFA. Moreover, while all four small business concerns would
experience increased costs of operation as a result of today's rule,
the costs of complying with the rule are also not significant. As a
measure of the economic impact of today's requirements on a small
entity, EPA evaluated the costs of the rule relative to the company's
annual revenues. The cost of the rule only exceeded one percent of
revenues for one of the facilities and in no case did it exceed three
percent.

[[Page 18612]]

    When the costs of the CWA rule are considered in combination with
the costs of the final CAA MACT I and MACT III rules, EPA's conclusion
does not change. EPA's analysis showed that the combined costs of
achieving compliance with the final air and water rules will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As noted above, the CWA rule affects only four small entities. Further,
the combined costs of the rules only exceeded one percent of revenues
for one of the four small entities covered by both the final air and
water rules, and for no small entity did it exceed three percent. Even
though this is a small cost, because of the poor pre-existing economic
conditions at one facility, EPA projects that one facility owned by one
of the small firms may close as a result of the combined final CWA and
CAA rules. EPA has determined that one closure is not a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small business concerns.
    Though not required by the RFA, EPA also examined the costs of the
final CWA rule in combination with the costs of the final MACT I and
MACT III and proposed MACT II rules. EPA's analysis showed that the
combined costs of achieving compliance with the final air and water
rules and the proposed MACT II rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As stated
before, only four small entities would be affected. The combined cost
of the rules would only exceed one percent of revenues for two small
entities and for no small entity covered by both the final air and
water rules and the proposed air rule would it exceed three percent.
Even though this is a small cost, because of the poor pre-existing
economic conditions at one facility, EPA projects that one facility
owned by one of the small firms may close as a result of the final CWA
and final and proposed CAA rules.
    EPA's assessment of the impacts on small businesses subject to the
final CAA rules yields similar results. EPA evaluated the impacts of
the costs of the final MACT I and MACT III rules on small businesses.
Of the companies affected by the two CAA rules, only 11 meet the SBA
definition of ``a small business concern.'' EPA does not believe this
is a substantial number of small entities as that term is used in the
RFA. EPA has also examined the extent of the impact on those 11
companies and finds that the costs of complying with the final MACT I
rule and the final MACT III rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In evaluating the
costs of the rules relative to the company's annual revenues, EPA's
analysis shows that no company is estimated to incur costs in excess of
one percent of its revenues as a result of implementing the final MACT
I and MACT III rules. As a consequence, EPA finds that the CAA rule
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    When the costs of the final MACT I and MACT III rules are
considered in combination with the costs of the final CWA rule, EPA's
analysis shows that the combined costs of achieving compliance with the
final air and water rules is still not a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As discussed, only 11 small
business concerns must comply with the CAA rule. Of these, only four
will experience additional costs due to the CWA rule. The combined
costs of the rules only exceeded one percent of revenues for one small
entity covered by both the air and water rules, and for no small entity
did it exceed three percent. Even though this is a small cost, because
of the poor pre-existing economic conditions at one facility, EPA
projects that one facility owned by one of the small firms may close as
a result of the combined final CWA and CAA rules.
    Though not required by the RFA, EPA also assessed the cumulative
economic effect on small entities if the proposed MACT rule is adopted.
EPA's conclusion that costs to small entities are not great does not
change when the costs of the final and proposed MACT rules are combined
with the costs of the final CWA rule. The combined cost of the rules
would only exceed one percent of revenues for two small entities
covered by both the final air and water rules and the proposed air
rule, and for no small entity would it exceed three percent. Even
though this is a small cost, because of the poor pre-existing economic
conditions at one facility, EPA projects that one facility owned by one
of the small firms may close as a result of the combined final CWA and
CAA rules.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in the air emissions rules
have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An
Information Collection Request (ICR) document has been prepared by EPA
(ICR No. 1657.02), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy Farmer, OPPE
Regulatory Information Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2137); 401 M St., SW.; Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-
2740. The information requirements are not effective until OMB approves
them.
    The information required to be collected by the air emission rules
is needed as part of the overall compliance and enforcement program. It
is necessary to identify the regulated entities who are subject to the
rule and ensure their compliance with the rule. The recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are mandatory and are being established under
section 114 of the Clean Air Act.
    There are approximately 490 respondents that are potentially
affected by the air emission rules. All 490 respondents must submit an
initial applicability notification. Of the 490 affected respondents,
there would be an estimated 155 respondents required to perform
additional information collection. For the 155 respondents, this
collection of information has an estimated total annual recordkeeping
and reporting burden averaging 320 hours per respondent during the
first three years after promulgation. For the 155 respondents, the
average annualized cost of the reporting and recordkeeping burden per
respondent is $29,600 for the first three years following promulgation.
    The recordkeeping and reporting burden means the total time,
effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate,
maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a
Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions;
develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information,
processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing
information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously
applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to
respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete
and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise
disclose the information.
    Specifically, the estimated 155 respondents must submit performance
test notifications, statements of compliance, and semi-annual reports
of monitored parameters. The 155 respondents must also conduct
performance tests. If compliance exceedances occur, respondents must
submit quarterly excess emissions reports. This information will be
used to demonstrate compliance with the NESHAP.
    Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the

[[Page 18613]]

provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing
respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection
techniques to the Director, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., SW; Washington, DC
20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget, 725 17th St., NW, Washington, DC 20503,
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in
any correspondence.
    The effluent limitation guidelines and standards promulgated today
contain two distinct information collection activities, i.e., specified
monitoring requirements, see 40 CFR 430.02, and development of BMP
plans and related monitoring, see 40 CFR 430.03(c)(4), (c)(5), (c)(10),
(d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i)(4). EPA will seek approval of these
information collection requirements from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.,
as follows. EPA will seek to amend the NPDES Discharge Monitoring
Report ICR No. 229, OMB approval number 2040-0004, expiration May 31,
1998, to add specified monitoring requirements for direct dischargers.
EPA will seek to add the specified monitoring requirements for indirect
dischargers by amending the National Pretreatment Program ICR No. 2,
OMB approval number 2040-0009, prior to its expiration on October 31,
1999. EPA will seek approval of the Best Management Practices ICR No.
1829.01 for the requirements pertaining to BMP plans and associated
monitoring. EPA's burden estimates for the BMP ICR are presented for
comment in a document published elsewhere in today's Federal Register.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR parts 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    In addition, direct discharging mills continue to be required,
under 40 CFR 122.21, to submit certain information as part of their
application for an NPDES permit. Indirect discharging mills, in turn,
must submit industrial user reports and periodic reports regarding
compliance with categorical pretreatment standards under 40 CFR
403.12(b), (d), and (e). The effluent limitations guidelines and
standards being promulgated today do not change those requirements. EPA
notes that mills that describe their process as TCF or ECF under 40 CFR
122.21(g)(3) or 40 CFR 403.12(b), (d), or (e) as applicable, supply
corroborating data if requested by the permitting authority under 40
CFR 122.21(g)(13), and comply with the signatory and certification
requirements in 40 CFR 122.22 or 40 CFR 403.12(l) as applicable will be
deemed to have certified their process as TCF or ECF. In addition,
direct discharging mills that indicate under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and
(g)(13) their desire to participate in the Advanced Technology
Incentives Program and comply with the signatory and certification
requirements in 40 CFR 122.22 or 40 CFR 122.23, whichever is
applicable, will be deemed to have enrolled in the Advanced Technology
Incentives Program. In both cases, this information will determine the
types of technology-based effluent limitations and standards and the
types of monitoring requirements, if any, they will receive. OMB has
approved the existing information collection requirements associated
with NPDES discharge permit applications and industrial user reports
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. OMB has
assigned OMB control number 2040-0086 to the NPDES permit application
activity and OMB control numbers 2040-0009 and 2040-0150 to the
reporting and certification requirements for industrial users. Nothing
in today's rule changes the burden estimates for these ICRs.
    All information submitted to the EPA for which a claim of
confidentiality is made will be safeguarded according to the EPA
policies set forth in Title 40, Chapter 1, Part 2, Subpart B--
Confidentiality of Information (see 40 CFR part 2; 41 FR 36902,
September 1, 1976; amended by 43 FR 39999, September 8, 1978; 43 FR
42241, September 28, 1978; 44 FR 17674, March 23, 1979).

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that today's final rules contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for the
private sector in any one year. Accordingly, EPA has prepared the
written statement required by section 202 of the UMRA. This statement
is contained in the Economic Analysis for the rule (DCN 14649) and
other support documents and is summarized below. In addition, EPA has
determined that the rules contain no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments and therefore are
not subject to the requirement of section 203 of the UMRA. The reasons
for this finding are set forth below.
    EPA prepared several supporting analyses for the final rules.
Throughout this preamble and in those supporting analyses, EPA has
responded to the UMRA section 202 requirements. Considerations with
respect to costs, benefits, and regulatory alternatives are addressed
in the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649), which is summarized in Section
VIII of this preamble. A very brief summary follows.
    The statutory authorities for these rules are found in section 112
of the CAA and multiple sections of the CWA (see Section I for a list).
In part, these sections of the statutes authorize and direct EPA to
issue regulations and standards to address air emissions and effluent
discharges.
    EPA prepared a qualitative and quantitative cost-benefit assessment
of

[[Page 18614]]

the federal requirements imposed by today's final rules. In large part,
the private sector, not other governments, will incur the costs.
Specifically, the costs of this federal mandate are compliance costs to
be borne by the regulated pulp and paper mills. In addition, although
some States and local governments will incur costs to implement the
standards, these costs to governments will not exceed the thresholds
established by UMRA. The final rules are not expected to result in
significant or unique impacts to small governments; the requirements
are consistent with established and already-operating implementation
programs.
    EPA estimates that the total annualized costs for the private
sector to comply with the federal mandate are $351 million (pre-tax)/
$229 million (post-tax). The mandate's benefits are primarily in the
areas of reduced health risks and improved air and water quality. The
Economic Analysis (DCN 14649) describes, qualitatively, many such
benefits. The analysis then quantifies a subset of the benefits and,
for a subset of the quantified benefits, EPA monetizes (i.e., places a
dollar value on) selected benefits. EPA's estimates of the monetized
benefits for the final rules are in the range of $39 to $403 million.
    EPA does not believe that there will be any disproportionate
budgetary effects of the rules on any particular areas of the country,
particular types of communities, or particular industry segments. EPA's
basis for this finding is its analysis of economic impacts, which is
summarized in Section VIII of the preamble and in the Economic Analysis
(DCN 14649). A key feature of that analysis is the estimation of
financial impacts for each facility incurring compliance costs. EPA
considered the costs, impacts, and other effects for specific regions
and individual communities, and found no disproportionate budgetary
effects. Although these final rules apply only to one industry segment,
EPA found no disproportionate budgetary effect. (The term segment as
used in this context refers to the industrial category of pulp, paper,
and paperboard, and not to individual subcategories within that
category; it is used differently in other sections of this preamble.)
The Economic Analysis (DCN 14649) also describes the rules' effect on
the national economy in terms of effects on productivity, economic
growth, and international competitiveness; EPA found such effects to be
minimal. Although EPA has determined that these rules do not contain
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect any State,
local, or tribal governments (see chapter 7), EPA consulted with State
and local air and water pollution control officials. These
consultations primarily pertained to implementation issues for States
and local governments. EPA's evaluation of their comments is reflected
in the final rules.
    For each regulatory decision in today's rules, EPA has selected the
``least costly, most cost effective, or least burdensome alternative''
that was consistent with the requirements of the CAA and CWA. This
satisfies section 205 of the UMRA. As part of this rulemaking, EPA had
identified and considered a reasonable number of regulatory
alternatives. Primarily, the regulatory alternatives are manufacturing
processes, air emission controls, wastewater discharge controls, and
other technologies. Many of the alternatives are described above in
Section VI; others are described in supporting documents. The Agency's
consideration of alternatives also included an incentives program to
encourage bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills to commit to
pollution prevention advances beyond the requirements of the federal
mandate. See Section IX. The Agency's selection from among these
alternatives is consistent with the requirements of UMRA, in terms of
cost, cost-effectiveness, and burden. Several sections of the preamble
are devoted to describing the Agency's rationale for each regulatory
decision (e.g., Sections VI.B.5.a(5) and VI.B.6.b(2)).
    Finally, EPA has considered the purpose and intent of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act and has determined that these rules are needed, not
only because of the significant pollutant reductions these rules will
achieve, see Section VII, but also to satisfy EPA's obligations under
the consent decree in Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Wildlife
Federation v. Thomas, see Section II.C.1.a, and EPA's CAA obligations.

F. Pollution Prevention Act

    In the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 13101 et seq.,
Public Law 101-508, November 5, 1990), Congress declared pollution
prevention the national policy of the United States. The Pollution
Prevention Act declares that pollution should be prevented or reduced
whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented or reduced should
be recycled or reused in an environmentally safe manner wherever
feasible; pollution that cannot be recycled should be treated; and
disposal or release into the environment should be chosen only as a
last resort.
    Today's rules are consistent with this policy. As described in
section VI, development of today's rules focused on the pollution-
preventing technologies that some segments of the industry have already
adopted. Thus, a critical component of the technology bases for today's
effluent limitations guidelines and standards are process changes that
eliminate or substantially reduce the formation of certain toxic
chemicals. EPA also employs process changes as the technology basis for
the emission standards.

G. Common Sense Initiative

    On August 19, 1994, the Administrator established the Common Sense
Initiative (CSI) Council in accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2, Section 9 (c)) requirements. A
principal goal of the CSI includes developing recommendations for
optimal approaches to multimedia controls for industrial sectors
including Petroleum Refining, Metal Plating and Finishing, Printing,
Electronics and Computers, Auto Manufacturing, and Iron and Steel
Manufacturing.
    The Pulp and Paper regulations were not among the rulemaking
efforts included in the Common Sense Initiative. However, many of the
CSI objectives have been incorporated into these final rules, and the
Agency intends to continue to pursue these objectives.

H. Executive Order 12875

    To reduce the burden of federal regulations on States and small
governments, the President issued Executive Order 12875 on October 28,
1993, entitled Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership (58 FR
58093). In particular, this executive order requires EPA to consult
with representatives of affected State, local, or tribal governments.
While these rules do not create mandates upon State, local, or tribal
governments, EPA involved State and local governments in their
development. Because this regulation imposes costs to the private
sector in excess of $100 million, the EPA pursued the preparation of an
unfunded mandates statement and the other requirements of the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act. The requirements are met as presented in the
unfunded mandate s section above.

I. Executive Order 12898

    Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to ``determine
whether their programs, policies, and activities have

[[Page 18615]]

disproportionally high adverse human health or environmental effects on
minority populations and low-income populations.'' (Sec.3-301 and Sec.
3-302). In developing the Cluster Rules, EPA analyzed the environmental
justice questions raised by these rules. EPA conducted two analyses in
1996 to comply with Executive Order 12898 and to determine human health
effects on minority and low-income populations.
    First, in a comparison of demographic characteristics, EPA found
that there is no significant difference in ethnic makeup or income
level of counties where bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills are
located when compared to the States in which they are located. In fact,
of the twenty-six States with bleached papergrade kraft and soda mills,
fifteen States actually have lower minority populations (as a
percentage of overall population) in mill counties than in the State as
a whole, and sixteen States have a lower percent African-American
population in mill counties than in their respective states. Fifteen
States have a slightly larger portion of the population living below
the poverty line in mill counties (15 percent average) when compared to
the State as a whole (14.1 percent average); however, when EPA examined
the results statistically, differences examined between mill counties
and total State populations were not significant. Therefore, EPA has
concluded that the regulatory decisions reflected in today's rules will
not have a disproportionately high adverse human health or
environmental effect on minority populations or low-income populations.
    Second, EPA investigated the fish consumption characteristics of
Native American populations downstream from pulp and paper mills. Of
the 48 Native American tribes downstream from pulp mills, eight have
special subsistence fishing rights. One finding from EPA's analysis is
that members of five of these tribes have elevated risks of contracting
cancer from consuming fish contaminated by dioxin, when compared to the
general population and recreational anglers, because they consume fish
at higher levels. EPA expects the final rule to reduce substantially
the cancer risks to these tribal populations, as discussed in Chapter 8
of the Economic Analysis (DCN 14649).

J. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

    Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), EPA submitted a
report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S.
Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General
of the General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in
today's Federal Register. This rule is a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Under Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the Agency is required to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory and procurement activities unless to do so
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, business practices,
etc.) which are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards
bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide
Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget, an explanation
of the reasons for not using such standards. This section summarizes
EPA's response to the requirements of the NTTAA for the analytical test
methods promulgated as part of today's effluent limitations guidelines
and standards.
    EPA's analytical test method development is consistent with the
requirements of the NTTAA. Although the Agency initiated data
collection for these effluent guidelines many years prior to enactment
of the NTTAA, traditionally, analytical test method development has
been analogous to the Act's requirements for consideration and use of
voluntary consensus standards. EPA performed extensive literature
searches to identify any analytical methods from industry, academia,
voluntary consensus standards bodies and other parties that could be
used to measure the analytes in today's rulemaking. The results of this
search formed the basis for EPA's analytical method development and
validation in support of this rulemaking. Two new analytical test
methods are being promulgated in today's final rule (see Section
VI.B.4).
    The first method is EPA Method 1650 for determination of adsorbable
organic halides (AOX). Development of Method 1650 began in 1989 to
support data gathering for regulation of pulp and paper industry
discharges. This method was developed by combining various procedures
contained in methods from voluntary consensus standards bodies and
other standards developing organizations such as German DIN standard 38
409, International Standard Organization (ISO) Method 9562,
Scandinavian Method SCAN-W 9:89, Standard Method 5320 (published
jointly by the American Public Health Association, the American Water
Works Association and the Water Environment Federation), a method
published by Environment Canada, EPA's Method 9020 and EPA's interim
Method 450.1. The foreign and international methods all employed the
batch adsorption technique for determination of AOX; the U.S. methods
all employed the column technique. Nearly all data collected by the
paper industry and others prior to development of Method 1650 were
gathered using the column technique. Method 1650 allows use of both the
batch and column techniques but contains restrictions on the batch
technique specific to paper industry wastewaters, as detailed in the
Method and as described above in Section VI.B.4 and in EPA's responses
to public comments (DCN 14497, Vol. VII). In addition to the
differences between adsorption techniques, none of the existing
methods, including those in voluntary consensus standards, contained
the standardized quality control (QC) and QC acceptance criteria that
EPA requires for data verification and validation in its water
programs. EPA is therefore promulgating the new EPA Method 1650.
    EPA is also promulgating EPA Method 1653 for determination of
chlorinated phenolics. Development of Method 1653 also began in 1989 to
support data gathering for regulation of pulp and paper industry
discharges. This method was developed using National Council of the
Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement (NCASI) Methods CP85.01
and CP86.01 as a starting point and adding the necessary standardized
QC and QC acceptance criteria. EPA Method 1653 and the NCASI methods
employ in-situ derivatization to assure that only chlorophenolics are
derivatized and measured. The in-situ derivatization technique allows
only chlorophenolics to be derivatized in the effluent and leaves
behind interfering analytes. This condition is necessary for accurate
measurement of the relevant analytes. Voluntary consensus standards
methods were not available for chlorophenolics by in-situ
derivatization. EPA is therefore promulgating the new EPA Method 1653.
    Dischargers are also required to monitor for 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (dioxin; TCDD; 2,3,7,8-TCDD), 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF;

[[Page 18616]]

2,3,7,8-TCDF), chloroform, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and total
suspended solids (TSS). Methods for monitoring these pollutants are
specified in tables at 40 CFR part 136. When available, methods
published by voluntary consensus standards bodies are included in the
list of approved methods in these tables. Specifically, voluntary
consensus standards are approved for the determination of chloroform,
BOD, and TSS (from the 18th edition of Standard Methods). In addition,
USGS methods are approved for BOD and TSS.
    For TCDD and TCDF, EPA is specifying the use of EPA Method 1613,
promulgated at 62 FR 48394 (September 15, 1997). This method was
developed to support data gathering for regulation of pulp and paper
industry discharges and incorporates procedures from EPA, academia,
industry (NCASI and the Dow Chemical Co.) and a commercial laboratory.
There were no voluntary consensus standards methods available for these
pollutants by high resolution gas chromatography (HRGC) coupled with
high resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) at the time EPA Method 1613
was developed. Both HRGC and HRMS are required to separately detect and
measure dioxin and furan isomers at low concentrations (i.e., low parts
per quadrillion (ppq)). High resolution techniques are necessary to
conduct the assay in the presence of interfering analytes. EPA is
unaware of the existence of an HRGC/HRMS method from a voluntary
consensus standards body for determination of TCDD and TCDF in the low
ppq range in pulp and paper industry discharges.

XI. Background Documents

    The summary of public comments and agency responses and the
environmental impacts statement for the NESHAP are contained in the
final Background Information Document (BID). A paper copy of the final
Background Information Document for the NESHAP may be obtained from the
U.S. EPA Library (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711,
telephone (919) 541-2777; or from the National Technical Information
Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22151, telephone
(703) 487-4650. To obtain the final Background Information Document,
please refer to ``Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry--Background
Information for Promulgated Air Emission Standards, Manufacturing
Processes at Kraft, Sulfite, Soda, Semi-Chemical, Mechanical, and
Secondary and Non-wood Fiber Mills, Final EIS'' (EPA-453/R-93-050b). An
electronic copy of the final Background Information Document is
available from the Technology Transfer Network described in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Documents supporting the effluent limitations guidelines and
standards may be obtained by contacting the National Technical
Information Services, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia
22151, telephone (703) 487-4650.
    EPA's technical conclusions concerning the wastewater regulations
are detailed in the ``Supplemental Technical Development Document for
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Pulp, Paper, and
Paperboard Point Source Category'' (EPA-821-R-97-011, DCN 14487). The
Agency's economic analysis is found in the ``Economic Analysis for the
National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source
Category: Pulp and Paper Production; Effluent Limitations Guidelines,
Pretreatment Standards, and New Source Performance Standards for the
Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industry--Phase I,'' referred to as the
Economic Analysis (EPA-821-R-97-012, DCN 14649). This document also
includes an analysis of the incremental costs and pollutant removals
for the effluent regulations. Analytical methods used in the
development of the effluent guidelines are found in ``Analytical
Methods for the Determination of Pollutants in Pulp and Paper Industry
Wastewater,'' a compendium of analytical methods (EPA 821-B-97-00). The
environmental assessment is presented in the ``Water Quality Assessment
of Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines for the Papergrade Sulfite and
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategories of the Pulp, Paper,
and Paperboard Industry'' (EPA-823-R-97-009, DCN 14650). The
statistical analyses used in this rulemaking are detailed in the
``Statistical Support Document for the Pulp and Paper Industry: Subpart
B'' (DCN 14496). The best management practices program is presented in
``Technical Support Document for Best Management Practices for Spent
Pulping Liquor Management, Spill Prevention, and Control (DCN 14489),
also referred to as the BMP Technical Support Document. The Advanced
Technology Incentives Program is presented in the ``Technical Support
Document for the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program,''
(EPA-821-R-97-014, DCN 14488).

