# ![](media/image1.jpeg){width="0.5868055555555556in" height="0.9736111111111111in"}

March 18, 2004

Water Docket

Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code: 4101 T

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20460

> Re: AF&PA Comments on EPA Preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan
> for 2004/2005 ("Plan"): Docket No. OW-2003-0074

Dear Sir or Madam:

The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) is pleased to submit
these comments on the preliminary Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for
2004-2005 (the "Plan"). AF&PA is the national trade association of the
forest, paper and wood products industry. Our organization represents
approximately 250 member companies and related trade associations that
grow, harvest, and process wood and wood fiber; manufacture pulp, paper
and paperboard from both virgin and recycled fiber; and produce solid
wood products. AF&PA members own facilities that are included in several
of the subcategories discussed in the Plan. AF&PA also is a signatory of
the comments on the Plan submitted by Barnes and Thornburg, and we
support them in their entirety.

**General Comments**

AF&PA supports Barnes and Thornburg's critique of EPA's use of Toxics
Release Inventory (TRI) and Pollutant Compliance System (PCS)
information as the basis for determining categories for potential
effluent guidelines development. TRI and PCS data are not the
appropriate sources of information to make risk determinations for
effluent guidelines development.

AF&PA, however, does agree with EPA's decision not to rely heavily on
the water quality impairment data in its analysis. EPA's Engineering and
Analysis Division considered, but did not use, information from the
National Water Quality Inventory, Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d)
Impaired Waters database and other water quality data in the screening
level analysis. EPA notes in its Factor 1 Analysis, "Additional review
is needed to make these resources more useful for achieving EPA's goal
of identifying potential categories responsible for water quality
impairment." EPA indicated weaknesses in the data, noting that under the
National Water Quality Inventory, "\[t\]he majority of U.S. waters
remain unassessed," and, that, although the section 303(d) data contains
information from the 1998 and 2000 state reporting cycles, "\[m\]ost
information, however, is from 1998." AF&PA agrees with EPA's
determination not to employ incomplete and outdated information in the
effluent guidelines screening level analysis.

**Pulp and Paper Phase I**

EPA indicates that it excluded categories from further consideration for
effluent guidelines development if "EPA had promulgated effluent
guidelines within the past seven years." 68 *Fed. Reg.* 75521. AF&PA
supports this decision, and the exclusion of pulp and paper Phase I
mills on this basis. As EPA indicated, there is lag time between the
promulgation of effluent guidelines and the incorporation of their
requirements into NPDES permits. Time also is required to fully assess
the environmental improvement resulting from the reduced loadings
attributable to compliance with the revised NPDES permits. Therefore, it
makes sense to exclude from further consideration facilities in these
categories.

**Pulp and Paper Phase II**

[Introduction]{.underline}

As indicated in EPA's memorandum explaining its ranking methodology
("Methodology"), [^1] in August 2002, EPA made the decision not to
promulgate revised effluent guidelines for the Phase II mills.
Nonetheless, EPA has included pulp and paper Phase II mills as one of
the categories for which "EPA will continue investigating pollutant
discharges from these industrial point source categories... and that "at
the present time, the Agency does not have enough information to
determine" whether these categories warrant "revision of the applicable
effluent guideline." 68. *Fed. Reg.* 75528. The Agency cites toxicity
concerns as reflected in TRI rankings and other issues (including those
raised by stakeholders) as the basis for its additional investigation.
Our discussion below considers all of those issues and demonstrates that
the Agency currently has enough information to determine that additional
investigation is not required and effluent guidelines revisions are not
justified for the Phase II mills.

[There are no New Pollution Control Technologies for this Subcategory
that Would Warrant]{.underline} [Additional Investigation]{.underline}

EPA's decision not to promulgate effluent guidelines in 2002 was based,
in part, on EPA's assessment that "more stringent conventional pollutant
limitations ... would not pass the Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology "cost-reasonableness'" test." Further, EPA did not see the
need to "promulgate national categorical best management practices" for
pulp and paper Phase II facilities.

We agree with EPA's 2002 decision but disagree with EPA's current
conclusion that it has insufficient information on the availability of
demonstrated treatment technologies, process changes, or pollution
prevention measures that might be economically achievable and that would
be effective in reducing the pollutants remaining in the wastewater from
facilities in this industrial category. EPA concluded that it was too
difficult to make that assessment, focusing instead only on the
estimated risk presented by current discharges. Table VI-1 (68 *Fed.
Reg.* 75523) indicates that EPA believes further information is needed
to assess the need to develop more stringent effluent guidelines for
Phase II mills. These mills consist of unbleached chemical pulp mills,
nonintegrated mills making paper from purchased pulp, and mills
producing paper and paperboard from recycled fiber. EPA should know,
from almost continuous study of the industry over the past 25 years,
that the same basic pollution control measures are available that were
the basis of current effluent guidelines for the Phase II mills.

