[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 179 (Wednesday, September 16, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49455-49459]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-24837]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[FRL--6157-1]
RIN 2060-AH74
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for
Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; interpretation and technical amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under the authority of the Clean Air Act, the EPA has
promulgated standards at 40 CFR part 63, subpart S (63 FR 18504, April
15, 1998) to reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions from the
pulp and paper production source category. This rule is known as
[[Page 49456]]
the Pulp and Paper national emission standards for hazardous air
pollutants (NESHAP) and is the air component of the integrated air and
water rules for the pulp and paper industry, commonly known as the Pulp
and Paper Cluster Rules.
Today's action makes interpretive amendments to certain regulatory
text in the NESHAP regarding the applicability of a 10 percent excess
emissions allowance for condensate treatment systems. The EPA is making
these amendments in response to inquiries received since publication of
the final standards on April 15, 1998.
DATES: These amendments are effective September 16, 1998.
ADDRESSES: Air Docket. Docket A-92-40, containing the supporting
information for the original NESHAP and this action, is available for
public inspection and copying between 8 a.m. and 5:30 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,
or by calling (202) 260-7548. The docket is located at the above
address in Room M-1500, Waterside Mall (ground floor). A reasonable fee
may be charged for copying.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Stephen Shedd, Emissions Standards
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5397. For questions
on compliance and applicability determinations, contact Mr. Seth
Heminway, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2223A), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., S.W., Washington, D.C.
20460, telephone number (202) 564-7017.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities
The entities potentially affected by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry.................................. Pulp mills and integrated
mills (mills that
manufacture pulp and paper/
paperboard) that chemically
pulp wood fiber using the
kraft process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be interested in the
amendments to the regulation affected by this action. To determine
whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should carefully
examine the applicability criteria in 63, subparts A and S of Title 40
of the Code of Federal Regulations.
Informational Contacts
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to
a particular situation, or questions about compliance approaches,
permitting, enforcement and rule determinations, please contact the
appropriate regional representative below:
Region I:
Greg Roscoe, Chief, Air Pesticides & Toxics Enforcement Office, Office
of Environmental Stewardship, U.S. EPA, Region I, JFK Federal Building
(SEA), Boston, MA 02203, (617) 565-3221 Technical Contact for
Applicabilty Determination, Susan Lancey, (617) 565-3587, (617) 565-
4940 Fax
Region II:
Mosey Ghaffari, Air Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region II, 290
Broadway, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-3925, (212) 637-3998 Fax
Region III:
Makeba Morris, U.S. EPA, Region III, 3AT10, 841 Chestnut Building,
Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 566-2187
Region IV:
Lee Page, U.S. EPA, Region IV, Atlanta Federal Center, 100 Alabama
Street, Atlanta, GA 30303, (404) 562-9131
Region V:
Christina Prasinos (AE-17J), U.S. EPA, Region V, 77 West Jackson
Street, Chicago, IL 60604-3590, (312) 886-6819 (312) 353-8289
Region VI:
Michelle Kelly, Air Enforcement Branch (6EN-AA), U.S. EPA, Region VI,
Suite 1200, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202-2733 (214) 665-7580,
(214) 665-7446 Fax
Region VII:
Gary Schlicht, Air Permits and Compliance Branch, U.S. EPA, Region VII,
ARTD/APCO, 726 Minnesota Avenue, Kansas City, KS 66101, (913) 551-7097
Region VIII:
Tami Thomas-Burton, Air Toxics Coordinator, U.S. EPA, Region VIII,
Suite 500, 999 18th Street, Denver, CO 80202-2466 (303) 312-6581, (303)
312-6064 Fax
Region IX:
Ken Bigos, U.S. EPA, Region IX, A-5, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA (415) 744-1240
Region X:
Andrea Wallenweber, Office of Air Quality, U.S. EPA, Region X, OAQ-107,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-8760, (206) 553-0404
Fax
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.
Outline
The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:
I. Description of Amendments and Interpretations
II. Administrative
III. Legal Authority
I. Description of Amendments and Interpretations
In today's action, the EPA is amending Sec. 63.446(g) to make clear
the EPA's original intent regarding the applicability of the 10 percent
excess emissions allowance to control devices used to treat kraft pulp
mill condensates to comply with the requirements of Sec. 63.446(e)(3)
through (e)(5). The EPA made clear in the April 15, 1998 preamble at 63
FR 18529-30 that based on data submitted by the pulp and paper
industry, EPA has concluded that some allowance for excess emissions is
part of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) floor level of
control. EPA did not qualify this statement by saying that only
particular technologies would require some type of allowance for excess
emissions.
The EPA had previously shown (61 FR 9390-91, March 8, 1996) that
the MACT floor level of control for pulping condensates at both
bleached and unbleached kraft mills is treating the condensate streams
to remove 92 percent of the HAP content (measured as methanol), or
equivalently, to achieve an outlet concentration of less than 330 and
210 parts per million by weight (ppmw) measured as methanol or remove
9.2 and 5.9 pounds of methanol per air dried ton of pulp (10.2 and 6.6
pounds of methanol per oven dried ton of pulp (ODP) basis in the final
rule) across the control device, respectively
[[Page 49457]]
for bleached and unbleached wastewater streams. The MACT floor control
technology basis for these treatment options is steam stripping. Since
steam stripping is the MACT floor control technology basis for the
treatment requirements, the EPA also based the excess emissions
allowance on steam stripping and determined that to be 10 percent.
