Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3907

treated as having two intangibles, an

amortizable section 197 intangible with an

adjusted basis of $120 and a new

amortization period of 15 years and a

nonamortizable intangible with an adjusted

basis of $30.

(iii) In applying the anti-churning rules to

future transfers of the distributed intangible,

under paragraph (h)(12)(ii)(C) of this section,

one-third of the intangible will continue to be

subject to the anti-churning rules,

determined as follows: The sum of the

amount of the distributed intangible’s basis

that is nonamortizable under paragraph

(g)(2)(ii)(B) of this section ($0) and the total

unrealized appreciation inherent in the

intangible reduced by the amount of the

increase in the adjusted basis of the

distributed intangible under section 732(b) to

which the anti-churning rules do not apply

($180 ¥$120 = $60), over the fair market

value of the distributed intangible ($180).

Example 29. Distribution of section

197(f)(9) intangible to partner who acquired

partnership interest after the effective date.

(i) The facts are the same as in example 28,

except that B and C form ABC in 1990. A

does not acquire an interest in ABC until

1995. In 1995, A contributes $150 to ABC in

exchange for a one-third interest in ABC. At

the time of the distribution, the adjusted

basis of A’s interest in ABC is $150.

(ii) As in Example 28, the anti-churning

rules do not apply to the increase in the basis

of the intangible distributed to A under

section 732(b) to the extent that it does not

exceed the unrealized appreciation from the

intangible allocable to B and C. Under

paragraph (h)(12)(ii) of this section, the antichurning provisions also do not apply to the

section 732(b) basis increase to the extent of

A’s allocable share of the unrealized

appreciation from the intangible because A

acquired the ABC interest from an unrelated

person after August 10, 1993, and the

intangible was acquired by the partnership

before A acquired the ABC interest. Under

paragraph (h)(12)(ii)(E) of this section, A is

deemed to acquire the ABC partnership

interest from an unrelated person because A

acquired the ABC partnership interest in

exchange for a contribution to the

partnership of property other than the

distributed intangible and, at the time of the

contribution, no partner in the partnership

was related to A. Consequently, the increase

in the basis of the intangible under section

732(b) is not subject to the anti-churning

rules to the extent of the total unrealized

appreciation from the intangible allocable to

A, B, and C. The total unrealized

appreciation from the intangible allocable to

A, B, and C is $180 (the gain the partnership

would have recognized if it had sold the

intangible for its fair market value

immediately before the distribution). Because

this amount exceeds the section 732(b) basis

increase of $150, the entire section 732(b)

basis increase is amortizable.

(iii) In applying the anti-churning rules to

future transfers of the distributed intangible,

under paragraph (h)(12)(ii)(C) of this section,

one-sixth of the intangible will continue to be

subject to the anti-churning rules,

determined as follows: The sum of the

amount of the distributed intangible’s basis

that is nonamortizable under paragraph

(g)(2)(ii)(B) of this section ($0) and the total

unrealized appreciation inherent in the

intangible reduced by the amount of the

increase in the adjusted basis of the

distributed intangible under section 732(b) to

which the anti-churning rules do not apply

($180 ¥$150 = $30), over the fair market

value of the distributed intangible ($180).

Example 30. Distribution of section

197(f)(9) intangible contributed to the

partnership by a partner. (i) The facts are the

same as in Example 29, except that C

purchased the intangible used in the

consulting business in 1988 for $60 and

contributed the intangible to ABC in 1990. At

that time, the intangible had a fair market

value of $150 and an adjusted tax basis of

$60. When ABC distributes the intangible to

A in 2000, the intangible has a fair market

value of $180 and a basis of $60.