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

40 CFR Part 261

    Hazardous waste, Recycling, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

40 CFR Part 430

    Paper and paper products industry, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waste treatment and disposal, Water pollution control.

    Dated: November 14, 1997.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 63--NATIONAL EMISSION STANDARDS FOR HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS
FOR SOURCE CATEGORIES

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart S to read as follows:
Subpart S--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Pulp and Paper Industry
Sec.
63.440  Applicability.
63.441  Definitions.
63.442  [Reserved]
63.443  Standards for the pulping system at kraft, soda, and semi-
chemical processes.
63.444  Standards for the pulping system at sulfite processes.
63.445  Standards for the bleaching system.
63.446  Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.
63.447  Clean condensate alternative.
63.448-63.449  [Reserved]
63.450  Standards for enclosures and closed-vent systems.
63.451-63.452  [Reserved]
63.453  Monitoring requirements.
63.454  Recordkeeping requirements.
63.455  Reporting requirements.
63.456  [Reserved]
63.457  Test methods and procedures.
63.458  Delegation of authority.
63.459  [Reserved]

[[Page 18617]]

Table 1 to Subpart S.--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart S

Subpart S--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Pulp and Paper Industry


Sec. 63.440  Applicability.

    (a) The provisions of this subpart apply to the owner or operator
of processes that produce pulp, paper, or paperboard; that are located
at a plant site that is a major source as defined in Sec. 63.2 of
subpart A of this part; and that use the following processes and
materials:
    (1) Kraft, soda, sulfite, or semi-chemical pulping processes using
wood; or
    (2) Mechanical pulping processes using wood; or
    (3) Any process using secondary or non-wood fibers.
    (b) The affected source to which the existing source provisions of
this subpart apply is as follows:
    (1) For the processes specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section, the affected source is the total of all HAP emission points in
the pulping and bleaching systems; or
    (2) For the processes specified in paragraphs (a)(2) or (a)(3) of
this section, the affected source is the total of all HAP emission
points in the bleaching system.
    (c) The new source provisions of this subpart apply to the total of
all HAP emission points at new or existing sources as follows:
    (1) Each affected source defined in paragraph (b)(1) of this
section that commences construction or reconstruction after December
17, 1993;
    (2) Each pulping system or bleaching system for the processes
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section that commences
construction or reconstruction after December 17, 1993;
    (3) Each additional pulping or bleaching line at the processes
specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, that commences
construction after December 17, 1993;
    (4) Each affected source defined in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section that commences construction or reconstruction after March 8,
1996; or
    (5) Each additional bleaching line at the processes specified in
paragraphs (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section, that commences
construction after March 8, 1996.
    (d) Each existing source shall achieve compliance no later than
April 16, 2001, except as provided in paragraphs (d)(1) through (d)(3)
of this section.
    (1) Each kraft pulping system shall achieve compliance with the
pulping system provisions of Sec. 63.443 for the equipment listed in
Sec. 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through (a)(1)(v) as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than April 17, 2006 and the owners
and operators shall establish dates, update dates, and report the dates
for the milestones specified in Sec.  63.455(b).
    (2) Each dissolving-grade bleaching system at either kraft or
sulfite pulping mills shall achieve compliance with the bleach plant
provisions of Sec. 63.445 of this subpart as expeditiously as
practicable, but in no event later than 3 years after the promulgation
of the revised effluent limitation guidelines and standards under 40
CFR 430.14 through 430.17 and 40 CFR 430.44 through 430.47.
    (3) Each bleaching system complying with the Voluntary Advanced
Technology Incentives Program for Effluent Limitation Guidelines in 40
CFR 430.24, shall comply with the requirements specified in either
paragraph (d)(3)(i) or (d)(3)(ii) of this section for the effluent
limitation guidelines and standards in 40 CFR 430.24.
    (i) Comply with the bleach plant provisions of Sec. 63.445 of this
subpart as expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than
April 16, 2001.
    (ii) Comply with all of the following:
    (A) The owner or operator of a bleaching system shall comply with
the bleach plant provisions of Sec. 63.445 of this subpart as
expeditiously as practicable, but in no event later than April 15,
2004.
    (B) The owner or operator of a bleaching system shall not increase
the application rate of chlorine or hypochlorite in kg of bleaching
agent per megagram of ODP, in the bleaching system above the average
daily rates used over the three months prior to June 15, 1998 until the
requirements of paragraph (d)(3)(ii)(A) of this section are met and
record application rates as specified in Sec. 63.454(c).
    (C) Owners and operators shall establish dates, update dates, and
report the dates for the milestones specified in Sec. 63.455(b).
    (e) Each new source, specified as the total of all HAP emission
points for the sources specified in paragraph (c) of this section,
shall achieve compliance upon start-up or June 15, 1998, whichever is
later, as provided in Sec. 63.6(b) of subpart A of this part.
    (f) Each owner or operator of an affected source with affected
process equipment shared by more than one type of pulping process,
shall comply with the applicable requirement in this subpart that
achieves the maximum degree of reduction in HAP emissions.
    (g) Each owner or operator of an affected source specified in
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section must comply with the
requirements of subpart A--General Provisions of this part, as
indicated in table 1 to this subpart.


Sec. 63.441  Definitions.

    All terms used in this subpart shall have the meaning given them in
the CAA, in subpart A of this part, and in this section as follows:
    Acid condensate storage tank means any storage tank containing
cooking acid following the sulfur dioxide gas fortification process.
    Black liquor means spent cooking liquor that has been separated
from the pulp produced by the kraft, soda, or semi-chemical pulping
process.
    Bleaching means brightening of pulp by the addition of oxidizing
chemicals or reducing chemicals.
    Bleaching line means a group of bleaching stages arranged in series
such that bleaching of the pulp progresses as the pulp moves from one
stage to the next.
    Bleaching stage means all process equipment associated with a
discrete step of chemical application and removal in the bleaching
process including chemical and steam mixers, bleaching towers, washers,
seal (filtrate) tanks, vacuum pumps, and any other equipment serving
the same function as those previously listed.
    Bleaching system means all process equipment after high-density
pulp storage prior to the first application of oxidizing chemicals or
reducing chemicals following the pulping system, up to and including
the final bleaching stage.
    Boiler means any enclosed combustion device that extracts useful
energy in the form of steam. A boiler is not considered a thermal
oxidizer.
    Chip steamer means a vessel used for the purpose of preheating or
pretreating wood chips prior to the digester, using flash steam from
the digester or live steam.
    Closed-vent system means a system that is not open to the
atmosphere and is composed of piping, ductwork, connections, and, if
necessary, flow-inducing devices that transport gas or vapor from an
emission point to a control device.
    Combustion device means an individual unit of equipment, including
but not limited to, a thermal oxidizer, lime kiln, recovery furnace,
process heater, or boiler, used for the thermal oxidation of organic
hazardous air pollutant vapors.

[[Page 18618]]

    Decker system means all equipment used to thicken the pulp slurry
or reduce its liquid content after the pulp washing system and prior to
high-density pulp storage. The decker system includes decker vents,
filtrate tanks, associated vacuum pumps, and any other equipment
serving the same function as those previously listed.
    Digester system means each continuous digester or each batch
digester used for the chemical treatment of wood or non-wood fibers.
The digester system equipment includes associated flash tank(s), blow
tank(s), chip steamer(s) not using fresh steam, blow heat recovery
accumulator(s), relief gas condenser(s), prehydrolysis unit(s)
preceding the pulp washing system, and any other equipment serving the
same function as those previously listed. The digester system includes
any of the liquid streams or condensates associated with batch or
continuous digester relief, blow, or flash steam processes.
    Emission point means any part of a stationary source that emits
hazardous air pollutants regulated under this subpart, including
emissions from individual process vents, stacks, open pieces of process
equipment, equipment leaks, wastewater and condensate collection and
treatment system units, and those emissions that could reasonably be
conveyed through a stack, chimney, or duct where such emissions first
reach the environment.
    Evaporator system means all equipment associated with increasing
the solids content and/or concentrating spent cooking liquor from the
pulp washing system including pre-evaporators, multi-effect
evaporators, concentrators, and vacuum systems, as well as associated
condensers, hotwells, and condensate streams, and any other equipment
serving the same function as those previously listed.
    Flow indicator means any device that indicates gas or liquid flow
in an enclosed system.
    HAP means a hazardous air pollutant as defined in Sec. 63.2 of
subpart A of this part.
    High volume, low concentration or HVLC collection system means the
gas collection and transport system used to convey gases from the HVLC
system to a control device.
    High volume, low concentration or HVLC system means the collection
of equipment including the pulp washing, knotter, screen, decker, and
oxygen delignification systems, weak liquor storage tanks, and any
other equipment serving the same function as those previously listed.
    Knotter system means equipment where knots, oversized material, or
pieces of uncooked wood are removed from the pulp slurry after the
digester system and prior to the pulp washing system. The knotter
system equipment includes the knotter, knot drainer tanks, ancillary
tanks, and any other equipment serving the same function as those
previously listed.
    Kraft pulping means a chemical pulping process that uses a mixture
of sodium hydroxide and sodium sulfide as the cooking liquor.
    Lime kiln means an enclosed combustion device used to calcine lime
mud, which consists primarily of calcium carbonate, into calcium oxide.
    Low volume, high concentration or LVHC collection system means the
gas collection and transport system used to convey gases from the LVHC
system to a control device.
    Low volume, high concentration or LVHC system means the collection
of equipment including the digester, turpentine recovery, evaporator,
steam stripper systems, and any other equipment serving the same
function as those previously listed.
    Mechanical pulping means a pulping process that only uses
mechanical and thermo-mechanical processes to reduce wood to a fibrous
mass. The mechanical pulping processes include, but are not limited to,
stone groundwood, pressurized groundwood, refiner mechanical, thermal
refiner mechanical, thermo-mechanical, and tandem thermo-mechanical.
    Non-wood pulping means the production of pulp from fiber sources
other than trees. The non-wood fiber sources include, but are not
limited to, bagasse, cereal straw, cotton, flax straw, hemp, jute,
kenaf, and leaf fibers.
    Oven-dried pulp or ODP means a pulp sample at zero percent moisture
content by weight. Pulp samples for applicability or compliance
determinations for both the pulping and bleaching systems shall be
unbleached pulp. For purposes of complying with mass emission limits in
this subpart, megagram of ODP shall be measured to represent the amount
of pulp entering and processed by the equipment system under the
specified mass limit. For equipment that does not process pulp,
megagram of ODP shall be measured to represent the amount of pulp that
was processed to produce the gas and liquid streams.
    Oxygen delignification system means the equipment that uses oxygen
to remove lignin from pulp after high-density stock storage and prior
to the bleaching system. The oxygen delignification system equipment
includes the blow tank, washers, filtrate tanks, any interstage pulp
storage tanks, and any other equipment serving the same function as
those previously listed.
    Primary fuel means the fuel that provides the principal heat input
to the combustion device. To be considered primary, the fuel must be
able to sustain operation of the combustion device without the addition
of other fuels.
    Process wastewater treatment system means a collection of
equipment, a process, or specific technique that removes or destroys
the HAP's in a process wastewater stream. Examples include, but are not
limited to, a steam stripping unit, wastewater thermal oxidizer, or
biological treatment unit.
    Pulp washing system means all equipment used to wash pulp and
separate spent cooking chemicals following the digester system and
prior to the bleaching system, oxygen delignification system, or paper
machine system (at unbleached mills). The pulp washing system equipment
includes vacuum drum washers, diffusion washers, rotary pressure
washers, horizontal belt filters, intermediate stock chests, and their
associated vacuum pumps, filtrate tanks, foam breakers or tanks, and
any other equipment serving the same function as those previously
listed. The pulp washing system does not include deckers, screens,
knotters, stock chests, or pulp storage tanks following the last stage
of pulp washing.
    Pulping line means a group of equipment arranged in series such
that the wood chips are digested and the resulting pulp progresses
through a sequence of steps that may include knotting, refining,
washing, thickening, blending, storing, oxygen delignification, and any
other equipment serving the same function as those previously listed.
    Pulping process condensates means any HAP-containing liquid that
results from contact of water with organic compounds in the pulping
process. Examples of process condensates include digester system
condensates, turpentine recovery system condensates, evaporator system
condensates, LVHC system condensates, HVLC system condensates, and any
other condensates from equipment serving the same function as those
previously listed. Liquid streams that are intended for byproduct
recovery are not considered process condensate streams.
    Pulping system means all process equipment, beginning with the
digester system, and up to and including the last piece of pulp
conditioning equipment prior to the bleaching system, including

[[Page 18619]]

treatment with ozone, oxygen, or peroxide before the first application
of a chemical bleaching agent intended to brighten pulp. The pulping
system includes pulping process condensates and can include multiple
pulping lines.
    Recovery furnace means an enclosed combustion device where
concentrated spent liquor is burned to recover sodium and sulfur,
produce steam, and dispose of unwanted dissolved wood components in the
liquor.
    Screen system means equipment in which oversized particles are
removed from the pulp slurry prior to the bleaching or papermaking
system washed stock storage.
    Secondary fiber pulping means a pulping process that converts a
fibrous material, that has previously undergone a manufacturing
process, into pulp stock through the addition of water and mechanical
energy. The mill then uses that pulp as the raw material in another
manufactured product. These mills may also utilize chemical, heat, and
mechanical processes to remove ink particles from the fiber stock.
    Semi-chemical pulping means a pulping process that combines both
chemical and mechanical pulping processes. The semi-chemical pulping
process produces intermediate yields ranging from 55 to 90 percent.
    Soda pulping means a chemical pulping process that uses sodium
hydroxide as the active chemical in the cooking liquor.
    Spent liquor means process liquid generated from the separation of
cooking liquor from pulp by the pulp washing system containing
dissolved organic wood materials and residual cooking compounds.
    Steam stripper system means a column (including associated stripper
feed tanks, condensers, or heat exchangers) used to remove compounds
from wastewater or condensates using steam. The steam stripper system
also contains all equipment associated with a methanol rectification
process including rectifiers, condensers, decanters, storage tanks, and
any other equipment serving the same function as those previously
listed.
    Strong liquor storage tanks means all storage tanks containing
liquor that has been concentrated in preparation for combustion or
oxidation in the recovery process.
    Sulfite pulping means a chemical pulping process that uses a
mixture of sulfurous acid and bisulfite ion as the cooking liquor.
    Temperature monitoring device means a piece of equipment used to
monitor temperature and having an accuracy of 1.0 percent
of the temperature being monitored expressed in degrees Celsius or
0.5 degrees Celsius ( deg.C), whichever is greater.
    Thermal oxidizer means an enclosed device that destroys organic
compounds by thermal oxidation.
    Turpentine recovery system means all equipment associated with
recovering turpentine from digester system gases including condensers,
decanters, storage tanks, and any other equipment serving the same
function as those previously listed. The turpentine recovery system
includes any liquid streams associated with the turpentine recovery
process such as turpentine decanter underflow. Liquid streams that are
intended for byproduct recovery are not considered turpentine recovery
system condensate streams.
    Weak liquor storage tank means any storage tank except washer
filtrate tanks containing spent liquor recovered from the pulping
process and prior to the evaporator system.


Sec. 63.442  [Reserved]


Sec. 63.443  Standards for the pulping system at kraft, soda, and semi-
chemical processes.

    (a) The owner or operator of each pulping system using the kraft
process subject to the requirements of this subpart shall control the
total HAP emissions from the following equipment systems, as specified
in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (1) At existing affected sources, the total HAP emissions from the
following equipment systems shall be controlled:
    (i) Each LVHC system;
    (ii) Each knotter or screen system with total HAP mass emission
rates greater than or equal to the rates specified in paragraphs
(a)(1)(ii)(A) or (a)(1)(ii)(B) of this section or the combined rate
specified in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(C) of this section.
    (A) Each knotter system with emissions of 0.05 kilograms or more of
total HAP per megagram of ODP (0.1 pounds per ton).
    (B) Each screen system with emissions of 0.10 kilograms or more of
total HAP per megagram of ODP (0.2 pounds per ton).
    (C) Each knotter and screen system with emissions of 0.15 kilograms
or more of total HAP per megagram of ODP (0.3 pounds per ton).
    (iii) Each pulp washing system;
    (iv) Each decker system that:
    (A) Uses any process water other than fresh water or paper machine
white water; or
    (B) Uses any process water with a total HAP concentration greater
than 400 parts per million by weight; and
    (v) Each oxygen delignification system.
    (2) At new affected sources, the total HAP emissions from the
equipment systems listed in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(iii), and
(a)(1)(v) of this section and the following equipment systems shall be
controlled:
    (i) Each knotter system;
    (ii) Each screen system;
    (iii) Each decker system; and
    (iv) Each weak liquor storage tank.
    (b) The owner or operator of each pulping system using a semi-
chemical or soda process subject to the requirements of this subpart
shall control the total HAP emissions from the following equipment
systems as specified in paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section.
    (1) At each existing affected sources, the total HAP emissions from
each LVHC system shall be controlled.
    (2) At each new affected source, the total HAP emissions from each
LVHC system and each pulp washing system shall be controlled.
    (c) Equipment systems listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section shall be enclosed and vented into a closed-vent system and
routed to a control device that meets the requirements specified in
paragraph (d) of this section. The enclosures and closed-vent system
shall meet the requirements specified in Sec. 63.450.
    (d) The control device used to reduce total HAP emissions from each
equipment system listed in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section
shall:
    (1) Reduce total HAP emissions by 98 percent or more by weight; or
    (2) Reduce the total HAP concentration at the outlet of the thermal
oxidizer to 20 parts per million or less by volume, corrected to 10
percent oxygen on a dry basis; or
    (3) Reduce total HAP emissions using a thermal oxidizer designed
and operated at a minimum temperature of 871  deg.C (1600  deg.F) and a
minimum residence time of 0.75 seconds; or
    (4) Reduce total HAP emissions using a boiler, lime kiln, or
recovery furnace by introducing the HAP emission stream with the
primary fuel or into the flame zone.
    (e) Periods of excess emissions reported under Sec. 63.455 shall
not be a violation of Sec. 63.443 (c) and (d) provided that the time of
excess emissions (excluding periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction) divided by the total process operating time in a semi-
annual reporting period does not exceed the following levels:
    (1) One percent for control devices used to reduce the total HAP
emissions from the LVHC system; and

[[Page 18620]]

    (2) Four percent for control devices used to reduce the total HAP
emissions from the HVLC system; and
    (3) Four percent for control devices used to reduce the total HAP
emissions from both the LVHC and HVLC systems.


Sec. 63.444  Standards for the pulping system at sulfite processes.

    (a) The owner or operator of each sulfite process subject to the
requirements of this subpart shall control the total HAP emissions from
the following equipment systems as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section.
    (1) At existing sulfite affected sources, the total HAP emissions
from the following equipment systems shall be controlled:
    (i) Each digester system vent;
    (ii) Each evaporator system vent; and
    (iii) Each pulp washing system.
    (2) At new affected sources, the total HAP emissions from the
equipment systems listed in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and the
following equipment shall be controlled:
    (i) Each weak liquor storage tank;
    (ii) Each strong liquor storage tank; and
    (iii) Each acid condensate storage tank.
    (b) Equipment listed in paragraph (a) of this section shall be
enclosed and vented into a closed-vent system and routed to a control
device that meets the requirements specified in paragraph (c) of this
section. The enclosures and closed-vent system shall meet the
requirements specified in Sec. 63.450. Emissions from equipment listed
in paragraph (a) of this section that is not necessary to be reduced to
meet paragraph (c) of this section is not required to be routed to a
control device.
    (c) The total HAP emissions from both the equipment systems listed
in paragraph (a) of this section and the vents, wastewater, and
condensate streams from the control device used to reduce HAP
emissions, shall be controlled as follows.
    (1) Each calcium-based or sodium-based sulfite pulping process
shall:
    (i) Emit no more than 0.44 kilograms of total HAP or methanol per
megagram (0.89 pounds per ton) of ODP; or
    (ii) Remove 92 percent or more by weight of the total HAP or
methanol.
    (2) Each magnesium-based or ammonium-based sulfite pulping process
shall:
    (i) Emit no more than 1.1 kilograms of total HAP or methanol per
megagram (2.2 pounds per ton) of ODP; or
    (ii) Remove 87 percent or more by weight of the total HAP or
methanol.


Sec. 63.445  Standards for the bleaching system.

    (a) Each bleaching system that does not use any chlorine or
chlorinated compounds for bleaching is exempt from the requirements of
this section. Owners or operators of the following bleaching systems
shall meet all the provisions of this section:
    (1) Bleaching systems that use chlorine;
    (2) Bleaching systems bleaching pulp from kraft, sulfite, or soda
pulping processes that uses any chlorinated compounds; or
    (3) Bleaching systems bleaching pulp from mechanical pulping
processes using wood or from any process using secondary or non-wood
fibers, that use chlorine dioxide.
    (b) The equipment at each bleaching stage, of the bleaching systems
listed in paragraph (a) of this section, where chlorinated compounds
are introduced shall be enclosed and vented into a closed-vent system
and routed to a control device that meets the requirements specified in
paragraph (c) of this section. The enclosures and closed-vent system
shall meet the requirements specified in Sec. 63.450.
    (c) The control device used to reduce chlorinated HAP emissions
(not including chloroform) from the equipment specified in paragraph
(b) of this section shall:
    (1) Reduce the total chlorinated HAP mass in the vent stream
entering the control device by 99 percent or more by weight;
    (2) Achieve a treatment device outlet concentration of 10 parts per
million or less by volume of total chlorinated HAP; or
    (3) Achieve a treatment device outlet mass emission rate of 0.001
kg of total chlorinated HAP mass per megagram (0.002 pounds per ton) of
ODP.
    (d) The owner or operator of each bleaching system subject to
paragraph (a)(2) of this section shall comply with paragraph (d)(1) or
(d)(2) of this section to reduce chloroform air emissions to the
atmosphere, except the owner or operator of each bleaching system
complying with extended compliance under Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii) shall
comply with paragraph (d)(1) of this section.
    (1) Comply with the following applicable effluent limitation
guidelines and standards specified in 40 CFR part 430:
    (i) Dissolving-grade kraft bleaching systems and lines, 40 CFR
430.14 through 430.17;
    (ii) Paper-grade kraft and soda bleaching systems and lines, 40 CFR
430.24(a)(1) and (e), and 40 CFR 430.26 (a) and (c);
    (iii) Dissolving-grade sulfite bleaching systems and lines, 40 CFR
430.44 through 430.47; or
    (iv) Paper-grade sulfite bleaching systems and lines, 40 CFR
430.54(a) and (c), and 430.56(a) and (c).
    (2) Use no hypochlorite or chlorine for bleaching in the bleaching
system or line.


