[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 72 (Wednesday, April 15, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18504-18751]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9613]



[[Page 18503]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



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

Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 72 / Wednesday, April 15, 1998 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 18504]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 63, 261, and 430

[FRL-5924-8]
RIN 2040-AB53


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rules.

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18505]]

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Overview

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

Regulated Entities

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

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

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

Judicial Review

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

Compliance Dates

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

[[Page 18506]]

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

Technology Transfer Network

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

Organization of This Document

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

I. Legal Authority

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

II. Scope of This Rulemaking

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

[[Page 18507]]

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

A. EPA's Long-Term Environmental Goals

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

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

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

   Table II-1.--Highest Emitted Hazardous Air Pollutants From Pulp and  
                               Paper Mills                              
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Hazardous Air Pollutants                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acrolein..................................  Methanol.                   
Acetaldehyde..............................  Methylene chloride.         
o-Cresol..................................  Methyl ethyl ketone.        
Carbon tetrachloride......................  Phenol.                     
Chloroform................................  Propionaldehyde.            
Cumene....................................  1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene.     
Formaldehyde..............................  o-Xylene.                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[[Page 18508]]

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

[[Page 18509]]

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

[[Page 18510]]

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

[[Page 18511]]

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

[[Page 18512]]

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

C. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

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

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

[[Page 18513]]

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

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

[[Page 18514]]

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

[[Page 18515]]

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

III. Background

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

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

B. Clean Air Act Statutory Authority

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

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

C. Clean Water Act Statutory Authority

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

D. Other EPA Activities Concerning the Pulp and Paper Industry

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

[[Page 18516]]

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

[[Page 18517]]

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

IV. Changes in the Industry Since Proposal

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

V. Summary of Data Gathering Activities Since Proposal

A. Data Gathering for the Development of Air Emissions Standards

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

[[Page 18518]]

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

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

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

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

A. Air Emission Standards

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

[[Page 18519]]

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

[[Page 18520]]

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

3. Kraft Pulping Standards

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

[[Page 18521]]

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

[[Page 18522]]

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

[[Page 18523]]

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

[[Page 18524]]

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

[[Page 18525]]

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

[[Page 18526]]

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

[[Page 18527]]

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

[[Page 18528]]

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

[[Page 18529]]

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

[[Page 18530]]

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

[[Page 18531]]

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

[[Page 18532]]

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

[[Page 18533]]

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

B. Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards

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

[[Page 18534]]

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

[[Page 18535]]

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

[[Page 18536]]

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

[[Page 18537]]

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

[[Page 18538]]

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

[[Page 18539]]

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

[[Page 18540]]

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

[[Page 18541]]

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

[[Page 18542]]

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

[[Page 18543]]

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

[[Page 18544]]

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

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

[[Page 18545]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18546]]

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

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

[[Page 18547]]

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

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

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

    EPA did not establish monthly average limitations and standards for 
dioxin and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants because the daily 
maximum limitations and standards for these pollutants are expressed as 
less than the Minimum Level (5 and TSS based on the single best 
demonstrated end-of-pipe secondary wastewater treatment system. See 58 
FR at 66116-18, 66197. To encourage continuing innovation in the 
development of processes to reduce or eliminate the discharge of 
pollutants from the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA 
also proposed alternative NSPS limits for mills adopting TCF processes. 
See 58 FR at 66111.
    (2) Options Considered. In addition to the option proposed for 
NSPS, EPA considered three other options for the technology basis of 
NSPS for toxic and nonconventional pollutants. These options are 
summarized below. For further discussion of these options, see the 
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487. The first 
alternative option is identical to BAT Option B, described above. This 
revised NSPS option includes extended delignification (i.e., oxygen 
delignification and/or extended cooking) to produce softwood pulps with 
a kappa number of approximately equal to or less than 20 (approximately 
13 for hardwoods), followed by complete (100 percent) substitution of 
chlorine dioxide for elemental chlorine and elimination of hypochlorite 
for bleaching. EPA concluded that there are no performance differences 
between the proposed NSPS option and this revised option. See the 
Supplemental Technical Development Document, DCN 14487.
    EPA also considered an ECF technology used at two U.S. mills 
consisting of oxygen delignification followed by ozone bleaching, 
enhanced extraction, and final chlorine dioxide brightening. This 
technology is used to produce pulps of somewhat lower brightness than 
market pulps. Finally, the Agency considered a TCF process technology 
that one U.S. mill is currently using to produce pulps with brightness 
up to 83 ISO.
    For conventional pollutants, EPA considered the proposed NSPS 
option based on the single best available demonstrated end-of-pipe 
secondary wastewater treatment and a second option based on the best 
available demonstrated performance of a

[[Page 18553]]

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

[[Page 18554]]

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

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

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

[[Page 18555]]

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

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

[[Page 18556]]