(ii) As in Examples 28 and 29, the adjusted

basis of the intangible in A’s hands is $150

under section 732(b). However, the increase

in the adjusted basis of the intangible under

section 732(b) is only $90 ($150 adjusted

basis after the distribution compared to $60

basis before the distribution). Pursuant to

paragraph (g)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, A steps

into the shoes of ABC with respect to the $60

of A’s adjusted basis in the intangible that

corresponds to ABC’s basis in the intangible

and this portion of the basis is

nonamortizable. B and C are not related to A,

A acquired the ABC interest from an

unrelated person after August 10, 1993, and

the intangible was acquired by ABC before A

acquired the ABC interest. Therefore, under

paragraph (h)(12)(ii) of this section, the

section 732(b) basis increase is amortizable to

the extent of A, B, and C’s allocable share of

the unrealized appreciation from the

intangible. The total unrealized appreciation

from the intangible that is allocable to A, B,

and C is $120. If ABC had sold the intangible

immediately before the distribution to A for

its fair market value of $180, it would have

recognized gain of $120, which would have

been allocated $10 to A, $10 to B, and $100

to C under section 704(c). Because A, B, and

C’s allocable share of the unrealized

appreciation from the intangible exceeds the

section 732(b) basis increase in the

intangible, the entire $90 of basis increase is

amortizable by A. Accordingly, after the

distribution, A will be treated as having two

intangibles, an amortizable section 197

intangible with an adjusted basis of $90 and

a new amortization period of 15 years and a

nonamortizable intangible with an adjusted

basis of $60.

(iii) In applying the anti-churning rules to

future transfers of the distributed intangible,

under paragraph (h)(12)(ii)(C) of this section,

one-half of the intangible will continue to be

subject to the anti-churning rules,

determined as follows: The sum of the

amount of the distributed intangible’s basis

that is nonamortizable under paragraph

(g)(2)(ii)(B) of this section ($60) and the total

unrealized appreciation inherent in the

intangible reduced by the amount of the

increase in the adjusted basis of the

distributed intangible under section 732(b) to

which the anti-churning rules do not apply

($120 ¥ $90 = $30), over the fair market

value of the distributed intangible ($180).

* * * * *

(l) * * *

(1) In general. * * * Paragraphs (h)(12)(ii),

(iv) and (vi) of this section apply to

partnership distributions occurring on or

after the date final regulations are published

in the Federal Register.

* * * * *

David Mader,

Acting Deputy Commissioner of Internal

Revenue Service.

[FR Doc. 00–1381 Filed 1–20–00; 1:19 pm]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

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

3908 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

‘‘shedd.steve@epa.gov’’. 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

‘‘heminway.seth@epa.gov’.

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 (§ 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 (§ 63.457(l))?

3. Given the finite number of HAPs in

regulated condensates, what is the

appropriate emission standard for

biological treatment systems

(§ 63.446(e))?

4. What minimum measurement level

should be used in analyzing total HAPs

in liquid streams (§ 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

(§ 63.457(l))?

3. What procedures must be followed to

determine the fraction of compounds

degraded in nonthoroughly mixed open

biological treatment systems

(§ 63.457(l))?

E. Open Biological Treatment System

Monitoring Requirements

1. Introduction

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3909

2. May a mill use site-specific monitoring

parameters for open biological treatment

systems instead of the parameters specified

in the final rule (§ 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 (§ 63.453)?

4. Are the biological treatment system

monitoring requirements applicable to

both open and closed biological

treatment systems (§ 63.453)?

5. Given the proposed changes, how do I

conduct daily compliance monitoring for

open biological treatment systems

(§ 63.453(j))?

6. Do I still have to conduct the first

quarter compliance tests for total HAPs

(§ 63.453(j))?

7. May I use monitoring parameter values

recorded during a compliance

monitoring test to expand the established

parameter operating range (§ 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

(§ 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 (§ 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

(§ 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 (§ 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

3910 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 (§ 63.450) and

conduct the periodic visual inspections

and leak detection tests (§ 63.453) of the

closed-vent system components. You

must record the results of these

inspections and tests and comply with

the reporting requirements (§ 63.455) of

the final rule. Also, you must keep

records of the boiler or recovery furnace

downtime (§ 63.10(c)(8)) to demonstrate

compliance with the excess emission

allowance standards (§ 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

(§ 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

(§ 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 (§ 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

(§ 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

(§ 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

(§ 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 (§ 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

(§ 63.457(g) and (l)) of the final rule to

include the alternative procedures for

3912 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

demonstrating compliance for biological

treatment systems.

4. What Minimum Measurement Level

Should Be Used in Analyzing Total

HAPs in Liquid Streams (§ 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

(§ 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

§ 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

§ 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

(§ 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 (§ 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

(§ 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 (fbio) 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

fbio, 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 § 63.457(l).

