[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 25, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3907-3936]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1058]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD-FRL-6523-8]
RIN 2060-AH74


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for 
Source Category: Pulp and Paper Production

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule amendments and notice of public hearing.

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

SUMMARY:  Under the Clean Air Act (Act), EPA issued a final rule (63 FR 
18504, April 15, 1998) to reduce hazardous air pollutant (HAP) 
emissions from the pulp and paper production source category. That rule 
(known as the Pulp and Paper national emission standard for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) or pulp and paper NESHAP) is the air component 
of the integrated air and water rules for the pulp and paper industry 
(known as the Pulp and Paper Cluster Rules). In this action, we are 
proposing to amend certain passages

[[Page 3908]]

of regulatory text in the 1998 pulp and paper NESHAP by adding 
equivalent compliance alternatives. These proposed amendments do not 
change the level of control or compromise the environmental protection 
achieved by the 1998 pulp and paper NESHAP. We are reopening the public 
comment period for comment only on the amendments proposed in today's 
action. We are proposing amendments to the pulping process vent 
standards and the biological treatment system standards to address 
technical issues identified after promulgation. Also, drafting errors 
identified after promulgation are being corrected in today's action.

DATES:  Comments. The EPA will accept comments regarding these proposed 
amendments on or before March 10, 2000.
    Public Hearing.A public hearing regarding the proposed amendments 
will be held if requests to speak are received by the EPA by February 
7, 2000. If a public hearing is requested, the hearing will be held on 
February 11, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  Comments. Submit written comments (in duplicate, if 
possible) to Docket No. A-92-40 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. 
The EPA requests that a separate copy of the comments also be sent to 
Mr. Stephen Shedd at the address listed below.
    Docket. Docket No. A-92-40 contains supporting information for this 
proposed action and the prior promulgated and proposed amendments to 
the 1998 NESHAP and is available for inspection and copying between 
8:00 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. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Mr. Stephen Shedd, Emission Standards 
Division (MD-13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone (919) 541-5397, and e-mail at 
``<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#62110a0706064c1116071407220712034c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92e1faf7f6f6bce1e6f7e4f7d2f7e2f3bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>''. For questions on compliance and applicability 
determinations, contact Mr. Seth Heminway, Office of Enforcement and 
Compliance Assessment (2223A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 564-7017 and e-
mail at ``<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed85888084839a8c94c39e889985ad889d8cc38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ff7faf2f6f1e8fee6b1ecfaebf7dffaeffeb1f8f0e9">[email protected]</span></a>'.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Regulated Entities. Entities potentially 
regulated by this proposed action include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Category                  SIC code    NAICS code           Examples of regulated entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................           26         3221  Pulp mills and integrated mills (mills that
                                                                 manufacture pulp and paper/paperboard) that
                                                                 chemically pulp wood fiber.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This list is not intended to be exhaustive. It provides a guide 
regarding the types of entities that we expect to regulate by this 
proposed action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated 
by this action, you must carefully examine the applicability criteria 
in part 63, subparts A and S of title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations.
    Technology Transfer Network. The Technology Transfer Network (TTN) 
is a network of electronic bulletin boards for the EPA. The TTN 
provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air 
pollution control. Information regarding the basis and purpose of this 
proposed action, the rule, and other relevant documents can be found on 
the pulp and paper page of EPA's TTN Unified Air Toxics World Wide Web 
site (UATW) at ``http://www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/pulp/pulppg.html''. For 
more information on the TTN, call the HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is requested by the required 
date (see DATES section in this document), the public hearing will be 
held at the EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle 
Park, NC. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring 
as to whether a hearing will be held should contact Ms. JoLynn Collins, 
Waste and Chemical Processes Group, Emission Standards Division (MD-
13), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 
27711, telephone number (919) 541-5671. The record for the hearing will 
remain open for 30 days after the hearing date to provide an 
opportunity for submittal of rebuttal and additional information.
    In accordance with section 307(d)(5) of the Act, EPA will hold a 
public hearing, if requested, to discuss the proposed amendments. If a 
public hearing is held, the EPA may ask clarifying questions during the 
oral presentations but will not respond to the presentations or 
comments. To provide an opportunity for all who may wish to speak, oral 
presentations will be limited to 15 minutes each. Any member of the 
public may file a written statement (see DATES and ADDRESSES). The EPA 
will consider written statements and supporting information with 
equivalent weight as any oral statement and supporting information 
subsequently presented at a public hearing, if held.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the 
information considered by EPA in the development of this rulemaking. 
The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout the 
rule development. The docketing system is intended to allow members of 
the public and industries involved to readily identify and locate 
documents so that you can effectively participate in the rulemaking 
process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards and their 
preambles, the contents of the docket except for certain interagency 
documents will serve as the record in case of judicial review. (See 
section 307(d)(7)(A) of the Act.)
    Outline. Information on the proposed amendments is organized as 
follows:

I. Description of the Proposed Amendments

A. Introduction
B. Is a performance test required for boilers that introduce HAP 
emission streams with the combustion air (Sec. 63.443(d))?
C. Biological Treatment System Standards

    1. Introduction for Proposed Amendments
    2. Can a finite list of HAPs be used in demonstrating compliance 
for biological treatment systems (Sec. 63.457(l))?
    3. Given the finite number of HAPs in regulated condensates, 
what is the appropriate emission standard for biological treatment 
systems (Sec. 63.446(e))?
    4. What minimum measurement level should be used in analyzing 
total HAPs in liquid streams (Sec. 63.457(c))?

D. Biological Treatment System Performance Test Requirements

    1. Introduction
    2. Given the proposed changes, how do I conduct a performance 
demonstration for a biological treatment system (Sec. 63.457(l))?
    3. What procedures must be followed to determine the fraction of 
compounds degraded in nonthoroughly mixed open biological treatment 
systems (Sec. 63.457(l))?

E. Open Biological Treatment System Monitoring Requirements

    1. Introduction

[[Page 3909]]

2. May a mill use site-specific monitoring parameters for open 
biological treatment systems instead of the parameters specified in 
the final rule (Sec. 63.453(j))?
    3. In the event of a parameter excursion, must I conduct in-zone 
sampling of nonthoroughly mixed open biological treatment systems 
when unsafe conditions exist (Sec. 63.453)?
    4. Are the biological treatment system monitoring requirements 
applicable to both open and closed biological treatment systems 
(Sec. 63.453)?
    5. Given the proposed changes, how do I conduct daily compliance 
monitoring for open biological treatment systems (Sec. 63.453(j))?
    6. Do I still have to conduct the first quarter compliance tests 
for total HAPs (Sec. 63.453(j))?
    7. May I use monitoring parameter values recorded during a 
compliance monitoring test to expand the established parameter 
operating range (Sec. 63.455(e))?

F. Drafting Error Corrections

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act
B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
C. Executive Order 13084: Consultations and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

I. Description of the Proposed Amendments

A. Introduction

    The Pulp and Paper NESHAP was promulgated on April 15, 1998 (63 FR 
18504) and was codified as 40 CFR part 63, subpart S. Since 
promulgation, the rule has been amended by four Federal Register 
notices (63 FR 42238, 63 FR 49455, 63 FR 71385, and 64 FR 17555) to 
correct minor drafting errors and inadvertent omissions, clarify the 
intent of the final rule, and provide technical amendments. The above 
promulgated rule and amendments are hereafter referred to as the 
``final rule'' in this preamble. Today, we are proposing additional 
changes to the final rule that affect the compliance demonstration for 
combustion devices used to control pulping vent gases and for 
biological treatment systems used to treat pulping condensates. The 
equivalent compliance alternatives proposed in today's amendments do 
not change the level of control or compromise the environmental 
protection achieved by the final rule. We are reopening the comment 
period for comments only on the amendments proposed in today's action.
    Following promulgation, we received comments from the industry 
regarding the pulping process vent and condensate standards. The 
comments focused on performance testing requirements for combustion 
devices used to control HAP vent gas streams, and the monitoring and 
test methods used for demonstrating initial and continuous compliance 
using biological treatment systems.
    We have evaluated the comments and decided to propose amendments to 
the final rule to address the issues raised by the commenters. For the 
pulping process vent standards for kraft, soda, and semi-chemical 
mills, we are proposing to remove the requirement, in some cases, to 
conduct an initial performance test or continuous temperature 
monitoring of the control device.
    For biological treatment systems, we are proposing several changes. 
Under the proposed amendments, you would be allowed to use an optional 
format of the emission limit, expressed as a minimum HAP mass removal, 
and to use four specific HAPs as a surrogate for total HAPs. We are 
also proposing to allow you to determine site-specific monitoring 
parameters for open biological treatment systems as an alternative to 
using the parameters specified in the final rule. Additionally, we are 
proposing new test procedures, including special monitoring procedures, 
for nonthoroughly mixed biological treatment systems.
    The rationale for the proposed amendments is presented in the 
following sections. The rationale for each change is presented in a 
question and answer format.

B. Is a Performance Test Required for Boilers That Introduce HAP 
Emission Streams With the Combustion Air (Sec. 63.443(d))?

    We are proposing to remove the requirement for conducting an 
initial performance test in some cases. The pulping process vent 
requirement being proposed today (Sec. 63.443(d)(4)) eliminates the 
initial performance test and continuous temperature monitoring if HAP 
vent gases are introduced with the combustion air into a boiler or 
recovery furnace with a heat input capacity greater than or equal to 44 
megawatts (MW)(150 million British thermal units per hour, Btu/hr).
    In the final rule, one option for controlling HAP emission streams 
from kraft, soda, and semi-chemical pulping systems is to route the 
streams to a boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace 
(Sec. 63.443(d)(4)). The final rule does not require you to conduct an 
initial performance test or continuously monitor the operating 
temperature of the combustion unit if the HAP emission stream enters 
the unit with the primary fuel or enters directly into the flame zone.
    Following promulgation, we received comments indicating that 
pulping vent gases are typically controlled in boilers and recovery 
furnaces by mixing the vent gases with the combustion air (not 
introduced directly into the flame zone). The commenters stated that 
conducting an initial performance test on these combustion devices to 
demonstrate compliance with the standard would not be reasonable due to 
the large volume of air flow through these devices. The commenters 
requested that the initial performance test requirement for these 
boilers be removed from the final rule.
    We have reviewed the performance of combustion devices used to 
control HAP emissions and found that many standards allow boilers with 
heat input capacities greater than or equal to 44 MW (150 million Btu/
hr) to control HAP emission streams without conducting an initial 
performance test. The supporting information (``Reactor Processes in 
the Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry--Background 
Information for Promulgated Standards,'' EPA-450/3-90-016b, March 1993) 
shows that ``large'' boilers with heat input capacities greater than or 
equal to 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr) are typically operated at 
temperatures and residence times exceeding the levels needed to achieve 
at least 98 percent reduction of HAPs (as required in the final rule 
(Sec. 63.443(d)(1))) when the HAP gases are introduced with the 
combustion air. In contrast, boilers with heat input capacities less 
than 44 MW are generally not operated at levels that would ensure at 
least 98 percent HAP reduction unless the HAP emission stream is 
introduced with the primary fuel or into the flame zone. Using this 
same rationale, the National Emission Standard for Organic HAP from 
Process Vents, Storage Vessels, Transfer Operations, and Wastewater 
(subpart G of part 63), the NESHAP for Petroleum Refineries (subpart CC 
of part 63), and several other NESHAP allow these large boilers to be 
used to control HAP emission streams without conducting an initial 
performance test and without monitoring operating temperature if the 
HAP emission streams are introduced with the combustion air, with the 
primary fuel, or into the flame zone.
    Consequently, we are proposing to amend the vent control 
requirements for kraft, soda, and semi-chemical pulping mills to 
eliminate the initial performance test and continuous monitoring 
requirements if you

[[Page 3910]]

introduce the regulated HAP emission streams with the combustion air 
into a boiler or recovery furnace with a heat input capacity greater 
than or equal to 44 MW (150 million Btu/hr). However, an initial 
performance test and continuous monitoring of the operating temperature 
are required if you introduce the HAP emission streams with the 
combustion air into a boiler or recovery furnace with a heat input 
capacity less than 44 MW. Lime kilns must demonstrate compliance with 
the final rule by introducing HAP emission streams with the primary 
fuel or into the flame zone because we do not have any data that show 
lime kilns can achieve 98 percent destruction by introducing the HAP 
emission streams by any other means.
    Although an initial performance test and continuous monitoring are 
not required for these large boilers, you must design and operate the 
closed-vent system according to the requirements specified in the final 
rule (Sec. 63.450) and conduct the periodic visual inspections and leak 
detection tests (Sec. 63.453) of the closed-vent system components. You 
must record the results of these inspections and tests and comply with 
the reporting requirements (Sec. 63.455) of the final rule. Also, you 
must keep records of the boiler or recovery furnace downtime 
(Sec. 63.10(c)(8)) to demonstrate compliance with the excess emission 
allowance standards (Sec. 63.443(e)).