                                                                                                                
2,3,7,8-TCDF...................  g/yr...................          9.47          8.94          9.04          9.47
Chloroform.....................  kkg/yr.................          4.89          4.28          4.28          4.89
12 Chlorinated phenolic          kkg/yr.................          3.58          2.81          2.97          3.58
 pollutants.                                                                                                    
AOX............................  kkg/yr.................      3,010         2,100         2,600         3,010   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The TCF calculations assumed that chlorinated pollutants will not be present. For all other calculations, EPA 
  assumed that pollutants reported as ``not detected'' were present in a concentration equivalent to one-half   
  the minimum level of the analytical method.                                                                   

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18557]]

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

[[Page 18558]]

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

[[Page 18559]]

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

[[Page 18560]]

reduced by 1,770 kilograms to 240 kilograms per year. As a result of 
the TCF limitations and PSES on mills in the calcium-, magnesium-, or 
sodium-based sulfite segment and as an incidental result of 
implementing the ECF model technology by direct and indirect 
discharging mills in the other two segments, discharges of AOX will be 
reduced by 4,010 metric tons to 370 metric tons per year. For a 
discussion of the environmental benefits resulting from these 
reductions, see Section VIII.G.2, and Chapter 8 of the Economic 
Analysis, DCN 14649.
    (6) Development of Limitations. All of the limitations and 
standards promulgated today for Subpart E are expressed as ``5 discharge was 
used to characterize the best demonstrated performance. EPA concluded 
that data in the record is not representative of the performance that 
can be achieved in the Papergrade Sulfite subcategory as a whole. For 
this reason, the new source performance standards for conventional 
pollutants promulgated today for each segment of the Papergrade Sulfite 
subcategory are the same as those promulgated in the 1982 NSPS 
regulation. See 47 FR 52006, 52036 (Nov. 18, 1982) (for former Subpart 
O); 48 FR 13176, 13177 (Mar. 30, 1983) (for former Subpart J).
    In selecting its NSPS technology, EPA considered all of the factors 
specified in CWA section 306, including the cost of

[[Page 18561]]