Sec. 63.446  Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.

    (a) The requirements of this section apply to owners or operators
of kraft processes subject to the requirements of this subpart.
    (b) The pulping process condensates from the following equipment
systems shall be treated to meet the requirements specified in
paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section:
    (1) Each digester system;
    (2) Each turpentine recovery system;
    (3) Each evaporator stage where weak liquor is introduced (feed
stages) in the evaporator system;
    (4) Each HVLC collection system; and
    (5) Each LVHC collection system.
    (c) One of the following combinations of HAP-containing pulping
process condensates generated, produced, or associated with the
equipment systems listed in paragraph (b) of this section shall be
subject to the requirements of paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section:
    (1) All pulping process condensates from the equipment systems
specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section.
    (2) The combined pulping process condensates from the equipment
systems specified in paragraphs (b)(4) and (b)(5) of this section, plus
pulping process condensate stream(s) that in total contain at least 65
percent of the total HAP mass from the pulping process condensates from
equipment systems listed in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this
section.
    (3) The pulping process condensates from equipment systems listed
in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section that in total
contain a total HAP mass of 3.6 kilograms or more of total HAP per
megagram (7.2 pounds per ton) of ODP for mills that do not perform
bleaching or 5.5 kilograms or more of total HAP per megagram (11.1
pounds per ton) of ODP for mills that perform bleaching.
    (d) The pulping process condensates from the equipment systems
listed in paragraph (b) of this section shall be conveyed in a closed
collection system that is designed and operated to meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) of this section.
    (1) Each closed collection system shall meet the individual drain
system

[[Page 18621]]

requirements specified in Sec. 63.960, 63.961, and 63.962 of subpart RR
of this part, except for closed vent systems and control devices shall
be designed and operated in accordance with Secs. 63.443(d) and 63.450,
instead of in accordance with Sec. 63.693 as specified in Sec. 63.962
(a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(ii)(A), and (b)(3)(ii)(B)(5)(iii); and
    (2) If a condensate tank is used in the closed collection system,
the tank shall meet the following requirements:
    (i) The fixed roof and all openings (e.g., access hatches, sampling
ports, gauge wells) shall be designed and operated with no detectable
leaks as indicated by an instrument reading of less than 500 parts per
million above background, and vented into a closed-vent system that
meets the requirements in Sec. 63.450 and routed to a control device
that meets the requirements in Sec. 63.443(d); and
    (ii) Each opening shall be maintained in a closed, sealed position
(e.g., covered by a lid that is gasketed and latched) at all times that
the tank contains pulping process condensates or any HAP removed from a
pulping process condensate stream except when it is necessary to use
the opening for sampling, removal, or for equipment inspection,
maintenance, or repair.
    (e) Each pulping process condensate from the equipment systems
listed in paragraph (b) of this section shall be treated according to
one of the following options:
    (1) Recycle the pulping process condensate to an equipment system
specified in Sec. 63.443(a) meeting the requirements specified in
Sec. 63.443(c) and (d); or
    (2) Discharge the pulping process condensate below the liquid
surface of a biological treatment system meeting the requirement
specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section; or
    (3) Treat the pulping process condensates to reduce or destroy the
total HAP's by at least 92 percent or more by weight; or
    (4) At mills that do not perform bleaching, treat the pulping
process condensates to remove 3.3 kilograms or more of total HAP per
megagram (6.6 pounds per ton) of ODP, or achieve a total HAP
concentration of 210 parts per million or less by weight at the outlet
of the control device; or
    (5) At mills that perform bleaching, treat the pulping process
condensates to remove 5.1 kilograms or more of total HAP per megagram
(10.2 pounds per ton) of ODP, or achieve a total HAP concentration of
330 parts per million or less by weight at the outlet of the control
device.
    (f) Each HAP removed from a pulping process condensate stream
during treatment and handling under paragraphs (d) or (e) of this
section, except for those treated according to paragraph (e)(2) of this
section, shall be controlled as specified in Sec. 63.443(c) and (d).
    (g) For each steam stripper system used to comply with the
requirements specified in paragraph (e)(3) of this section, periods of
excess emissions reported under Sec. 63.455 shall not be a violation of
paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) of this section provided that the time of
excess emissions (including periods of startup, shutdown, or
malfunction) divided by the total process operating time in a semi-
annual reporting period does not exceed 10 percent.
    (h) Each owner or operator of a new or existing affected source
subject to the requirements of this section shall evaluate all new or
modified pulping process condensates or changes in the annual bleached
or non-bleached ODP used to comply with paragraph (i) of this section,
to determine if they meet the applicable requirements of this section.
    (i) For the purposes of meeting the requirements in paragraphs
(c)(2), (e)(4), or (e)(5) of this section at mills producing both
bleached and unbleached pulp products, owners and operators may meet a
prorated mass standard that is calculated by prorating the applicable
mass standards (kilograms of total HAP per megagram of ODP) for
bleached and unbleached specified in paragraphs (c)(2), (e)(4), or
(e)(5) of this section by the ratio of annual megagrams of bleached and
unbleached ODP.


Sec. 63.447  Clean condensate alternative.

    As an alternative to the requirements specified in
Sec. 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through (a)(1)(v) for the control of HAP
emissions from pulping systems using the kraft process, an owner or
operator must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Administrator, by
meeting all the requirements below, that the total HAP emissions
reductions achieved by this clean condensate alternative technology are
equal to or greater than the total HAP emission reductions that would
have been achieved by compliance with Sec. 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through
(a)(1)(v).
    (a) For the purposes of this section only the following additional
definitions apply.
    (1) Clean condensate alternative affected source means the total of
all HAP emission points in the pulping, bleaching, causticizing, and
papermaking systems (exclusive of HAP emissions attributable to
additives to paper machines and HAP emission points in the LVHC
system).
    (2) Causticizing system means all equipment associated with
converting sodium carbonate into active sodium hydroxide. The equipment
includes smelt dissolving tanks, lime mud washers and storage tanks,
white and mud liquor clarifiers and storage tanks, slakers, slaker grit
washers, lime kilns, green liquor clarifiers and storage tanks, and
dreg washers ending with the white liquor storage tanks prior to the
digester system, and any other equipment serving the same function as
those previously listed.
    (3) Papermaking system means all equipment used to convert pulp
into paper, paperboard, or market pulp, including the stock storage and
preparation systems, the paper or paperboard machines, and the paper
machine white water system, broke recovery systems, and the systems
involved in calendering, drying, on-machine coating, slitting, winding,
and cutting.
    (b) Each owner or operator shall install and operate a clean
condensate alternative technology with a continuous monitoring system
to reduce total HAP emissions by treating and reducing HAP
concentrations in the pulping process water used within the clean
condensate alternative affected source.
    (c) Each owner or operator shall calculate HAP emissions on a
kilogram per megagram of ODP basis and measure HAP emissions according
to the appropriate procedures contained in Sec. 63.457.
    (d) Each owner or operator shall determine the baseline HAP
emissions for each equipment system and the total of all equipment
systems in the clean condensate alternative affected source based on
the following:
    (1) Process and air pollution control equipment installed and
operating on or after December 17, 1993, and
    (2) Compliance with the following requirements that affect the
level of HAP emissions from the clean condensate alternative affected
source:
    (i) The pulping process condensates requirements in Sec. 63.446;
    (ii) The applicable effluent limitation guidelines and standards in
40 CFR part 430, subparts A, B, D, and E; and
    (iii) All other applicable requirements of local, State, or Federal
agencies or statutes.
    (e) Each owner or operator shall determine the following HAP
emission reductions from the baseline HAP emissions determined in
paragraph (d) of this section for each equipment system and the total
of all equipment

[[Page 18622]]

systems in the clean condensate alternative affected source:
    (1) The HAP emission reduction occurring by complying with the
requirements of Sec. 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through (a)(1)(v); and
    (2) The HAP emissions reduction that occurring by complying with
the clean condensate alternative technology.
    (f) For the purposes of all requirements in this section, each
owner or operator may use as an alternative, individual equipment
systems (instead of total of all equipment systems) within the clean
condensate alternative affected source to determine emissions and
reductions to demonstrate equal or greater than the reductions that
would have been achieved by compliance with Sec. 63.443(a)(1)(ii)
through (a)(1)(v).
    (g) The initial and updates to the control strategy report
specified in Sec. 63.455(b) shall include to the extent possible the
following information:
    (1) A detailed description of:
    (i) The equipment systems and emission points that comprise the
clean condensate alternative affected source;
    (ii) The air pollution control technologies that would be used to
meet the requirements of Sec. 63.443(a)(1)(ii) through (a)(1)(v);
    (iii) The clean condensate alternative technology to be used.
    (2) Estimates and basis for the estimates of total HAP emissions
and emissions reductions to fulfill the requirements paragraphs (d),
(e), and (f) of this section.
    (h) Each owner or operator shall report to the Administrator by the
applicable compliance date specified in Sec. 63.440(d) or (e) the
rationale, calculations, test procedures, and data documentation used
to demonstrate compliance with all the requirements of this section.


Secs. 63.448-63.449  [Reserved]


Sec. 63.450  Standards for enclosures and closed-vent systems.

    (a) Each enclosure and closed-vent system specified in
Secs. 63.443(c), 63.444(b), and 63.445(b) for capturing and
transporting vent streams that contain HAP shall meet the requirements
specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
    (b) Each enclosure shall maintain negative pressure at each
enclosure or hood opening as demonstrated by the procedures specified
Sec. 63.457(e). Each enclosure or hood opening closed during the
initial performance test specified in Sec. 63.457(a) shall be
maintained in the same closed and sealed position as during the
performance test at all times except when necessary to use the opening
for sampling, inspection, maintenance, or repairs.
    (c) Each component of the closed-vent system used to comply with
Secs. 63.443(c), 63.444(b), and 63.445(b) that is operated at positive
pressure and located prior to a control device shall be designed for
and operated with no detectable leaks as indicated by an instrument
reading of less than 500 parts per million by volume above background,
as measured by the procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(d).
    (d) Each bypass line in the closed-vent system that could divert
vent streams containing HAP to the atmosphere without meeting the
emission limitations in Secs. 63.443, 63.444, or 63.445 shall comply
with either of the following requirements:
    (1) On each bypass line, the owner or operator shall install,
calibrate, maintain, and operate according to manufacturer's
specifications a flow indicator that provides a record of the presence
of gas stream flow in the bypass line at least once every 15 minutes.
The flow indicator shall be installed in the bypass line in such a way
as to indicate flow in the bypass line; or
    (2) For bypass line valves that are not computer controlled, the
owner or operator shall maintain the bypass line valve in the closed
position with a car seal or a seal placed on the valve or closure
mechanism in such a way that valve or closure mechanism cannot be
opened without breaking the seal.


Secs. 63.451-63.452  [Reserved]


Sec. 63.453  Monitoring requirements.

    (a) Each owner or operator subject to the standards specified in
Secs. 63.443(c) and (d), 63.444(b) and (c), 63.445(b) and (c),
63.446(c), (d), and (e), 63.447(b) or Sec. 63.450(d), shall install,
calibrate, certify, operate, and maintain according to the
manufacturer's specifications, a continuous monitoring system (CMS, as
defined in Sec. 63.2 of this part) as specified in paragraphs (b)
through (m) of this section, except as allowed in paragraph (m) of this
section. The CMS shall include a continuous recorder.
    (b) A CMS shall be operated to measure the temperature in the
firebox or in the ductwork immediately downstream of the firebox and
before any substantial heat exchange occurs for each thermal oxidizer
used to comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.443(d)(1) through
(d)(3). Owners and operators complying with the requirements in
Sec. 63.443(d)(2) or (d)(3) shall monitor the parameter specified and
for the temperature and concentration limits specified.
    (c) A CMS shall be operated to measure the following parameters for
each gas scrubber used to comply with the bleaching system requirements
of Sec. 63.445(c) or the sulfite pulping system requirements of
Sec. 63.444(c).
    (1) The pH or the oxidation/reduction potential of the gas scrubber
effluent;
    (2) The gas scrubber vent gas inlet flow rate; and
    (3) The gas scrubber liquid influent flow rate.
    (d) As an option to the requirements specified in paragraph (c) of
this section, a CMS shall be operated to measure the chlorine outlet
concentration of each gas scrubber used to comply with the bleaching
system outlet concentration requirement specified in Sec. 63.445(c)(2).
    (e) The owner or operator of a bleaching system complying with 40
CFR 430.24, shall monitor the chlorine and hypochlorite application
rates, in kg of bleaching agent per megagram of ODP, of the bleaching
system during the extended compliance period specified in
Sec. 63.440(d)(3).
    (f) A CMS shall be operated to measure the gas scrubber parameters
specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (c)(3) of this section or those
site specific parameters determined according to the procedures
specified in paragraph (n) of this section to comply with the sulfite
pulping system requirements specified in Sec. 63.444(c).
    (g) A CMS shall be operated to measure the following parameters for
each steam stripper used to comply with the treatment requirements in
Sec. 63.446(e) (3), (4), or (5):
    (1) The process wastewater feed rate;
    (2) The steam feed rate; and
    (3) The process wastewater column feed temperature.
    (h) As an option to the requirements specified in paragraph (g) of
this section, a CMS shall be operated to measure the methanol outlet
concentration to comply with the steam stripper outlet concentration
requirement specified in Sec. 63.446 (e)(4) or (e)(5).
    (i) A CMS shall be operated to measure the appropriate parameters
determined according to the procedures specified in paragraph (n) of
this section to comply with the condensate applicability requirements
specified in Sec. 63.446(c).
    (j) Each owner or operator using a biological treatment system to
comply with Sec. 63.446(e)(2) shall perform the following monitoring
procedures.

[[Page 18623]]

    (1) On a daily basis, monitor the following parameters for each
biological treatment unit:
    (i) Composite daily sample of outlet soluble BOD5
concentration to monitor for maximum daily and maximum monthly average;
    (ii) Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids;
    (iii) Horsepower of aerator unit(s);
    (iv) Inlet liquid flow; and
    (v) Liquid temperature.
    (2) Obtain daily inlet and outlet liquid grab samples from each
biological treatment unit to have HAP data available to perform
quarterly percent reduction tests specified in paragraph (j)(2)(ii) of
this section and the compliance percent reduction tests specified in
paragraph (p)(1)(i) of this section. Perform the following procedures
with the liquid samples:
    (i) Store the samples for 5 days as specified in Sec. 63.457(n).
The 5 day storage requirement is required since the soluble
BOD5 test requires 5 days to obtain results. If the results
of the soluble BOD5 test are outside of the range
established during the initial performance test, then the archive
sample shall be used to perform the percent reduction test specified in
Sec. 63.457(1).
    (ii) Perform the percent reduction test procedures specified in
Sec. 63.457(l) within 45 days after the beginning of each quarter as
follows.
    (A) The percent reduction test performed in the first quarter
(annually) shall be performed for total HAP and the percent reduction
obtained from the test shall be at least as great as the total HAP
reduction specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2).
    (B) The remaining quarterly percent reduction tests shall be
performed for methanol and the percent reduction obtained from the test
shall be at least as great as the methanol reduction determined in the
previous first-quarter test specified in paragraph (j)(2)(ii)(A) of
this section.
    (C) The parameter values used to calculate the percent reductions
required in paragraphs (j)(2)(ii)(A) and (j)(2)(ii)(B) of this section
shall be parameter values measured and samples taken in paragraph
(j)(1) of this section.
    (k) Each enclosure and closed-vent system used to comply with
Sec. 63.450(a) shall comply with the requirements specified in
paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(6) of this section.
    (1) For each enclosure opening, a visual inspection of the closure
mechanism specified in Sec. 63.450(b) shall be performed at least once
every 30 days to ensure the opening is maintained in the closed
position and sealed.
    (2) Each closed-vent system required by Sec. 63.450(a) shall be
visually inspected every 30 days and at other times as requested by the
Administrator. The visual inspection shall include inspection of
ductwork, piping, enclosures, and connections to covers for visible
evidence of defects.
    (3) For positive pressure closed-vent systems or portions of
closed-vent systems, demonstrate no detectable leaks as specified in
Sec. 63.450(c) measured initially and annually by the procedures in
Sec. 63.457(d).
    (4) Demonstrate initially and annually that each enclosure opening
is maintained at negative pressure as specified in Sec. 63.457(e).
    (5) The valve or closure mechanism specified in Sec. 63.450(d)(2)
shall be inspected at least once every 30 days to ensure that the valve
is maintained in the closed position and the emission point gas stream
is not diverted through the bypass line.
    (6) If an inspection required by paragraphs (k)(1) through (k)(5)
of this section identifies visible defects in ductwork, piping,
enclosures or connections to covers required by Sec. 63.450, or if an
instrument reading of 500 parts per million by volume or greater above
background is measured, or if enclosure openings are not maintained at
negative pressure, then the following corrective actions shall be taken
as soon as practicable.
    (i) A first effort to repair or correct the closed-vent system
shall be made as soon as practicable but no later than 5 calendar days
after the problem is identified.
    (ii) The repair or corrective action shall be completed no later
than 15 calendar days after the problem is identified.
    (l) Each pulping process condensate closed collection system used
to comply with Sec. 63.446(d) shall be visually inspected every 30 days
and shall comply with the inspection and monitoring requirements
specified in Sec. 63.964 of subpart RR of this part, except for the
closed-vent system and control device inspection and monitoring
requirements specified in Sec. 63.964(a)(2) of subpart RR of this part,
the closed-vent system and the control device shall meet the
requirements specified in paragraphs (a) and (k) of this section.
    (m) Each owner or operator using a control device, technique or an
alternative parameter other than those specified in paragraphs (b)
through (l) of this section shall install a CMS and establish
appropriate operating parameters to be monitored that demonstrate, to
the Administrator's satisfaction, continuous compliance with the
applicable control requirements.
    (n) To establish or reestablish, the value for each operating
parameter required to be monitored under paragraphs (b) through (j),
(l), and (m) of this section or to establish appropriate parameters for
paragraphs (f), (i), and (m) of this section, each owner or operator
shall use the following procedures:
    (1) During the initial performance test required in Sec. 63.457(a)
or any subsequent performance test, continuously record the operating
parameter;
    (2) Determinations shall be based on the control performance and
parameter data monitored during the performance test, supplemented if
necessary by engineering assessments and the manufacturer's
recommendations;
    (3) The owner or operator shall provide for the Administrator's
approval the rationale for selecting the monitoring parameters
necessary to comply with paragraphs (f), (i), and (m) of this section;
and
    (4) Provide for the Administrator's approval the rationale for the
selected operating parameter value, and monitoring frequency, and
averaging time. Include all data and calculations used to develop the
value and a description of why the value, monitoring frequency, and
averaging time demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable
emission standard.
    (o) Each owner or operator of a control device subject to the
monitoring provisions of this section shall operate the control device
in a manner consistent with the minimum or maximum (as appropriate)
operating parameter value or procedure required to be monitored under
paragraphs (a) through (n) of this section and established under this
subpart. Except as provided in paragraph (p) of this section,
Sec. 63.443(e), or Sec. 63.446(g), operation of the control device
below minimum operating parameter values or above maximum operating
parameter values established under this subpart or failure to perform
procedures required by this subpart shall constitute a violation of the
applicable emission standard of this subpart and be reported as a
period of excess emissions.
    (p) Each owner or operator of a biological treatment system
complying with paragraph (j) of this section shall perform all the
following requirements when the monitoring parameters specified in
paragraphs (j)(1)(i) through (j)(1)(iii) of this section are below
minimum operating parameter values or

[[Page 18624]]

above maximum operating parameter values established in paragraph (n)
of this section.
    (1) The following shall occur and be recorded as soon as practical:
    (i) Determine compliance with Sec. 63.446(e)(2) using the percent
reduction test procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(l) and the
monitoring data specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this section that
coincide with the time period of the parameter excursion;
    (ii) Steps shall be taken to repair or adjust the operation of the
process to end the parameter excursion period; and
    (iii) Steps shall be taken to minimize total HAP emissions to the
atmosphere during the parameter excursion period.
    (2) A parameter excursion is not a violation of the applicable
emission standard if the percent reduction test specified in paragraph
(p)(1)(i) of this section demonstrates compliance with
Sec. 63.446(e)(2), and no maintenance or changes have been made to the
process or control device after the beginning of a parameter excursion
that would influence the results of the determination.


Sec. 63.454  Recordkeeping requirements.

    (a) The owner or operator of each affected source subject to the
requirements of this subpart shall comply with the recordkeeping
requirements of Sec. 63.10 of subpart A of this part, as shown in table
1, and the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this
section for the monitoring parameters specified in Sec. 63.453.
    (b) For each applicable enclosure opening, closed-vent system, and
closed collection system, the owner or operator shall prepare and
maintain a site-specific inspection plan including a drawing or
schematic of the components of applicable affected equipment and shall
record the following information for each inspection:
    (1) Date of inspection;
    (2) The equipment type and identification;
    (3) Results of negative pressure tests for enclosures;
    (4) Results of leak detection tests;
    (5) The nature of the defect or leak and the method of detection
(i.e., visual inspection or instrument detection);
    (6) The date the defect or leak was detected and the date of each
attempt to repair the defect or leak;
    (7) Repair methods applied in each attempt to repair the defect or
leak;
    (8) The reason for the delay if the defect or leak is not repaired
within 15 days after discovery;
    (9) The expected date of successful repair of the defect or leak if
the repair is not completed within 15 days;
    (10) The date of successful repair of the defect or leak;
    (11) The position and duration of opening of bypass line valves and
the condition of any valve seals; and
    (12) The duration of the use of bypass valves on computer
controlled valves.
    (c) The owner or operator of a bleaching system complying with
Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) shall record the daily average chlorine and
hypochlorite application rates, in kg of bleaching agent per megagram
of ODP, of the bleaching system until the requirements specified in
Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(A) are met.
    (d) The owner or operator shall record the CMS parameters specified
in Sec. 63.453 and meet the requirements specified in paragraph (a) of
this section for any new affected process equipment or pulping process
condensate stream that becomes subject to the standards in this subpart
due to a process change or modification.