C. Biological Treatment System Standards

1. Introduction for Proposed Amendments
    One of the options for complying with the pulping condensate 
standards in the final rule is to discharge the applicable condensates 
below the liquid surface of a biological treatment system that achieves 
92 percent reduction of total HAPs. Following promulgation, commenters 
raised several compliance issues associated with using biological 
treatment systems to comply with the condensate standards. The 
commenters were concerned that they would have difficulty demonstrating 
a 92 percent reduction of total HAPs in biological treatment systems. 
Therefore, they requested the flexibility to use the mass removal 
option, which is allowed for other treatment devices. The commenters 
also stated that their analytical labs were having difficulty using 
Method 305 to evaluate condensate samples for total HAP compounds. The 
commenters stated their belief that the number of measurable HAPs in 
the regulated condensate streams is very limited, and that testing for 
a specific list of HAPs would reduce the complexity and cost compliance 
testing. The commenters recommended a specific list of HAPs to measure 
in biological treatment systems. Additionally, in meetings with 
industry representatives after promulgation, it was identified that 
some biological treatment systems used in the industry were not 
thoroughly mixed. Therefore, the performance tests procedures in the 
final rule, which were established for thoroughly mixed systems, are 
not appropriate in all cases for nonthoroughly mixed systems.
    Since promulgation, several meetings between the EPA and industry 
representatives were held to discuss these issues. We have reviewed the 
comments and information obtained during these meetings and decided to 
propose amendments to the final rule to address these concerns.
2. Can a Finite List of HAPs be Used in Demonstrating Compliance for 
Biological Treatment Systems (Sec. 63.457(l))?
    We have found that the regulated condensate streams contain a 
finite number of measurable HAPs. Today's proposed action amends the 
test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(l)) to specify that 
only four HAP compounds (acetaldehyde, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, 
and propionaldehyde) are to be measured to determine compliance with 
all biological treatment standards, instead of measuring for all 188 
HAP compounds.
    The final rule (Sec. 63.457(g)) requires measurement of the total 
HAPs for mills that comply with the condensate standards using a 
biological treatment system. At promulgation of the final rule, we had 
limited data on the speciation profile of total HAPs in regulated 
condensate streams. We needed additional data to establish a specific 
list of the 188 HAPs for compliance testing.
    To support the development of a specific list of HAPs, the National 
Council of the Paper Industry for Air and Stream Improvement, Inc. 
(NCASI), submitted to EPA a study (Hazardous Air Pollutants Present in 
Kraft Mill Condensates and Their Significance for the Hard-piping 
Option Under Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), December 
1998) (Docket No. A-92-40) of the condensate streams contained in steam 
stripper feed tanks at eight mills. They sampled condensates in steam 
stripper feed tanks since these are the same condensates that the final 
rule regulates. We gave NCASI a list of 108 volatile HAPs to be 
evaluated in the study. This list specifies the HAPs that volatilize 
most readily from biological treatment systems. The NCASI used a test 
method with a nominal detection limit between 0.5 and 1 part per 
million by weight (ppmw) to analyze the steam stripper feed tank 
contents. This detection limit was selected because the final rule 
(Sec. 63.457(j)(4)) specifies those HAP compounds with concentrations 
at the point of determination that are either below 1 ppmw or below the 
detection limit are not required to be included in the total HAP 
compliance demonstrations.
    The NCASI data report that the HAP compounds with concentrations 
greater than 1 ppmw in regulated condensate streams are methanol, 
methyl ethyl ketone, acetaldehyde, and propionaldehyde. Methanol 
accounts for approximately 98.5 percent of the total HAP mass with 
acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde accounting for 
the remaining 1.5 percent.
    We have reviewed the test methods and sampling procedures used in 
the NCASI study and concur that the methods and procedures were 
appropriate. We have also reviewed the criteria used by NCASI for 
selecting the condensate streams to be analyzed, and we agree that the 
condensate streams sampled are representative of the range of 
condensate streams found at kraft mills. Therefore, we agree that 
acetaldehyde, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde 
account for the total of HAP compounds in the regulated condensate 
streams. Identifying a specific list of HAPs will achieve the EPA's and 
industry's goal of reducing the performance testing and monitoring 
burden without reducing the emission reductions achieved by the final 
rule. Today's proposal amends the test methods and procedures section 
(Sec. 63.457(l)) of the final rule to specify that the HAPs in the 
regulated condensate streams are determined by measuring acetaldehyde, 
methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde.
3. Given the Finite Number of HAPs in Regulated Condensates, What is 
the Appropriate Emission Standard for Biological Treatment Systems 
(Sec. 63.446(e))?
    In today's action, we are proposing to amend the test methods and 
procedures section of the final rule to add a mass standard and two 
alternative compliance procedures for biological treatment systems. The 
two alternative procedures require sending additional condensates to 
the biological treatment

[[Page 3911]]

system by calculating the standards on an individual HAP or methanol 
basis. These proposed revisions to the emission standards and test 
methods and procedures sections of the final rule are necessary to 
implement the reduced list of HAPs in condensates, discussed earlier in 
section I.C.2 of this preamble, and to simplify the testing and 
monitoring procedures for biological treatment systems.
    Since promulgation, we held several meetings with industry 
representatives to discuss ways to simplify the testing and monitoring 
procedures for demonstrating compliance of biological treatment 
systems, considering the condensate speciation data submitted after 
promulgation (see section I.C.2 of this preamble). Industry 
representatives suggested that mills be allowed to conduct the initial 
performance and subsequent compliance monitoring tests only for the 
major HAP constituent of the regulated condensates, methanol. Industry 
representatives also requested that they be allowed to comply with the 
mass removal standard, kilograms of total HAPs per megagram of oven-
dried pulp, which is allowed for steam strippers.
    We have considered the data and industry comments and decided to 
propose a mass standard and two alternative compliance procedures in 
today's action. We believe a mass removal standard is appropriate (as 
an alternative to the current percent reduction standard) for 
biological systems since we established one for steam strippers and it 
provides equivalent environmental protection. To establish the level of 
the mass standard for biological treatment units to be equivalent to 
steam strippers, adjustments needed to be made to the proposed mass and 
current percent reduction standards for biological treatment units. We 
believe that the mass standard should be set at the current level of 
the standard and the test procedures should be adjusted to address the 
proposed list of HAPs (only four HAPs instead of all 188 HAP 
compounds). In meetings following promulgation, the industry 
representatives recommended only testing for methanol which is the 
major HAP constituent in the regulated condensates. During those 
meetings, we reiterated that steam strippers operating at a 92 percent 
efficiency to remove methanol, also removed nearly all of the other 
volatile HAP compounds (see the preamble to the final rule, 63 FR 
18524). However, in biological treatment units, the amount of 
biodegradation of those nonmethanol HAP compounds is less than for 
methanol. To balance this difference, we are proposing two alternative 
procedures that require additional condensate to be sent to the 
biological treatment system. These two procedures require you to 
measure the four HAPs and comply with the current percent reduction or 
proposed mass standard on either an individual HAP or methanol basis, 
as discussed in the following sections.
    A. Individual HAP procedure. The condensate control options in the 
final rule were developed based on the performance of a steam stripper 
achieving 92 percent reduction of methanol. We have determined that a 
steam stripper operating at 92 percent reduction of methanol achieves 
at least 99 percent reduction of the other HAP compounds (acetaldehyde, 
methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde) in the regulated condensates 
(determination contained in Docket No. A-92-40). Thus, we are setting 
the percent reduction standard at 92 percent for methanol and 99 
percent for acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde.
    For the mass standard, we calculated the required mass removal that 
is equivalent to those percent reduction levels. To set the mass 
standard for each compound, we used the required mass removal of 
methanol (10.2 and 6.6 pounds of methanol per oven-dried ton of pulp 
(lb/ODTP)) and the average composition of the four HAP compounds found 
in the NCASI testing discussed earlier in section I.C.2 of this 
preamble. For mills that perform bleaching, the mass standard is 10.2 
lb/ODTP for methanol, 0.104 lb/ODTP for acetaldehyde, 0.052 lb/ODTP for 
methyl ethyl ketone, and 0.010 lb/ODTP for propionaldehyde. For mills 
that do not perform bleaching, the mass standard is 6.6 lb/ODTP for 
methanol, 0.067 lb/ODTP for acetaldehyde, 0.034 lb/ODTP for methyl 
ethyl ketone, and 0.0067 lb/ODTP for propionaldehyde.
    B. Methanol procedure. Industry requested the second procedure 
proposed in today's action to simplify testing requirements and reduce 
the complications in analyzing HAP compounds which are present in low 
concentrations in the regulated condensates. As discussed earlier, this 
is an alternative approach to balance the difference in HAP removal 
efficiencies between steam strippers and biological treatment systems 
while allowing mills to demonstrate compliance by measuring only 
methanol. Sending additional condensate to the biological treatment 
system achieves this balance. In meetings following promulgation, 
industry representatives suggested a procedure for determining an 
estimate of the required amount of additional condensate HAP mass that 
you must send to the biological treatment system. Under this concept, 
you would assume that a steam stripper complying with the condensate 
standards is achieving 92 percent reduction of methanol and 100 percent 
reduction of all other HAP compounds present in the regulated 
condensates.
    For example, assume that a hypothetical bleached kraft mill 
determines that the regulated condensates contain 90 percent methanol. 
If the mill sends 12 lb/ODTP of methanol to a steam stripper, then the 
mill is also sending 1.3 lb/ODTP of nonmethanol HAPs. If the steam 
stripper achieves 92 percent reduction of methanol and 100 percent 
removal of nonmethanol HAPs, then the steam stripper would be achieving 
a total HAP removal of 12.3 lb/ODTP. If you make the conservative 
assumption that biological treatment systems do not achieve any 
degradation of nonmethanol HAP compounds, then the mill using a 
biological treatment system would need to remove 12.3 lb/ODTP of 
methanol. Under this concept, we would require a mill using a steam 
stripper to remove 10.2 lb/ODTP of methanol to comply with the 
standard, while we would require a mill using a biological treatment 
system to remove 11.4 lb/ODTP of methanol to comply with the standard.
    We agree with the industry representatives that this approach 
provides an alternative to the individual HAP approach discussed 
earlier (section I.C.3.A of this preamble). Under this second 
alternative procedure in today's proposed action, you measure the mass 
of the four HAPs in the regulated condensates entering the biological 
treatment system and determine the ratio of nonmethanol HAP mass to 
methanol mass. Compliance with the percent reduction or proposed mass 
removal standard is then determined using that ratio and the 
appropriate procedures in appendix C of part 63, using methanol 
measurements instead of measurements for all four HAPs in the 
condensate streams.
    In today's action, we are proposing to amend the kraft pulping 
process condensate standards (Sec. 63.446(e)(2)) to specify that 
biological treatment systems may be used to comply with the proposed 
mass removal and percent reduction requirements, using either the 
individual HAP or methanol procedure. Additionally, we are proposing to 
revise the test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(g) and (l)) 
of the final rule to include the alternative procedures for