Therefore, the MACT floor-level of control is a combination of
treatment requirements and an excess emissions allowance. The
discussion in the March 8, 1996 supplemental notice at 61 FR 9390
further states that ``The rule would allow mills to: (1) Choose any
wastewater treatment device as long as the device achieves one of the
three parameters . . .'' (percent removal, ppmw outlet concentration,
or mass per ODP removal).
The April 15, 1998 preamble and the March 8, 1996 supplemental
notice clearly show that the EPA's intent was to provide mills
flexibility in what control technology is used and what treatment
option (set out at Sec. 63.446(e)(3) through (e)(5)) is selected to
comply with the MACT requirements for condensate treatment. Since the
MACT requirements are a combination of treatment requirements and a
downtime allowance, it is reasonable to interpret that any control
device meeting the MACT requirements would be permissible--and this in
fact is what EPA intended. However, the rule language is at variance
with this preamble language because it limits the availability of the
10 percent excess emissions allowance to steam strippers complying only
with the 92 percent methanol removal option. Since this rule language
does not reflect EPA's intent (as shown in the preambles, as just
discussed), EPA is correcting the rule language in today's notice.
The preamble to the final NESHAP at 63 FR 18529-30 describes excess
emission allowances to 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. The preamble further explains that the 10 percent excess
emissions for condensate treatment includes periods of startup,
shutdown, and malfunction allowances of the General Provisions to part
63. Since the MACT floor (both the treatment level and the excess
emissions allowance) was based on steam stripping, the EPA discussed in
the preamble likely problems that would necessitate an excess emissions
allowance in the context of steam stripping operations. These were
given as steam stripper downtime as a result of damage to the steam
stripping system and loss of treatment efficiency resulting primarily
from contamination of condensate with carryover of fiber or black
liquor, steam supply downtime, and combustion control device downtime.
(Control device downtime is a factor because the steam stripper should
not be operated during periods when the stripper system vents cannot be
routed to a control device). The EPA believes that these types of
problems would necessitate this same downtime allowance, even with
control devices other than steam strippers. An exception to this is
where a mill elects to treat the condensate by discharging it below the
liquid surface of a biological treatment system (see Sec. 63.446(e)(2))
that is part of their wastewater treatment plant. These types of
biological treatment systems are different than steam strippers and
other control devices in terms of their excess emissions allowance
needs for several reasons. First, steam strippers and most other
control devices are typically located in or near the process, may be
integrated into part of the process, and treat primarily, and usually
exclusively, condensates. All of these factors make the control device
vulnerable to downtime periods, even at the best operating mills. A
similar concept of downtime does not translate to biological wastewater
treatment systems, which accept wastewaters from all over the mill and
must be up and running at all times to comply with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements under the Clean Water
Act. Second, at steam strippers and other in-process type condensate
control devices, periods when the operating parameter values
(established during the initial performance test) cannot be maintained
at the appropriate level count toward the 10 percent excess emissions
allowance; however, for reasons set forth in the preamble at 63 FR
18523-24, biological wastewater treatment units are provided a unique
set of parameter excursion provisions at Sec. 63.453(p). Therefore,
since the reasons for providing the 10 percent excess emissions
allowance do not fit the biological wastewater treatment scenario and
since the rule sets forth separate operating parameter excursion
provisions for biological wastewater treatment, the EPA believes that
it is reasonable to interpret the rule such that the 10 percent excess
emissions allowance does not apply to biological wastewater treatment
and is correcting the rule in today's action to reflect this
interpretation.
Finally, since promulgation of the NESHAP, the EPA has become aware
that there is some confusion over what is meant in the rule by the term
``biological treatment'' since the industry uses the term to refer to
two different types of units. Today's action provides guidance but no
rule changes to clarify how the rule applies to these two types of
units. The issue has been raised by companies considering anaerobic
biological treatment systems instead of steam strippers to comply with
the condensate treatment requirements. The term, as used in the rule
(see Secs. 63.446(e)(2); 63.453(j) and (p); and 63.457(l)), refers to
systems installed as part of the mill's wastewater treatment system
primarily for purposes of complying with NPDES requirements under the
Clean Water Act. The units are characteristically open to the
atmosphere, require modeling in lieu of direct air emissions
measurement during the initial performance test, and handle all of the
mill's wastewater. These biological treatment systems are different
than in-process type biological treatment systems, such as enclosed
anaerobic treatment systems that can be directly measured for air
emissions during the initial performance test and that would be
installed primarily to treat condensate streams subject to the final
pulp and paper NESHAP. This type of anaerobic system would be used
instead of a steam stripper to comply with the treatment requirements
at Sec. 63.446(e)(3) through (e)(5) and thus, the excess emissions
allowance at Sec. 63.446(g) would apply, but (correspondingly) the
operating parameter excursion provisions for biological wastewater
treatment systems at Sec. 63.453(p) would not apply. Also, it is
important to note that since this anaerobic treatment system is serving
the same function as a steam stripper (i.e. treatment of pulping
condensates), it meets the rule definition of low volume high
concentration system equipment and is thus subject to all of the
pulping system requirements at Sec. 63.443.