Sec. 63.455  Reporting requirements.

    (a) Each owner or operator of a source subject to this subpart
shall comply with the reporting requirements of subpart A of this part
as specified in table 1 and all the following requirements in this
section. The initial notification report specified under
Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A of this part shall be submitted by April
15, 1999.
    (b) Each owner or operator of a kraft pulping system specified in
Sec. 63.440(d)(1) or a bleaching system specified in
Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii) shall submit, with the initial notification
report specified under Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of subpart A of this part and
paragraph (a) of this section and update every two years thereafter, a
non-binding control strategy report containing, at a minimum, the
information specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(3) of this
section in addition to the information required in Sec. 63.9(b)(2) of
subpart A of this part.
    (1) A description of the emission controls or process modifications
selected for compliance with the control requirements in this standard.
    (2) A compliance schedule, including the dates by which each step
toward compliance will be reached for each emission point or sets of
emission points. At a minimum, the list of dates shall include:
    (i) The date by which the major study(s) for determining the
compliance strategy will be completed;
    (ii) The date by which contracts for emission controls or process
modifications will be awarded, or the date by which orders will be
issued for the purchase of major components to accomplish emission
controls or process changes;
    (iii) The date by which on-site construction, installation of
emission control equipment, or a process change is to be initiated;
    (iv) The date by which on-site construction, installation of
emissions control equipment, or a process change is to be completed;
    (v) The date by which final compliance is to be achieved;
    (vi) For compliance with paragraph Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii), the
tentative dates by which compliance with effluent limitation guidelines
and standards intermediate pollutant load effluent reductions and as
available, all the dates for the best available technology's milestones
reported in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
authorized under section 402 of the Clean Water Act and for the best
professional milestones in the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives
Program under 40 CFR 430.24 (b)(2); and
    (vii) The date by which the final compliance tests will be
performed.
    (3) Until compliance is achieved, revisions or updates shall be
made to the control strategy report required by paragraph (b) of this
section indicating the progress made towards completing the
installation of the emission controls or process modifications during
the 2-year period.
    (c) The owner or operator of each bleaching system complying with
Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) shall certify in the report specified under
Sec. 63.10(e)(3) of subpart A of this part that the daily application
rates of chlorine and hypochlorite for that bleaching system have not
increased as specified in Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(B) until the
requirements of Sec. 63.440(d)(3)(ii)(A) are met.
    (d) The owner or operator shall meet the requirements specified in
paragraph (a) of this section upon startup of any new affected process
equipment or pulping process condensate stream that becomes subject to
the standards of this subpart due to a process change or modification.


Sec. 63.456  [Reserved]


Sec. 63.457  Test methods and procedures.

    (a) Initial performance test. An initial performance test is
required for all emission sources subject to the limitations in
Secs. 63.443, 63.444, 63.445, 63.446, and 63.447, except those
controlled by a combustion device that is designed and operated as
specified in Sec. 63.443(d)(3) or (d)(4).
    (b) Vent sampling port locations and gas stream properties. For
purposes of

[[Page 18625]]

selecting vent sampling port locations and determining vent gas stream
properties, required in Secs. 63.443, 63.444, 63.445, and 63.447, each
owner or operator shall comply with the applicable procedures in
paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(6) of this section.
    (1) Method 1 or 1A of part 60, appendix A, as appropriate, shall be
used for selection of the sampling site as follows:
    (i) To sample for vent gas concentrations and volumetric flow
rates, the sampling site shall be located prior to dilution of the vent
gas stream and prior to release to the atmosphere;
    (ii) For determining compliance with percent reduction
requirements, sampling sites shall be located prior to the inlet of the
control device and at the outlet of the control device; measurements
shall be performed simultaneously at the two sampling sites; and
    (iii) For determining compliance with concentration limits or mass
emission rate limits, the sampling site shall be located at the outlet
of the control device.
    (2) No traverse site selection method is needed for vents smaller
than 0.10 meter (4.0 inches) in diameter.
    (3) The vent gas volumetric flow rate shall be determined using
Method 2, 2A, 2C, or 2D of part 60, appendix A, as appropriate.
    (4) The moisture content of the vent gas shall be measured using
Method 4 of part 60, appendix A.
    (5) To determine vent gas concentrations, the owner or operator
shall collect a minimum of three samples that are representative of
normal conditions and average the resulting pollutant concentrations
using the following procedures.
    (i) Method 308 in Appendix A of this part shall be used to
determine the methanol concentration.
    (ii) Except for the modifications specified in paragraphs
(b)(5)(ii)(A) through (b)(5)(ii)(K) of this section, Method 26A of part
60, appendix A shall be used to determine chlorine concentration in the
vent stream.
    (A) Probe/Sampling Line. A separate probe is not required. The
sampling line shall be an appropriate length of 0.64 cm (0.25 in) OD
Teflon tubing. The sample inlet end of the sampling line
shall be inserted into the stack in such a way as to not entrain liquid
condensation from the vent gases. The other end shall be connected to
the impingers. The length of the tubing may vary from one sampling site
to another, but shall be as short as possible in each situation. If
sampling is conducted in sunlight, opaque tubing shall be used.
Alternatively, if transparent tubing is used, it shall be covered with
opaque tape.
    (B) Impinger Train. Three 30 milliliter (ml) capacity midget
impingers shall be connected in series to the sampling line. The
impingers shall have regular tapered stems. Silica gel shall be placed
in the third impinger as a desiccant. All impinger train connectors
shall be glass and/or Teflon.
    (C) Critical Orifice. The critical orifice shall have a flow rate
of 200 to 250 ml/min and shall be followed by a vacuum pump capable of
providing a vacuum of 640 millimeters of mercury (mm Hg). A 45
millimeter diameter in-line Teflon 0.8 micrometer filter
shall follow the impingers to project the critical orifice and vacuum
pump.
    (D) The following are necessary for the analysis apparatus:
    (1) Wash bottle filled with deionized water;
    (2) 25 or 50 ml graduated burette and stand;
    (3) Magnetic stirring apparatus and stir bar;
    (4) Calibrated pH Meter;
    (5) 150-250 ml beaker or flask; and
    (6) A 5 ml pipette.
    (E) The procedures listed in paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(E)(1) through
(b)(5)(ii)(E)(7) of this section shall be used to prepare the reagents.
    (1) To prepare the 1 molarity (M) potassium dihydrogen phosphate
solution, dissolve 13.61 grams (g) of potassium dihydrogen phosphate in
water and dilute to 100 ml.
    (2) To prepare the 1 M sodium hydroxide solution (NaOH), dissolve
4.0 g of sodium hydroxide in water and dilute to 100 ml.
    (3) To prepare the buffered 2 percent potassium iodide solution,
dissolve 20 g of potassium iodide in 900 ml water. Add 50 ml of the 1 M
potassium dihydrogen phosphate solution and 30 ml of the 1 M sodium
hydroxide solution. While stirring solution, measure the pH of solution
electrometrically and add the 1 M sodium hydroxide solution to bring pH
to between 6.95 and 7.05.
    (4) To prepare the 0.1 normality (N) sodium thiosulfate solution,
dissolve 25 g of sodium thiosulfate, pentahydrate, in 800 ml of freshly
boiled and cooled distilled water in a 1-liter volumetric flask. Dilute
to volume. To prepare the 0.01 N sodium thiosulfate solution, add 10.0
ml standardized 0.1 N sodium thiosulfate solution to a 100 ml
volumetric flask, and dilute to volume with water.
    (5) To standardize the 0.1 N sodium thiosulfate solution, dissolve
3.249 g of anhydrous potassium bi-iodate, primary standard quality, or
3.567 g potassium iodate dried at 103 +/-2 degrees Centigrade for 1
hour, in distilled water and dilute to 1000 ml to yield a 0.1000 N
solution. Store in a glass-stoppered bottle. To 80 ml distilled water,
add, with constant stirring, 1 ml concentrated sulfuric acid, 10.00 ml
0.1000 N anhydrous potassium bi-iodate, and 1 g potassium iodide.
Titrate immediately with 0.1 n sodium thiosulfate titrant until the
yellow color of the liberated iodine is almost discharged. Add 1 ml
starch indicator solution and continue titrating until the blue color
disappears. The normality of the sodium thiosulfate solution is
inversely proportional to the ml of sodium thiosulfate solution
consumed:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.000

    (6) To prepare the starch indicator solution, add a small amount of
cold water to 5 g starch and grind in a mortar to obtain a thin paste.
Pour paste into 1 L of boiling distilled water, stir, and let settle
overnight. Use clear supernate for starch indicator solution.
    (7) To prepare the 10 percent sulfuric acid solution, add 10 ml of
concentrated sulfuric acid to 80 ml water in an 100 ml volumetric
flask. Dilute to volume.
    (F) The procedures specified in paragraphs (b)(5)(ii)(F)(1) through
(b)(5)(ii)(F)(5) of this section shall be used to perform the sampling.
    (1) Preparation of Collection Train. Measure 20 ml buffered
potassium iodide solution into each of the first two impingers and
connect probe, impingers, filter, critical orifice, and pump. The
sampling line and the impingers shall be shielded from sunlight.
    (2) Leak and Flow Check Procedure. Plug sampling line inlet tip and
turn on pump. If a flow of bubbles is visible in either of the liquid
impingers, tighten fittings and adjust connections and

[[Page 18626]]

impingers. A leakage rate not in excess of 2 percent of the sampling
rate is acceptable. Carefully remove the plug from the end of the
probe. Check the flow rate at the probe inlet with a bubble tube flow
meter. The flow should be comparable or slightly less than the flow
rate of the critical orifice with the impingers off-line. Record the
flow and turn off the pump.
    (3) Sample Collection. Insert the sampling line into the stack and
secure it with the tip slightly lower than the port height. Start the
pump, recording the time. End the sampling after 60 minutes, or after
yellow color is observed in the second in-line impinger. Record time
and remove the tubing from the vent. Recheck flow rate at sampling line
inlet and turn off pump. If the flow rate has changed significantly,
redo sampling with fresh capture solution. A slight variation (less
than 5 percent) in flow may be averaged. With the inlet end of the line
elevated above the impingers, add about 5 ml water into the inlet tip
to rinse the line into the first impinger.
    (4) Sample Analysis. Fill the burette with 0.01 N sodium
thiosulfate solution to the zero mark. Combine the contents of the
impingers in the beaker or flask. Stir the solution and titrate with
thiosulfate until the solution is colorless. Record the volume of the
first endpoint (TN, ml). Add 5 ml of the 10 percent sulfuric acid
solution, and continue the titration until the contents of the flask
are again colorless. Record the total volume of titrant required to go
through the first and to the second endpoint (TA, ml). If the volume of
neutral titer is less than 0.5 ml, repeat the testing for a longer
period of time. It is important that sufficient lighting be present to
clearly see the endpoints, which are determined when the solution turns
from pale yellow to colorless. A lighted stirring plate and a white
background are useful for this purpose.
    (5) Interferences. Known interfering agents of this method are
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen peroxide. Sulfur dioxide, which is used to
reduce oxidant residuals in some bleaching systems, reduces formed
iodine to iodide in the capture solution. It is therefore a negative
interference for chlorine, and in some cases could result in erroneous
negative chlorine concentrations. Any agent capable of reducing iodine
to iodide could interfere in this manner. A chromium trioxide
impregnated filter will capture sulfur dioxide and pass chlorine and
chlorine dioxide. Hydrogen peroxide, which is commonly used as a
bleaching agent in modern bleaching systems, reacts with iodide to form
iodine and thus can cause a positive interference in the chlorine
measurement. Due to the chemistry involved, the precision of the
chlorine analysis will decrease as the ratio of chlorine dioxide to
chlorine increases. Slightly negative calculated concentrations of
chlorine may occur when sampling a vent gas with high concentrations of
chlorine dioxide and very low concentrations of chlorine.
    (G) The following calculation shall be performed to determine the
corrected sampling flow rate:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.001

Where:

SC=Corrected (dry standard) sampling flow rate, liters
per minute;
SU=Uncorrected sampling flow rate, L/min;
BP=Barometric pressure at time of sampling;
PW=Saturated partial pressure of water vapor, mm Hg at temperature;
and
t=Ambient temperature,  deg.C.

    (H) The following calculation shall be performed to determine the
moles of chlorine in the sample:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.002

Where:

TN=Volume neutral titer, ml;
TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml; and
NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant.

    (I) The following calculation shall be performed to determine the
concentration of chlorine in the sample:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.003

Where:

SC=Corrected (dry standard) sampling flow rate, liters
per minute;
tS=Time sampled, minutes;
TN=Volume neutral titer, ml;
TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml; and
NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant.

    (J) The following calculation shall be performed to determine the
moles of chlorine dioxide in the sample:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.004

Where:

TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml;
TN=Volume neutral titer, ml; and
NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant.

    (K) The following calculation shall be performed to determine the
concentration of chlorine dioxide in the sample:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.005

Where:

SC=Corrected (dry standard) sampling flow rate, liters
per minute;
tS=Time sampled, minutes;
TA=Volume acid titer (total), ml;
TN=Volume neutral titer, ml; and
NThio=Normality of sodium thiosulfate titrant.

    (iii) Any other method that measures the total HAP or methanol
concentration that has been demonstrated to the Administrator's
satisfaction.
    (6) The minimum sampling time for each of the three runs per method
shall be 1 hour in which either an integrated sample or four grab
samples shall be taken. If grab sampling is used, then the samples
shall be taken at approximately equal intervals in time, such as 15
minute intervals during the run.
    (c) Liquid sampling locations and properties. For purposes of
selecting liquid sampling locations and for determining properties of
liquid streams such as wastewaters, process waters, and condensates
required in Secs. 63.444, 63.446, and 63.447, the owner or operator
shall comply with the following procedures:
    (1) Samples shall be collected using the sampling procedures
specified in Method 305 of part 60, appendix A;
    (i) Where feasible, samples shall be taken from an enclosed pipe
prior to the liquid stream being exposed to the atmosphere; and
    (ii) When sampling from an enclosed pipe is not feasible, samples
shall be collected in a manner to minimize exposure of the sample to
the atmosphere and loss of HAP compounds prior to sampling.
    (2) The volumetric flow rate of the entering and exiting liquid
streams shall be determined using the inlet and outlet flow meters or
other methods demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction. The
volumetric flow rate measurements to determine actual mass removal
shall be taken at the same time as the concentration measurements;
    (3) To determine liquid stream total HAP or methanol
concentrations, the owner or operator shall collect a minimum of three
samples that are representative of normal conditions and average the
resulting pollutant concentrations using one of the following:
    (i) Method 305 in Appendix A of this part, adjusted using the
following equation:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.006

Where:

C=Pollutant concentration for the liquid stream, parts per million
by weight.

[[Page 18627]]

Ci=Measured concentration of pollutant i in the liquid
stream sample determined using Method 305, parts per million by
weight.
fmi=Pollutant-specific constant that adjusts
concentration measured by Method 305 to actual liquid concentration;
the fm for methanol is 0.85. Additional pollutant fm values can be
found in table 34, subpart G of this part.
n=Number of individual pollutants, i, summed to calculate total HAP.

    (ii) Any other method that measures total HAP concentration that
has been demonstrated to the Administrator's satisfaction.
    (4) To determine soluble BOD5 in the effluent stream
from a biological treatment unit used to comply with Secs. 63.446(e)(2)
and 63.453(j), the owner or operator shall use Method 405.1, of part
136, with the following modifications:
    (i) Filter the sample through the filter paper, into Erlenmeyer
flask by applying a vacuum to the flask sidearm. Minimize the time for
which vacuum is applied to prevent stripping of volatile organics from
the sample. Replace filter paper as often as needed in order to
maintain filter times of less than approximately 30 seconds per filter
paper. No rinsing of sample container or filter bowl into the
Erlenmeyer flask is allowed.
    (ii) Perform Method 405.1 on the filtrate obtained in paragraph
(c)(4) of this section. Dilution water shall be seeded with 1
milliliter of final effluent per liter of dilution water. Dilution
ratios may require adjustment to reflect the lower oxygen demand of the
filtered sample in comparison to the total BOD5. Three BOD
bottles and different dilutions shall be used for each sample.
    (d) Detectable leak procedures. To measure detectable leaks for
closed-vent systems as specified in Sec. 63.450 or for pulping process
wastewater collection systems as specified in Sec. 63.446(d)(2)(i), the
owner or operator shall comply with the following:
    (1) Method 21, of part 60, appendix A; and
    (2) The instrument specified in Method 21 shall be calibrated
before use according to the procedures specified in Method 21 on each
day that leak checks are performed. The following calibration gases
shall be used:
    (i) Zero air (less than 10 parts per million by volume of
hydrocarbon in air); and
    (ii) A mixture of methane or n-hexane and air at a concentration of
approximately, but less than, 10,000 parts per million by volume
methane or n-hexane.
    (e) Negative pressure procedures. To demonstrate negative pressure
at process equipment enclosure openings as specified in Sec. 63.450(b),
the owner or operator shall use one of the following procedures:
    (1) An anemometer to demonstrate flow into the enclosure opening;
    (2) Measure the static pressure across the opening;
    (3) Smoke tubes to demonstrate flow into the enclosure opening; or
    (4) Any other industrial ventilation test method demonstrated to
the Administrator's satisfaction.
    (f) HAP concentration measurements. For purposes of complying with
the requirements in Secs. 63.443, 63.444, and 63.447, the owner or
operator shall measure the total HAP concentration as one of the
following:
    (1) As the sum of all individual HAP's; or
    (2) As methanol.
    (g) Condensate HAP concentration measurement. For purposes of
complying with the kraft pulping condensate requirements in
Sec. 63.446, the owner or operator shall measure the total HAP
concentration as methanol except for the purposes of complying with the
initial performance test specified in Sec. 63.457(a) for
Sec. 63.446(e)(2) and as specified in Sec. 63.453(j)(2)(ii).
    (h) Bleaching HAP concentration measurement. For purposes of
complying with the bleaching system requirements in Sec. 63.445, the
owner or operator shall measure the total HAP concentration as the sum
of all individual chlorinated HAP's or as chlorine.
    (i) Vent gas stream calculations. To demonstrate compliance with
the mass emission rate, mass emission rate per megagram of ODP, and
percent reduction requirements for vent gas streams specified in
Secs. 63.443, 63.444, 63.445, and 63.447, the owner or operator shall
use the following:
    (1) The total HAP mass emission rate shall be calculated using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.007

Where:

E=Mass emission rate of total HAP from the sampled vent, kilograms
per hour.
K2=Constant, 2.494 x 10-6 (parts per million
by volume)-1 (gram-mole per standard cubic meter)
(kilogram/gram) (minutes/hour), where standard temperature for
(gram-mole per standard cubic meter) is 20  deg.C.
Cj=Concentration on a dry basis of pollutant j in parts
per million by volume as measured by the test methods specified in
paragraph (b) of this section.
Mj=Molecular weight of pollutant j, gram/gram-mole.
Qs=Vent gas stream flow rate (dry standard cubic meter
per minute) at a temperature of 20  deg.C as indicated in paragraph
(b) of this section.
n=Number of individual pollutants, i, summed to calculate total HAP.

    (2) The total HAP mass emission rate per megagram of ODP shall be
calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.008

Where:

F=Mass emission rate of total HAP from the sampled vent, in
kilograms per megagram of ODP.
E=Mass emission rate of total HAP from the sampled vent, in
kilograms per hour determined as specified in paragraph (i)(1) of
this section.
P=The production rate of pulp during the sampling period, in
megagrams of ODP per hour.

    (3) The total HAP percent reduction shall be calculated using the
following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.009

Where:

R=Efficiency of control device, percent.
Ei=Inlet mass emission rate of total HAP from the sampled vent, in
kilograms of pollutant per hour, determined as specified in
paragraph (i)(1) of this section.
Eo=Outlet mass emission rate of total HAP from the
sampled vent, in kilograms of pollutant per hour, determined as
specified in paragraph (i)(1) of this section.

    (j) Liquid stream calculations. To demonstrate compliance with the
mass flow rate, mass per megagram of ODP, and percent reduction
requirements for liquid streams specified in Sec. 63.446, the owner or
operator shall use the following:
    (1) The mass flow rates of total HAP or methanol entering and
exiting the treatment process shall be calculated using the following
equations:

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.010

Where:

Eb=Mass flow rate of total HAP or methanol in the liquid
stream entering the treatment process, kilograms per hour.
Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP or methanol in the liquid
exiting the treatment process, kilograms per hour.

[[Page 18628]]

K=Density of the liquid stream, kilograms per cubic meter.
Vbi=Volumetric flow rate of liquid stream entering the
treatment process during each run i, cubic meters per hour,
determined as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
Vai=Volumetric flow rate of liquid stream exiting the
treatment process during each run i, cubic meters per hour,
determined as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
Cbi=Concentration of total HAP or methanol in the stream
entering the treatment process during each run i, parts per million
by weight, determined as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
Cai=Concentration of total HAP or methanol in the stream
exiting the treatment process during each run i, parts per million
by weight, determined as specified in paragraph (c) of this section.
n=Number of runs.

    (2) The mass of total HAP or methanol per megagram ODP shall be
calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.011

Where:

F=Mass loading of total HAP or methanol in the sample, in kilograms
per megagram of ODP.
Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP or methanol in the
wastewater stream in kilograms per hour as determined using the
procedures in paragraph (j)(1) of this section.
P=The production rate of pulp during the sampling period in
megagrams of ODP per hour.

    (3) The percent reduction of total HAP across the applicable
treatment process shall be calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.012

Where:

R=Control efficiency of the treatment process, percent.
Eb=Mass flow rate of total HAP in the stream entering the
treatment process, kilograms per hour, as determined in paragraph
(j)(1) of this section.
Ea=Mass flow rate of total HAP in the stream exiting the
treatment process, kilograms per hour, as determined in paragraph
(j)(1) of this section.