[[Page 3912]]

demonstrating compliance for biological treatment systems.
4. What Minimum Measurement Level Should Be Used in Analyzing Total 
HAPs in Liquid Streams (Sec. 63.457(c))?
    You must use the procedure proposed in today's action to determine 
the minimum measurement level (MML) of a specific HAP for the liquid 
stream test method that you select to demonstrate compliance. Also, you 
must use this MML value in all compliance calculations if the test 
method does not detect a value at or below the MML. Today's proposed 
action amends the test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(c)) 
of the final rule to add two alternative procedures to determine the 
MML.
    The final rule and the amendments proposed in today's action 
require kraft mills to determine the HAP or methanol concentration in 
liquid streams (e.g., steam stripper outlet or biological treatment 
system inlet or outlet) to demonstrate compliance with the condensate 
standards. Following promulgation, commenters stated that there could 
be some cases where the concentration of a particular HAP may be too 
low to quantify using a given test method. Consequently, the commenters 
stated that because the compliance demonstration calculations for the 
percent reduction, mass removal, and control device outlet 
concentration treatment options require a HAP concentration, an MML was 
needed.
    We have evaluated the comments and decided to propose in today's 
action two alternative procedures to determine the MML that you must 
use in compliance calculations. Also, a quality assurance procedure is 
being proposed in today's action that must be followed for either 
alternative, in addition to the quality assurance procedures required 
in Sec. 63.7(c) of the NESHAP general provisions. These procedures were 
developed by EPA's testing group and industry representatives to 
provide you with flexibility in determining the appropriate MML. The 
two alternative procedures are: (1) a procedure for each analytical 
laboratory to follow to determine the MML for each test method setup, 
and (2) a procedure to follow if a group chooses to collect sufficient 
data to determine the MML for a given test method.
    In the first procedure for determining the MML of a particular HAP 
using one of the test methods specified in the Sec. 63.457(c)(3) of the 
final rule, you must perform the following procedures each time that 
the analytical equipment for the test method is set up: (1) assume a 
concentration that you believe represents the MML; (2) measure the 
concentration in a minimum of three replicate samples that contain the 
target HAP at the MML concentration, using the selected test method; 
and (3) calculate the relative standard deviation (RSD) and the upper 
confidence limit at the 95 percent confidence level of the resulting 
concentration values, using the assumed MML as the mean.
    In the first step of this procedure, you must assume a 
concentration value for the particular HAP in question (e.g., 
acetaldehyde, methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, or propionaldehyde) that 
you believe represents the MML. However, the MML chosen must not be 
below the calibration standard of the selected test method.
    In the second step of this procedure, you must measure the 
concentration of the target HAP in a minimum of three replicate 
condensate samples, using the selected test method. All replicate 
condensate samples must be run through the entire analytical procedure. 
Spiking of the liquid samples with a known concentration of the target 
HAP may be necessary to ensure that the HAP concentration in the three 
samples is at the MML.
    In the final step of this procedure, you must calculate the RSD and 
the upper confidence limit at the 95 percent confidence level, using 
the measured HAP concentrations determined in step 2 of the procedure. 
If the upper confidence limit of the RSD is less than 30 percent, then 
the selected MML is acceptable, and this MML value would be established 
for the laboratory's analytical equipment setup and procedure used in 
this analysis. If the upper confidence limit of the RSD is greater than 
or equal to 30 percent, then the selected MML is too low and a higher 
MML must be selected.
    In the second procedure proposed in today's action, a group (e.g., 
company or trade association) would determine the MML and present 
supporting data to demonstrate, to the EPA's satisfaction, that the 
selected MML is appropriate. To support the selected MML, enough data 
would need to be collected from different laboratories to demonstrate 
that the appropriate MML for a particular test method and specific HAP 
was determined. Once EPA approval is obtained, then the MML value would 
be established, and this value would be used in compliance 
demonstration calculations. Also, any laboratory may use the MML value 
provided that the proper quality assurance procedures are followed, 
including the quality assurance procedures discussed in the following 
paragraph.
    Once the MML has been determined using one of the alternative 
procedures, the analytical laboratory that you choose to conduct the 
initial performance test analysis must also follow the quality 
assurance procedure proposed in today's action to demonstrate that they 
are performing the test method correctly. The proposed quality 
assurance procedure specifies that the analytical laboratory must 
measure the concentration of the target HAP in a minimum of three 
replicate condensate samples using the selected test method. The upper 
confidence limit of the RSD at the 95 percent confidence level 
determined using the measured HAP concentrations must be less than 30 
percent. If the upper confidence limit of the RSD is greater than or 
equal to 30 percent, then the test method is not being performed 
correctly. If you have not met the quality assurance procedure, then 
the analytical equipment must be corrected, and you must repeat the 
quality assurance procedure until met.
    Today's action proposes to amend the test methods and procedures 
section (Sec. 63.457(c)) of the final rule to (1) specify that the MML 
must be used in compliance demonstrations if the selected test method 
indicates nondetect for a specific HAP, and (2) to include the 
procedures for determining the MML. In today's proposed action, we are 
also amending the delegation of authority section (Sec. 63.458) of the 
final rule to specify that the procedure for obtaining EPA approval of 
the demonstrated MML is not delegated to the States.

D. Biological Treatment System Performance Test Requirements

1. Introduction
    At promulgation, the only treatment option available for biological 
treatment systems was the percent reduction option. Today's proposed 
amendments allow mills to use biological treatment systems to comply 
with the condensate standard mass removal requirements and to use four 
specific HAPS as a surrogate for total HAPS. Consequently, these 
proposed amendments alter the procedures for conducting performance 
tests of biological treatment systems.
2. Given the proposed changes, how do I conduct a performance 
demonstration for a biological treatment system (Sec. 63.457(l))?
    To conduct a performance test of an open or closed biological 
treatment system, you would first measure the mass of the four specific 
HAPs entering the biological treatment system. The

[[Page 3913]]

subsequent compliance procedures would differ depending on if you are 
complying with the proposed percent reduction or mass removal treatment 
options.
    For biological treatment systems, table 1 presents a summary of the 
proposed performance test requirements including those in today's 
action. Briefly, to conduct a performance test of a biological 
treatment system, you would measure the mass of the four HAPs in the 
regulated condensates entering the biological treatment system. Then 
you determine the fraction of compounds that are biodegraded 
(f<INF>bio</INF>) in the biological treatment system, using the 
appropriate procedures in appendix C of part 63. Using the inlet mass 
of the four HAP compounds and the value of f<INF>bio</INF>, you would 
demonstrate compliance with the percent reduction or mass removal 
treatment options on an individual HAP or methanol basis using the 
procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(l).

              Table 1.--Summary of the Performance Test Procedures for Biological Treatment Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Determine the fraction of HAP compounds  Demonstrate compliance with
 Determine the inlet and outlet HAP mass     degraded in the biological treatment      the condensate standards
             flow rates by--                            system using--                         using--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Measuring the volumetric flow rate of the  The inlet and outlet concentration        The individual HAP percent
 liquid streams entering and exiting the    procedure (procedure 3) in appendix C     reduction or mass removal
 treatment system using the procedures      of part 63, for thoroughly mixed          procedures specified in
 specified in Sec.  63.457(c)(2),           systems, or                               Sec.  63.457(l) (1) and
                                                                                      (2), or
Measuring the concentration of             The multiple zone concentration           The methanol percent
 acetaldehyde, methanol, methyl ethyl       measurements procedure (procedure 5) in   reduction or mass removal
 ketone, and propionaldehyde in the         appendix C of part 63, for                procedures specified in
 liquid streams using one of the test       nonthoroughly mixed systems.              Sec.  63.457(l) (3) and
 methods specified in Sec.  63.457(c)(3),                                             (4).
 and
Calculating the individual HAP mass flow
 rates using the equations specified in
 Sec.  63.457(j).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After promulgation of the final rule, a few mills said that they 
intended to use closed biological treatment systems (both aerobic and 
anaerobic systems) to comply with the kraft pulping process condensate 
standards. The mill representatives have mentioned multiple types of 
systems, however, we have not received any specific information 
detailing system designs or how they would conduct the performance 
demonstration for a closed biological treatment system. Consequently, 
we cannot amend the final rule to specifically address closed 
biological treatment systems, and we believe that setting one procedure 
for a few systems with varying designs would be impractical. Typically, 
closed biological treatment systems would need to test all inlets and 
outlets and demonstrate compliance with the applicable emission 
standard and demonstrate appropriate continuous compliance monitoring 
procedures. Appendix C of part 63 contains test procedures that can be 
used for most known designs of closed systems. If the design of the 
systems mentioned by industry representatives meets the calculation 
procedures of appendix C, then you could use appendix C procedures. For 
other designs, you must present for EPA approval the design of the 
system and a test and monitoring plan. The above information is 
provided for discussion purposes only, and we are not requesting or 
taking comment or planning to propose test procedures for all designs 
of closed biological treatment systems in this proposal or comment 
period.
3. What Procedures Must Be Followed To Determine the Fraction of 
Compounds Degraded in Nonthoroughly Mixed Open Biological Treatment 
Systems (Sec. 63.457(1))?
    We plan to propose in the near future a new procedure for 
calculating the site-specific fraction of organic compounds biodegraded 
in nonthoroughly mixed open biological treatment systems (or units) 
under a separate action. This new procedure, called the Multiple Mixing 
Zone Concentration Measurements Procedure, will be proposed as an 
addition to appendix C of part 63.
    The performance test and monitoring procedures in the final rule 
for open biological treatment systems were developed under the 
presumption that all biological treatment systems at kraft mills would 
be thoroughly mixed systems, and that the Inlet and Outlet 
Concentration Measurement Procedure in appendix C of part 63 would be 
the most appropriate procedure for you to use to determine the 
performance of the open biological treatment system at pulp mills. 
However, the Inlet and Outlet Concentration Measurement Procedure is 
not appropriate for evaluating the performance of nonthoroughly mixed 
biological treatment systems. In meetings with industry representatives 
following promulgation, it was identified that the biological treatment 
systems at most mills do not meet the criteria (uniform biomass 
distribution and organic compound concentrations) for thoroughly mixed 
systems. Consequently, another procedure is needed because appendix C 
of part 63 does not contain a concentration measurement procedure for 
modeling nonthoroughly mixed systems.
    The soon-to-be proposed amendments to appendix C of part 63 will 
include a concentration measurement procedure for determining f<INF>bio</INF> 
in nonthoroughly mixed biological treatment systems. A draft copy of 
these soon-to-be proposed procedures is contained in the docket for 
today's proposed action (see the ADDRESSES and SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION sections at the beginning of this preamble for docket 
information). In developing the new procedure, we worked with industry 
representatives, including NCASI. The new procedure, Multiple Zone 
Concentration Measurements--Procedure 5, specifies the biological 
treatment system information that you must have to use the new 
procedure.
    Additionally, there are two documents (``Technical Support Document 
for Evaluation of Thoroughly Mixed Biological Treatment Units'' and the 
``Technical Support Document for the Evaluation of Aerobic Biological 
Treatment Units with Multiple Mixing Zones'') that provide technical 
information on how to determine if a biological treatment system is 
thoroughly mixed and how to evaluate the performance of a nonthoroughly 
mixed biological treatment system using multiple mixing zones. The 
first document is available from the public

[[Page 3914]]

docket and from the pulp and paper page of EPA's TTN UATW at ``http://
www.epa.gov/ttn/uatw/pulp/pulppg.html''. The second document is near 
completion and will also be available at the pulp and paper page of the 
UATW at the address listed above, and a copy of the latest draft is 
contained in the public docket.