achieving effluent reductions. The selected NSPS technologies are 
presently being employed at mills in each segment of this subcategory. 
Moreover, the cost of the NSPS technology is an insignificant fraction 
of the capital cost of a new mill (less than one percent). Finally, EPA 
has determined that the costs of including the selected NSPS 
technologies at a new source are substantially less on a per-ton basis 
than the costs of retrofitting existing mills. See Chapter 6 of the 
Economic Analysis document (DCN 14649). Therefore, EPA has concluded 
that such costs do not present a barrier to entry. The Agency also 
considered energy requirements and other non-water quality 
environmental impacts for the selected NSPS options and concluded that 
these impacts were no greater than for the selected BAT technology 
options and are acceptable. See the Supplemental Technical Development 
Document, DCN 14487. EPA therefore concluded that the NSPS technology 
bases selected for each segment of the papergrade sulfite segment 
constitutes the best available demonstrated control technology for that 
segment.
    d. Pretreatment Standards. EPA is promulgating pretreatment 
standards for new and existing sources for three segments of the 
Papergrade Sulfite subcategory based on the BAT and NSPS technologies 
selected for each segment. In determining PSES, EPA considered the age, 
size, processes, other engineering factors, and non-water quality 
environmental impacts pertinent to Subpart E mills. None of these 
factors provided a basis for selecting different PSES technologies. For 
each segment, EPA selected the best technology available to produce the 
products in each segment. Each of the selected PSES technologies is 
economically achievable and has no unacceptable adverse non-water 
quality impacts. With respect to PSNS for these segments, EPA concluded 
that the selected technologies represent the best available 
demonstrated control technologies that are capable of producing each 
segment's products. EPA also concluded that there was no barrier to 
entry for the reasons set forth in section VI.B.6.c. above for NSPS for 
this subcategory.
    In order to determine which pollutants to regulate under PSES and 
PSNS, EPA used the same pass-through analysis it employed for the 
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory described in section 
VI.B.5.c(2) above. EPA concluded that dioxin, furan, and the 12 
chlorinated phenolic pollutants pass through or interfere with POTW 
operations for the ammonium and specialty grade segments for the 
reasons set forth in section VI.B.5.c(2) for Subpart B. This reasoning 
applies because the BAT/PSES model technologies for Subparts B and E 
are both based on ECF process technologies; the same is also true for 
the NSPS/PSNS technologies (although in neither subpart does the model 
pretreatment technology include secondary biological wastewater 
treatment). Based on its pass-through determination, EPA is 
promulgating national pretreatment standards for new and existing 
sources for those pollutants for those segments. These standards are 
expressed as `` The requirement to develop BMPs should be limited to spent 
pulping liquor (e.g., kraft black liquor, sulfite red liquors) and 
should exclude kraft green and white liquors and fresh sulfite pulping 
liquors;
     The proposed regulation was overly prescriptive in general 
and, in particular, the requirement for secondary containment was 
unnecessary to meet the objectives of the proposed regulation;
     EPA underestimated the costs for implementing BMPs;
     EPA lacks the authority to establish BMPs to control 
pollutants that are not identified as toxic under CWA section 307(a) or 
hazardous under CWA section 311; and
     EPA lacks the authority to impose BMPs on indirect 
dischargers.
    In response to comments, EPA undertook several initiatives to 
understand industry's concerns about the proposed BMP requirements; to 
better understand the status of the industry with respect to pulping 
liquor management and spill prevention and control; and to better 
assess the BMP compliance costs. To supplement its understanding of 
industry's spent pulping liquor management and spill prevention and 
control practices, EPA visited more than 25 chemical pulp mills in the 
United States and 15 mills in Canada and Europe following its 1993 
proposal. These mills included bleached and unbleached kraft mills and 
papergrade sulfite mills (see Docket Sections 21.5.1 and 21.5.3). EPA 
also reviewed the results of the NCASI BMP questionnaire distributed to 
the industry. Questionnaire responses were received from approximately 
70 bleached and unbleached kraft, soda, and sulfite mills. Through this 
NCASI questionnaire EPA received a substantial amount of additional 
information about mill practices and costs for equipment, monitoring 
systems, and facility modifications (see Docket Section 21.1.3). In 
addition, EPA held detailed discussions with stakeholders regarding 
options for BMPs and associated costs. Much of this information was 
included in the Docket and made available to the public in conjunction 
with the Notice of Data Availability published in the Federal Register 
on July 5, 1995 (60 FR 34938). Additional information related to 
development of the BMP requirements, including changes in the wording 
and organization of the proposed rule, was discussed in the July 1996 
Notice. See 61 FR at 36835.
    Based on the information and data received since proposal, EPA 
revised the scope of the BMP requirements to focus on control of spent 
pulping liquor, turpentine, and soap. The BMP requirements were 
restructured to allow greater flexibility in how BMPs are implemented 
to address site-specific circumstances in achieving meaningful 
prevention and control of leaks and spills. EPA also reorganized the 
regulatory text from that presented in the record for the July 1996 
Notice to provide greater ease of use by mill operators and permit 
writers, and to clarify the intent of particular BMP requirements. The 
most significant changes since proposal are discussed below.
    In December 1993, EPA proposed BMPs for seven subcategories of the 
pulp, paper, and paperboard industry (58 FR at 66078), all of which 
chemically pulp wood and non-wood fibers. EPA still believes BMPs are 
appropriate for each of these chemical pulping subcategories; however, 
to be consistent with the effluent limitations guidelines and standards 
promulgated in this final rule, the BMPs promulgated today are 
applicable only to the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda and 
Papergrade Sulfite subcategories. EPA expects to promulgate BMPs for 
the remaining five chemical pulping subcategories [(Subparts A 
(Dissolving Kraft), C (Unbleached Kraft), D (Dissolving Sulfite), F 
(Semi-chemical), and H (Non-wood Chemical Pulp)] as it promulgates new 
effluent limitations guidelines and standards for these subcategories. 
Until new regulations for Subparts A, C, D, F, and H are promulgated, 
permit writers may wish to use the BMP regulations in this rule as a 
guide to issuing permits containing BMPs based on best professional 
judgment for mills with production covered by these other subparts. See 
CWA Section 402(a)(1); 40 CFR 122.44(k). POTWs may need to impose BMPs 
as local limits to facilities in these subcategories. See 40 CFR 403.5.
    The BMP provisions in the proposed rule were structured to apply to 
all pulping liquors. In response to comments, EPA has revised the scope 
of the BMPs and for the final rule is limiting the BMP applicability to 
spent pulping liquors, turpentine, and soap. EPA has determined that 
spent pulping

[[Page 18564]]

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

[[Page 18565]]

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

[[Page 18566]]

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

[[Page 18567]]

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

[[Page 18568]]

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

[[Page 18569]]