    (4) Compounds that meet the requirements specified in paragraphs
(j)(4)(i) or (4)(ii) of this section are not required to be included in
the mass flow rate, mass per megagram of ODP, or the mass percent
reduction determinations.
    (i) Compounds with concentrations at the point of determination
that are below 1 part per million by weight; or
    (ii) Compounds with concentrations at the point of determination
that are below the lower detection limit where the lower detection
limit is greater than 1 part per million by weight.
    (k) Oxygen concentration correction procedures. To demonstrate
compliance with the total HAP concentration limit of 20 ppmv in
Sec. 63.443(d)(2), the concentration measured using the methods
specified in paragraph (b)(5) of this section shall be corrected to 10
percent oxygen using the following procedures:
    (1) The emission rate correction factor and excess air integrated
sampling and analysis procedures of Methods 3A or 3B of part 60,
appendix A shall be used to determine the oxygen concentration. The
samples shall be taken at the same time that the HAP samples are taken.
    (2) The concentration corrected to 10 percent oxygen shall be
computed using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.013

Where:

Cc=Concentration of total HAP corrected to 10 percent
oxygen, dry basis, parts per million by volume.
Cm=Concentration of total HAP dry basis, parts per
million by volume, as specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
%02d=Concentration of oxygen, dry basis, percent by
volume.

    (1) Biological treatment system percent reduction calculation. To
determine compliance with an open biological treatment system option
specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2) and the monitoring requirements
specified in Sec. 63.453(j)(2), the percent reduction due to
destruction in the biological treatment system shall be calculated
using the following equation:

R=fbio x 100

Where:

R=Destruction of total HAP or methanol in the biological treatment
process, percent.
fbio=The fraction of total HAP or methanol removed in the
biological treatment system. The site-specific biorate constants
shall be determined using the procedures specified and as limited in
appendix C of part 63.

    (m) Condensate segregation procedures. The following procedures
shall be used to demonstrate compliance with the condensate segregation
requirements specified in Sec. 63.446(c).
    (1) To demonstrate compliance with the percent mass requirements
specified in Sec. 63.446(c)(1), the procedures specified in paragraphs
(m)(1)(i) through (m)(1)(iii) of this section shall be performed.
    (i) Determine the total HAP mass of all condensates from each
equipment system listed in Sec. 63.446 (b)(1) through (b)(3) using the
procedures specified in paragraphs (c) and (j) of this section.
    (ii) Multiply the total HAP mass determine in paragraph (m)(1)(i)
of this section by 0.65 to determine the target HAP mass for the high-
HAP fraction condensate stream or streams.
    (iii) Compliance with the segregation requirements specified in
Sec. 63.446(c)(1) is demonstrated if the condensate stream or streams
from each equipment system listed in Sec. 63.446 (b)(1) through (b)(3)
being treated as specified in Sec. 63.446(e) contain at least as much
total HAP mass as the target total HAP mass determined in paragraph
(m)(1)(ii) of this section.
    (2) To demonstrate compliance with the percent mass requirements
specified in Sec. 63.446(c)(2), the procedures specified in paragraphs
(m)(2)(i) through (m)(2)(ii) of this section shall be performed.
    (i) Determine the total HAP mass contained in the high-HAP fraction
condensates from each equipment system listed in Sec. 63.446(b)(1)
through (b)(3) and the total condensates streams from the equipment
systems listed in Sec. 63.446(b)(4) and (b)(5), using the procedures
specified in paragraphs (c) and (j) of this section.
    (ii) Compliance with the segregation requirements specified in
Sec. 63.446(c)(2) is demonstrated if the total HAP mass determined in
paragraph (m)(2)(i) of this section is equal to or greater than the
appropriate mass requirements specified in Sec. 63.446(c)(2).
    (n) Biological treatment system monitoring sampling storage. The
inlet and outlet grab samples required to be collected in
Sec. 63.453(j)(2) shall be stored at 4 deg. C (40 deg. F) to minimize
the biodegradation of the organic compounds in the samples.


Sec. 63.458  Delegation of authority.

    (a) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority to a
State under section 112(d) of the CAA, the authorities contained in
paragraph (b) of this section shall be retained by the Administrator
and not transferred to a State.
    (b) Authorities which will not be delegated to States:
    (1) Section 63.6(g)--Use of an alternative nonopacity emission
standard;
    (2) Section 63.453(m)--Use of an alternative monitoring parameter;
    (3) Section 63.457(b)(5)(iii)--Use of an alternative test method
for total HAP or methanol in vents; and
    (4) Section 63.457(c)(3)(ii)--Use of an alternative test method for
total HAP or methanol in wastewater.

[[Page 18629]]

Sec. 63.459  [Reserved]

  Table 1 to Subpart S--General Provisions Applicability to Subpart S a
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Applies to Subpart
          Reference                    S                  Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
63.1(a)(1)-(3)..............  Yes...............
63.1(a)(4)..................  Yes...............  Subpart S (this table)
                                                   specifies
                                                   applicability of each
                                                   paragraph in subpart
                                                   A to subpart S.
63.1(a)(5)..................  No................  Section reserved.
63.1(a)(6)-(8)..............  Yes...............
63.1(a)(9)..................  No................  Section reserved.
63.1(a)(10).................  No................  Subpart S and other
                                                   cross-referenced
                                                   subparts specify
                                                   calendar or operating
                                                   day.
63.1(a)(11)-(14)............  Yes...............
63.1(b)(1)..................  No................  Subpart S specifies
                                                   its own
                                                   applicability.
63.1(b)(2)-(3)..............  Yes...............
63.1(c)(1)-(2)..............  Yes...............
63.1(c)(3)..................  No................  Section reserved.
63.1(c)(4)-(5)..............  Yes...............
63.1(d).....................  No................  Section reserved.
63.1(e).....................  Yes...............
63.2........................  Yes...............
63.3........................  Yes...............
63.4(a)(1)..................  Yes...............
63.4(a)(3)..................
63.4(a)(4)..................  No................  Section reserved.
63.4(a)(5)..................  Yes...............
63.4(b).....................  Yes...............
63.4(c).....................  Yes...............
63.5(a).....................  Yes...............
63.5(b)(1)..................  Yes...............
63.5(b)(2)..................  No................  Section reserved.
63.5(b)(3)..................  Yes...............
63.5(b)(4)-(6)..............  Yes...............
63.5(c).....................  No................  Section reserved.
63.5(d).....................  Yes...............
63.5(e).....................  Yes...............
63.5(f).....................  Yes...............
63.6(a).....................  Yes...............
63.6(b).....................  No................  Subpart S specifies
                                                   compliance dates for
                                                   sources subject to
                                                   subpart S.
63.6(c).....................  No................  Subpart S specifies
                                                   compliance dates for
                                                   sources subject to
                                                   subpart S.
63.6(d).....................  No................  Section reserved.
63.6(e).....................  Yes...............
63.6(f).....................  Yes...............
63.6(g).....................  Yes...............
63.6(h).....................  No................  Pertains to continuous
                                                   opacity monitors that
                                                   are not part of this
                                                   standard.
63.6(i).....................  Yes...............
63.6(j).....................  Yes...............
63.7........................  Yes...............
63.8(a)(1)..................  Yes...............
63.8(a)(2)..................  Yes...............
63.8(a)(3)..................  No................  Section reserved.
63.8(a)(4)..................  Yes...............
63.8(b)(1)..................  Yes...............
63.8(b)(2)..................  No................  Subpart S specifies
                                                   locations to conduct
                                                   monitoring.
63.8(b)(3)..................  Yes...............
63.8(c)(1)..................  Yes...............
63.8(c)(2)..................  Yes...............
63.8(c)(3)..................  Yes...............
63.8(c)(4)..................  No................  Subpart S allows site
                                                   specific
                                                   determination of
                                                   monitoring frequency
                                                   in Sec.
                                                   63.453(n)(4).
63.8(c)(5)..................  No................  Pertains to continuous
                                                   opacity monitors that
                                                   are not part of this
                                                   standard.
63.8(c)(6)..................  Yes...............
63.8(c)(7)..................  Yes...............
63.8(c)(8)..................  Yes...............
63.8(d).....................  Yes...............
63.8(e).....................  Yes...............
63.8(f)(1)-(5)..............  Yes...............
63.8(f)(6)..................  No................  Subpart S does not
                                                   specify relative
                                                   accuracy test for
                                                   CEM's.
63.8(g).....................  Yes...............
63.9(a).....................  Yes...............
63.9(b).....................  Yes...............  Initial notifications
                                                   must be submitted
                                                   within one year after
                                                   the source becomes
                                                   subject to the
                                                   relevant standard.
63.9(c).....................  Yes...............
63.9(d).....................  No................  Special compliance
                                                   requirements are only
                                                   applicable to kraft
                                                   mills.
63.9(e).....................  Yes...............
63.9(f).....................  No................  Pertains to continuous
                                                   opacity monitors that
                                                   are not part of this
                                                   standard.

[[Page 18630]]


63.9(g)(1)..................  Yes...............
63.9(g)(2)..................  No................  Pertains to continuous
                                                   opacity monitors that
                                                   are not part of this
                                                   standard.
63.9(g)(3)..................  No................  Subpart S does not
                                                   specify relative
                                                   accuracy tests,
                                                   therefore no
                                                   notification is
                                                   required for an
                                                   alternative.
63.9(h).....................  Yes...............
63.9(i).....................  Yes...............
63.9(j).....................  Yes...............
63.10(a)....................  Yes...............
63.10(b)....................  Yes...............
63.10(c)....................  Yes...............
63.10(d)(1).................  Yes...............
63.10(d)(2).................  Yes...............
63.10(d)(3).................  No................  Pertains to continuous
                                                   opacity monitors that
                                                   are not part of this
                                                   standard.
63.10(d)(4).................  Yes...............
63.10(d)(5).................  Yes...............
63.10(e)(1).................  Yes...............
63.10(e)(2)(i)..............  Yes...............
63.10(e)(2)(ii).............  No................  Pertains to continuous
                                                   opacity monitors that
                                                   are not part of this
                                                   standard.
63.10(e)(3).................  Yes...............
63.10(e)(4).................  No................  Pertains to continuous
                                                   opacity monitors that
                                                   are not part of this
                                                   standard.
63.10(f)....................  Yes...............
63.11-63.15.................  Yes...............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Wherever subpart A specifies ``postmark'' dates, submittals may be
  sent by methods other than the U.S. Mail (e.g., by fax or courier).
  Submittals shall be sent by the specified dates, but a postmark is not
  required.

    3. Appendix A of part 63 is amended by adding Method 308 in
numerical order to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 63--Test Methods

* * * * *

Method 308--Procedure for Determination of Methanol Emission From
Stationary Sources

1.0  Scope and Application

    1.1  Analyte. Methanol. Chemical Abstract Service (CAS) No. 67-56-
1.
    1.2  Applicability. This method applies to the measurement of
methanol emissions from specified stationary sources.

2.0  Summary of Method

    A gas sample is extracted from the sampling point in the stack. The
methanol is collected in deionized distilled water and adsorbed on
silica gel. The sample is returned to the laboratory where the methanol
in the water fraction is separated from other organic compounds with a
gas chromatograph (GC) and is then measured by a flame ionization
detector (FID). The fraction adsorbed on silica gel is extracted with
an aqueous solution of n-propanol and is then separated and measured by
GC/FID.

3.0  Definitions [Reserved]

4.0  Interferences [Reserved]

5.0  Safety

    5.1  Disclaimer. This method may involve hazardous materials,
operations, and equipment. This test method does not purport to address
all of the safety problems associated with its use. It is the
responsibility of the user of this test method to establish appropriate
safety and health practices and to determine the applicability of
regulatory limitations before performing this test method.
    5.2  Methanol Characteristics. Methanol is flammable and a
dangerous fire and explosion risk. It is moderately toxic by ingestion
and inhalation.

6.0  Equipment and Supplies

    6.1  Sample Collection. The following items are required for sample
collection:
    6.1.1  Sampling Train. The sampling train is shown in Figure 308-1
and component parts are discussed below.
    6.1.1.1  Probe. Teflon, approximately 6-millimeter (mm)
(0.24 inch) outside diameter.
    6.1.1.2  Impinger. A 30-milliliter (ml) midget impinger. The
impinger must be connected with leak-free glass connectors. Silicone
grease may not be used to lubricate the connectors.
    6.1.1.3  Adsorbent Tube. Glass tubes packed with the required
amount of the specified adsorbent.
    6.1.1.4  Valve. Needle valve, to regulate sample gas flow rate.
    6.1.1.5  Pump. Leak-free diaphragm pump, or equivalent, to pull gas
through the sampling train. Install a small surge tank between the pump
and rate meter to eliminate the pulsation effect of the diaphragm pump
on the rotameter.
    6.1.1.6  Rate Meter. Rotameter, or equivalent, capable of measuring
flow rate to within 2 percent of the selected flow rate of up to 1000
milliliter per minute (ml/min). Alternatively, the tester may use a
critical orifice to set the flow rate.
    6.1.1.7  Volume Meter. Dry gas meter (DGM), sufficiently accurate
to measure the sample volume to within 2 percent, calibrated at the
selected flow rate and conditions actually encountered during sampling,
and equipped with a temperature sensor (dial thermometer, or
equivalent) capable of measuring temperature accurately to within 3
deg.C (5.4  deg.F).
    6.1.1.8  Barometer. Mercury (Hg), aneroid, or other barometer
capable of measuring atmospheric pressure to within 2.5 mm (0.1 inch)
Hg. See the NOTE in Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A), section
6.1.2.
    6.1.1.9  Vacuum Gauge and Rotameter. At least 760-mm (30-inch) Hg
gauge and 0- to 40-ml/min rotameter, to be used for leak-check of the
sampling train.
    6.2  Sample Recovery. The following items are required for sample
recovery:
    6.2.1  Wash Bottles. Polyethylene or glass, 500-ml, two.
    6.2.2  Sample Vials. Glass, 40-ml, with Teflon-lined
septa, to store impinger samples (one per sample).
    6.2.3  Graduated Cylinder. 100-ml size.
    6.3  Analysis. The following are required for analysis:
    6.3.1  Gas Chromatograph. GC with an FID, programmable temperature
control, and heated liquid injection port.

[[Page 18631]]

    6.3.2  Pump. Capable of pumping 100 ml/min. For flushing sample
loop.
    6.3.3  Flow Meter. To monitor accurately sample loop flow rate of
100 ml/min.
    6.3.4  Regulators. Two-stage regulators used on gas cylinders for
GC and for cylinder standards.
    6.3.5  Recorder. To record, integrate, and store chromatograms.
    6.3.6  Syringes. 1.0- and 10-microliter (l) size, calibrated, for
injecting samples.
    6.3.7  Tubing Fittings. Stainless steel, to plumb GC and gas
cylinders.
    6.3.8  Vials. Two 5.0-ml glass vials with screw caps fitted with
Teflon-lined septa for each sample.
    6.3.9  Pipettes. Volumetric type, assorted sizes for preparing
calibration standards.
    6.3.10  Volumetric Flasks. Assorted sizes for preparing calibration
standards.
    6.3.11  Vials. Glass 40-ml with Teflon-lined septa, to
store calibration standards (one per standard).

7.0  Reagents and Standards

    Note: Unless otherwise indicated, all reagents must conform to
the specifications established by the Committee on Analytical
Reagents of the American Chemical Society. Where such specifications
are not available, use the best available grade.

    7.1  Sampling. The following are required for sampling:
    7.1.1  Water. Deionized distilled to conform to the American
Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Specification D 1193-77, Type
3. At the option of the analyst, the potassium permanganate
(KMnO4) test for oxidizable organic matter may be omitted
when high concentrations of organic matter are not expected to be
present.
    7.1.2  Silica Gel. Deactivated chromatographic grade 20/40 mesh
silica gel packed in glass adsorbent tubes. The silica gel is packed in
two sections. The front section contains 520 milligrams (mg) of silica
gel, and the back section contains 260 mg.
    7.2  Analysis. The following are required for analysis:
    7.2.1  Water. Same as specified in section 7.1.1.
    7.2.2  n-Propanol, 3 Percent. Mix 3 ml of n-propanol with 97 ml of
water.
    7.2.3  Methanol Stock Standard. Prepare a methanol stock standard
by weighing 1 gram of methanol into a 100-ml volumetric flask. Dilute
to 100 ml with water.
    7.2.3.1  Methanol Working Standard. Prepare a methanol working
standard by pipetting 1 ml of the methanol stock standard into a 100-ml
volumetric flask. Dilute the solution to 100 ml with water.
    7.2.3.2  Methanol Standards For Impinger Samples. Prepare a series
of methanol standards by pipetting 1, 2, 5, 10, and 25 ml of methanol
working standard solution respectively into five 50-ml volumetric
flasks. Dilute the solutions to 50 ml with water. These standards will
have 2, 4, 10, 20, and 50 g/ml of methanol, respectively.
After preparation, transfer the solutions to 40-ml glass vials capped
with Teflon septa and store the vials under refrigeration.
Discard any excess solution.
    7.2.3.3  Methanol Standards for Adsorbent Tube Samples. Prepare a
series of methanol standards by first pipetting 10 ml of the methanol
working standard into a 100-ml volumetric flask and diluting the
contents to exactly 100 ml with 3 percent n-propanol solution. This
standard will contain 10 g/ml of methanol. Pipette 5, 15, and
25 ml of this standard, respectively, into four 50-ml volumetric
flasks. Dilute each solution to 50 ml with 3 percent n-propanol
solution. These standards will have 1, 3, and 5 g/ml of
methanol, respectively. Transfer all four standards into 40-ml glass
vials capped with Teflon-lined septa and store under
refrigeration. Discard any excess solution.
    7.2.4  GC Column. Capillary column, 30 meters (100 feet) long with
an inside diameter (ID) of 0.53 mm (0.02 inch), coated with DB 624 to a
film thickness of 3.0 micrometers, (m) or an equivalent
column. Alternatively, a 30-meter capillary column coated with
polyethylene glycol to a film thickness of 1 m such as AT-WAX
or its equivalent.
    7.2.5  Helium. Ultra high purity.
    7.2.6  Hydrogen. Zero grade.
    7.2.7  Oxygen. Zero grade.

8.0  Procedure

    8.1  Sampling. The following items are required for sampling:
    8.1.1  Preparation of Collection Train. Measure 20 ml of water into
the midget impinger. The adsorbent tube must contain 520 mg of silica
gel in the front section and 260 mg of silica gel in the backup
section. Assemble the train as shown in Figure 308-1. An optional,
second impinger that is left empty may be placed in front of the water-
containing impinger to act as a condensate trap. Place crushed ice and
water around the impinger.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 18632]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.014



BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 18633]]

    8.1.2  Leak Check. A leak check prior to the sampling run is
optional; however, a leak check after the sampling run is mandatory.
The leak-check procedure is as follows:
    Temporarily attach a suitable (e.g., 0-to 40-ml/min) rotameter to
the outlet of the DGM, and place a vacuum gauge at or near the probe
inlet. Plug the probe inlet, pull a vacuum of at least 250 mm (10 inch)
Hg, and note the flow rate as indicated by the rotameter. A leakage
rate not in excess of 2 percent of the average sampling rate is
acceptable.

    Note: Carefully release the probe inlet plug before turning off
the pump.

    8.1.3  Sample Collection. Record the initial DGM reading and
barometric pressure. To begin sampling, position the tip of the
Teflon tubing at the sampling point, connect the tubing to
the impinger, and start the pump. Adjust the sample flow to a constant
rate between 200 and 1000 ml/min as indicated by the rotameter.
Maintain this constant rate (10 percent) during the entire
sampling run. Take readings (DGM, temperatures at DGM and at impinger
outlet, and rate meter) at least every 5 minutes. Add more ice during
the run to keep the temperature of the gases leaving the last impinger
at 20  deg.C (68  deg.F) or less. At the conclusion of each run, turn
off the pump, remove the Teflon tubing from the stack, and
record the final readings. Conduct a leak check as in section 8.1.2.
(This leak check is mandatory.) If a leak is found, void the test run
or use procedures acceptable to the Administrator to adjust the sample
volume for the leakage.
    8.2  Sample Recovery. The following items are required for sample
recovery:
    8.2.1  Impinger. Disconnect the impinger. Pour the contents of the
midget impinger into a graduated cylinder. Rinse the midget impinger
and the connecting tubes with water, and add the rinses to the
graduated cylinder. Record the sample volume. Transfer the sample to a
glass vial and cap with a Teflon septum. Discard any excess
sample. Place the samples in an ice chest for shipment to the
laboratory.
    8.2.2.  Adsorbent Tubes. Seal the silica gel adsorbent tubes and
place them in an ice chest for shipment to the laboratory.

9.0  Quality Control

    9.1  Miscellaneous Quality Control Measures. The following quality
control measures are required:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Section         Quality control measure           Effect
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8.1.2, 8.1.3, 10.1..  Sampling equipment leak   Ensures accurate
                       check and calibration.    measurement of sample
                                                 volume.
10.2................  GC calibration..........  Ensures precision of GC
                                                 analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9.2  Applicability. When the method is used to analyze samples to
demonstrate compliance with a source emission regulation, an audit
sample must be analyzed, subject to availability.
    9.3  Audit Procedure. Analyze an audit sample with each set of
compliance samples. Concurrently analyze the audit sample and a set of
compliance samples in the same manner to evaluate the technique of the
analyst and the standards preparation. The same analyst, analytical
reagents, and analytical system shall be used both for the compliance
samples and the EPA audit sample.
    9.4  Audit Sample Availability. Audit samples will be supplied only
to enforcement agencies for compliance tests. Audit samples may be
obtained by writing: Source Test Audit Coordinator (MD-77B), Air
Measurement Research Division, National Exposure Research Laboratory,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
or by calling the Source Test Audit Coordinator (STAC) at (919) 541-
7834. The audit sample request must be made at least 30 days prior to
the scheduled compliance sample analysis.
    9.5  Audit Results. Calculate the audit sample concentration
according to the calculation procedure provided in the audit
instructions included with the audit sample. Fill in the audit sample
concentration and the analyst's name on the audit response form
included with the audit instructions. Send one copy to the EPA Regional
Office or the appropriate enforcement agency and a second copy to the
STAC. The EPA Regional office or the appropriate enforcement agency
will report the results of the audit to the laboratory being audited.
Include this response with the results of the compliance samples in
relevant reports to the EPA Regional Office or the appropriate
enforcement agency.