E. Open Biological Treatment System Monitoring Requirements

1. Introduction
    The monitoring requirements (Sec. 63.453(j)) in the final rule 
require mills using an open biological treatment system to conduct 
daily parameter monitoring and quarterly performance tests. The 
parameter values must be established during a performance test. 
Whenever a parameter excursion occurs, you can conduct a performance 
test of the open biological treatment system to demonstrate that the 
system is in compliance with the applicable emission limit even though 
a parameter exceedance occurred. Quarterly performance tests must be 
conducted for total HAPs in the first quarter, however the tests may be 
conducted for methanol in the remaining quarters.
    After promulgation, several issues were identified regarding the 
monitoring requirements for open biological treatment systems. In 
today's action, we are proposing the following changes to address the 
issues:
    <bullet> Allowing you to determine site-specific monitoring 
parameters for biological treatment systems;
    <bullet> Providing an alternative procedure for estimating the 
fraction of organic compounds degraded in a nonthoroughly mixed 
biological treatment system during unsafe sampling conditions;
    <bullet> Clarifying the monitoring requirements for open versus 
closed biological treatment systems;
    <bullet> Removing the requirement to test for total HAPs in the 
first quarter performance test; and
    <bullet> Specifying the period for notifying the Administrator if 
you intend to use data collected during a performance test to expand 
the allowable range of a monitoring parameter.

The proposed amendments are discussed in sections I.E.2 through I.E.7 
of this preamble.
2. May a Mill Use Site-Specific Monitoring Parameters for Open 
Biological Treatment Systems Instead of the Parameters Specified in the 
Final Rule (Sec. 63.453(j))?
    Today's action proposes to amend the final rule to specify that 
mills may establish site-specific monitoring parameters for open 
biological treatment systems. The mill must conduct a performance test 
to demonstrate that the monitoring parameters are appropriate to 
determine continuous compliance with the applicable emission standard. 
The monitoring parameters and the operating ranges that demonstrate 
continuous compliance must be approved by the permit authority.
    The final rule (Sec. 63.453(j)) requires daily monitoring of outlet 
soluble biochemical oxygen demand (BOD<INF>5</INF>) concentration and 
other system operating parameters. Additionally, you must collect and 
archive inlet and outlet grab samples. The grab samples must be used to 
demonstrate compliance if the soluble (BOD<INF>5</INF>), mixed liquor 
volatile suspended solids (MLVSS), or the aerator horsepower monitoring 
parameters fall outside the range established during the initial 
performance test.
    After promulgation, commenters indicated that the monitoring 
parameters in the final rule might not be appropriate for all open 
biological treatment systems, especially for nonthoroughly mixed 
systems. The commenters requested that the final rule be revised to 
give mills the flexibility to monitor different parameters for open 
biological treatment systems on a case-by-case basis.
    We agree that in some circumstances operating parameters other than 
those specified in the final rule may provide assurance that continuous 
compliance with the emission limits is being achieved for nonthoroughly 
mixed systems. The monitoring requirements in the final rule were 
established under the presumption that all biological treatment systems 
in the pulp and paper industry were thoroughly mixed and would, 
therefore, use the inlet and outlet procedure in appendix C of part 63 
to determine the performance of the system. However, for nonthoroughly 
mixed biological treatment systems, the treatment unit must be divided 
into mixing zones, and concentration monitoring must be conducted 
within each zone.
    In today's action, we are proposing to add a new paragraph to the 
open biological treatment system monitoring requirements 
(Sec. 63.453(j)(2)) that would allow mills the option to determine 
site-specific monitoring parameters. The site-specific monitoring 
parameters must be developed based on a performance test and must be 
approved by the Administrator using the procedures specified in the 
final rule (Sec. 63.453(n)). In Sec. 63.453(n), the final rule 
specifies that you must conduct a performance test to determine the 
appropriate parameters to be monitored continuously and corresponding 
parameter values. The rationale and supporting documentation for the 
parameter selection must also be provided for the Administrator's 
approval. The Administrator in this case is the delegated 
implementation and enforcement State authority.
3. In the Event of a Parameter Excursion, Must I Conduct In-Zone 
Sampling of Nonthoroughly Mixed Open Biological Treatment Systems When 
Unsafe Conditions Exist (Sec. 63.453)?
    No. Today's proposed amendments contain a modeling procedure that 
can be used until such time as the unsafe conditions pass and in-zone 
sampling and a full performance test can be conducted. The alternative 
modeling procedure is proposed as appendix E of part 63--Test Procedure 
for Nonthoroughly Mixed Biological Treatment Units at Kraft Pulp Mills 
Under Unsafe Sampling Conditions. In addition, today's action proposes 
conforming amendments to the monitoring requirements section 
(Sec. 63.453(p)(1)). An amendment to the recordkeeping requirements 
(Sec. 63.454(e)) section of the final rule is also being proposed to 
require you to maintain descriptions of the unsafe conditions that 
would warrant the use of the modeling procedure.
    The kraft pulping process condensate standards of the final rule 
require periodic performance testing of open biological treatment 
systems that are used as control devices. During discussions following 
promulgation, industry representatives noted that there are times when 
sampling and monitoring of multizone biological treatment systems would 
expose workers to unsafe conditions. Examples of unsafe conditions 
provided by industry representatives include: weather conditions (e.g., 
high wind, fog, lightning, heavy rain, hail storm, sleet, and snow); 
lack of outdoor lighting; availability of boats; personnel 
availability; heavy foam layer; and high hydrogen sulfide 
concentration.
    Industry representatives requested that when unsafe conditions 
occur they be able to use a modeling approach (proposed as appendix E 
of part 63) developed by NCASI that approximates the total HAP or 
methanol concentrations within the mixing zones of a biological 
treatment system. The approach consists of three components: (1) 
Confirmation that the open biological treatment system can be 
represented by Monod kinetics, (2) data collection to characterize the

[[Page 3915]]

performance of the open biological treatment system, and (3) data 
collection during unsafe conditions.
    Under the first component of the modeling approach, the value of 
the saturation coefficient, Ks, must be determined. The determination 
that the value of Ks is a constant is used to demonstrate that the 
mill's open biological treatment system being tested can be represented 
by Monod kinetics. Under the second component of the modeling approach, 
you would determine the number and characteristics of each mixing zone 
in the open biological treatment system, and the recycle ratio of the 
internal recirculation between the mixing zones. Technical information 
on how to evaluate open biological treatment systems with multiple 
mixing zones can be found in the ``Technical Support Document for the 
Evaluation of Aerobic Biological Treatment Units with Multiple Mixing 
Zones'' (discussed in section I.D.3 of this preamble). Under the third 
component, inlet and outlet concentration data are collected during 
conditions when conducting in-zone sampling is determined to be unsafe. 
These data are used with the characterization data developed under the 
first component to estimate the HAP concentrations in each of the 
mixing zones. The industry representatives noted that collection of 
inlet and outlet samples would not be affected by unsafe conditions.
    We analyzed the above industry concerns, and we agree that in rare 
circumstances there may be conditions when sampling in each zone of an 
open biological treatment system could expose workers to dangerous, 
hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions. During these conditions, we 
believe that the above modeling procedure proposed in appendix E of 
part 63 is a reasonable procedure to follow until the full in-zone 
sampling and performance test can be conducted to determine the 
system's compliance with the applicable emission limit. If the mass 
removal or percent reduction calculations using the value of f<INF>bio</INF> 
determined from the procedures in appendix E of part 63 show that the 
open biological treatment system is not achieving the applicable 
emission limit, then this is considered a violation of the applicable 
emission standard. However, if the compliance demonstration 
calculations using the value of f<INF>bio</INF> derived from the 
appendix E of part 63 procedures show a mass removal or percent 
reduction greater than or equal to that required by the final rule, 
then the mill is in compliance with the daily monitoring procedures. 
When conditions permit, a full performance test using the procedures 
specified in Sec. 63.457 must be performed to demonstrate compliance 
with the applicable emission standard.
    Further, we believe the conditions that warrant the use of the 
proposed calculations will be limited to those conditions that are 
beyond the mill's control, such as extreme weather conditions and 
presence of high and heavy foam or high concentrations of hydrogen 
sulfide. The mill operator should use remote and automated sampling 
systems wherever possible to decrease the number and frequency of 
possible unsafe conditions. We believe that unsafe conditions do not 
include conditions that are within the control of the mill, such as 
unavailability of outdoor lighting, boats, or mill personnel. If these 
later types of conditions cannot be addressed by the mill and made safe 
for mill personnel, then this will severely limit the ability of the 
mill and control agency to determine compliance and allow use of an 
open biological treatment system as a control device. We believe that 
those conditions are within the control of the operator and that unless 
they are addressed and fixed by the operator, the other NESHAP control 
options (recycling, steam stripping, or closed biological systems) must 
be used to meet the kraft pulping process condensate standards.
    The proposed amendments (Sec. 63.453(p)) specify that if performing 
the sampling and test procedures for nonthoroughly mixed systems would 
expose a worker to dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe 
conditions, the proposed appendix E of part 63 calculation can be used 
to estimate compliance of biological treatment systems instead of the 
full multiple mixing zone performance test procedures specified in the 
test methods and procedures section (Sec. 63.457(l)) of the final rule. 
The proposed amendments to Sec. 63.457(l) also specify that the value 
of the biorate constant must be determined during the initial 
performance test (Sec. 63.457(l)(4)).
    The proposed amendments also specify that as soon as practical (but 
within 24 hours) after the dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe 
conditions have passed, you must conduct the full multiple mixing zone 
performance test procedures (Sec. 63.457(l)). The performance test is 
required, regardless of whether or not the monitoring parameter values 
are within the approved range, following the period of unsafe 
conditions. The purpose of the test is to confirm that the dangerous, 
hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions did not alter the performance 
of the system and to confirm that the treatment system operation is 
achieving the required removal through biodegradation and not through 
volatilization.
    Amendments to the recordkeeping requirements section (Sec. 63.454) 
of the final rule are being proposed that would require you to maintain 
onsite a written record identifying the specific conditions under which 
sampling of the open biological treatment system would expose a worker 
to dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions. The proposed 
amendments specify that this written record must include a written 
explanation of why the in-zone sampling cannot be performed under those 
conditions. The proposed amendments also specify that whenever 
dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions prevent you from 
conducting the sampling and test requirements for nonthoroughly mixed 
open biological treatment systems, you must notify the Administrator 
(the delegated permit authority) as soon as practicable of the onset of 
the dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions. The 
notification must include the reason why the specified sampling and 
test requirements could not be performed.
4. Are the Biological Treatment System Monitoring Requirements 
Applicable To Both Open and Closed Biological Treatment Systems 
(Sec. 63.453)?
    The biological treatment system monitoring and test procedures 
specified in the final rule are applicable only to open biological 
treatment systems. Following promulgation, commenters questioned if 
closed aerobic and anaerobic biological treatment systems would be 
required to comply with the monitoring procedures specified in 
Sec. 63.453(j) and (p). Today's action proposes to add the word 
``open'' to citations in the monitoring requirements section of the 
final rule where the term ``biological treatment system'' is used.
    In the final rule, we intended that the reference to ``biological 
treatment system'' in the monitoring requirements section meant open 
biological treatment systems. Although the test methods and procedures 
specified in Sec. 63.457(l) refer to open biological treatment systems, 
we inadvertently omitted the word ``open'' in the Sec. 63.453(j) and 
(p) of the final rule. Today's action proposes amendments to the 
sections mentioned above to clarify that these requirements are 
applicable only to open biological treatment systems.