II. Administrative Requirements
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information requirements of the previously promulgated NESHAP
were submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) on April 27, 1998 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. 1657.03), and a copy may be obtained from
Sandy Farmer, OPPE Regulatory Information Division; U.S.
[[Page 49458]]
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.
Today's amendments to the NESHAP will have no impact on the
information collection burden estimates made previously. The changes
are interpretations of requirements and are not additional
requirements. Consequently, the ICR has not been revised.
B. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, the EPA must determine whether the
proposed regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject
to the OMB review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The
Order defines ``significant'' regulatory action as one that is likely
to lead to 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 in 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.
The NESHAP subpart S rule published on April 15, 1998, was
considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and a regulatory
impact analysis (RIA) was prepared. The amendments published today
interpret the rule. The OMB has evaluated this action, and determined
it to be nonsignificant; thus it did not require their review.
C. Regulatory Flexibility
Today's action is not subject to notice and comment rulemaking
requirements and therefore is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility
Act. However, for the reasons discussed in the April 15, 1998 Federal
Register (63 FR 18611-12), this rule does not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The changes to the rule in
today's action do not add new control requirements to the April 15,
1998 rule.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), the EPA must prepare a budgetary impact
statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or
tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100
million or more. Under section 205, the EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives
of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203
requires the EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any
small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the
rule.
The EPA has determined that the action promulgated today does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate or to the private sector. Therefore, the requirements of the
Unfunded Mandates Act do not apply to this action.
E. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships
Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local
or tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
While the final rule published on April 15, 1998 does not create
mandates upon State, local, or tribal governments, EPA involved State
and local governments in its development. Because the final 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. Because today's
action interprets the requirements of the final rule, today's action
does not create a mandate on State, local, or tribal governments.
Today's action does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive
Order 12875 do not apply to today's action.
F. Applicability of Executive Order 13045
The Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines
(1) economically significant as defined under Executive Order 12866,
and (2) the environmental health or safety risk addressed by the rule
has a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children; and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the EPA.
Today's action is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997), because it does not involve decisions on environmental
health risks or safety risks that may disproportionately affect
children.
G. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that
[[Page 49459]]
significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's action does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. The final rule published on
April 15, 1998 does not create mandates upon tribal governments.
Because today's action interprets the requirements of the final rule,
today's action does not create a mandate on tribal governments.
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084
do not apply to this action.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA) directs all Federal agencies to use voluntary
consensus standards instead of government-unique standards in their
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods,
sampling and analytical procedures, business practices, etc.) that are
developed or adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standards
bodies. Examples of organizations generally regarded as voluntary
consensus standards bodies include the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), and
the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). The NTTAA requires Federal
agencies like EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, with explanations
when an agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary
consensus standards.
This action does not involve any new technical standards or the
incorporation by reference of existing technical standards. Therefore,
consideration of voluntary consensus standards is not relevant to this
action.
I. Immediate Effective Date
The EPA is making today's action effective immediately. The EPA has
determined that the rule changes being made in today's action are
interpretive rules which are not subject to notice and comment
requirements. In addition, the rule change is a type of technical
correction, since it amends the rule to be consistent with EPA's
intentions stated in the rule's preamble. Notice and opportunity for
comment is not required for such technical corrections. The EPA has
also determined that this rule may be made effective in less than 30
days because it is interpretive, and relieves restrictions. See 5
U.S.C. 553 (d)(1) and (2).
J. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. However, section 808 provides that any rule for which
the issuing agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding
and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rule) that notice and
public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary or contrary to
the public interest, shall take effect at such time as the agency
promulgating the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). As stated
previously, EPA has made such a good cause finding, including the
reasons therefor, and established an effective date of September 16,
1998. EPA will submit 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 United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
III. Legal Authority
These regulations are amended under the authority of sections 112,
114, and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. sections 7412,
7414, and 7601).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Pulp mills,
Cluster Rules.
Dated: September 6, 1998.
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
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.
Subpart S--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
from the Pulp and Paper Industry
2. Section 63.446 is amended by revising paragraph (g) to read as
follows:
Sec. 263.446 Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.
* * * * *
(g) For each control device (e.g. steam stripper system or other
equipment serving the same function) used to treat pulping process
condensates to comply with the requirements specified in paragraphs
(e)(3) through (e)(5) of this section, periods of excess emissions
reported under Sec. 63.455 shall not be a violation of paragraphs (d),
(e)(3) through (e)(5), 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. The 10 percent
excess emissions allowance does not apply to treatment of pulping
process condensates according to paragraph (e)(2) of this section (e.g.
the biological wastewater treatment system used to treat multiple
(primarily non-condensate) wastewater streams to comply with the Clean
Water Act).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-24837 Filed 9-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P