10.0  Calibration and Standardization

    10.1  Metering System. The following items are required for the
metering system:
    10.1.1  Initial Calibration.
    10.1.1.1  Before its initial use in the field, first leak-check the
metering system (drying tube, needle valve, pump, rotameter, and DGM)
as follows: Place a vacuum gauge at the inlet to the drying tube, and
pull a vacuum of 250 mm (10 inch) Hg; plug or pinch off the outlet of
the flow meter, and then turn off the pump. The vacuum shall remain
stable for at least 30 seconds. Carefully release the vacuum gauge
before releasing the flow meter end.
    10.1.1.2  Next, remove the drying tube, and calibrate the metering
system (at the sampling flow rate specified by the method) as follows:
Connect an appropriately sized wet test meter (e.g., 1 liter per
revolution (0.035 cubic feet per revolution)) to the inlet of the
drying tube. Make three independent calibrations runs, using at least
five revolutions of the DGM per run. Calculate the calibration factor,
Y (wet test meter calibration volume divided by the DGM volume, both
volumes adjusted to the same reference temperature and pressure), for
each run, and average the results. If any Y-value deviates by more than
2 percent from the average, the metering system is unacceptable for
use. Otherwise, use the average as the calibration factor for
subsequent test runs.
    10.1.2  Posttest Calibration Check. After each field test series,
conduct a calibration check as in section 10.1.1 above, except for the
following variations: (a) The leak check is not to be conducted, (b)
three, or more revolutions of the DGM may be used, and (c) only two
independent runs need be made. If the calibration factor does not
deviate by more than 5 percent from the initial calibration factor
(determined in section 10.1.1), then the DGM volumes obtained during
the test series are acceptable. If the calibration factor deviates by
more than 5 percent, recalibrate the metering system as in section
10.1.1, and for the calculations, use the calibration factor (initial
or recalibration) that yields the lower gas volume for each test run.
    10.1.3  Temperature Sensors. Calibrate against mercury-in-glass
thermometers.
    10.1.4  Rotameter. The rotameter need not be calibrated, but should
be cleaned and maintained according to the manufacturer's instruction.
    10.1.5  Barometer. Calibrate against a mercury barometer.
    10.2  Gas Chromatograph. The following procedures are required for
the gas chromatograph:
    10.2.1  Initial Calibration. Inject 1 l of each of the
standards prepared in sections 7.2.3.3 and 7.2.3.4 into the GC and
record the response. Repeat the injections for each standard until two
successive injections agree within 5 percent. Using the mean response
for

[[Page 18634]]

each calibration standard, prepare a linear least squares equation
relating the response to the mass of methanol in the sample. Perform
the calibration before analyzing each set of samples.
    10.2.2  Continuing Calibration. At the beginning of each day,
analyze the mid level calibration standard as described in section
10.5.1. The response from the daily analysis must agree with the
response from the initial calibration within 10 percent. If it does
not, the initial calibration must be repeated.

11.0  Analytical Procedure

    11.1  Gas Chromatograph Operating Conditions. The following
operating conditions are required for the GC:
    11.1.1  Injector. Configured for capillary column, splitless, 200
deg.C (392  deg.F).
    11.1.2  Carrier. Helium at 10 ml/min.
    11.1.3  Oven. Initially at 45  deg.C for 3 minutes; then raise by
10  deg.C to 70  deg.C; then raise by 70  deg.C/min to 200  deg.C.
    11.2  Impinger Sample. Inject 1 l of the stored sample
into the GC. Repeat the injection and average the results. If the
sample response is above that of the highest calibration standard,
either dilute the sample until it is in the measurement range of the
calibration line or prepare additional calibration standards. If the
sample response is below that of the lowest calibration standard,
prepare additional calibration standards. If additional calibration
standards are prepared, there shall be at least two that bracket the
response of the sample. These standards should produce approximately 50
percent and 150 percent of the response of the sample.
    11.3  Silica Gel Adsorbent Sample. The following items are required
for the silica gel adsorbent samples:
    11.3.1  Preparation of Samples. Extract the front and backup
sections of the adsorbent tube separately. With a file, score the glass
adsorbent tube in front of the first section of silica gel. Break the
tube open. Remove and discard the glass wool. Transfer the first
section of the silica gel to a 5-ml glass vial and stopper the vial.
Remove the spacer between the first and second section of the adsorbent
tube and discard it. Transfer the second section of silica gel to a
separate 5-ml glass vial and stopper the vial.
    11.3.2  Desorption of Samples. Add 3 ml of the 10 percent n-
propanol solution to each of the stoppered vials and shake or vibrate
the vials for 30 minutes.
    11.3.3  Inject a 1-l aliquot of the diluted sample from
each vial into the GC. Repeat the injection and average the results. If
the sample response is above that of the highest calibration standard,
either dilute the sample until it is in the measurement range of the
calibration line or prepare additional calibration standards. If the
sample response is below that of the lowest calibration standard,
prepare additional calibration standards. If additional calibration
standards are prepared, there shall be at least two that bracket the
response of the sample. These standards should produce approximately 50
percent and 150 percent of the response of the sample.

12.0  Data Analysis and Calculations

    12.1  Nomenclature.

Caf=Concentration of methanol in the front of the adsorbent
tube, g/ml.
Cab=Concentration of methanol in the back of the adsorbent
tube, g/ml.
Ci=Concentration of methanol in the impinger portion of the
sample train, g/ml.
E=Mass emission rate of methanol, g/hr (lb/hr).
Mtot=Total mass of methanol collected in the sample train,
g.
Pbar=Barometric pressure at the exit orifice of the DGM, mm
Hg (in. Hg).
Pstd=Standard absolute pressure, 760 mm Hg (29.92 in. Hg).
Qstd=Dry volumetric stack gas flow rate corrected to
standard conditions, dscm/hr (dscf/hr).
Tm=Average DGM absolute temperature, degrees K ( deg.R).
Tstd=Standard absolute temperature, 293 degrees K (528
deg.R).
Vaf=Volume of front half adsorbent sample, ml.
Vab=Volume of back half adsorbent sample, ml.
Vi=Volume of impinger sample, ml.
Vm=Dry gas volume as measured by the DGM, dry cubic meters
(dcm), dry cubic feet (dcf).
Vm(std)=Dry gas volume measured by the DGM, corrected to
standard conditions, dry standard cubic meters (dscm), dry standard
cubic feet (dscf).

    12.2  Mass of Methanol. Calculate the total mass of methanol
collected in the sampling train using Equation 308-1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.015

    12.3  Dry Sample Gas Volume, Corrected to Standard Conditions.
Calculate the volume of gas sampled at standard conditions using
Equation 308-2.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.016

    12.4  Mass Emission Rate of Methanol. Calculate the mass emission
rate of methanol using Equation 308-3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR15AP98.017

13.0  Method Performance [Reserved]

14.0  Pollution Prevention [Reserved]

15.0  Waste Management [Reserved]

16.0  Bibliography

    1. Rom, J.J. ``Maintenance, Calibration, and Operation of
Isokinetic Source Sampling Equipment.'' Office of Air Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency. Research Triangle Park, NC. APTD-0576
March 1972.
    2. Annual Book of ASTM Standards. Part 31; Water, Atmospheric
Analysis. American Society for Testing and Materials. Philadelphia, PA.
1974. pp. 40-42.
    3. Westlin, P.R. and R.T. Shigehara. ``Procedure for Calibrating
and Using Dry Gas Volume Meters as Calibration Standards.'' Source
Evaluation Society Newsletter. 3(1) :17-30. February 1978.
    4. Yu, K.K. ``Evaluation of Moisture Effect on Dry Gas Meter
Calibration.'' Source Evaluation Society Newsletter. 5(1) :24-28.
February 1980.
    5. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, Volume 2. U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health. Center for Disease Control. 4676

[[Page 18635]]

Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, OH 45226. (available from the
Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC
20402.)
    6. Pinkerton, J.E. ``Method for Measuring Methanol in Pulp Mill
Vent Gases.'' National Council of the Pulp and Paper Industry for Air
and Stream Improvement, Inc., New York, NY.

17.0  Tables, Diagrams, Flowcharts, and Validation Data

    [Reserved].
* * * * *

PART 261--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation of part 261 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, and 6938.

    2. Section 261.4 is amended by adding paragraph (a) (15) to read as
follows:


Sec. 261.4  Exclusions.

    (a) * * *
    (15) Condensates derived from the overhead gases from kraft mill
steam strippers that are used to comply with 40 CFR 63.446(e). The
exemption applies only to combustion at the mill generating the
condensates.
* * * * *
    1. Part 430 is revised to read as follows:

PART 430--THE PULP, PAPER, AND PAPERBOARD POINT SOURCE CATEGORY

General Provisions

Sec.
430.00  Applicability.
430.01  General definitions.
430.02  Monitoring requirements.
430.03  Best management practices (BMPs) for spent pulping liquor,
soap, and turpentine management, spill prevention, and control.

Subpart A--Dissolving Kraft Subcategory

Sec.
430.10  Applicability; description of the dissolving kraft
subcategory.
430.11  Specialized definitions.
430.12  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.13  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT).
430.14  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.15  New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.16  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.17  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart B--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory

Sec.
430.20  Applicability; description of the bleached papergrade kraft
and soda subcategory.
430.21  Specialized definitions.
430.22  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.23  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.24  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.25  New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.26  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.27  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
430.28  Best management practices (BMPs).

Subpart C--Unbleached Kraft Subcategory

Sec.
430.30  Applicability; description of the unbleached kraft
subcategory.
430.31  Specialized definitions.
430.32  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.33  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.34  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.35  New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.36  Pretreatment standards for existing (PSES).
430.37  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart D--Dissolving Sulfite Subcategory

Sec.
430.40  Applicability; description of the dissolving sulfite
subcategory.
430.41  Specialized definitions.
430.42  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.43  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.44  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.45  New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.46  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.47  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart E--Papergrade Sulfite Subcategory

Sec.
430.50  Applicability; description of the papergrade sulfite
subcategory.
430.51  Specialized definitions.
430.52  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.53  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.54  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.55  New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.56  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.57  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
430.58  Best management practices (BMPs).

Subpart F--Semi-Chemical Subcategory

Sec.
430.60  Applicability; description of the semi-chemical subcategory.
430.61  Specialized definitions.
430.62  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.63  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.64  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.65  New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.66  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.67  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart G--Mechanical Pulp Subcategory

Sec.
430.70  Applicability; description of the mechanical pulp
subcategory.
430.71  Specialized definitions.
430.72  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).

[[Page 18636]]

430.73  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.74  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.75  New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.76  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.77  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart H--Non-Wood Chemical Pulp Subcategory

Sec.
430.80  Applicability; description of the non-wood chemical pulp
subcategory.
430.81  Specialized definitions.
430.82  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT). [Reserved]
430.83  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT). [Reserved]
430.84  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT). [Reserved]
430.85  New source performance standards (NSPS). [Reserved]
430.86  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
[Reserved]
430.87  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS). [Reserved]

Subpart I--Secondary Fiber Deink Subcategory

Sec.
430.90  Applicability; description of the secondary fiber deink
subcategory.
430.91  Specialized definitions.
430.92  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.93  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.94  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.95  New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.96  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.97  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart J--Secondary Fiber Non-Deink Subcategory

Sec.
430.100  Applicability; description of the secondary fiber non-deink
subcategory.
430.101  Specialized definitions.
430.102  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.103  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.104  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.105  New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.106  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.107  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Subpart K--Fine and Lightweight Papers From Purchased Pulp Subcategory

Sec.
430.110  Applicability; description of the fine and lightweight
papers from purchased pulp subcategory.
430.111  Specialized definitions.
430.112  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.113  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.114  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.115  New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.116  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.117  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).
Subpart L--Tissue, Filter, Non-Woven, and Paperboard From Purchased
Pulp Subcategory
Sec.
430.120  Applicability; description of the tissue, filter, non-
woven, and paperboard from purchased pulp subcategory.
430.121  Specialized definitions.
430.122  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).
430.123  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the best conventional pollutant control
technology (BCT).
430.124  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
430.125  New source performance standards (NSPS).
430.126  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).
430.127  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

Appendix A to Part 430--Methods 1650 and 1653

    Authority: Sections 301, 304, 306, 307, 308, 402, and 501 of the
Clean Water Act, as amended, (33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314, 1316, 1317,
1318, 1342, and 1361), and Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 7412).

General Provisions


Sec. 430.00  Applicability.

    (a) This part applies to any pulp, paper, or paperboard mill that
discharges or may discharge process wastewater pollutants to the waters
of the United States, or that introduces or may introduce process
wastewater pollutants into a publicly owned treatment works.
    (b) The following table presents the subcategorization scheme
codified in this part, with references to former subpart designations
contained in the 1997 edition of 40 CFR parts 425 through 699:

[[Page 18637]]



   Subcategorization Scheme With References to Former Subparts Contained in the July 1, 1997 Edition of 40 CFR
                                              Parts 425 Through 699
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Final codified subpart    Final subcategorization scheme        Types of products covered in the subpart
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.........................  Dissolving Kraft..............  Dissolving pulp at kraft mills (Fa)
B.........................  Bleached Papergrade Kraft and   Market pulp at bleached kraft mills (Ga);
                             Soda.                           paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper at
                                                             bleached kraft mills (Ha); pulp and fine papers at
                                                             bleached kraft mills (Ia); and pulp and paper at
                                                             soda mills (Pa).
C.........................  Unbleached Kraft..............  Pulp and paper at unbleached kraft mills including
                                                             linerboard or bag paper and other mixed products
                                                             (Aa); pulp and paper using the unbleached kraft-
                                                             neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery)
                                                             process (Da); and pulp and paper at combined
                                                             unbleached kraft and semi-chemical mills, wherein
                                                             the spent semi-chemical cooking liquor is burned
                                                             within the unbleached kraft chemical recovery
                                                             system (Va).
D.........................  Dissolving Sulfite............  Pulp at dissolving sulfite mills for the following
                                                             grades: nitration, viscose, cellophane, and acetate
                                                             (Ka).
E.........................  Papergrade Sulfite............  Pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills where
                            --Calcium-, Magnesium-, or       blow pit pulp washing techniques are used (Ja) and
                             Sodium-based pulps.             pulp and paper at papergrade sulfite mills where
                            --Ammonium-based pulps.          vacuum or pressure drums are used to wash pulp
                            --Specialty grade pulps.         (Ua).
F.........................  Semi-Chemical.................  Pulp and paper at semi-chemical mills using an
                                                             ammonia base or a sodium base (Ba).
G.........................  Mechanical Pulp...............  Pulp and paper at groundwood chemi-mechanical mills
                                                             (La); pulp and paper at groundwood mills through
                                                             the application of the thermo-mechanical process
                                                             (Ma); pulp and coarse paper, molded pulp products,
                                                             and newsprint at groundwood mills (Na); and pulp
                                                             and fine paper at groundwood mills (Oa).
H.........................  Non-Wood Chemical Pulp........  Pulp and paper at non-wood chemical pulp mills.
I.........................  Secondary Fiber Deink.........  Pulp and paper at deink mills including fine papers,
                                                             tissue papers, or newsprint (Qa).
J.........................  Secondary Fiber Non-Deink.....  Paperboard from wastepaper from noncorrugating
                                                             medium furnish or from corrugating medium furnish
                                                             (Ea); tissue paper from wastepaper without deinking
                                                             at secondary fiber mills (Ta); molded products from
                                                             wastepaper without deinking (Wa); and builders'
                                                             paper and roofing felt from wastepaper (40 CFR Part
                                                             431, Subpart Aa).
K.........................  Fine and Lightweight Papers     Fine Papers at nonintegrated mills using wood fiber
                             from Purchased Pulp.            furnish or cotton fiber furnish (Ra); and
                                                             lightweight papers at nonintegrated mills or
                                                             lightweight electrical papers at nonintegrated
                                                             mills (Xa).
L.........................  Tissue, Filter, Non-woven, and  Tissue papers at nonintegrated mills (Sa); filter
                             Paperboard from Purchased       and non-woven papers at nonintegrated mills (Ya);
                             Pulp.                           and paperboard at nonintegrated mills (Za).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a This subpart is contained in the 40 CFR parts 425 through 699, edition revised as of July 1, 1997.

Sec. 430.01  General definitions.

    In addition to the definitions set forth in 40 CFR part 401 and 40
CFR 403.3, the following definitions apply to this part:
    (a) Adsorbable organic halides (AOX). A bulk parameter that
measures the total mass of chlorinated organic matter in water and
wastewater.
    (b) Annual average. The mean concentration, mass loading or
production-normalized mass loading of a pollutant over a period of 365
consecutive days (or such other period of time determined by the
permitting authority to be sufficiently long to encompass expected
variability of the concentration, mass loading, or production-
normalized mass loading at the relevant point of measurement).
    (c) Bleach plant. All process equipment used for bleaching
beginning with the first application of bleaching agents (e.g.,
chlorine, chlorine dioxide, ozone, sodium or calcium hypochlorite, or
peroxide), each subsequent extraction stage, and each subsequent stage
where bleaching agents are applied to the pulp. For mills in Subpart E
of this part producing specialty grades of pulp, the bleach plant
includes process equipment used for the hydrolysis or extraction stages
prior to the first application of bleaching agents. Process equipment
used for oxygen delignification prior to the application of bleaching
agents is not part of the bleach plant.
    (d) Bleach plant effluent. The total discharge of process
wastewaters from the bleach plant from each physical bleach line
operated at the mill, comprising separate acid and alkaline filtrates
or the combination thereof.
    (e) Chemical oxygen demand (COD). A bulk parameter that measures
the oxygen-consuming capacity of organic and inorganic matter present
in water or wastewater. It is expressed as the amount of oxygen
consumed from a chemical oxidant in a specific test.
    (f) Elemental chlorine-free (ECF). Any process for bleaching pulps
in the absence of elemental chlorine and hypochlorite that uses
exclusively chlorine dioxide as the only chlorine-containing bleaching
agent.
    (g) End of the pipe. The point at which final mill effluent is
discharged to waters of the United States or introduced to a POTW.
    (h) Fiber line. 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.
    (i) Minimum level (ML). The level at which the analytical system
gives recognizable signals and an acceptable calibration point. The
following minimum levels apply to pollutants in this part.

[[Page 18638]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Pollutant                Method          Minimum level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2,3,7,8-TCDD......................        1613  10 pg/L a
2,3,7,8-TCDF......................        1613  10 pg/L a
Trichlorosyringol.................        1653  2.5 ug/L b
3,4,5-Trichlorocatechol...........        1653  5.0 ug/L b
3,4,6-Trichlorocatechol...........        1653  5.0 ug/L b
3,4,5-Trichloroguaiacol...........        1653  2.5 ug/L b
3,4,6-Trichloroguaiacol...........        1653  2.5 ug/L b
4,5,6-Trichloroguaiacol...........        1653  2.5 ug/L b
2,4,5-Trichlorophenol.............        1653  2.5 ug/L b
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol.............        1653  2.5 ug/L b
Tetrachlorocatechol...............        1653  5.0 ug/L b
Tetrachloroguaiacol...............        1653  5.0 ug/L b
2,3,4,6-Tetrachlorophenol.........        1653  2.5 ug/L b
Pentachlorophenol.................        1653  5.0 ug/L b
AOX...............................        1650  20 ug/L b
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Picograms per liter.
b Micrograms per liter.

    (j) New source. (1) Notwithstanding the criteria codified at 40 CFR
122.29(b)(1), a source subject to subpart B or E of this part is a
``new source'' if it meets the definition of ``new source'' at 40 CFR
122.2 and:
    (i) It is constructed at a site at which no other source is
located; or
    (ii) It totally replaces the process or production equipment that
causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source, including the
total replacement of a fiber line that causes the discharge of
pollutants at an existing source, except as provided in paragraph
(j)(2) of this section; or
    (iii) Its processes are substantially independent of an existing
source at the same site. In determining whether these processes are
substantially independent, the Director shall 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.
    (2) The following are examples of changes made by mills subject to
subparts B or E of this part that alone do not cause an existing mill
to become a ``new source'':
    (i) Upgrades of existing pulping operations;
    (ii) Upgrades or replacement of pulp screening and washing
operations;
    (iii) Installation of extended cooking and/or oxygen
delignification systems or other post-digester, pre-bleaching
delignification systems;
    (iv) 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; or
    (v) Total replacement of process or production equipment that
causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source (including a
replacement fiber line), but only if such replacement is performed for
the purpose of achieving limitations that have been included in the
discharger's NPDES permit pursuant to Sec. 430.24(b).
    (k) Non-continuous discharger. (1) Except as provided in paragraph
(k)(2) of this section, a non-continuous discharger is a mill which is
prohibited by the NPDES authority from discharging pollutants during
specific periods of time for reasons other than treatment plant upset
control, such periods being at least 24 hours in duration. A mill shall
not be deemed a non-continuous discharger unless its permit, in
addition to setting forth the prohibition described above, requires
compliance with the effluent limitations established for non-continuous
dischargers and also requires compliance with maximum day and average
of 30 consecutive days effluent limitations. Such maximum day and
average of 30 consecutive days effluent limitations for non-continuous
dischargers shall be established by the NPDES authority in the form of
concentrations which reflect wastewater treatment levels that are
representative of the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available, the best conventional pollutant control
technology, or new source performance standards in lieu of the maximum
day and average of 30 consecutive days effluent limitations for
conventional pollutants set forth in each subpart.
    (2) A mill is a non-continuous discharger for the purposes of
determining applicable effluent limitations under subpart B or E of
this part (other than conventional limits for existing sources) if, for
reasons other than treatment plant upset control (e.g., protecting
receiving water quality), the mill is prohibited by the NPDES authority
from discharging pollutants during specific periods of time or if it is
required to release its discharge on a variable flow or pollutant
loading rate basis.
    (l) POTW. Publicly owned treatment works as defined at 40 CFR
403.3(o).
    (m) Process wastewater. For subparts B and E only, process
wastewater is 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. For purposes of subparts B and E of this part, process
wastewater includes boiler blowdown; wastewaters from water treatment
and other utility operations; blowdowns from high rate (e.g., greater
than 98 percent) recycled non-contact cooling water systems to the
extent they are mixed and co-treated with other process wastewaters;
wastewater, including leachates, from landfills owned by pulp and paper
mills subject to subpart B or E of this part if the wastewater is
commingled with wastewater from the mill's manufacturing or processing
facility; and storm waters from the immediate process areas to the
extent they are mixed and co-treated with other process wastewaters.
For purposes of this part, contaminated groundwaters from on-site or
off-site groundwater remediation projects are not process wastewater.
    (n) Production. (1) For all limitations and standards specified in
this part except those pertaining to AOX and chloroform: Production
shall be defined as the annual off-the-machine production (including
off-the-machine coating where applicable) divided by the number of
operating days during that year. Paper and paperboard production shall
be measured at the off-the-machine moisture content, except for subpart
C of this part (as it pertains to pulp and paperboard production at

[[Page 18639]]

unbleached kraft mills including linerboard or bag paper and other
mixed products, and to pulp and paperboard production using the
unbleached kraft neutral sulfite semi-chemical (cross recovery)
process), and subparts F and J of this part (as they pertain to
paperboard production from wastepaper from noncorrugating medium
furnish or from corrugating medium furnish) where paper and paperboard
production shall be measured in air-dry-tons (10% moisture content).
Market pulp shall be measured in air-dry tons (10% moisture).
Production shall be determined for each mill based upon past production
practices, present trends, or committed growth.
    (2) For AOX and chloroform limitations and standards specified in
subparts B and E of this part: Production shall be defined as the
annual unbleached pulp production entering the first stage of the
bleach plant divided by the number of operating days during that year.
Unbleached pulp production shall be measured in air-dried-metric-tons
(10% moisture) of brownstock pulp 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 processes, unbleached pulp production shall be
measured in air-dried-metric tons (10% moisture) of brownstock pulp
entering the first stage of the bleach plant from which wastewater is
discharged. Production shall be determined for each mill based upon
past production practices, present trends, or committed growth.
    (o) TCDD. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin.
    (p) TCDF. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-furan.
    (q) Totally chlorine-free (TCF) bleaching. Pulp bleaching
operations that are performed without the use of chlorine, sodium
hypochlorite, calcium hypochlorite, chlorine dioxide, chlorine
monoxide, or any other chlorine-containing compound.
    (r) Wet Barking. Wet barking operations shall be defined to include
hydraulic barking operations and wet drum barking operations which are
those drum barking operations that use substantial quantities of water
in either water sprays in the barking drums or in a partial submersion
of the drums in a ``tub'' of water.