[[Page 3916]]

    If you choose to comply using a closed biological treatment system, 
you must determine appropriate monitoring parameters and establish the 
parameter values or ranges during the performance test using the 
procedures specified in Sec. 63.453(m) and (n). Both the monitoring 
parameters and the parameter values or ranges must be approved by the 
Administrator (see section I.D.2 of this preamble for additional 
discussion).
5. Given the Proposed Changes, How Do I Conduct Daily Compliance 
Monitoring for Open Biological Treatment Systems (Sec. 63.453(j))?
    The flow diagram shown in figure 1 summarizes the daily monitoring 
requirements for open biological treatment systems. In figure 1, 
today's proposed changes are depicted by dashed lines and rounded 
boxes.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

[[Page 3917]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.000

BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 3918]]

    Mills must monitor on a daily basis either the parameters specified 
in the final rule (Sec. 63.453(j)(1)) or site-specific parameters that 
have been approved (proposed Sec. 63.453(j)(2), see section I.E.2 of 
this preamble). If the monitoring parameters are within the values or 
ranges established during the initial performance test, compliance with 
the applicable emission standard is demonstrated for that day. If the 
monitoring parameters are outside the established values or ranges, you 
must conduct a performance test to confirm compliance of the open 
biological treatment system. The performance test must be performed 
using the same procedures (i.e., the appropriate procedures in appendix 
C of part 63) that were followed during the initial performance test.
    During periods of monitoring parameter excursions, you must take 
steps to repair or adjust the process operation to end the parameter 
excursion, and you must take steps to minimize the total HAP emissions 
to the atmosphere (Sec. 63.453(p)(4)). However, the samples for the 
optional performance test to confirm compliance with the applicable 
emission limit must be collected before these repair steps are 
implemented (Sec. 63.453(p)(2)) since the steps taken to end the 
parameter excursion or minimize total HAP emissions would influence the 
results of the performance test.
    The final rule (Sec. 63.453(p)(3)) provides a special procedure to 
model the fraction of compounds that are biodegraded in nonthoroughly 
mixed systems. This modeling procedure applies whenever unsafe 
conditions would prevent mill personnel from conducting in-zone 
sampling. After the unsafe conditions have passed, you must confirm 
compliance of the nonthoroughly mixed biological treatment system by 
conducting a full performance test using the initial performance test 
procedures.
6. Do I Still Have To Conduct the First Quarter Compliance Tests for 
Total HAPs (Sec. 63.453(j))?
    Yes. The requirement for quarterly performance tests of open 
biological treatment systems is retained in the final rule. However, in 
today's action, we are proposing to allow you to initially demonstrate 
compliance with the condensate standards by testing for four specific 
HAPs. Additionally, in today's action we are proposing amendments to 
the condensate standards that allow you to comply with a percent 
reduction or mass removal standard using the individual HAPs or using 
methanol under certain conditions. Consequently, we are proposing to 
amend the quarterly performance test requirements in the final rule to 
incorporate these proposed changes.
    The final rule (Sec. 63.453(j)(2)(ii)) requires you to conduct 
quarterly performance tests to confirm the performance of open 
biological treatment systems. The first quarter test is performed for 
total HAPs while the remaining quarterly tests may be performed for 
methanol or total HAPs. Also, in the final rule, mills that use a 
biological treatment system to comply with the condensate standards 
were limited to the percent reduction standard (Sec. 63.446(e)(2)).
    As discussed in section I.C.2 of this preamble, we are proposing to 
allow you to measure total HAPs as acetaldehyde, methanol, methyl ethyl 
ketone, and propionaldehyde since these four compounds represent the 
majority of the HAPs present in the regulated condensate streams. No 
changes were necessary to the monitoring section (Sec. 63.453(j)) text 
in the final rule to address limiting the analysis to four HAP 
compounds. The rule text references the test methods and procedures 
section (Sec. 63.457(g)) that has already been corrected for this 
change. Also, in section I.C.3 of this preamble, we are proposing to 
add a mass removal standard for biological treatment systems. Because 
the monitoring section of the final rule, as written, does not mention 
a mass removal standard, we are proposing in today's action to amend 
the monitoring rule text to include this proposed treatment option.
    In today's proposed action, we are specifically requesting comment 
on the requirement to test for the four HAPs in the first quarter of 
each year. Industry representatives suggested that testing for the four 
HAPs in the first quarter of each year was unnecessary because the 
majority of HAPs in the regulated condensates is one compound 
(methanol). Also, because the contribution from the other nonmethanol 
HAPs is small, variations in the composition of these nonmethanol HAPs 
would be insignificant. The industry representatives suggested that 
testing for the four HAPs is only necessary if new or modified pulping 
process condensates are generated, or when changes occur in the annual 
bleached and unbleached oven-dried ton of pulp production rates used to 
prorate the mass removal standards. At this time, we do not have data 
that address the variability of the HAP composition of the regulated 
condensates. Therefore, in today's action, we are proposing to retain 
the requirement for annual testing of the four HAPs in the first 
quarter. However, if data are submitted with public comments on this 
proposal, we will consider removing the requirement and allowing you to 
conduct the quarterly performance tests after the initial first quarter 
test for methanol only.
7. May I Use Monitoring Parameter Values Recorded During a Compliance 
Monitoring Test To Expand the Established Parameter Operating Range 
(Sec. 63.455(e))?
    Yes. You may use monitoring parameter values recorded during a 
compliance test to expand the established parameter operating range, 
after approval from your permit authority. Under the general provisions 
to the final rule, you must notify the permit authority 60 days prior 
to conducting the initial and subsequent performance tests. However, 
for the reasons set forth below, we are proposing to change the timing 
of the notification for certain compliance monitoring performance tests 
from 60 days to 15 days with a 24-hour confirmation notification.
    The final rule (Sec. 63.457(n)) specifies that you must establish 
the value or range of values parameter required to be monitored. After 
promulgation, commenters stated that some open biological treatment 
system operating parameters (e.g., liquid temperature, biomass 
concentration, dissolved oxygen concentration) vary with seasonal 
changes. Because of a limited time period in which to characterize the 
performance of their open biological treatment system and establish 
appropriate monitoring parameter values, the commenters noted that they 
might not see the full range of operating conditions before the 
compliance date of the final rule. The commenters noted that a 
monitoring parameter could be outside its established range even though 
the open biological treatment system continued to achieve compliance 
with the applicable emission limit. Therefore, the commenters requested 
that they be allowed to use monitoring parameter values recorded during 
the compliance monitoring test (i.e., post-initial performance test) 
required to be conducted due to a parameter excursion (Sec. 63.453(p)) 
to change the established operating range for that parameter. To do 
this, the commenters requested that the notification be reduced from 60 
days to 24 hours or the same day as the compliance test.
    We agree with the commenters that they should be allowed to change 
their allowable monitoring parameter ranges

[[Page 3919]]

or values using data recorded during any valid subsequent compliance 
tests required in the monitoring requirements section (Sec. 63.453(p)) 
of the final rule. Our intent is evident since the final rule 
(Sec. 63.457(n)(1)), as written, specifies that the appropriate value 
for a monitoring parameter must be established during the initial 
performance test and any subsequent performance tests, such as 
compliance tests required by Sec. 63.453(p). Subsequent compliance 
tests are those tests used to expand the monitoring parameter value or 
range of values that have been previously selected by the mill and 
approved by the permit authority. However, the NESHAP general 
provisions (Sec. 63.7(b)) specify that the Administrator must be 
notified at least 60 days before the compliance test is scheduled to 
begin.
    Because these subsequent compliance tests are triggered by 
monitoring parameter excursions or by conditions that cannot be 
manipulated by the owner or operator, the performance tests are not 
scheduled months in advance. Therefore, the 60-day period for notifying 
the permit authority is not appropriate in all cases. However, a short-
term notification (24 hours or the same day) as suggested by the 
industry representatives would not provide permitting agencies with 
sufficient time to have an observer present during the subsequent 
performance test.
    We believe that the 15-day notification is the minimum period that 
is appropriate to allow permit authorities time to plan and attend the 
subsequent compliance test and given that the exact time of the 
compliance test may not be known at the time of the 15-day 
notification, the 24-hour confirmation notification is reasonable. We 
also agree that all biological treatment system operating conditions 
cannot be anticipated due to rare circumstances that are outside the 
control of the mill operator. In these limited cases, shorter 
notification periods may be necessary and are appropriate with prior 
approval by the permit authority and properly recorded.
    In today's action, we are proposing an amendment to the reporting 
requirements section (Sec. 63.455(e)) of the final rule that requires a 
15-day notification of intent to conduct a subsequent performance test 
followed by a 24-hour confirmation notification. The purpose of the 15-
day notification is to give permitting agencies an early indication of 
a possible subsequent performance testing, and the 24-hour confirmation 
notification would establish the exact date and time for conducting the 
subsequent performance test.

F. Drafting Error Corrections

    Minor drafting errors were identified in the final rule after 
promulgation. Today's action makes the following corrections:
    <bullet> Corrects the citations for the condensate segregation 
requirements in Sec. 63.446(i) of the final rule from (c)(2) to (c)(2) 
and (3).
    <bullet> Adds the word ``mills'' between the words ``unbleached'' 
and ``specified'' in the condensate standards (Sec. 63.446(i)) of the 
final rule.
    <bullet> Removes the comma after the word ``reestablish'' in 
Sec. 63.453(n) of the final rule.
    <bullet> Replaces the word ``shall'' with the word ``may'' in the 
biological treatment system monitoring requirements (Sec. 63.453(p)) of 
the final rule.
    <bullet> Corrects the liquid sampling procedures reference in 
Sec. 63.457(c)(1) of the final rule from ``specified in Method 305 of 
part 60, appendix A'' to ``of the test method selected to determine 
liquid stream total HAP or methanol concentrations.''
    <bullet> Corrects the citation in the condensate segregation 
procedures (Sec. 63.457(m)(1) and (m)(1)(iii)) of the final rule from 
Sec. 63.446(c)(1) to Sec. 63.446(c)(2).
    <bullet> Corrects the citation in the condensate segregation 
procedures (Sec. 63.457(m)(2) and (m)(2)(ii)) of the final rule from 
Sec. 63.446(c)(2) to Sec. 63.446(c)(3).
    <bullet> Removes the spaces between the ``degree'' symbol ( deg.) 
and the abbreviations for Celsius (C) and Fahrenheit (F) in 
Sec. 63.457(n) of the final rule.