machine moisture content, while market pulp is measured as air-dry 
metric tons (10 percent moisture). EPA is not changing this definition 
of production as it applies to the effluent limitations and standards 
for any subcategory in Part 430 other than subparts B and E. EPA is 
also retaining the existing definition of production for the NSPS for 
conventional pollutants being promulgated today for subpart B and 
subpart E. See 40 CFR 430.01(n)(1).
    However, EPA is codifying a new definition of production for the 
AOX and chloroform limitations being promulgated today for subparts B 
and E. See 40 CFR 430.01(n)(2). Under the new specialized definition, 
the production-normalizing parameter to be used by permit writers in 
calculating mass-based limitations for chloroform and AOX is air-dried 
metric tons of brownstock pulp (10 percent moisture) entering the 
bleach plant at the stage during which chlorine or chlorine-containing 
compounds are first applied to the pulp. In the case of bleach plants 
that use totally chlorine-free bleaching, the production-normalizing 
parameter used to calculate mass-based limitations shall be air-dried 
metric tons of brownstock pulp (10 percent moisture) entering the first 
stage of the bleach plant from which wastewater is discharged. Id. 
Production, in turn, is defined as the annual unbleached pulp 
production that enters the bleach plant (at ten percent moisture) 
divided by the number of operating days of the bleach plant. Id.
    The Agency had proposed to change the current definition of 
production in part 430 by adding the following statement: ``Production 
in each of the foregoing cases shall be determined for each mill based 
upon the highest annual production in the past five years divided by 
the number of operating days that year.'' See 58 FR at 66189. EPA has 
decided not to revise the definition to include a new time basis 
because EPA is not revising the current BPT and BCT effluent 
limitations guidelines at this time for subparts B and E. Codifying a 
new time basis for determining production of AOX and chloroform would 
have required permit writers to apply different time bases for 
determining production for purposes of calculating BAT limitations and 
limitations for conventional pollutants. In EPA's view, this would have 
unduly complicated the permitting process. In addition, for NSPS, 
introducing a time basis would be illogical because new sources do not 
have five years of data from which to determine the one highest year.
    (2) Determination of Permit Limitations for Multiple Subcategory 
Mills. For facilities with multiple point source categories, 
subcategories, and segments, the appropriate guidelines for each 
category, subcategory (or subpart), and segment are used to determine a 
single permit limit for each pollutant. Chapter 5 of the U.S. EPA NPDES 
Permit Writers' Manual (EPA-833-B-96-003, December 1996) provides 
guidance in determining permit limits in situations when the effluent 
guidelines for one subcategory regulates a different set of pollutants 
than the effluent guidelines applicable to another subcategory. For 
mill subject to today's rule, this situation may arise in setting 
permit limits for AOX when the mill has production in multiple 
subcategories.
    For pollutants regulated today at the bleach plant (i.e., dioxin, 
furan, chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and chloroform, and, for 
subpart B PSES/PSNS, AOX), EPA does not believe that multiple 
guidelines will be relevant. The bleach plant is unlikely to be used 
for more than one subcategory (or segment in subpart E), and thus, the 
permit limit will be determined by the limitations and standards for a 
single subcategory (or segment).
    There may be instances where a pollutant is regulated under the 
limitations and standards promulgated today and the permitting 
authority also wishes to establish limits for that particular pollutant 
have yet to be established. For example, the permitting authority might 
need to use best professional judgment to determine end-of-pipe limits 
for AOX for a mill with production not only in subpart B or E (for 
which AOX limitations are being promulgated today) but also in another 
subpart (for which no AOX limitations have been promulgated) that 
generates AOX. In these instances, the permitting authority would use 
best professional judgment to develop pollutant limits for wastestreams 
and pollutants not covered by today's rulemaking and apply those limits 
to determine a proper permit limitation for the mill.
    Following promulgation of today's rules, EPA will develop and 
publish additional guidance for the pulp and paper industry for 
determining permit limitations for facilities with production in 
multiple categories, subcategories, and segments.
    c. Compliance With Effluent Limitations. (1) Compliance 
Demonstration for In-Plant Limitations. The effluent limitations and 
standards that the Agency is promulgating today for dioxin, furan, 
chloroform, the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants and AOX will be 
applied (depending on the subcategory and segment) to the total 
discharge from each physical bleach line operated at the mill. At most 
mills, wastewaters from acid and alkaline bleaching stages are 
discharged to separate sewers. At some mills, however, bleach plant 
wastewaters are discharged to a combined sewer containing both acid and 
alkaline wastewaters.
    For dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic compounds, compliance 
with the effluent limitations and standards can be demonstrated by 
collecting separate samples of the acid and alkaline discharges and 
preparing a flow-proportioned composite of these samples, resulting in 
one sample of bleach plant effluent for analysis. However, in 
determining the limitations, EPA used data from acid and alkaline 
bleach plant effluents that had been analyzed separately. (EPA also 
used data from combined sewers.) In a comment on Method 1653 (DCN 20095 
A8), the commenter reported problems in achieving the Minimum Level in 
Method 1653 for samples of composited acid and alkaline filtrates. If 
necessary to achieve the Minimum Level, EPA recommends that the 
facility test the effluents separately for reliable determination of 
the chlorophenolics, TCDD, and TCDF.
    For chloroform, however, separate samples and analyses of all 
bleach plant filtrates discharged separately are required to prevent 
the loss of chloroform through air stripping as the samples are 
collected, measured, and composited or through chemical reaction when 
the acid and alkaline samples are combined. If separate acid and 
alkaline sewers do not exist, compliance samples must be collected from 
the point closest to the bleach plant that is or can be made physically 
accessible.
    (2) Compliance with ML Limitations. In today's rulemaking for the 
Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory, EPA is establishing 
limitations and standards for 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants and 