EPA completed its review of the bleached kraft, soda, and sulfite mills
in Subparts B and E in 1998. The wastewater from those mills is the same
as for the unbleached kraft and soda mills in Phase II, except for the
chlorinated organics and higher wasteloads and flows resulting from pulp
bleaching. The "Cluster Rule" effluent guidelines for the Phase I mills
imposed a number of requirements specifically aimed at chlorinated
organics, but otherwise they maintained the same technological basis as
was the basis for the prior revision of all of the chemical pulp
subcategories in the mid-1980s: good in-plant controls to reduce
wastewater flow and reduce spills and other releases of pollutants to
the wastewater, primary clarification, and biological treatment in
aerated stabilization basins or activated sludge systems.

As EPA should be aware, that is the basic technology package used by
pulp and paper mills of all sorts, and it is the one that EPA only
recently determined still to represent BCT and BAT (when combined with
requirements specific to chlorinated organics) for the Phase I mills.
There is no reason to believe that an evaluation of the Phase II
chemical pulp mills would produce a different conclusion. Similarly, the
nonintegrated subcategories have wastewater that has much lower
pollutant loads than chemical pulp mills, and the existing effluent
guidelines for those mills are based on the same package of inplant
controls plus primary and secondary treatment. That continues to be the
state-of-the-art of wastewater treatment for nonintegrated mills as well
as for the integrated mills. Mills that make paper and paperboard from
recycled fiber have the same types of pollutants as nonintegrated mills,
plus in some cases small amounts of various pollutants associated with
removing ink and dye from the paper. The latter vary substantially from
one mill to another (and from one fiber supply to another), and any
measures beyond those previously identified as BAT and BCT technology
would likely be best established on a case-by-case basis.

In short, EPA does not need to spend scarce resources on subcategories
where it appears unlikely that any new demonstrated, effective,
affordable technology will be identified. The extensive reviews of
available treatment technologies EPA conducted in the 1980s and 1990s
give it a firm basis for determining that this approach would in the end
not likely lead to significant pollutant reductions beyond the large
reductions the industry has already achieved.

> [A Small Number of Facilities Account for Most of the Toxicity Found
> In EPA's Screening Level Analysis]{.underline}

A small number of facilities seem to be driving the pulp and paper Phase
II mills' high TRI hazard ranking in EPA's screening level analysis.[^2]
The top 11 facilities on EPA's toxics loadings list make up 88 percent
of the total toxic weighted pounds equivalent (TWPE) for the pulp and
paper Phase II category. Further, there is an incorrect listing of the
facility ranked sixth on the toxics loadings list. This facility is
actually a bleached kraft mill and is part of the pulp and paper Phase I
category. This facility should be removed from the Phase II category
calculations, thus making the number of facilities potentially subject
to an eventual effluent guideline even smaller. EPA should not consider
this category for further investigation or for future effluent
guidelines development when so few facilities are driving the ranking.

> [There are Several Errors in the TRI Rankings That Overstate the Risk
> Presented by Phase II Facilities]{.underline}

-   Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds (PACs)

Several errors in the TRI data used to create the toxics loading list
(described in detail in the attached memorandum from the National
Council for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. (NCASI)) exaggerate the
toxic loadings attributable to Phase II facilities. There are two errors
relating to PACs, which compose the majority of the TWPE for the Phase
II mills.

First, the PAC discharge data for the highest ranked pulp and paper
phase II mill was incorrectly reported by the facility as being 158
pounds when it actually only discharged 7.1 pounds, an error that is now
being corrected. Using the correct amount, the TWPE drops from 689,100
to 42,000.

Second, it seems that there may be an error in the toxic weighting
factor (TWF) for PACs. The TWF for PACs seems to be extremely high, and
NCASI was unable to reproduce it using data provided in the docket and
by EPA. Using EPA's published human health criteria, a TWF of about 11
is calculated, much lower than the 4284 used by EPA. If a chronic
aquatic life concentration of 0.08 ug/L is incorporated into the TWF
determination (a value used by EPA, the source of which has not been
made available), one obtains a TWF of 81, thereby decreasing the Phase
II category TWPE releases by 82% to about 124,000 (this includes the
impacts of correcting the TRI data for the facility as discussed above).
These two corrections would change the Phase II category ranking from 7
to 17, assuming the TWPE discharges of other industry categories are not
also dominated by PAC discharges.