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The EPA submitted the information requirements of the previously 
promulgated NESHAP 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. The EPA prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) 
document (ICR No. 1657.03), and a copy may be obtained from Sandy 
Farmer, Office of Policy, Regulatory Information Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (2137), 401 M Street SW., Washington, 
DC 20460 or by calling (202) 260-2740. You may also request a copy by 
e-mail at: ``<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cea8afbca3abbce0bdafa0aab78eabbeafe0a9a1b8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="224443504f47500c51434c465b624752430c454d54">[email protected]</span></a>'' or from the Office of Policy 
website at: ``http://www.epa.gov/icr''. The information requirements 
are not effective until OMB approves them.
    Today's proposed amendments to the NESHAP will have no impact on 
the information collection burden estimates made previously. 
Consequently, EPA has not revised the ICR.

B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51375, October 4, 1993), EPA 
must determine whether the proposed 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 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, 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.
    The NESHAP published on April 15, 1998 was considered significant 
under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, EPA prepared a regulatory 
impact analysis (RIA). The amendments proposed today make technical 
revisions and correct inadvertent omissions. The OMB evaluated this 
action and determined it to be nonsignificant; thus, it did not require 
OMB review.

C. Executive Order 13084: Consultations 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 or if EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to OMB, 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

[[Page 3920]]

13084 requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to 
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory 
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their 
communities.''
    Today's proposed action does not significantly or uniquely affect 
the communities of Indian tribal governments. The final rule published 
on April 15, 1998 (1998 NESHAP) does not create mandates upon tribal 
governments. Today's proposed 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.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.), as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness 
Act of 1996, generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. The EPA determined 
that it is not necessary to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 
in connection with today's action. These proposed amendments would not 
result in increased impacts to small entities, and the changes to the 
final rule in today's proposed action provide additional flexibility to 
the final rule by adding equivalent treatment alternatives.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 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 
1 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.
    The EPA has determined that today's action does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more 
to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to 
the private sector in any 1 year. The amendments proposed in today's 
action provide additional flexibility to the final rule and reduce 
compliance costs. Therefore, today's proposed rule amendments are not 
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

F. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 applies to any rule that EPA determines (1) 
is 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 proposed regulatory action 
meets both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or 
safety effects of the proposed rule on children and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, so that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed rule falls into 
that category only in part: the minimum rule stringency is set 
according to a congressionally mandated, technology-based lower limit 
called the ``floor,'' while a decision to increase the stringency 
beyond this floor can be partly based on risk considerations.
    No children's risk analysis was performed for the 1998 NESHAP 
rulemaking because no alternative technologies exist that would provide 
greater stringency at a reasonable cost, and therefore the results of 
any such analysis would have no impact on the stringency decision. 
Today's proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because 
it does not involve decisions on environmental health risks or safety 
risks that may disproportionately affect children.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (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., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, business practices) 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 the OMB, with explanations when an agency decides not 
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    Today's proposed action does not establish new or modify existing 
technical standards. Therefore, consideration of voluntary consensus 
standards is not relevant to this action.

H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and

[[Page 3921]]

the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among 
the various levels of government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA 
may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that 
imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required 
by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary 
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local 
governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in 
the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not 
issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts 
State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials 
early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism 
summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of 
the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials, 
a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position 
supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the 
extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been 
met. Also, when EPA transmits a draft final rule with federalism 
implications to OMB for review pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA 
must include a certification from the agency's Federalism Official 
stating that EPA has met the requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a 
meaningful and timely manner.
    These proposed amendments to a final rule will not have substantial 
direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132. While the final rule published on April 15, 
1998 (1998 NESHAP) does not create mandates upon State, local, or 
tribal governments EPA involved State and local governments in its 
development. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 
do not apply to this rule. Today's proposed action does not create a 
mandate upon State, local, or tribal governments, and they have been 
briefed on the proposed amendments.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations.

    Dated: January 10, 2000.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be 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. Amend Sec. 63.443 by revising paragraph (d)(4) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) Reduce total HAP emissions using one of the following:
    (i) A boiler, lime kiln, or recovery furnace by introducing the HAP 
emission stream with the primary fuel or into the flame zone; or
    (ii) A boiler or recovery furnace with a heat input capacity 
greater than or equal to 44 megawatts (150 million British thermal 
units per hour) by introducing the HAP emission stream with the 
combustion air.
* * * * *
    3. Amend Sec. 63.446 by revising paragraphs (e)(2) and (i) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 63.446  Standards for kraft pulping process condensates.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (2) Discharge the pulping process condensate below the liquid 
surface of a biological treatment system and treat the pulping process 
condensates to meet the requirements specified in paragraph (e)(2)(i) 
or (ii) of this section.
    (i) On an individual HAP basis, using the procedures specified in 
Sec. 63.457(l)(1) or (2), either:
    (A) Reduce methanol by 92 percent or more by weight and reduce 
acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, and propionaldehyde each by 99 
percent or more by weight; or
    (B) At mills that do not perform bleaching, remove 3.3 kilograms or 
more of methanol per megagram (6.6 pounds per ton) of ODP, remove 0.034 
kilograms or more of acetaldehyde per megagram (0.067 pounds per ton) 
of ODP, remove 0.017 kilograms or more of methyl ethyl ketone per 
megagram (0.034 pounds per ton) of ODP, and remove 0.003 kilograms or 
more of propionaldehyde per megagram (0.0067 pounds per ton) of ODP; or
    (C) At mills that perform bleaching, remove 5.1 kilograms or more 
of methanol per megagram (10.2 pounds per ton) of ODP, remove 0.052 
kilograms or more of acetaldehyde per megagram (0.104 pounds per ton) 
of ODP, remove 0.026 kilograms or more of methyl ethyl ketone per 
megagram (0.052 pounds per ton) of ODP, and remove 0.005 kilograms or 
more of propionaldehyde per megagram (0.010 pounds per ton) of ODP.
    (ii) On a methanol basis, using the test procedures in 
Sec. 63.457(l)(3) or (4) to determine the additional condensates to be 
treated, either:
    (A) Reduce methanol by 92 percent or more by weight; or
    (B) At mills that do not perform bleaching, remove 3.3 kilograms or 
more of methanol per megagram (6.6 pounds per ton) of ODP; or
    (C) At mills that perform bleaching, remove 5.1 kilograms or more 
of methanol per megagram (10.2 pounds per ton) of ODP.
* * * * *
    (i) For the purposes of meeting the requirements in paragraph 
(c)(2), (c)(3), (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 mills specified in paragraph (c)(2), 
(c)(3), (e)(4), or (e)(5) of this section by the ratio of annual 
megagrams of bleached and unbleached ODP.
    4. Amend Sec. 63.453 by revising paragraphs (j), (n), and (p) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 63.453  Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *
    (j) Each owner or operator using an open biological treatment 
system to comply with Sec. 63.446(e)(2) shall perform the daily 
monitoring procedures specified in either paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of 
this section and shall conduct a performance test each quarter using 
the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this section.
    (1) Comply with the monitoring and sampling requirements specified 
in paragraphs (j)(1)(i) and (j)(1)(ii) of this section.

[[Page 3922]]

    (i) On a daily basis, monitor the following parameters for each 
open biological treatment unit:
    (A) Composite daily sample of outlet soluble BOD<INF>5</INF> 
concentration to monitor for maximum daily and maximum monthly average;
    (B) Mixed liquor volatile suspended solids;
    (C) Horsepower of aerator unit(s);
    (D) Inlet liquid flow; and
    (E) Liquid temperature.
    (ii) If the Inlet and Outlet Concentration Measurement Procedure 
(Procedure 3) in appendix C of part 63 is used to determine the 
fraction of HAP compounds degraded in the biological treatment system 
as specified in Sec. 63.457(l), conduct the sampling and archival 
requirements specified in paragraphs (j)(1)(ii)(A) and (j)(1)(ii)(B) of 
this section.
    (A) Obtain daily inlet and outlet liquid grab samples from each 
biological treatment unit to have HAP data available to perform 
quarterly compliance tests specified in paragraph (j)(3) of this 
section and the compliance tests specified in paragraph (p) of this 
section.
    (B) Store the samples as specified in Sec. 63.457(n) until after 
the results of the soluble BOD<INF>5</INF> test required in paragraph 
(j)(1)(i)(A) of this section are obtained. The storage requirement is 
needed since the soluble BOD<INF>5</INF> test requires 5 days or more 
to obtain results. If the results of the soluble BOD<INF>5</INF> test 
are outside of the range established during the initial performance 
test, then the archive sample shall be used to perform the mass removal 
or percent reduction determinations.
    (2) As an alternative to the monitoring requirements of paragraph 
(j)(1) of this section, conduct daily monitoring of the site-specific 
parameters established according to the procedures specified in 
paragraph (n) of this section.
    (3) Conduct a performance test as specified in Sec. 63.457(l) 
within 45 days after the beginning of each quarter and meet the 
applicable emission limit in Sec. 63.446(e)(2) (i) or (ii).
    (i) The performance test conducted in the first quarter (annually) 
shall be performed for total HAP and the percent reduction or mass 
removal obtained from the test shall be at least as great as the total 
HAP percent reduction or mass removal specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2) 
(i) or (ii).
    (ii) The remaining quarterly performance tests shall be performed 
for either methanol or total HAP and the percent reduction or mass 
removal obtained from the test shall be at least as great as the 
methanol or total HAP percent reduction or mass removal determined in 
the previous first-quarter test specified in paragraph (j)(3)(i) of 
this section.
* * * * *
    (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), (j)(2), and (m) of this section, each owner or 
operator shall use the following procedures:
* * * * *
    (p) Each owner or operator of an open biological treatment system 
complying with paragraph (j) of this section may perform the procedures 
specified in this paragraph and record the results as soon as 
practicable whenever the monitoring parameters specified in paragraphs 
(j)(1)(i) (A) through (C) of this section or any of the monitoring 
parameters specified in paragraph (j)(2) are below minimum operating 
parameter values or above maximum operating parameter values 
established in paragraph (n) of this section.
    (1) Determine compliance with Sec. 63.446(e)(2) using the test 
procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(l) and the monitoring data 
specified in paragraph (j)(1) or (j)(2) of this section that coincide 
with the time period of the parameter excursion except as provided in 
paragraph (p)(3) of this section.
    (2) A parameter excursion is not a violation of the applicable 
emission standard if the results of the compliance test conducted under 
paragraph (p)(1) of this section demonstrate 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.
    (3) If an owner or operator determines that performing the required 
procedures under paragraph (p)(1) of this section for a nonthoroughly 
mixed open biological system would expose a worker to dangerous, 
hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions, all of the following 
procedures shall be performed:
    (i) Calculate the mass removal or percent reduction value using the 
procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(l) except the value for f<INF>bio</INF> 
shall be determined using the procedures in appendix E of this part.
    (ii) Repeat the procedures in paragraph (p)(3)(i) of this section 
for every day until the unsafe conditions have passed.
    (iii) If the percent reduction or mass removal determined in 
paragraph (p)(3)(i) of this section is less than the percent reduction 
or mass removal values specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2), as appropriate, 
then this is a violation of the applicable standard.
    (iv) The determination that there is a condition that exposes a 
worker to dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions shall be 
documented according to requirements in Sec. 63.454(e) and reporting in 
Sec. 63.455(f).
    (v) The requirements of paragraphs (p) (1) and (2) of this section 
shall be performed and met as soon as practical but no later than 24 
hours after the conditions have passed that exposed a worker to 
dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions.
    (4) During periods of monitoring parameter excursions, the 
following requirements shall be met:
    (i) Steps shall be taken to repair or adjust the operation of the 
process to end the parameter excursion period;
    (ii) Steps shall be taken to minimize total HAP emissions to the 
atmosphere during the parameter excursion period.
    5. Amend Sec. 63.454 by revising paragraph (a) and adding paragraph 
(e) to read as follows:


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, as shown in table 1 of this subpart, and 
the requirements specified in paragraphs (b) through (e) of this 
section for the monitoring parameters specified in Sec. 63.453.
* * * * *
    (e) The owner or operator of an open nonthoroughly mixed biological 
treatment system complying with Sec. 63.453(p)(3) instead of 
Sec. 63.453(p)(1) shall prepare a written record identifying the 
specific conditions that would expose a worker to dangerous, hazardous, 
or otherwise unsafe conditions. The record must include a written 
explanation of the specific reason(s) why a worker would not be able to 
perform the sampling and test procedures specified in Sec. 63.457(l).
    6. Amend Sec. 63.455 by adding paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 63.455  Reporting requirements.