Sec. 430.02  Monitoring requirements.

    This section establishes minimum monitoring frequencies for certain
pollutants. Where no monitoring frequency is specified in this section
or where the duration of the minimum monitoring frequency has expired
under paragraphs (b) through (e) of this section, the permit writer or
pretreatment control authority shall determine the appropriate
monitoring frequency in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(i) or 40 CFR part
403, as applicable.
    (a) BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS monitoring frequency for chlorinated
organic pollutants. The following monitoring frequencies apply to
discharges subject to subpart B or subpart E of this part:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Minimum monitoring frequency
        CAS number                 Pollutant        ------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Non-TCFa                        TCFb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1198556..................  Tetrachlorocatechol.....  Monthly......................  (c)
2539175..................  Tetrachloroguaiacol.....  Monthly......................  (c)
2539266..................  Trichlorosyringol.......  Monthly......................  (c)
2668248..................  4,5,6-trichloroguaiacol.  Monthly......................  (c)
32139723.................  3,4,6-trichlorocatechol.  Monthly......................  (c)
56961207.................  3,4,5-trichlorocatechol.  Monthly......................  (c)
57057837.................  3,4,5-trichloroguaiacol.  Monthly......................  (c)
58902....................  2,3,4,6-                  Monthly......................  (c)
                            tetrachlorophenol.
60712449.................  3,4,6-trichloroguaiacol.  Monthly......................  (c)
87865....................  Pentachlorophenold......  Monthly......................  (c)
88062....................  2,4,6-trichlorophenold..  Monthly......................  (c)
95954....................  2,4,5-trichlorophenold..  Monthly......................  (c)
1746016..................  2,3,7,8-TCDD............  Monthly......................  (c)
51207319.................  2,3,7,8-TCDF............  Monthly......................  (c)
67663....................  chloroforme.............  Weekly.......................  (c)
59473040.................  AOXf....................  Daily........................  None specified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Non-TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively TCF bleaching processes.
b TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger
  in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22 or, for indirect
  dischargers, as reported to the pretreatment control authority under 40 CFR 403.12 (b), (d), or (e).
c This regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for TCF bleaching processes.
d Monitoring frequency does not apply to this compound when used as a biocide. The permitting or pretreatment
  control authority must determine the appropriate monitoring frequency for this compound, when used as a
  biocide, under 40 CFR 122.44(i) or 40 CFR Part 403, as applicable.
e This regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for Subpart E mills.
f This regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for the ammonium-based or specialty grade sulfite
  pulp segments of Subpart E.

    (b) Duration of required monitoring for BAT, NSPS, PSES, and PSNS.
The monitoring frequencies specified in paragraph (a) of this section
apply for the following time periods:
    (1) For direct dischargers, a duration of five years commencing on
the date the applicable limitations or standards from subpart B or
subpart E of this part are first included in the discharger's NPDES
permit;
    (2) For existing indirect dischargers, until April 17, 2006;
    (3) For new indirect dischargers, a duration of five years
commencing on the date the indirect discharger commences operation.
    (c) Reduced monitoring frequencies for bleach plant pollutants
under the Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program. The
following monitoring frequencies apply to mills enrolled in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program established under
subpart B of this part for a duration of five years commencing after
achievement of the applicable BAT limitations specified in
Sec. 430.24(b)(3) or NSPS specified in Sec. 430.25(c)(1) for the
following pollutants, except as noted in footnote f:

[[Page 18640]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Minimum monitoring frequency
   CAS  number          Pollutant     --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Non-ECF a            Advanced  ECF b,f              TCF c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1198556..........  Tetrachlorocatecho  Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
                    l.
2539175..........  Tetrachloroguiacol  Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
2539266..........  Trichlorosyringol.  Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
2668248..........  4,5,6-              Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
                    trichloroguaiacol.
32139723.........  3,4,6-              Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
                    trichlorocatechol.
56961207.........  3,4,5-              Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
                    trichlorocatechol.
57057837.........  3,4,5-              Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
                    trichloroguaiacol.
58902............  2,3,4,6-            Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
                    tetrachlorophenol.
60712449.........  3,4,6-              Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
                    trichloroguaiacol.
87865............  Pentachlorophenol   Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
                    e.
88062............  2,4,6-              Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
                    trichlorophenol e.
95954............  2,4,5-              Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
                    trichlorophenol e.
1746016..........  2,3,7,8-TCDD......  Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
51207319.........  2,3,7,8-TCDF......  Monthly................  Monthly                  (d)
67663............  Chloroform........  Weekly.................  Monthly                  (d)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Non-ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively ECF or TCF bleaching processes.
b Advanced ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively Advanced ECF bleaching processes, or
  exclusively ECF and TCF bleaching processes as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40
  CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. Advanced ECF consists of the use of extended
  delignification or other technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance levels specified in Sec.
  430.24(b)(4)(i).
c TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger
  in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22.
d This regulation does not specify a limit for this pollutant for TCF bleaching processes.
e Monitoring frequency does not apply to this compound when used as a biocide. The permitting authority must
  determine the appropriate monitoring frequency for this compound, when used as a biocide, under 40 CFR
  122.44(i).
f Monitoring requirements for these pollutants by mills certifying as Advanced ECF in their NPDES permit
  application or other communication to the permitting authority will be suspended after one year of monitoring.
  The permitting authority must determine the appropriate monitoring frequency for these pollutants beyond that
  time under 40 CFR 122.44(i).

    (d) Reduced monitoring frequencies for AOX under the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program (year one). The following
monitoring frequencies apply to direct dischargers enrolled in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program established under
Subpart B of this part for a duration of one year after achievement of
the applicable BAT limitations specified in Sec. 430.24(b)(4)(i) or
NSPS specified in Sec. 430.25(c)(2):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Advanced ECF,  any tier
   CAS  number          Pollutant        Non-ECF,  any tier a              b                 TCF,  any tier c
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59473040.........  AOX...............  Daily..................  Weekly.................  None specified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Non-ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively ECF or TCF bleaching processes.
b Advanced ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively Advanced ECF bleaching processes or exclusively
  ECF and TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR
  122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. Advanced ECF consists of the use of extended delignification
  or other technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance levels specified in Sec.  430.24(b)(4)(i).
c TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger
  in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22.

    (e) Reduced monitoring frequencies for AOX under the Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program (years two through five). The
following monitoring frequencies apply to mills enrolled in the
Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program established under
Subpart B of this part for a duration of four years starting one year
after achievement of the applicable BAT limitations specified in
Sec. 430.24(b)(4)(i) or NSPS specified in Sec. 430.25(c)(2):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Advanced ECF--tier I   Advanced ECF--tier    Advanced ECF--tier
    CAS number            Pollutant         Non-ECF  any tier a             b                   II b                  III b           TCF-- any tier c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
59473040..........  AOX..................  Daily................  Monthly.............  Quarterly...........  Annually............  None specified.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Non-ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that does not use exclusively ECF or TCF bleaching processes.
b Advanced ECF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively Advanced ECF bleaching processes or exclusively ECF and TCF bleaching processes, as
  disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22. Advanced ECF consists of the use of
  extended delignification or other technologies that achieve at least the Tier I performance levels specified in Sec.  430.24(b)(4)(i).
c TCF: Pertains to any fiber line that uses exclusively TCF bleaching processes, as disclosed by the discharger in its permit application under 40 CFR
  122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22.


[[Page 18641]]

Sec. 430.03  Best management practices (BMPs) for spent pulping liquor,
soap, and turpentine management, spill prevention, and control.

    (a) Applicability. This section applies to direct and indirect
discharging pulp, paper, and paperboard mills with pulp production in
subparts B (Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda) and E (Papergrade
Sulfite).
    (b) Specialized definitions. (1) Action Level: A daily pollutant
loading that when exceeded triggers investigative or corrective action.
Mills determine action levels by a statistical analysis of six months
of daily measurements collected at the mill. For example, the lower
action level may be the 75th percentile of the running seven-day
averages (that value exceeded by 25 percent of the running seven-day
averages) and the upper action level may be the 90th percentile of the
running seven-day averages (that value exceeded by 10 percent of the
running seven-day averages).
    (2) Equipment Items in Spent Pulping Liquor, Soap, and Turpentine
Service: Any process vessel, storage tank, pumping system, evaporator,
heat exchanger, recovery furnace or boiler, pipeline, valve, fitting,
or other device that contains, processes, transports, or comes into
contact with spent pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine. Sometimes
referred to as ``equipment items.''
    (3) Immediate Process Area: The location at the mill where pulping,
screening, knotting, pulp washing, pulping liquor concentration,
pulping liquor processing, and chemical recovery facilities are
located, generally the battery limits of the aforementioned processes.
``Immediate process area'' includes spent pulping liquor storage and
spill control tanks located at the mill, whether or not they are
located in the immediate process area.
    (4) Intentional Diversion: The planned removal of spent pulping
liquor, soap, or turpentine from equipment items in spent pulping
liquor, soap, or turpentine service by the mill for any purpose
including, but not limited to, maintenance, grade changes, or process
shutdowns.
    (5) Mill: The owner or operator of a direct or indirect discharging
pulp, paper, or paperboard manufacturing facility subject to this
section.
    (6) Senior Technical Manager: The person designated by the mill
manager to review the BMP Plan. The senior technical manager shall be
the chief engineer at the mill, the manager of pulping and chemical
recovery operations, or other such responsible person designated by the
mill manager who has knowledge of and responsibility for pulping and
chemical recovery operations.
    (7) Soap: The product of reaction between the alkali in kraft
pulping liquor and fatty acid portions of the wood, which precipitate
out when water is evaporated from the spent pulping liquor.
    (8) Spent Pulping Liquor: For kraft and soda mills ``spent pulping
liquor'' means black liquor that is used, generated, stored, or
processed at any point in the pulping and chemical recovery processes.
For sulfite mills ``spent pulping liquor'' means any intermediate,
final, or used chemical solution that is used, generated, stored, or
processed at any point in the sulfite pulping and chemical recovery
processes (e.g., ammonium-, calcium-, magnesium-, or sodium-based
sulfite liquors).
    (9) Turpentine: A mixture of terpenes, principally pinene, obtained
by the steam distillation of pine gum recovered from the condensation
of digester relief gases from the cooking of softwoods by the kraft
pulping process. Sometimes referred to as sulfate turpentine.
    (c) Requirement to implement Best Management Practices. Each mill
subject to this section must implement the Best Management Practices
(BMPs) specified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (10) of this section. The
primary objective of the BMPs is to prevent leaks and spills of spent
pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine. The secondary objective is to
contain, collect, and recover at the immediate process area, or
otherwise control, those leaks, spills, and intentional diversions of
spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine that do occur. BMPs must be
developed according to best engineering practices and must be
implemented in a manner that takes into account the specific
circumstances at each mill. The BMPs are as follows:
    (1) The mill must return spilled or diverted spent pulping liquors,
soap, and turpentine to the process to the maximum extent practicable
as determined by the mill, recover such materials outside the process,
or discharge spilled or diverted material at a rate that does not
disrupt the receiving wastewater treatment system.
    (2) The mill must establish a program to identify and repair
leaking equipment items. This program must include:
    (i) Regular visual inspections (e.g., once per day) of process
areas with equipment items in spent pulping liquor, soap, and
turpentine service;
    (ii) Immediate repairs of leaking equipment items, when possible.
Leaking equipment items that cannot be repaired during normal
operations must be identified, temporary means for mitigating the leaks
must be provided, and the leaking equipment items repaired during the
next maintenance outage;
    (iii) Identification of conditions under which production will be
curtailed or halted to repair leaking equipment items or to prevent
pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine leaks and spills; and
    (iv) A means for tracking repairs over time to identify those
equipment items where upgrade or replacement may be warranted based on
frequency and severity of leaks, spills, or failures.
    (3) The mill must operate continuous, automatic monitoring systems
that the mill determines are necessary to detect and control leaks,
spills, and intentional diversions of spent pulping liquor, soap, and
turpentine. These monitoring systems should be integrated with the mill
process control system and may include, e.g., 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) The mill must establish a program of initial and refresher
training of operators, maintenance personnel, and other technical and
supervisory personnel who have responsibility for operating,
maintaining, or supervising the operation and maintenance of equipment
items in spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine service. The
refresher training must be conducted at least annually and the training
program must be documented.
    (5) The mill must prepare a brief report that evaluates each spill
of spent pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine that is not contained at
the immediate process area and any intentional diversion of spent
pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine that is not contained at the
immediate process area. The report must describe the equipment items
involved, the circumstances leading to the incident, the effectiveness
of the corrective actions taken to contain and recover the spill or
intentional diversion, and plans to develop changes to equipment and
operating and maintenance practices as necessary to prevent recurrence.
Discussion of the reports must be included as part of the annual
refresher training.
    (6) The mill must establish a program to review any planned
modifications to the pulping and chemical recovery facilities and any
construction activities in the pulping and chemical recovery areas
before these activities commence. The purpose of such review is to
prevent leaks and spills of spent

[[Page 18642]]

pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine during the planned modifications,
and to ensure that construction and supervisory personnel are aware of
possible liquor diversions and of the requirement to prevent leaks and
spills of spent pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine during
construction.
    (7) The mill must install and maintain secondary containment (i.e.,
containment constructed of materials impervious to pulping liquors) for
spent pulping liquor bulk storage tanks equivalent to the volume of the
largest tank plus sufficient freeboard for precipitation. An annual
tank integrity testing program, if coupled with other containment or
diversion structures, may be substituted for secondary containment for
spent pulping liquor bulk storage tanks.
    (8) The mill must install and maintain secondary containment for
turpentine bulk storage tanks.
    (9) The mill must install and maintain curbing, diking or other
means of isolating soap and turpentine processing and loading areas
from the wastewater treatment facilities.
    (10) The mill must conduct wastewater monitoring to detect leaks
and spills, to track the effectiveness of the BMPs, and to detect
trends in spent pulping liquor losses. Such monitoring must be
performed in accordance with paragraph (i) of this section.
    (d) Requirement to develop a BMP Plan. (1) Each mill subject to
this section must prepare and implement a BMP Plan. The BMP Plan must
be based on a detailed engineering review as described in paragraphs
(d)(2) and (3) of this section. The BMP Plan must specify the
procedures and the practices required for each mill to meet the
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, the construction the
mill determines is necessary to meet those requirements including a
schedule for such construction, and the monitoring program (including
the statistically derived action levels) that will be used to meet the
requirements of paragraph (i) of this section. The BMP Plan also must
specify the period of time that the mill determines the action levels
established under paragraph (h) of this section may be exceeded without
triggering the responses specified in paragraph (i) of this section.
    (2) Each mill subject to this section must conduct a detailed
engineering review of the pulping and chemical recovery operations--
including but not limited to process equipment, storage tanks,
pipelines and pumping systems, loading and unloading facilities, and
other appurtenant pulping and chemical recovery equipment items in
spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine service--for the purpose of
determining the magnitude and routing of potential leaks, spills, and
intentional diversions of spent pulping liquors, soap, and turpentine
during the following periods of operation:
    (i) Process start-ups and shut downs;
    (ii) Maintenance;
    (iii) Production grade changes;
    (iv) Storm or other weather events;
    (v) Power failures; and
    (vi) Normal operations.
    (3) As part of the engineering review, the mill must determine
whether existing spent pulping liquor containment facilities are of
adequate capacity for collection and storage of anticipated intentional
liquor diversions with sufficient contingency for collection and
containment of spills. The engineering review must also consider:
    (i) The need for continuous, automatic monitoring systems to detect
and control leaks and spills of spent pulping liquor, soap, and
turpentine;
    (ii) The need for process wastewater diversion facilities to
protect end-of-pipe wastewater treatment facilities from adverse
effects of spills and diversions of spent pulping liquors, soap, and
turpentine;
    (iii) The potential for contamination of storm water from the
immediate process areas; and
    (iv) The extent to which segregation and/or collection and
treatment of contaminated storm water from the immediate process areas
is appropriate.
    (e) Amendment of BMP Plan. (1) Each mill subject to this section
must amend its BMP Plan whenever there is a change in mill design,
construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects the
potential for leaks or spills of spent pulping liquor, turpentine, or
soap from the immediate process areas.
    (2) Each mill subject to this section must complete a review and
evaluation of the BMP Plan five years after the first BMP Plan is
prepared and, except as provided in paragraph (e)(1) of this section,
once every five years thereafter. As a result of this review and
evaluation, the mill must amend the BMP Plan within three months of the
review if the mill determines that any new or modified management
practices and engineered controls are necessary to reduce significantly
the likelihood of spent pulping liquor, soap, and turpentine leaks,
spills, or intentional diversions from the immediate process areas,
including a schedule for implementation of such practices and controls.
    (f) Review and certification of BMP Plan. The BMP Plan, and any
amendments thereto, must be reviewed by the senior technical manager at
the mill and approved and signed by the mill manager. Any person
signing the BMP Plan or its amendments must certify to the permitting
or pretreatment control authority under penalty of law that the BMP
Plan (or its amendments) has been prepared in accordance with good
engineering practices and in accordance with this regulation. The mill
is not required to obtain approval from the permitting or pretreatment
control authority of the BMP Plan or any amendments thereto.
    (g) Record keeping requirements. (1) Each mill subject to this
section must maintain on its premises a complete copy of the current
BMP Plan and the records specified in paragraph (g)(2) of this section
and must make such BMP Plan and records available to the permitting or
pretreatment control authority and the Regional Administrator or his or
her designee for review upon request.
    (2) The mill must maintain the following records for three years
from the date they are created:
    (i) Records tracking the repairs performed in accordance with the
repair program described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section;
    (ii) Records of initial and refresher training conducted in
accordance with paragraph (c)(4) of this section;
    (iii) Reports prepared in accordance with paragraph (c)(5) of this
section; and
    (iv) Records of monitoring required by paragraphs (c)(10) and (i)
of this section.
    (h) Establishment of wastewater treatment system influent action
levels. (1) Each mill subject to this section must conduct a monitoring
program, described in paragraph (h)(2) of this section, for the purpose
of defining wastewater treatment system influent characteristics (or
action levels), described in paragraph (h)(3) of this section, that
will trigger requirements to initiate investigations on BMP
effectiveness and to take corrective action.
    (2) Each mill subject to this section must employ the following
procedures in order to develop the action levels required by paragraph
(h) of this section:
    (i) Monitoring parameters. The mill must collect 24-hour composite
samples and analyze the samples for a measure of organic content (e.g.,
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) or Total Organic Carbon (TOC)).
Alternatively, the mill may use a measure related to spent pulping
liquor losses measured continuously and averaged over 24 hours (e.g.,
specific conductivity or color).