TABLE 1.—SUMMARY OF THE PERFORMANCE TEST PROCEDURES FOR BIOLOGICAL TREATMENT SYSTEMS

Determine the inlet and outlet HAP mass flow

rates by—

Determine the fraction of HAP compounds degraded in the biological treatment system

using—

Demonstrate compliance with the condensate

standards using—

Measuring the volumetric flow rate of the liquid

streams entering and exiting the treatment

system using the procedures specified in

§ 63.457(c)(2),

The inlet and outlet concentration procedure

(procedure 3) in appendix C of part 63, for

thoroughly mixed systems, or

The individual HAP percent reduction or mass

removal procedures specified in § 63.457(l)

(1) and (2), or

Measuring the concentration of acetaldehyde,

methanol, methyl ethyl ketone, and

propionaldehyde in the liquid streams using

one of the test methods specified in

§ 63.457(c)(3), and

The multiple zone concentration measurements procedure (procedure 5) in appendix

C of part 63, for nonthoroughly mixed systems.

The methanol percent reduction or mass removal procedures specified in § 63.457(l)

(3) and (4).

Calculating the individual HAP mass flow rates

using the equations specified in § 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 (§ 63.457(1))?

We plan to propose in the near future

a new procedure for calculating the sitespecific 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 fbio 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

3914 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

(§ 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:

• Allowing you to determine sitespecific monitoring parameters for

biological treatment systems;

• Providing an alternative procedure

for estimating the fraction of organic

compounds degraded in a

nonthoroughly mixed biological

treatment system during unsafe

sampling conditions;

• Clarifying the monitoring

requirements for open versus closed

biological treatment systems;

• Removing the requirement to test

for total HAPs in the first quarter

performance test; and

• 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 (§ 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 (§ 63.453(j)) requires

daily monitoring of outlet soluble

biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5)

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 (BOD5), 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 caseby-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 (§ 63.453(j)(2)) that would

allow mills the option to determine sitespecific 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

(§ 63.453(n)). In § 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 (§ 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

(§ 63.453(p)(1)). An amendment to the

recordkeeping requirements

(§ 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 bio

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 fbio

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

§ 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

(§ 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 (§ 63.457(l)) of

the final rule. The proposed

amendments to § 63.457(l) also specify

that the value of the biorate constant

must be determined during the initial

performance test (§ 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

(§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 § 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 § 63.457(l) refer

to open biological treatment systems, we

inadvertently omitted the word ‘‘open’’

in the § 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.

3916 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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

§ 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

(§ 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3917

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C

3918 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Mills must monitor on a daily basis

either the parameters specified in the

final rule (§ 63.453(j)(1)) or site-specific

parameters that have been approved

(proposed § 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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

(§ 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 (§ 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., postinitial performance test) required to be

conducted due to a parameter excursion

(§ 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3919

or values using data recorded during

any valid subsequent compliance tests

required in the monitoring requirements

section (§ 63.453(p)) of the final rule.

Our intent is evident since the final rule

(§ 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

§ 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 (§ 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 (§ 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:

• Corrects the citations for the

condensate segregation requirements in

§ 63.446(i) of the final rule from (c)(2) to

(c)(2) and (3).

• Adds the word ‘‘mills’’ between the

words ‘‘unbleached’’ and ‘‘specified’’ in

the condensate standards (§ 63.446(i)) of

the final rule.

• Removes the comma after the word

‘‘reestablish’’ in § 63.453(n) of the final

rule.

• Replaces the word ‘‘shall’’ with the

word ‘‘may’’ in the biological treatment

system monitoring requirements

(§ 63.453(p)) of the final rule.

• Corrects the liquid sampling

procedures reference in § 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.’’

• Corrects the citation in the

condensate segregation procedures

(§ 63.457(m)(1) and (m)(1)(iii)) of the

final rule from § 63.446(c)(1) to

§ 63.446(c)(2).

• Corrects the citation in the

condensate segregation procedures

(§ 63.457(m)(2) and (m)(2)(ii)) of the

final rule from § 63.446(c)(2) to

§ 63.446(c)(3).

• Removes the spaces between the

‘‘degree’’ symbol (°) and the

abbreviations for Celsius (C) and

Fahrenheit (F) in § 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:

‘‘farmer.sandy@epa.gov’’ 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

3920 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 costeffective, 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 § 63.443 by revising

paragraph (d)(4) to read as follows:

§ 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 § 63.446 by revising

paragraphs (e)(2) and (i) to read as

follows:

§ 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

§ 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 § 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 § 63.453 by revising

paragraphs (j), (n), and (p) to read as

follows:

§ 63.453 Monitoring requirements.