dioxin, and alternative TCF limitations and standards for AOX, that are 
expressed as less than the Minimum Level (``5 and TSS limitations 
established as part of NSPS, EPA is not specifying such requirements in 
the final rule because permit authorities have ample experience 
regulating these pollutants and can determine the appropriate 
monitoring frequencies. See Section VI.A.3 for a discussion of 
BOD5 monitoring requirements under today's air rule. See 
also Section VI.B.7 for a discussion of monitoring requirements 
associated with BMPs.
    The final rule specifies minimum monitoring frequencies for AOX, 
dioxin, furan, chloroform, and chlorinated phenolic pollutants for non-
TCF mills because of the nature and composition of the discharges from 
non-TCF bleached papergrade kraft and soda and papergrade sulfite 
mills. See 40 CFR 430.02 (a) and (b). Wastewaters from these mills have 
been found to contain chlorinated organic compounds that are highly 
toxic and bioaccumulative (e.g., dioxin, furan, and chlorinated 
phenolic pollutants). Process-related variability in generating these 
pollutants is clearly reflected in available data. Therefore, given the 
environmental significance of these pollutants, minimum monitoring is 
both necessary and appropriate to ensure that data are available to 
permitting authorities to have an adequate basis to verify compliance 
with the technology-based effluent limitations and standards. In 
contrast to discharges of BOD5 and TSS, receiving water 
effects from discharges of these chlorinated pollutants are not as 
easily detected, are not as well understood, and do not manifest 
themselves in a manner that enables a mill to quickly become aware of 
and react to releases that may be harmful to the environment.
    The monitoring requirements imposed in 40 CFR 430.02 will not take 
effect until EPA has obtained approval of these information collection 
requirements from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq. For monitoring 
requirements applicable to direct dischargers, EPA will seek to amend 
the NPDES Discharge Monitoring Report ICR No. 229, OMB approval number 
2040-0004, prior to its expiration on May 31, 1998. For indirect 
dischargers, EPA will seek to add specified monitoring requirements for 
indirect dischargers to the National Pretreatment Program ICR No. 2, 
OMB approval number 2040-0009, when it expires on October 31, 1999. EPA 
will not seek to amend this ICR prior to its expiration date because 
the monitoring requirements for indirect dischargers do not become 
effective until April 16, 2001 for existing indirect dischargers, and 
EPA anticipates no new indirect dischargers commencing discharge prior 
to the ICR expiration date.
    (b) Duration of Minimum Monitoring Frequency. The final rule 
includes minimum monitoring frequency requirements for demonstrating 
compliance with limitations and standards for dioxin, furan, 
chloroform, the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants, and AOX for non-TCF 
mills. See 40 CFR 430.02(a). Permitting and pretreatment authorities 
retain authority to specify more frequent monitoring on a case-by-case 
basis and must specify AOX monitoring frequency for TCF mills on a best 
professional judgment basis. The minimum monitoring frequencies are 
applicable to mills in Subparts B and E for a duration of five years 
after inclusion in NPDES permits for direct dischargers. See 40 CFR 
430.02(b). For existing indirect dischargers, the minimum monitoring 
requirements apply until April 17, 2006 which reflects a five-year 
monitoring period following the termination of the three-year 
compliance period authorized by CWA Section 307(b)(1). Id. For new 
indirect dischargers, the five year minimum monitoring period commences 
upon operation. Id.
    EPA has determined the minimum monitoring frequencies established 
by this rule are necessary to demonstrate compliance with the effluent 
limitations guidelines and standards promulgated today, particularly 
considering the degree of change that is expected to occur to pulping 
and bleaching processes as this rule is implemented. In establishing 
the minimum monitoring frequencies for the regulated pollutants, the 
Agency has struck a balance between the cost of the monitoring regimen 
and the need to ensure that sufficient data are consistently available 
to permitting authorities to provide an adequate basis to verify 
compliance with the effluent limitations and standards and to mills to 
quickly become aware of and react to releases that may be harmful to 
the environment.
    The Agency has selected a minimum monitoring frequency of once per 
month for dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40 
CFR 430.02(a). These pollutants are the most toxic and bioaccumulative 
among those regulated yet also are the most costly to analyze (total 
cost of approximately $1,325 per sample; $825 per sample for dioxin, 
furan, and $500 per sample for all 12 chlorinated phenolic analytes). 
EPA expects that 12 data points for each pollutant per year, together 
with daily end-of-pipe AOX data and information on process conditions 
from detailed mill logs (e.g., unbleached pulp kappa numbers, bleach 
plant kappa factors, bleached pulp brightness, etc.) that are 
reviewable upon request, will yield a meaningful basis for establishing 
compliance with the promulgated limitations through long-term trends 
and short-term variability in dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic 
pollutant discharge loading patterns.
    The Agency has selected a minimum monitoring frequency of once per 
week for chloroform. See 40 CFR 430.02(a). This minimum monitoring 
frequency has been selected because data available indicate there can 
be considerable temporal variability of this pollutant in bleach plant 
wastewaters. Therefore, more data are required to adequately assess 
compliance with the promulgated limitations and standards on both a 
long-term and short-term basis. While the cost for laboratory analysis 
of chloroform (approximately $270 per sample) is much lower than for 
dioxin, furan, and chlorinated phenolic pollutants, chloroform sampling 
requirements are more extensive and rigorous (e.g., sampling of all 
bleach plant filtrates using special equipment and containers to 
prevent volatilization). Weekly data (52 data points) and information 
on process conditions from detailed mill logs that are reviewable upon 
request are expected to yield an adequate basis for establishing long-
term compliance trends in chloroform discharge loadings and developing 
process control strategies to ensure the short-term compliance in 
chloroform discharge loadings.
    The Agency has selected a minimum monitoring frequency of once 
every day for AOX for non-TCF mills. See 40 CFR 430.02(a). This minimum 
monitoring frequency has been selected because there can be 
considerable daily variability in chlorinated organic discharge 
loadings to receiving streams