* * * * *
    (e) If the owner or operator uses the results of the compliance 
test required in Sec. 63.453(p)(1) to revise the approved values or 
ranges of the monitoring parameters specified in Sec. 63.453(j)(1) or 
(2), the owner or operator shall submit an initial notification of the 
subsequent compliance test to the Administrator as soon as practicable, 
but no later than 15

[[Page 3923]]

days, before the compliance test required in Sec. 63.453(p)(1) is 
scheduled to be conducted. The owner or operator shall notify the 
Administrator as soon as practicable, but no later than 24 hours, 
before the performance test is scheduled to be conducted to confirm the 
exact date and time of the performance test.
    (f) To comply with the open biological treatment system monitoring 
provisions of Sec. 63.453(p)(3), the owner or operator shall notify the 
Administrator as soon as practicable of the onset of the dangerous, 
hazardous, or otherwise unsafe conditions that did not allow a 
compliance determination to be conducted using the sampling and test 
procedures in Sec. 63.457(l). The notification shall occur no later 
than 24 hours after the onset of the dangerous, hazardous, or otherwise 
unsafe conditions and shall include the specific reason(s) that the 
sampling and test procedures in Sec. 63.457(l) could not be performed.
    7. Amend Sec. 63.457 by revising paragraphs (c)(1) introductory 
text and (c)(4) introductory text, (g), (l), (m)(1) introductory text, 
(m)(1)(iii), (m)(2) introductory text, (m)(2)(ii), and (n), and add 
paragraphs (c)(5) and (6) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.457  Test methods and procedures.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) Samples shall be collected using the sampling procedures of the 
test method listed in paragraph (c)(3) of this section selected to 
determine liquid stream HAP concentrations;
* * * * *
    (4) To determine soluble BOD<INF>5</INF> in the effluent stream 
from an open biological treatment unit used to comply with 
Sec. 63.446(e)(2) and Sec. 63.453(j), the owner or operator shall use 
Method 405.1 of part 136 of this chapter with the following 
modifications:
* * * * *
    (5) If the test method used to determine HAP concentration 
indicates that a specific HAP is not detectable, the value determined 
as the minimum measurement level (MML) of the selected test method for 
the specific HAP shall be used in the compliance demonstration 
calculations. To determine the MML for a specific HAP using one of the 
test methods specified in paragraph (c)(3) of this section, one of the 
procedures specified in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section 
shall be performed.
    (i) To determine the MML for a specific HAP, the following 
procedures shall be performed each time the method is used.
    (A) Select a concentration value for the specific HAP in question 
to represent the MML. The selected value of the MML selected shall not 
be below the calibration standard of the selected test method.
    (B) Measure the concentration of the specific HAP in a minimum of 
three replicate samples using the selected test method. All replicate 
samples shall be run through the entire analytical procedure. The 
samples must contain the specific HAP at the selected MML concentration 
and should be representative of the liquid streams to be analyzed in 
the compliance demonstration. Spiking of the liquid samples with a 
known concentration of the target HAP may be necessary to ensure that 
the HAP concentration in the three replicate samples is at the selected 
MML.
    (C) Calculate the relative standard deviation (RSD) and the upper 
confidence limit at the 95 percent confidence level using the measured 
HAP concentrations determined in paragraph (c)(5)(i)(B) of this 
section. If the upper confidence limit of the RSD is less than 30 
percent, then the selected MML is acceptable. If the upper confidence 
limit of the RSD is greater than or equal to 30 percent, then the 
selected MML is too low and the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(c)(5)(i)(A) through (C) of this section must be repeated.
    (ii) Provide for the Administrator's approval the selected value of 
the MML for a specific HAP and the rationale for selecting the MML 
including all data and calculations used to determine the MML. The 
approved MML must be used in all applicable compliance demonstration 
calculations.
    (6) When using the MML determined using the procedures in paragraph 
(c)(5)(i) or (ii) of this section, the analytical laboratory conducting 
the analysis must perform and meet the following quality assurance 
procedures.
    (i) Measure the concentration of the specific HAP in a minimum of 
three replicate samples using the selected test method.
    (ii) Calculate the RSD and the upper confidence limit at the 95 
percent confidence level using the measured HAP concentrations 
determined in paragraph (c)(6)(i) of this section. If the upper 
confidence limit of the RSD is less than 30 percent, then the test 
method is being performed correctly. The upper confidence limit of the 
RSD must be less than or equal to 30 percent.
* * * * *
    (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 as specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2).
* * * * *
    (1) Biological treatment system percent reduction and mass removal 
calculations. To demonstrate compliance with the condensate treatment 
standards specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2) and the monitoring 
requirements specified in Sec. 63.453(j)(3) using a biological 
treatment system, the owner or operator shall use one of the procedures 
specified in paragraphs (l)(1) through (4) of this section. Owners or 
operators using a nonthoroughly mixed open biological treatment system 
shall also comply with paragraph (l)(5) of this section.
    (1) Percent reduction individual HAP procedure. For the purposes of 
complying with the condensate treatment requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(i)(A), the percent reduction due to destruction in 
the biological treatment system shall be calculated using the following 
equation:


R=f<INF>bio</INF> x  100


Where:
R=Destruction of each individual HAP specified in 
Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(i)(A) in the biological treatment system (percent).
f<INF>bio</INF>=The fraction of each individual HAP 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.

    (2) Mass removal individual HAP procedure. For the purposes of 
complying with the condensate treatment requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(i)(B) or (C), the mass removal in the biological 
treatment system shall be calculated using the following equation:


E=(F)*(f<INF>bio</INF>)


Where:
E=mass of each individual HAP specified in Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(i)(B) or 
(C) removed in the biological treatment system (kg/Mg ODP).
F=mass of each individual HAP entering the biological treatment system 
determined using the procedues specified in paragraph (j)(2) of this 
section(kg/Mg ODP).

    (3) Percent reduction methanol procedure. For the purposes of 
complying with the condensate treatment requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(ii)(A), the methanol

[[Page 3924]]

percent reduction shall be calculated using the following equation:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.001


Where:
R=percent destruction.
r=ratio of the sum of acetaldehyde, methyl ethyl ketone, and 
propionaldehyde mass to methanol mass determined using the procedures 
in paragraph (j)(2) of this section.
f<INF>bio</INF>(MeOH)=the fraction of methanol removed in the 
biological treatment system. The site-specific biorate constants shall 
be determined using the appropriate procedures specified in appendix C 
of part 63.

    (4) Mass removal methanol procedure. For the purposes of complying 
with the condensate treatment requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.446(e)(2)(ii)(B) or (C), the methanol mass removal shall be 
calculated using the following equation:


E=Eb*(f<INF>bio</INF>(MeOH)/(1+1.087(r)))


Where:
E=methanol mass removal (kg/Mg ODP);
Eb=inlet mass flow rate of methanol (kg/Mg ODP) determined using the 
procedures in paragraph (j)(2) of this section;

    (5) The owner or operator of a nonthoroughly mixed open biological 
treatment system using the monitoring requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.453(p)(3) shall follow the procedures specified in appendix E 
of this part during the initial and any subsequent performance tests.
* * * * *
    (m) * * *
    (1) To demonstrate compliance with the percent mass requirements 
specified in Sec. 63.446(c)(2), the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(m)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section shall be performed.
* * * * *
    (iii) Compliance with the segregation requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.446(c)(2) is demonstrated if the condensate stream or streams 
from each equipment system listed in Sec. 63.446(b)(1) through (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)(3), the procedures specified in paragraphs 
(m)(2)(i) through (ii) of this section shall be performed.
* * * * *
    (ii) Compliance with the segregation requirements specified in 
Sec. 63.446(c)(3) 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)(3).
    (n) Open 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.
    8. Amend Sec. 63.458 by adding paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:


Sec. 63.458  Delegation of authority.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (5) Section 63.457(c)(5)(ii)--Determination of the minimum 
measurement level in liquid streams for a specific HAP using the 
selected test method.
    9. Add appendix E to part 63 to read as follows:

Appendix E to Part 63--Monitoring Procedure for Nonthoroughly Mixed 
Open Biological Treatment Units or Systems at Kraft Pulp Mills Under 
Unsafe Sampling Conditions

I. Purpose

    This procedure is required to be performed in subpart S of this 
part, entitled National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants from the Pulp and Paper Industry. Subpart S requires this 
procedure in Sec. 63.453(p)(3) to be followed during unsafe sampling 
conditions when it is not practicable to obtain representative 
samples of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) concentrations from an open 
biological treatment unit. It is assumed that inlet and outlet HAP 
concentrations from the open biological treatment unit may be 
obtained during the unsafe sampling conditions. The purpose of this 
procedure is to estimate the concentration of HAPs within the open 
biological treatment unit based on information obtained at inlet and 
outlet sampling locations in units that are not thoroughly mixed and 
therefore have different concentrations of HAPs at different 
locations within the unit.

II. Definitions

    Biological treatment unit = wastewater treatment unit designed 
and operated to promote the growth of bacteria to destroy organic 
materials in wastewater.

f<INF>bio</INF> The fraction of organic compounds in the wastewater 
biodegraded in a biological treatment unit.
Fe=The fraction of applicable organic compounds emitted from the 
wastewater to the atmosphere.
K1=First-order biodegradation rate constant, L/g mixed liquor 
volatile suspended solids (MLVSS)-hr
KL=Liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient, m/s
Ks=Monod biorate constant at half the maximum rate, g/m<SUP>3</SUP>

III. Test Procedure for Determination of f<INF>bio</INF> for 
Nonthoroughly Mixed Open Biological Treatment Units Under Unsafe 
Sampling Conditions

    This test procedure is used under unsafe sampling conditions 
that do not permit practicable sampling of open biological treatment 
units within the unit itself, but rather relies on sampling at the 
inlet and outlet locations of the unit. This procedure may be used 
only under unsafe sampling conditions to estimate f<INF>bio</INF>. 
Once the unsafe conditions have passed, then the formal compliance 
demonstration procedures of f<INF>bio</INF> based upon measurements 
within the open biological treatment unit must be completed.