[[Page 18643]]

    (ii) Monitoring locations. For direct dischargers, monitoring must
be conducted at the point influent enters the wastewater treatment
system. For indirect dischargers monitoring must be conducted at the
point of discharge to the POTW. For the purposes of this requirement,
the mill may select alternate monitoring point(s) in order to isolate
possible sources of spent pulping liquor, soap, or turpentine from
other possible sources of organic wastewaters that are tributary to the
wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., bleach plants, paper machines
and secondary fiber operations).
    (3) By the date prescribed in paragraph (j)(1)(iii) of this
section, each existing discharger subject to this section must complete
an initial six-month monitoring program using the procedures specified
in paragraph (h)(2) of this section and must establish initial action
levels based on the results of that program. A wastewater treatment
influent action level is a statistically determined pollutant loading
determined by a statistical analysis of six months of daily
measurements. The action levels must consist of a lower action level,
which if exceeded will trigger the investigation requirements described
in paragraph (i) of this section, and an upper action level, which if
exceeded will trigger the corrective action requirements described in
paragraph (i) of this section.
    (4) By the date prescribed in paragraph (j)(1)(vi) of this section,
each existing discharger must complete a second six-month monitoring
program using the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this
section and must establish revised action levels based on the results
of that program. The initial action levels shall remain in effect until
replaced by revised action levels.
    (5) By the date prescribed in paragraph (j)(2) of this section,
each new source subject to this section must complete a six-month
monitoring program using the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2)
of this section and must develop a lower action level and an upper
action level based on the results of that program.
    (6) Action levels developed under this paragraph must be revised
using six months of monitoring data after any change in mill design,
construction, operation, or maintenance that materially affects the
potential for leaks or spills of spent pulping liquor, soap, or
turpentine from the immediate process areas.
    (i) Monitoring, corrective action, and reporting requirements. (1)
Each mill subject to this section must conduct daily monitoring of the
influent to the wastewater treatment system in accordance with the
procedures described in paragraph (h)(2) of this section for the
purpose of detecting leaks and spills, tracking the effectiveness of
the BMPs, and detecting trends in spent pulping liquor losses.
    (2) Whenever monitoring results exceed the lower action level for
the period of time specified in the BMP Plan, the mill must conduct an
investigation to determine the cause of such exceedance. Whenever
monitoring results exceed the upper action level for the period of time
specified in the BMP Plan, the mill must complete corrective action to
bring the wastewater treatment system influent mass loading below the
lower action level as soon as practicable.
    (3) Although exceedances of the action levels will not constitute
violations of an NPDES permit or pretreatment standard, failure to take
the actions required by paragraph (i)(2) of this section as soon as
practicable will be a permit or pretreatment standard violation.
    (4) Each mill subject to this section must report to the NPDES
permitting or pretreatment control authority the results of the daily
monitoring conducted pursuant to paragraph (i)(1) of this section. Such
reports must include a summary of the monitoring results, the number
and dates of exceedances of the applicable action levels, and brief
descriptions of any corrective actions taken to respond to such
exceedances. Submission of such reports shall be at the frequency
established by the NPDES permitting or pretreatment control authority,
but in no case less than once per year.
    (j) Compliance deadlines. (1) Existing direct and indirect
dischargers. Except as provided in paragraph (j)(2) of this section for
new sources, indirect discharging mills subject to this section must
meet the deadlines set forth below. Except as provided in paragraph
(j)(2) of this section for new sources, NPDES permits must require
direct discharging mills subject to this section to meet the deadlines
set forth below. If a deadline set forth below has passed at the time
the NPDES permit containing the BMP requirement is issued, the NPDES
permit must require immediate compliance with such BMP requirement(s).
    (i) Prepare BMP Plans and certify to the permitting or pretreatment
authority that the BMP Plan has been prepared in accordance with this
regulation not later than April 15, 1999;
    (ii) Implement all BMPs specified in paragraph (c) of this section
that do not require the construction of containment or diversion
structures or the installation of monitoring and alarm systems not
later than April 15, 1999.
    (iii) Establish initial action levels required by paragraph (h)(3)
of this section not later than April 15, 1999.
    (iv) Commence operation of any new or upgraded continuous,
automatic monitoring systems that the mill determines to be necessary
under paragraph (c)(3) of this section (other than those associated
with construction of containment or diversion structures) not later
than April 17, 2000.
    (v) 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 specified in paragraph (c) of this
section not later than April 16, 2001.
    (vi) Establish revised action levels required by paragraph (h)(4)
of this section as soon as possible after fully implementing the BMPs
specified in paragraph (c) of this section, but not later than January
15, 2002.
    (2) New Sources. Upon commencing discharge, new sources subject to
this section must implement all of the BMPs specified in paragraph (c)
of this section, prepare the BMP Plan required by paragraph (d) of this
section, and certify to the permitting or pretreatment authority that
the BMP Plan has been prepared in accordance with this regulation as
required by paragraph (f) of this section, except that the action
levels required by paragraph (h)(5) of this section must be established
not later than 12 months after commencement of discharge, based on six
months of monitoring data obtained prior to that date in accordance
with the procedures specified in paragraph (h)(2) of this section.

Subpart A--Dissolving Kraft Subcategory


Sec. 430.10  Applicability; description of the dissolving kraft
subcategory.

    The provisions of this subpart apply to discharges resulting from
the production of dissolving pulp at kraft mills.


Sec. 430.11  Specialized definitions.

    For the purpose of this subpart, the general definitions,
abbreviations, and methods of analysis set forth in 40 CFR part 401 and
Sec. 430.01 of this part shall apply to this subpart.

[[Page 18644]]

Sec. 430.12  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT), except that non-continuous
dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30
consecutive days limitations but shall be subject to annual average
effluent limitations:

                                Subpart A
                       [BPT effluent limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                  product
                                  --------------------------------------
                                    Continuous dischargers
                                  --------------------------
 Pollutant or pollutant property                 Average of
                                                   daily         Non-
                                   Maximum for   values for   continuous
                                    any 1 day        30      dischargers
                                                consecutive
                                                    days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.............................         23.6        12.25         6.88
TSS..............................         37.3        20.05        11.02
pH...............................        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

    (b) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section,
resulting from the use of wet barking operations, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the
proportion of the mill's total production due to use of logs which are
subject to such operations. Non-continuous dischargers shall not be
subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive days
limitations, but shall be subject to annual average effluent
limitations:

                                Subpart A
                       [BPT effluent limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                 product
                                ----------------------------------------
                                   Continuous dischargers
                                ---------------------------     Non-
Pollutant or pollutant property                Average of    continuous
                                              daily values   dischargers
                                 Maximum for     for 30        (annual
                                  any 1 day    consecutive    average)
                                                  days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5...........................          3.2          1.7           0.95
TSS............................          6.9          3.75          2.0
pH.............................        (\1\)      (\1\)         (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

    (c) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant parameters, controlled by this section,
resulting from the use of log washing or chip washing operations, which
may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this
subpart. These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth
in paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the
proportion of the mill's total production due to use of logs and/or
chips which are subject to such operations. Non-continuous dischargers
shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive
days limitations, but shall be subject to the annual average effluent
limitations:

[[Page 18645]]



                                Subpart A
                       [BPT effluent limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                  product
                                  --------------------------------------
                                    Continuous dischargers
                                  --------------------------
 Pollutant or pollutant property                 Average of      Non-
                                                   daily      continuous
                                   Maximum for   values for  dischargers
                                    any 1 day        30        (annual
                                                consecutive    average)
                                                    days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.............................         0.35          0.2          0.1
TSS..............................         0.70          0.4          0.2
pH...............................        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

    (d) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section,
resulting from the use of log flumes or log ponds, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the
proportion of the mill's total production due to use of logs which are
subject to such operations. Non-continuous dischargers shall not be
subject to the maximum day and average of 30 consecutive days
limitations but shall be subject to the annual average effluent
limitations:

                                Subpart A
                       [BPT effluent limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                 product
                                ----------------------------------------
                                   Continuous dischargers
                                ----------------------------     Non-
Pollutant or pollutant property                 Average of    continuous
                                               daily values  dischargers
                                  Maximum for     for 30       (annual
                                   any 1 day    consecutive    average)
                                                   days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5...........................          0.6           0.35          0.2
TSS............................          1.45          0.8           0.4
pH.............................      (\1\)         (\1\)           (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

Sec. 430.13  Effluent limitations guidelines representing the degree of
effluent reduction attainable by the application of the best
conventional pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart shall achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT): The limitations shall be the same as those
specified for conventional pollutants (which are defined in 40 CFR
401.16) in Sec. 430.12 of this subpart for the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).


Sec. 430.14  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best available
technology economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart where chlorophenolic-containing
biocides are used must achieve the following effluent limitations
representing the degree of effluent reduction attainable by the
application of the best available technology economically achievable
(BAT). Non-continuous dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum
day mass limitations in kg/kkg (lb/1000 lb) but shall be subject to
concentration limitations. Concentration limitations are only
applicable to non-continuous dischargers. Permittees not using
chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing
authority that they are not using these biocides:

[[Page 18646]]



                                Subpart A
                       [BAT effluent limitations]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Maximum for any 1 day
                              ------------------------------------------
    Pollutant or pollutant      Kg/kkg (or
           property             pounds per
                               1,000 lb) of        Milligrams/liter
                                  product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentachlorophenol............        0.0025  (0.011)(55.1)/y
Trichlorophenol..............        0.016   (0.068)(55.1)/y
y = wastewater discharged in
 kgal per ton of product.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sec. 430.15  New source performance standards (NSPS).

    Any new source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
new source performance standards (NSPS), except that non-continuous
dischargers shall not be subject to the maximum day and average of 30
consecutive days effluent limitations for BOD5 and TSS, but shall be
subject to annual average effluent limitations. Also, for non-
continuous dischargers, concentration limitations (mg/l) shall apply,
where provided. Concentration limitations will only apply to non-
continuous dischargers. Only facilities where chlorophenolic-containing
biocides are used shall be subject to pentachlorophenol and
trichlorophenol limitations. Permittees not using chlorophenolic-
containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing authority that
they are not using these biocides:

                                Subpart A
                                 [NSPS]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                  product
                                  --------------------------------------
                                    Continuous dischargers
                                  --------------------------
 Pollutant or pollutant property                 Average of      Non-
                                                   daily      continuous
                                   Maximum for   values for  dischargers
                                    any 1 day        30        (annual
                                                consecutive    average)
                                                    days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.............................         15.6          8.4          4.4
TSS..............................         27.3         14.3          7.5
pH...............................        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                                                      Maximum for any 1 day
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Kg/kkg (or
                                                  pounds per
                                                  1,000 lb)                    Milligrams/liter
                                                  of product
Pentachlorophenol..............................       0.0025  (0.012)(50.7)/y
Trichlorophenol................................       0.016   (0.074)(50.7)/y
y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton at
 all times.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

Sec. 430.16  Pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7 and 403.13, any existing source
subject to this subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly
owned treatment works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve
the following pretreatment standards for existing sources (PSES) if it
uses chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using
chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing
authority that they are not using these biocides. PSES must be attained
on or before July 1, 1984:

[[Page 18647]]



                                                    Subpart A
                                                     [PSES]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum for any 1 day
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Kg/kkg (or
        Pollutant or pollutant property                                                              pounds per
                                                              Milligrams/liter (mg/l)               1,000 lb) of
                                                                                                      product a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentachlorophenol.............................  (0.011)(55.1)/y...................................        0.0025
Trichlorophenol...............................  (0.082)(55.1)/y...................................        0.019
y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of
 product.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to
  impose mass effluent limitations.

Sec. 430.17  Pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 403.7, any new source subject to this
subpart that introduces pollutants into a publicly owned treatment
works must: comply with 40 CFR part 403; and achieve the following
pretreatment standards for new sources (PSNS) if it uses
chlorophenolic-containing biocides. Permittees not using
chlorophenolic-containing biocides must certify to the permit-issuing
authority that they are not using these biocides:

                                                    Subpart A
                                                     [PSNS]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Maximum for any 1 day
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Kg/kkg (or
        Pollutant or pollutant property                                                              pounds per
                                                              Milligrams/liter (mg/l)               1,000 lb) of
                                                                                                      product a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pentachlorophenol.............................  (0.012)(50.7)/y...................................        0.0025
Trichlorophenol...............................  (0.089)(50.7)/y...................................        0.019
y = wastewater discharged in kgal per ton of
 product.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The following equivalent mass limitations are provided as guidance in cases when POTWs find it necessary to
  impose mass effluent limitations.

Subpart B--Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda Subcategory


Sec. 430.20  Applicability; description of the bleached papergrade
kraft and soda subcategory.

    The provisions of this subpart apply to discharges resulting from:
the production of market pulp at bleached kraft mills; the integrated
production of paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper at bleached
kraft mills; the integrated production of pulp and fine papers at
bleached kraft mills; and the integrated production of pulp and paper
at soda mills.


Sec. 430.21  Specialized definitions.

    (a) The general definitions, abbreviations, and methods of analysis
set forth in 40 CFR part 401 and Sec. 430.01 of this part apply to this
subpart.
    (b) Baseline BAT limitations or NSPS means the BAT limitations
specified in Sec. 430.24(a) (1) or (2), as applicable, and the NSPS
specified in Sec. 430.25(b) (1) or (2), as applicable, that apply to
any direct discharger that is not ``enrolled'' in the ``Voluntary
Advanced Technology Incentives Program.''
    (c) Enroll means to notify the permitting authority that a mill
intends to participate in the ``Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program.'' A mill can enroll by indicating its intention to
participate in the program either as part of its application for a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, or
through separate correspondence to the permitting authority as long as
the mill signs the correspondence in accordance with 40 CFR 122.22.
    (d) Existing effluent quality means the level at which the
pollutants identified in Sec. 430.24(a)(1) are present in the effluent
of a mill ``enrolled'' in the ``Voluntary Advanced Technology
Incentives Program.''
    (e) Kappa number is a measure of the lignin content in unbleached
pulp, determined after pulping and prior to bleaching.
    (f) Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program is the program
established under Sec. 430.24(b) (for existing direct dischargers) and
Sec. 430.25(c) (for new direct dischargers) whereby participating mills
agree to accept enforceable effluent limitations and conditions in
their NPDES permits that are more stringent than the ``baseline BAT
limitations or NSPS'' that would otherwise apply, in exchange for
regulatory- and enforcement-related rewards and incentives.


Sec. 430.22  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT).

    (a) Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any
existing point source subject to this subpart must achieve the
following effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT):

[[Page 18648]]



                                Subpart B
  [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market
                            pulp is produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                 product
                                ----------------------------------------
                                   Continuous dischargers
     Pollutant or pollutant     ----------------------------     Non-
           parameter                            Average of    continuous
                                               daily values  dischargers
                                  Maximum for     for 30       (annual
                                   any 1 day    consecutive    average)
                                                   days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5...........................         15.45          8.05         4.52
TSS............................         30.4          16.4          9.01
pH.............................      (\1\)         (\1\)           (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.


                                Subpart B
      [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where
        paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                  product
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                    Continuous dischargers
                                 ---------------------------
Pollutant or pollutant parameter                 Average of      Non-
                                                   daily      continuous
                                   Maximum for   values for  dischargers
                                    any 1 day        30        (annual
                                                consecutive    average)
                                                    days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................         13.65          7.1         3.99
TSS.............................         24.0          12.9         7.09
pH..............................      (\1\)           (\1\)        (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.


                                Subpart B
 [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and
                        fine papers are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                  product
                                  --------------------------------------
                                    Continuous dischargers
                                  --------------------------
 Pollutant or pollutant parameter                Average of      Non-
                                                   daily      continuous
                                   Maximum for   values for  dischargers
                                    any 1 day        30        (annual
                                                consecutive    average)
                                                    days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.............................         10.6          5.5         3.09
TSS..............................        22.15         11.9         6.54
pH...............................        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.


                                Subpart B
 [BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and paper are
                                produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                  product
                                  --------------------------------------
                                    Continuous dischargers
                                  --------------------------
 Pollutant or pollutant parameter                Average of      Non-
                                                   daily      continuous
                                   Maximum for   values for  dischargers
                                    any 1 day        30        (annual
                                                consecutive    average)
                                                    days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.............................         13.7          7.1         3.99
TSS..............................         24.5         13.2         7.25
pH...............................        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.


[[Page 18649]]

    (b) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section,
resulting from the use of wet barking operations, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the
proportion of the mill's total production due to use of logs which are
subject to such operations:

                                Subpart B
  [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market
                            pulp is produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                  product
                                 ---------------------------------------
                                    Continuous dischargers
                                 ---------------------------     Non-
Pollutant or pollutant parameter                Average of    continuous
                                               daily values  dischargers
                                  Maximum for     for 30       (annual
                                   any 1 day    consecutive    average)
                                                   days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5............................          2.3          1.2          0.70
TSS.............................          5.3          2.85         1.55
pH..............................        (\1\)      (\1\)           (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.


                                Subpart B
      [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where
        paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                  product
                                  --------------------------------------
                                    Continuous dischargers
                                  --------------------------
 Pollutant or pollutant parameter                Average of      Non-
                                                   daily      continuous
                                   Maximum for   values for  dischargers
                                    any 1 day        30        (annual
                                                consecutive    average)
                                                    days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.............................         2.25          1.2         0.65
TSS..............................         5.75          3.1         1.70
pH...............................        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\1 Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.


                                Subpart B
 [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and
                        fine papers are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                 product
                                ----------------------------------------
                                   Continuous dischargers
     Pollutant or pollutant     ----------------------------     Non-
           parameter                            Average of    continuous
                                               daily values  dischargers
                                  Maximum for     for 30       (annual
                                   any 1 day    consecutive    average)
                                                   days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5...........................          1.95          1.0          0.55
TSS............................          5.3           2.85         1.55
pH.............................        (1)           (1)             (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.


                                Subpart B
 [BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are
                                produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                 product
                                ----------------------------------------
                                   Continuous dischargers
     Pollutant or pollutant     ----------------------------     Non-
           parameter                            Average of    continuous
                                               daily values  dischargers
                                  Maximum for     for 30       (annual
                                   any 1 day    consecutive    average)
                                                   days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5...........................          2.05          1.1          0.60

[[Page 18650]]


TSS............................          5.25          2.8          1.55
pH.............................        (1)           (1)             (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

    (c) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant parameters, controlled by this section,
resulting from the use of log washing or chip washing operations, which
may be discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this
subpart. These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth
in paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the
proportion of the mill's total production due to use of logs and/or
chips which are subject to such operations:

                                Subpart B
  [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market
                            pulp is produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                 product
                                ----------------------------------------
                                   Continuous dischargers
     Pollutant or pollutant     ----------------------------     Non-
           parameter                            Average of    continuous
                                               daily values  dischargers
                                  Maximum for     for 30       (annual
                                   any 1 day    consecutive    average)
                                                   days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5...........................          0.2           0.1           0.1
TSS............................          0.6           0.3          0.15
pH.............................        (1)           (1)             (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times..


                                Subpart B
      [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where
        paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                 product
                                ----------------------------------------
                                   Continuous dischargers
     Pollutant or pollutant     ----------------------------     Non-
           parameter                            Average of    continuous
                                               daily values  dischargers
                                  Maximum for     for 30       (annual
                                   any 1 day    consecutive    average)
                                                   days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5...........................          0.25          0.15         0.05
TSS............................          0.65          0.35         0.20
pH.............................        (1)           (1)             (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.


                                Subpart B
 [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and
                        fine papers are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                 product
                                ----------------------------------------
                                   Continuous dischargers
     Pollutant or pollutant     ----------------------------     Non-
           parameter                            Average of    continuous
                                               daily values  dischargers
                                  Maximum for     for 30       (annual
                                   any 1 day    consecutive    average)
                                                   days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5...........................          0.2           0.1          0.05
TSS............................          0.55          0.3          0.15

[[Page 18651]]


pH.............................        (1)           (1)             (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.


                                Subpart B
 [BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are
                                produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                 product
                                ----------------------------------------
                                   Continuous dischargers
     Pollutant or pollutant     ----------------------------     Non-
           parameter                            Average of    continuous
                                               daily values  dischargers
                                  Maximum for     for 30       (annual
                                   any 1 day    consecutive    average)
                                                   days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5...........................          0.15          0.1          0.05
TSS............................          0.5           0.25         0.15
pH.............................        (1)           (1)             (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

    (d) The following limitations establish the quantity or quality of
pollutants or pollutant properties, controlled by this section,
resulting from the use of log flumes or log ponds, which may be
discharged by a point source subject to the provisions of this subpart.
These limitations are in addition to the limitations set forth in
paragraph (a) of this section and shall be calculated using the
proportion of the mill's total production due to use of logs which are
subject to such operations:

                                Subpart B
  [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where market
                            pulp is produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                 product
                                ----------------------------------------
                                   Continuous dischargers
     Pollutant or pollutant     ----------------------------     Non-
           parameter                            Average of    continuous
                                               daily values  dischargers
                                  Maximum for     for 30       (annual
                                   any 1 day    consecutive    average)
                                                   days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5...........................          0.4           0.2          0.15
TSS............................          1.15          0.6          0.35
pH.............................        (1)           (1)             (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.


                                Subpart B
      [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where
        paperboard, coarse paper, and tissue paper are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                 product
                                ----------------------------------------
                                   Continuous dischargers
     Pollutant or pollutant     ----------------------------     Non-
           parameter                            Average of    continuous
                                               daily values  dischargers
                                  Maximum for     for 30       (annual
                                   any 1 day    consecutive    average)
                                                   days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5...........................          0.45          0.25         0.10
TSS............................          1.25          0.7          0.35

[[Page 18652]]


pH.............................        (1)           (1)             (1)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.


                                Subpart B
 [BPT effluent limitations for bleached kraft facilities where pulp and
                        fine papers are produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                  product
                                  --------------------------------------
                                    Continuous dischargers
                                  --------------------------
 Pollutant or pollutant parameter                Average of      Non-
                                                   daily      continuous
                                   Maximum for   values for  dischargers
                                    any 1 day        30        (annual
                                                consecutive    average)
                                                    days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.............................         0.35          0.2         0.10
TSS..............................         1.15          0.6         0.30
pH...............................        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.


                                Subpart B
 [BPT effluent limitations for soda facilities where pulp and papers are
                                produced]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Kg/kkg (or pounds per 1,000 lb) of
                                                  product
                                  --------------------------------------
                                    Continuous dischargers
                                  --------------------------
 Pollutant or pollutant parameter                Average of      Non-
                                                   daily      continuous
                                   Maximum for   values for  dischargers
                                    any 1 day        30        (annual
                                                consecutive    average)
                                                    days
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BOD5.............................          0.3          0.2         0.10
TSS..............................          1.1         0.55         0.35
pH...............................        (\1\)        (\1\)        (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Within the range of 5.0 to 9.0 at all times.

Sec. 430.23  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of the best conventional
pollutant control technology (BCT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best conventional pollutant
control technology (BCT). The limitations shall be the same as those
specified in Sec. 430.22 of this subpart for the best practicable
control technology currently available (BPT).


Sec. 430.24  Effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent
reduction attainable by the application of best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).

    Except as provided in 40 CFR 125.30 through 125.32, any existing
point source subject to this subpart must achieve the following
effluent limitations representing the degree of effluent reduction
attainable by the application of the best available technology
economically achievable (BAT).
    (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section--
    (1) The following effluent limitations apply with respect to each
fiber line that does not use an exclusively TCF bleaching process, as
disclosed by the discharger in its NPDES permit application under 40
CFR 122.21(g)(3) and certified under 40 CFR 122.22:


[[Continued on page 18653]] 

Local Navigation

• FR Home
• About the Site
• FR Listserv
• FR Search
• Selected Electronic Dockets
• Regulatory Agenda
• Executive Orders
• Current Laws and Regulations

• EPA Home
• Privacy and Security Notice
• Contact Us