[[Page 18572]]

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

[[Page 18573]]

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

VII. Environmental Impacts

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

A. Summary of Sources and Level of Control

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

[[Page 18574]]



                                                        Table VII-1.--Final Cluster Rules--Sources and Technology Bases/Level of Control                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Toxic and nonconventional pollutant effluent control (BAT, PSES, and BMP technology bases) by subcategory      Hazardous air pollutant emission control (MACT I and III  levels of control) 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                 by subcategory                                
                                                      Papergrade sulfite                                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 ------------------------------------------------------------   Best Management                                                                  Secondary and  
  Bleached papergrade kraft and        Calcium,                                                Practices (BMP),                         Soda and semi-                        nonwood fiber, and
              soda                  magnesium, and     Ammonium sulfite     Specialty grade   (Subparts B and E)         Kraft             chemical             Sulfite         mechanical wood 
                                    sodium sulfite                                                                                                                                   fiber      
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                                                                
(2) Selected BAT/PSES             Spent Pulping                                                                                                                                                 
                                   Liquor Spill                                                                                                                                                 
                                   Prevention and                                                                                                                                               
                                   Control.                                                                                                                                                     
(2)Control LVHC System Vents      See Bleach Plant                                                                                                                                              
                                   Block Below.                                                                                                                                                 
ECF: 100% Substitution of         TCF: Oxygen- and    ECF: 100%           ECF: 100%           ..................  Control Selected    Control Pulp        Control Pulp                          
 Chlorine with Chlorine Dioxide;   peroxide-enhanced   Substitution of     Substitution of                         HVLC Vents and      Washing System      Washing System                       
 effective brownstock washing;     extraction;         Chlorine with       Chlorine with                           Named High HAP      Vents at New        Vents, and                           
 elimination of hypochlorite;      peroxide            Chlorine Dioxide;   Chlorine Dioxide;                       Concentrated        Sources.            Control Liquor                       
 oxygen-and peroxide-enhanced      bleaching;          peroxide-enhanced   oxygen- and                             Condensate                              and Acid Tank                        
 extraction; closed brown-stock    elimination of      extraction;         peroxide-enhanced                       Streams.                                Vents at New                         
 screening; and other processes    all chlorine-       elimination of      extraction;                                                                     Sources.                             
 discussed at Section              containing          hypo-chlorite;      elimination of                                                                                                       
 VI.B.5.a(1).                      compounds; and      and use of dioxin-  hypochlorite; and                                                                                                    
                                   improved pulp       and furan-          use of dioxin and                                                                                                    
                                   cleaning.           precursor-free      furan precursor-                                                                                                     
                                                       defoamers.          free defoamers.                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                                                                                
(3)Bleach Plant: Control                                                                                                                                                                        
 Chlorinated HAP from Vents at                                                                                                                                                                  
 Stages That Use Chlorinated                                                                                                                                                                    
 Bleaching Chemicals, and                                                                                                                                                                       
 Control Chloroform Emissions by                                                                                                                                                                
 Complying with BAT codified at                                                                                                                                                                 
 40 CFR 430.24(a) and (e) and 40                                                                                                                                                                
 CFR 430.54(a) and (c) or by                                                                                                                                                                    
 100% substitution of chlorine                                                                                                                                                                  
 with chlorine dioxide and                                                                                                                                                                      
 elimination of hypochlorite.                                                                                                                                                                   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Air Emissions and Water Effluent Reductions

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

[[Page 18575]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18576]]