-   A Phase I mill is incorrectly included in Phase II

As mentioned above, EPA incorrectly included a bleached kraft mill in
Phase II, instead of Phase I. It is the toxicity EPA has associated with
the TRI releases for dioxin and dioxin-like compounds from that facility
that helps "drive" the TRI rankings (along with PACs). Removing the
toxicity associated with this facility greatly reduces the TWPE for the
Phase II category.

In short, there are several errors that exaggerate the toxicity of the
Phase II mills, resulting in incorrect high TRI rankings. If all the
errors discussed above are corrected, the category's TWPE discharges
decreased to approximately 68,000 from 1,3336,418 TWPE, changing the
category's TRI ranking from 7 to approximately 23. Therefore, the TRI
rankings do not provide a basis for further investigation of this
category or effluent guidelines development.

> [EPA is Correct that Additional Investigation in Not Required to
> Address Color Concerns]{.underline}

EPA indicates that it "will not evaluate setting technology-based
limitations or standards for color for the current and future Effluent
Guidelines Programs Plans." AF&PA strongly agrees with EPA's decision.
As noted by EPA in the Memorandum, effluent guidelines are not the
appropriate tool for controlling color; color discharges are "best dealt
with on a case-by-case basis through individual NPDES permits or, when
appropriate, through local limits." Solutions for color discharges are
dependent on site specific conditions and applicable water quality
standards and should not be addressed by a national effluent guideline.

> [Additional Investigation is Not Required Based on Concerns About Dyes
> and Dioxin and Dioxin-Like Compounds]{.underline}

The Memorandum mentions stakeholder concern about "dyes and dioxin from
bleaching at secondary fiber mills" and that "dioxin and dioxin-related
compounds" \[along with PACs, discussed above\] drive the TRI hazard
results for Phase II mills.

First, concerns regarding dyes should be dealt with on a site-by-site
basis as discussed on page 3, above. Second, also as discussed above,
one Phase I facility was incorrectly included in Phase II and its
associated toxicity from dioxin and dioxin-like compounds was a
significant component of the TWPE for the Phase II mills. Third, the
Memorandum discusses EPA sampling of effluents from five secondary fiber
mills, which use varying technologies to brighten their pulp. As EPA
indicates, while dioxins and furans were found in \[internal\] waste
streams, they were not exclusively related to bleaching chemistry and
these compounds were not detected in the final effluents of any of the
mills above the analytical method minimum level. These data do not
support a departure from EPA's previous decision not to develop effluent
guidelines for Phase II mills, and continued investigation regarding
these mills is not necessary.

[Concerns About Whole Effluent Toxicity are Best Addressed on a
Site-Specific Basis]{.underline}

Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) was raised by stakeholders as a concern
with Phase II mills. While there are some pulp and paper mills on
relatively small streams, there are also many on streams with flows of
thousands of cubic feet per second. AF&PA is not aware of data that
would show that a larger proportion of pulp and paper mills are on small
streams versus other industry categories. Moreover, because pulp mills
are usually located close to their sources of fiber, often pulp mills
are one of the few point sources on a stream segment. Thus, they often
discharge to water bodies that have low background pollutant loadings
and relatively high assimilative capacity. These factors all seem to
argue in favor of addressing any site-specific water quality problems
through water-quality-based effluent limitations, rather than to
promulgate nationwide rules to resolve those special cases.

WET issues are best addressed on a site-specific basis where specific
water quality characteristics can be considered (such as the receiving
water's available assimilative capacity). Technology-based BAT/BCT
effluent guidelines are not meant to eliminate whole effluent toxicity,
which will vary, among other things, on the extent of dilution in the
receiving water. It may also result from something other than a
discharge of a pollutant, or of a pollutant that has been identified
under the CWA. If a WET limitation is determined to be necessary to
implement a state water quality standard for toxicity or a general
narrative prohibition on toxic pollutants in toxic amounts, then the
existing procedures for water-quality-based permitting are adequate and
appropriate for that measure.

[Conclusion]{.underline}

Available information indicates there is no need to continue to
investigate Phase II mills for possible effluent guidelines development.
There are a relatively small number of facilities accounting for almost
all of the toxicity EPA has indicated and there are mistakes in the data
underlying the TRI rankings, that when corrected, reduce the rank of the
Phase II category to 23, instead of 7. In addition, the other concerns
raised by EPA and stakeholders do not indicate that these mills present
a risk that would warrant the development of effluent guidelines.