A. Overview of Estimation Procedure

    The steps in the estimation procedure include data collection, 
the estimation of concentrations within the unit, and the use of 
Form 1 to estimate f<INF>bio</INF>. The data collection procedure 
consists of two separate components. The first data collection 
component demonstrates that the open biological treatment unit can 
be represented by Monod kinetics and characterizes the effectiveness 
of the open biological treatment unit as part of the initial 
performance test, and the second data collection component is used 
when there are unsafe sampling conditions. These two data collection 
components are used together in a data calculation procedure based 
on a Monod kinetic model to estimate the concentrations in each zone 
of the open biological treatment unit. After the first two 
components of data collection are completed, the calculation 
procedures are used to back estimate the zone concentrations, 
starting with the last zone in the series and ending with the first 
zone.

B. Data Collection Requirements

    This method is based upon: modeling the nonthoroughly mixed open 
biological treatment unit as a series of well-mixed zones with 
internal recycling between the units; and assuming that two Monod 
biological kinetic parameters can be used to characterize the 
biological removal rates in each unit. The data collection procedure 
consists of two separate components. The first data collection 
component is part of the initial performance test, and the second 
data collection component is used during unsafe sampling conditions.
    1. Initial Performance Test
    The objective of the first data collection component is to 
demonstrate that the open biological treatment unit can be 
represented by Monod kinetics and to characterize the performance of 
the open biological treatment unit. An appropriate value of the 
biorate constant, Ks, is determined using actual sampling data from 
the open biological treatment unit. This is done during the initial 
performance test when the open biological treatment unit is 
operating under normal conditions. This specific Ks value obtained 
during the initial performance test is used in the calculation 
procedure to characterize the open biological treatment unit during 
unsafe sampling conditions. The following open biological treatment 
unit characterization information is obtained from the first 
component of the data collection procedure:

[[Page 3925]]

    (1) The value of the biorate constant, Ks;
    (2) The number and characteristics of each zone in the open 
biological treatment unit (depth, area, characterization parameters 
for surface aeration, submerged aeration rates, biomass 
concentration, concentrations of organic compounds, dissolved oxygen 
(DO), dissolved solids, temperature, and other relevant variables); 
and
    (3) The recycle ratio of internal recirculation between the 
zones.
    The number of zones and the above characterization of the zones 
are also used to determine the performance of the unit under the 
unsafe sampling conditions of concern.

2. Data Collected Under Unsafe Sampling Conditions

    In the second data collection component, obtained under unsafe 
sampling conditions, the measured inlet and outlet HAP 
concentrations and the biomass concentration are obtained for the 
open biological treatment unit. After the site specific data 
collection is completed on the day a parameter excursion occurs, the 
inlet and outlet concentrations are used with the prior open 
biological treatment unit characterization to estimate the 
concentrations of HAPs in each zone. The following information on 
the open biological treatment unit must be available in the second 
data collection component:
    (1) Basic unit variables such as inlet and recycle wastewater 
flow rates, type of agitation, and operating conditions;
    (2) The value of the inlet and outlet HAP concentrations; and
    (3) The biomass concentration in the open biological treatment 
unit.

 C. One Time Determination of a Single Value of Ks (Initial Performance 
Test)

    A single value of Ks is calculated using Form 3 for each data 
set that is collected during the initial performance test. A single 
composite value of Ks, deemed to be representative of the biological 
unit, is subsequently selected so that the f<INF>bio</INF> values 
calculated by the procedures in this appendix (using this single 
value of Ks) for the data sets collected during the initial 
performance test are within 10 percent of the f<INF>bio</INF> value 
determined by using Form 1 with these same data sets. The value of 
Ks meeting these criteria is obtained by the following steps:
    (1) Determine the median of the Ks values calculated for each 
data set;
    (2) Estimate f<INF>bio</INF> for each data set using the 
selected Ks value (Form 1 and Form 2);
    (3) Calculate f<INF>bio</INF> for each data set using Form 1; 
and
    (4) Compare the f<INF>bio</INF> values obtained in steps (2) and 
(3); if the f<INF>bio</INF> value calculated using step (2) differs 
from that calculated using step (3) by more than 10 percent, adjust 
Ks (decrease Ks if the f<INF>bio</INF> value is lower than that 
calculated by Form 1 and vice versa) and repeat this procedure 
starting at step (2). If a negative value is obtained for the values 
of Ks, then this negative kinetic constant may not be used with the 
Monod model. If a negative value of Ks is obtained, this test 
procedure cannot be used for evaluating the performance of the open 
biological treatment unit.

D. Confirmation of Monod Kinetics (Initial Performance Test)

    i. Confirmation that the unit can be represented by Monod 
kinetics is made by identifying the following two items:
    (1) The zone methanol concentrations measured during the initial 
performance test; and
    (2) The zone methanol concentrations estimated by the Multiple 
Zone Concentrations Calculations Procedure based on inlet and outlet 
concentrations (Column A of Form 2). For each zone, the 
concentration in item 1 is compared to the concentration in item 2.
    ii. For each zone, the estimated value of item 2 must be:
    (1) Within 25 percent of item 1 when item 1 exceeds 8 mg/L; or
    (2) Within 2 mg/L of item 1 when item 1 is 8 mg/L or less.
    iii. Successful demonstration that the calculated zone 
concentrations meet these criteria must be achieved for 80 percent 
of the performance test data sets.
    iv. If negative values are obtained for the values of K1 and Ks, 
then these negative kinetic constants may not be used with the Monod 
model, even if the criteria are met. If negative values are 
obtained, this test procedure cannot be used for evaluating the 
performance of the open biological treatment unit.

E. Determination of KL for Each Zone (Unsafe Sampling Conditions)

    i. A site-specific liquid-phase mass transfer coefficient (KL) 
must be obtained for each zone during the unsafe sampling 
conditions. Do not use a default value for KL. The KL value for each 
zone must be based on the site-specific parameters of the specific 
unit. The first step in using this procedure is to calculate KL for 
each zone in the unit using Form 4. Form 4 outlines the procedure to 
follow for using mass transfer equations to determine KL. Form 4 
identifies the appropriate form to use for providing the detailed 
calculations to support the estimate of the value of KL. Forms 5 and 
6 are used to provide individual compound estimates of KL for 
quiescent and aerated impoundments, respectively. A computer model 
may be used to perform the calculations. If the WATER8 model or the 
most recent update to this model is used, then report the computer 
model input parameters that you used as an attachment to Form 4. In 
addition, the Bay Area Sewage Toxics Emission (BASTE) model version 
3.0 or equivalent upgrade and the TOXCHEM (Environment Canada's 
Wastewater Technology Centre and Environmega, Ltd.) model version 
1.10 or equivalent upgrade may also be used to determine KL for the 
open biological treatment unit with the following stipulations:
    (1) The programs must be altered to output a KL value that is 
based on the site-specific parameters of the unit modeled; and
    (2) The Henry's law value listed in Form 4 must be substituted 
for the existing Henry's law values in the models.
    ii. The Henry's law value listed in Form 4 may be obtained from 
the following sources:
    (1) Values listed by EPA with temperature adjustment if needed;
    (2) Measured values for the system of concern with temperature 
adjustment; or
    (3) Literature values of Henry's law values for methanol, 
adjusted for temperature if needed.
    iii. Input values used in the model and corresponding output 
values shall become part of the documentation of the f<INF>bio</INF> 
determination. The owner or operator should be aware that these 
models may not provide equivalent KL values for some types of units. 
To obtain an equivalent KL value in this situation, the owner or 
operator shall either use the appropriate procedure on Form 4 or 
adjust the KL value from the model to the equivalent KL value as 
described on Form 4.
    iv. Report the input parameters that you used in the computer 
model on Forms 5 and 6 as an attachment to Form 4. If you have 
submerged air flow in your unit, you must correct the value of KL 
estimated on Form 4 with the correction factor determined using Form 
7 before using the value of KL with Form 2.

F. Estimation of Zone Concentrations (Unsafe Sampling Conditions)

    Form 2 is used to estimate the zone concentrations of HAPs based 
on the inlet and outlet data. The value of Ks entered on the form is 
that single composite value of Ks discussed in section III.C of this 
appendix. This value of Ks is calculated during the Initial 
Performance Test (and subsequently updated, if necessary). A unique 
value of the biorate K1 is entered on line 4 of Form 4, and the 
inlet concentration is estimated in Column A of Form 4. The inlet 
concentration is located in the row of Form 2 corresponding to zone 
0. If there are three zones in the system, n-3 equals 0 for the 
inlet concentration row. These estimated zone concentrations are 
then used in Form 1 to estimate f<INF>bio</INF> for the treatment 
unit.

G. Quality Control/Quality Assurance (QA/QC)

    A QA/QC plan outlining the procedures used to determine the 
measured inlet and outlet concentrations during unsafe conditions 
and how the zone characterization data were obtained during the 
initial performance test shall be prepared and submitted with the 
initial performance test report. The plan should include, but may 
not be limited to:
    (1) A description of each of the sampling methods that were used 
(method, procedures, time, method to avoid losses during sampling 
and holding, and sampling procedures) including simplified schematic 
drawings;
    (2) A description of how that biomass was sampled from the 
activated sludge unit, including methods, locations, and times;
    (3) A description of what conditions (DO, temperature, etc.) are 
important, what the target values are in the zones, how the factors 
were controlled, and how they were monitored. These conditions are 
primarily used to establish that the conditions of the initial 
performance test correspond to the conditions of the day in 
question;
    (4) A description of how each analytical measurement was 
conducted, including preparation of solutions, dilution procedures, 
sampling procedures, monitoring of conditions, etc;

[[Page 3926]]

    (5) A description of the analytical instrumentation used, how 
the instruments were calibrated, and a summary of the accuracy and 
precision for each instrument;
    (6) A description of the test methods used to determine HAP 
concentrations and other measurements. Section 63.457 (c)(3) 
specifies the test methods that must be used to determine HAP 
concentrations;
    (7) A description of how data are captured, recorded, and 
stored; and
    (8) A description of the equations used and their solutions for 
sampling and analysis, including a reference to any software used 
for calculations and/or curve-fitting.

IV. Calculation of Individual f<INF>bio</INF> (Unsafe Sampling 
Conditions)

    Use Form 1 with your zone concentration information to estimate 
the value of f<INF>bio</INF> under unsafe sampling conditions. Form 
1 uses measured concentrations of HAPs in the unit inlet and outlet, 
and Form 1 also uses the estimated concentrations in each zone of 
the unit obtained from Form 2. This procedure may be used on an open 
biological treatment unit that has well-defined zones within the 
unit. Use Form 1 to determine f<INF>bio</INF> for each open 
biological treatment unit as it exists under subpart S of part 63. 
The first step in using Form 1 is to calculate KL for each zone in 
the unit using Form 4. Form 7 must also be used if submerged 
aeration is used. After KL is determined using field data, measure 
the concentrations of the HAPs in each zone. In this alternative 
procedure for unsafe sampling conditions, the actual measured 
concentrations of the HAPs in each zone are replaced with the zone 
concentrations that are estimated with Form 2. After KL and the zone 
concentrations are determined, Form 1 is used to estimate the 
overall unit Fe and f<INF>bio</INF> for methanol.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

[[Page 3927]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.002


[[Page 3928]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.003


[[Page 3929]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.004


[[Page 3930]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.005


[[Page 3931]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.006


[[Page 3932]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.007


[[Page 3933]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.008


[[Page 3934]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.009


[[Page 3935]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.010


[[Page 3936]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25JA00.011

[FR Doc. 00-1058 Filed 1-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>