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

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

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

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


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


[[Page 18577]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18578]]

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18579]]

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

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

VIII. Analysis of Costs, Economic Impacts, and Benefits

A. Summary of Costs and Economic Impacts

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

[[Page 18580]]

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

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

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

[[Page 18581]]

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

B. Overview of Economic Analysis

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

[[Page 18582]]

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

C. Costs and Economic Impacts for Air Emissions Standards

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18583]]

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

E. Costs and Impacts for the Integrated Rules

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18584]]

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

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

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

[[Page 18585]]

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

G. Benefits

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

[[Page 18586]]

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

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

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

[[Page 18587]]

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

[[Page 18588]]

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

[[Page 18589]]

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

[[Page 18590]]



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

H. Comparison of Costs and Benefits

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

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

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

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

[[Page 18591]]

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

[[Page 18592]]

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

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

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

J. Benefit-Cost Comparison Using Case Studies

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

[[Page 18593]]

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

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

IX. Incentives for Further Environmental Improvements

A. The Voluntary Advanced Technology Incentives Program

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

[[Page 18594]]

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

[[Page 18595]]

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

[[Page 18596]]

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

[[Page 18597]]

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

[[Page 18598]]

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

[[Page 18599]]

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

[[Page 18600]]

results of research (if necessary), process development, and mill 
trials.
    Section 402(a) of the Clean Water Act authorizes permit writers to 
establish permit conditions and limitations on the basis of best 
professional judgment as necessary to achieve the objectives of the 
Act. Although EPA is promulgating BAT limitations under CWA sections 
301 and 304, EPA is not--nor could it today--codify the particular 
process development, construction, and testing milestones that will 
lead each participating mill to achieve the ultimate Voluntary Advanced 
Technology performance requirements. Identifying those milestones is 
best left to the judgment of the permit writer, who will have access to 
far more mill-specific information than EPA has today.
    c. ``Stage 2'' limitations. The third component of the Voluntary 
Advanced Technology BAT limitations consists of the ``stage 2'' 
limitations. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). These are the only standards 
applicable to Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS and must be achieved 
upon commencing operation. See 40 CFR 430.25(c). Also included in the 
Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS are standards for dioxin, furan, 
chloroform, 12 chlorinated phenolic compounds, BOD5, TSS, 
and pH at the baseline NSPS level. See 40 CFR 430.25(c)(1). In 
addition, standards for pentachlorophenol and trichlorophenol, when 
used as biocides, are part of the Voluntary Advanced Technology NSPS. 
See 40 CFR 430.25(d).
    These limitations and standards represent the ultimate performance 
requirements for each Tier. The ``stage 2'' limitations are as follows:
    (1) Tier I Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations (``stage 
2''). For Tier I, the ultimate performance requirement for AOX is a 
long-term average (LTA) of 0.26 kg/kkg, measured at the end of the 
pipe. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i). Under this Tier, Advanced Technology 
fiber lines at participating mills must also achieve reduced lignin 
content in unbleached pulps as measured by a kappa number of 20 for 
softwoods and 13 for hardwoods and reported as an annual average. Id. 
Finally, Tier I Advanced Technology fiber lines must recycle to 
recovery systems all filtrates up to the point at which the unbleached 
pulp kappa numbers are measured (e.g., brownstock into bleaching). Tier 
I also includes limitations for dioxin, furan, chloroform and 12 
chlorinated phenolic pollutants, see 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3). Limitations 
on these parameters are established at the baseline BAT levels because 
application of Advanced Technologies does not appear on this record to 
justify more stringent limitations.
    (2) Tier II Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations (``stage 
2'') and NSPS. For Tier II, the ultimate performance requirement for 
AOX is an LTA of less than 0.10 kg/kkg, measured at the end of the 
pipe. 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). In addition, Tier II 
Advanced Technology fiber lines must recycle to chemical recovery 
systems all pulping-area filtrates prior to bleaching. Id. Finally, 