**Timber Products Processing**

The timber products processing industrial category should not be
considered for further investigation or future effluent guidelines
development. The timber products processing category ranks second on
EPA's TRI hazard list from the screening level analyses, but, according
to EPA's toxic loadings list, 99 percent of the TWPE attributed to the
timber products processing category are associated with only 15
facilities. As was the case for the Phase II facilities, it is not worth
the expenditure of EPA resources to consider for effluent guidelines
development a category where so few facilities are driving the potential
hazard. Instead, individual permit writers should determine appropriate
NPDES permit provisions for facilities in this category on a
site-specific basis. Furthermore, EPA's TRI hazard list includes at
least one erroneously listed facility: one wood treating plant actually
has zero process water discharge, but the facility is associated with a
remediation site that discharges treated groundwater. This is the likely
source of the TRI releases and should not be included in effluent
guidelines considerations. Thus, the number of facilities potentially
covered by an eventual effluent guideline for this category is even
smaller than indicated in the EPA database included in the docket for
this category.

If EPA nonetheless decides that additional investigation is required, it
is apparent that the TRI ranking for the timber products processing
category is not associated with the majority of the subcategories
included in this industry category, as noted by EPA in the Memorandum.
Further, there are some subcategories that do not have even one facility
listed by EPA in its database for this category. EPA should, at a
minimum, consider these differences among subcategories and allocate its
resources appropriately if it does move forward with any additional
investigation.

**Phase III Mills**

Phase III mills are dissolving kraft (Subpart A) and dissolving sulfite
(Subpart D) mills. In Table VI-1, EPA indicates that it is proposing not
to take final action on the proposed effluent guidelines revisions (68
*Fed. Reg*. 75523) and instead to "provide site-specific permit support
to state permit writers as they develop NPDES permits for the four
affected facilities in these two subcategories." That support would
enable permit writers to determine BAT on a best professional judgment
(BPJ) basis.

AF&PA and the companies with mills in the subcategory have been working
cooperatively with EPA for many years to develop effluent guidelines for
these mills. As part of EPA's effluent guidelines development process,
the agency has conducted several sampling events at the mills, requested
and received hundreds of technical and economic documents, and has had
extensive discussions with company customers. In short, the agency has
compiled a complete record about the processes and technical
capabilities of these mills.

As for the companies, as indicated in their separate comments filed
today, they have invested millions of dollars on research and
improvement projects at the mills. These investments have paid off in
substantial improvement of the quality of the effluents discharged from
the mills. EPA has recognized and encouraged this research and
environmental improvement several times since the late-1990's.[^3]

As part of this cooperative effort, AF&PA submitted two proposals for
effluent guidelines development to EPA---one for kraft mills and a
second for sulfite mills. These proposals are based on what we have
learned through the research and improvement projects and provided a
workable basis for completion of the effluent guidelines development
process.

Having said that, we understand and support the rationale behind EPA's
decision not to invest the resources required to complete the effluent
guidelines development process for four mills, and instead to adopt an
approach of providing guidance to permit writers. However, we also urge
EPA to take advantage of the years of valuable work that has already
been completed by both the agency and the mills. The body of technical,
economic and environmental knowledge about these mills is substantial,
and that knowledge formed the basis of AF&PA's two proposals to the
Agency. Therefore, pursuant to this alternative approach, we request
that the guidance and support the Agency provides to permit writers as
they determine BAT, should be based on the work already conducted and on
the AF&PA proposals. That way, the resources expended over the last
decade by the mills and the Agency will be put to best use.

There is one "housekeeping" matter that we would like to bring to the
Agency's attention. The 1993 proposal for effluent guidelines revisions
for the Phase III mills has never been formally withdrawn. Now that EPA
has made a formal decision not to adopt the proposal, the Agency should
withdraw the proposed rule when it issues the final Plan.

**Conclusion**

In conclusion, AF&PA supports EPA's decision not to review the effluent
guidelines issued for the Phase I mills. With respect to the pulp and
paper Phase II and timber products processing categories, EPA currently
has sufficient information to determine that additional investigation is
not warranted and effluent guidelines development is not needed.
Finally, EPA should use the AF&PA Phase III proposals as the basis for
the assistance the agency provides to state permit writers developing
NPDES permits for those mills.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Plan. Please feel free
to contact Jerry at (202) 463-2581 or Meg at (202) 463-5174, if you have
any questions about these comments.

Sincerely,

![](media/image2.png){width="2.4319444444444445in" height="0.4in"}
![](media/image2.png){width="2.4319444444444445in" height="0.4in"}

for

Jerry Schwartz Meg McCarthy

Senior Director, Water Quality Programs Coordinator, Regulatory Affairs

[^1]: Memorandum from Carey A. Johnston to the Docket, "Description and
    Results of EPA Methodology to Synthesize Screening Level Results for
    the Effluent Guidelines Program Plan for 2004/2005," dated December
    23, 2003.

[^2]: The subcategory is ranked very low based on PCS data, so PCS data
    will not be discussed further.

[^3]: 61 *Fed. Reg*. 36837 (7/13/96); 63 *Fed. Reg.* 18513 (4/15/98).