* * * * *

(j) Each owner or operator using an

open biological treatment system to

comply with § 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.

3922 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(i) On a daily basis, monitor the

following parameters for each open

biological treatment unit:

(A) Composite daily sample of outlet

soluble BOD5 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

§ 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

§ 63.457(n) until after the results of the

soluble BOD5 test required in paragraph

(j)(1)(i)(A) of this section are obtained.

The storage requirement is needed since

the soluble BOD5 test requires 5 days or

more to obtain results. If the results of

the soluble BOD5 test are outside of the

range established during the initial

performance test, then the archive

sample shall be used to perform the

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 § 63.457(l) within 45 days

after the beginning of each quarter and

meet the applicable emission limit in

§ 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 § 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

§ 63.446(e)(2) using the test procedures

specified in § 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 § 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 § 63.457(l)

except the value for fbio 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 § 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 § 63.454(e)

and reporting in § 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 § 63.454 by revising

paragraph (a) and adding paragraph (e)

to read as follows:

§ 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 § 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

§ 63.453.

* * * * *

(e) The owner or operator of an open

nonthoroughly mixed biological

treatment system complying with

§ 63.453(p)(3) instead of § 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 § 63.457(l).

6. Amend § 63.455 by adding

paragraphs (e) and (f) to read as follows:

§ 63.455 Reporting requirements.

* * * * *

(e) If the owner or operator uses the

results of the compliance test required

in § 63.453(p)(1) to revise the approved

values or ranges of the monitoring

parameters specified in § 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3923

days, before the compliance test

required in § 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 § 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 § 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 § 63.457(l) could not

be performed.

7. Amend § 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:

§ 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 BOD5 in the

effluent stream from an open biological

treatment unit used to comply with

§ 63.446(e)(2) and § 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 § 63.446,

the owner or operator shall measure the

total HAP concentration as methanol

except as specified in § 63.446(e)(2).

* * * * *

(1) Biological treatment system

percent reduction and mass removal

calculations. To demonstrate

compliance with the condensate

treatment standards specified in

§ 63.446(e)(2) and the monitoring

requirements specified in § 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

§ 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=fbio× 100

Where:

R=Destruction of each individual HAP

specified in § 63.446(e)(2)(i)(A) in

the biological treatment system

(percent).

fbio=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

§ 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)*(fbio)

Where:

E=mass of each individual HAP

specified in § 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

§ 63.446(e)(2)(ii)(A), the methanol

3924 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

percent reduction shall be calculated

using the following equation:

R f MeOH

r

bio = + ∗ ( )

( . ( )) 1 1 087

100

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.

fbio(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

§ 63.446(e)(2)(ii)(B) or (C), the methanol

mass removal shall be calculated using

the following equation:

E=Eb*(fbio(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 § 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 § 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 § 63.446(c)(2)

is demonstrated if the condensate

stream or streams from each equipment

system listed in § 63.446(b)(1) through

(3) being treated as specified in

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 63.446(c)(3).

(n) Open biological treatment system

monitoring sampling storage. The inlet

and outlet grab samples required to be

collected in § 63.453(j)(2) shall be stored

at 4°C (40°F) to minimize the

biodegradation of the organic

compounds in the samples.

8. Amend § 63.458 by adding

paragraph (b)(5) to read as follows:

§ 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

§ 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.

fbio 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/m3

III. Test Procedure for Determination of fbio

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 fbio. Once the unsafe

conditions have passed, then the formal

compliance demonstration procedures of fbio

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 fbio. 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:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 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 fbio 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

fbio 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 fbio for each data set using the

selected Ks value (Form 1 and Form 2);

(3) Calculate fbio for each data set using

Form 1; and

(4) Compare the fbio values obtained in

steps (2) and (3); if the fbio value calculated

using step (2) differs from that calculated

using step (3) by more than 10 percent, adjust

Ks (decrease Ks if the fbio 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 bio

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 bio 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;

3926 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(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 fbio (Unsafe

Sampling Conditions)

Use Form 1 with your zone concentration

information to estimate the value of fbio 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 fbio 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 fbio

for methanol.

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3927

3928 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3929

3930 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3931

3932 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3933

3934 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules 3935

3936 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 25, 2000 / Proposed Rules

[FR Doc. 00–1058 Filed 1–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–C