Tier II Advanced Technology fiber lines must also achieve total pulping 
area condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach plant wastewater 
flow of 10 m\3\/kkg or less reported as an annual average. Id. Tier II 
mills must also meet (or, in the case of existing dischargers, must 
continue to meet) limitations for dioxin, furan, chloroform, and the 12 
chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(3) and 
430.25(c)(1). Application of the Tier II Technologies does not appear 
to justify more stringent limitations for these parameters.
    (3) Tier III Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations (``stage 
2'') and NSPS. For Tier III, the ultimate performance requirement for 
AOX is an LTA of less than 0.05 kg/kkg, measured at the end of the 
pipe. See 40 CFR 430.24(b)(4)(i) and 430.25(c)(2). In addition, Tier 
III Advanced Technology fiber lines must recycle to chemical recovery 
systems all pulping-area filtrates prior to bleaching. Id. Finally, 
Tier III Advanced Technology fiber lines must also achieve total 
pulping area condensate, evaporator condensate, and bleach plant 
wastewater flow of 5 m\3\/kkg or less reported as an annual average. 
Id. Tier III mills must also meet (or, in the case of existing 
dischargers, must continue to meet) limitations for dioxin, furan, 
chloroform, and the 12 chlorinated phenolic pollutants. See 40 CFR 
430.24(b)(3) and 430.25(c)(1). Application of the Tier III Technologies 
does not appear to justify more stringent limitations for these 
parameters.
    d. Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT Limitations and NSPS for Mills 
Employing TCF Processes. In order to encourage mills to employ Advanced 
Technologies founded on TCF processes, EPA is opening today's 
incentives program to fiber lines that employ or commit to employ such 
processes. Existing dischargers that choose to employ TCF processes are 
subject to the ``stage 1'' limitations, interim milestones (including 
the baseline BAT limitations), and the ``stage 2'' limitations 
applicable to the selected tier. 40 CFR 430.24(b) and 430.25(c). These 
limitations are discussed above. However, recently gathered data from 
TCF mills indicate that all TCF mills will be able to achieve the AOX 
performance requirements at any Tier level because end-of-pipe AOX 
levels are being reported at below minimum level. See DCN 14488. 
Consequently, the AOX limitations for TCF fiber lines are expressed as 
``5 
loads associated with the Advanced Technologies. The technology basis 
of each of the Incentives Tiers will lead to overall decreases in 
energy consumption, primarily because of replacement of chlorine 
dioxide with oxygen-based delignification and bleaching chemicals. EPA 
expects a slight increase in air emissions (<2 percent) due to 
increased recovery of black liquor that will occur under the Incentives 
Tiers. However, these are offset by reductions in air pollution that 
derive from the reductions in overall energy consumption.
    EPA considered the potential for cross-media transfer of pollutants 
through implementation of the Advanced Technologies that form the basis 
of the Incentives Tiers. EPA found no basis to conclude that cross-
media transfer of pollutants would occur. See DCN 14488 and DCN 14492. 
However, much of the Tier II and Tier III technology bases focus on 
closing mill process cycles, which has not yet been fully demonstrated. 
As these technologies are fully developed and implemented, sufficient 
engineering analyses and testing should be performed to assess whether 
unacceptable cross media transfer of pollutants are occurring, and 
whether modifications need to be made to avoid any unacceptable 
transfers identified.
    For NSPS, EPA has determined that Tier II and Tier III technologies 
constitute the best demonstrated control technologies for mills 
enrolling in those tiers. Although EPA cannot say today that either of 
these technology sequences is the best demonstrated control technology 
for new sources in the Bleached Papergrade Kraft and Soda subcategory 
as a whole, EPA does believe that new sources emerging within the next 
16 years may characterize them as such based on their own sense of 
their economic and technical capabilities. Therefore, as with existing 
sources, EPA is promulgating this additional array of NSPS in order to 
provide such mills the opportunity to pursue voluntarily pollution 
prevention technologies--and to accept correspondingly more stringent 
effluent limitations--if business circumstances warrant. EPA notes that 
a mill subjecting itself to the Advanced Technology NSPS will be 
shielded from more stringent technology-based effluent limitations for 
ten years beginning on the date that construction is completed. See CWA 
section 306(d). Because these standards are entirely voluntary, their 
promulgation today presents no barrier to entry. In addition, EPA has 
determined that achievement of these standards will not result in any 
significant non-water quality environmental impacts or significant 
additional energy requirements. See DCN 14488. Nothing in EPA's 
analysis of the other statutory factors applicable to NSPS justified 
selecting different NSPS technologies.
    EPA also believes it is appropriate to promulgate limitations for 
all three Tiers at the same time it promulgates the baseline BAT 
limitations. (The same rationale applies for today's Voluntary Advanced 
Technology NSPS.) By promulgating all three Voluntary Advanced 
Technology BAT Tiers today, rather than in five-year increments, EPA 
hopes to encourage as many mills as possible to develop and install 
Advanced Technologies. On this record, EPA has determined that its 
customary practice of promulgating a single BAT for similarly situated 
mills--represented here by the baseline BAT limitations--would have the 
unintended effect of impeding some mills' progress toward even greater 
environmental objectives than EPA can compel at this time. Thus, if EPA 
were to promulgate only baseline BAT limitations today and not 
establish a parallel track for mills converting to Advanced 
Technologies, EPA is concerned that mills might abandon their voluntary 
long-term strategies of superior environmental performance in favor of 
compulsory short-term compliance strategies focused on the baseline 
BAT. Instead, by promulgating Voluntary Advanced Technology BAT 
limitations at the same time as baseline BAT limitations, EPA allows 
interested mills to consider all technology options at the outset 
before they make their investment decisions and to design and install 
precisely the technologies and

[[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-